4790 vs 8600k vs 8400 vs 1600

[GSpline]

I currently have a 4790 with 16gb of ram, but I'm considering to upgrade my cpu, so i could render videos in premiere, and other stuff in ater effects and cinema 4d, at least a little bit faster and livestream at higher bitrates without my cpu struggling. I also game quite a bit, mostly Rainbow Six Seige, PUBG, CS:GO, ARK and so on. I also know that dr4 is quite overpriced at the moment, so I am actually considering to wait a little bit longer but whatever.

Current rig:
i7 4790 @ stock,
Cryorig H7,
16GB DDR3 @ 1600mhz,
MSI H81M-P33,
XFX RX 480 8GB Black Edition @ 1400mhz,
EVGA 500W PSU

Case doesn't really matter there and so don't the storage devices so i won't list them.

 

[guanyu210379]

From 4790k for pure gaming machine, any normal upgrade path today does not worth the price you have to pay.

For content creation (video editing, 3d rendering, etc.), you might need those extra cores/threads, depending on your workload.
For this kind of usage, I would only go for at least R7 1700 or I7 8700, if you are from I7 4790k.

 

[YoAndy]

For rendering and gaming the i7 8700k is the clear choice. It offers strong single core and multi- core performance. Even the i7 7700k is a great CPU for the price.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-coffee-lake-i7-8700k-cpu,5252-10.html
Intel’s Core i7-8700K offers acceptable performance in semi-professional applications; it's not just a gaming CPU. Depending on the application and how it utilizes host processing resources, you'll either get modest results or a stellar experience. There's no such thing as bad.

We didn't expect such strong numbers from Coffee Lake in these benchmarks, particularly compared to Core i7-7800X. It's hard to imagine why anyone would spend $380 on that CPU and a hefty premium on an X299 motherboard.
The results again put the 6-core Core i7-8700K in the running with the 8-core chips, that's outstanding performance.

 

[manddy123]

This upgrade would surely suit your needs:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel - Core i7-8700K 3.7GHz 6-Core Processor ($339.00 @ Amazon)
CPU Cooler: CRYORIG - H7 49.0 CFM CPU Cooler ($34.89 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: MSI - Z370-A PRO ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($115.99 @ Newegg Marketplace)
Memory: Corsair - Vengeance LPX 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3000 Memory ($184.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $674.87
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2018-02-19 07:29 EST-0500

 

[Karadjgne]

You mean the i7-8700k, not the i7-7800x correct?

Personally I'd go with the Ryzen 7 1700. Has almost identical IPC to the current 4790, so will not at least lower fps in single thread games, and gas the thread count to handle streaming/content creation better than the 4790. Slapped on a decent B250 or X370 mobo, it's also cheaper than the i7-8700k as it requires a lot less cooling ability and comes with a very good stock cooler. The fact that it actually does benefit upto @20% when paired with fast ram puts it quite over the 4790 if oc'd decently.

 

[YoAndy]

You mean the i7-8700k, not the i7-7800x correct?

Personally I'd go with the Ryzen 7 1700. Has almost identical IPC to the current 4790, so will not at least lower fps in single thread games, and gas the thread count to handle streaming/content creation better than the 4790. Slapped on a decent B250 or X370 mobo, it's also cheaper than the i7-8700k as it requires a lot less cooling ability and comes with a very good stock cooler. The fact that it actually does benefit upto @20% when paired with fast ram puts it quite over the 4790 if oc'd decently.

Fixed... That's correct. Thank you.

 

[YoAndy]

You mean the i7-8700k, not the i7-7800x correct?

Personally I'd go with the Ryzen 7 1700. Has almost identical IPC to the current 4790, so will not at least lower fps in single thread games, and gas the thread count to handle streaming/content creation better than the 4790. Slapped on a decent B250 or X370 mobo, it's also cheaper than the i7-8700k as it requires a lot less cooling ability and comes with a very good stock cooler. The fact that it actually does benefit upto @20% when paired with fast ram puts it quite over the 4790 if oc'd decently.

Actually that's not quite right, the i7 4790 is better than Ryzen at single core applications like Gaming for example even the quad core i5 3570k will perform better than a Ryzen 7 at gaming.

 

[oriol.delavega]

Well, those graphs come from that review:

https://www.pcworld.com/article/3176100/computers/amd-ryzen-7-1700-vs-a-5-year-old-gaming-pc-or-why-you-should-never-preorder.html

I don't think they reflect the current situation anymore. First, the platform has evolved a lot since those first days. Gaming performance has improved due to Windows, drivers and even microcode (allowing for better high speed RAM support) updates, and from game patches too.

Second, the reviewer states that:

"The Core i5-3570K was long ago overclocked from its stock 3.5GHz to 4.2GHz to put more pep in its step. Because gamers with similar rigs are likely to have done the same, I left that in place."

But, in the other hand, I see no reference to overclocking the 1700. What's most, given what says about being impressed by the 1800X, I'd say the 1700 ran at stock... As an overclocked 1700 is, basically, a 1800X.

There were not widely available Ryzen systems when the review went online, so we should not expect the reviewer to know that most 1700 owners have overclocked their CPU. But we know that now.

That's not to say the 8700k is a bad option. It is, in fact, a wonderful CPU. I'd say, if the OP doesn't mind to pay a bit more and don't really look forward to tweak a bit the system to get it working as he wants, to go for the 8700k. If, on the other hand, prefers to save some bucks at the expense of tweaking it a bit, then the 1700 is a very good value. Just my thoughs about that...

 

[YoAndy]

I know where the graphs are from. 😉 Ryzen IPC and gaming performance still pretty much the same since day one. Lets not start a Intel vs AMD war.
The Ryzen 7 1700 is the cheapest eight-core processor on the market, it is a pretty good processor for gaming and other applications. The problem is that the 1700 has a fairly mediocre clock speed of 3GHz with a boost peak of 3.7GHz and the 1800x that costs more than the i7 8700K has a boost speed of only 4GHz, Now compare that with the Intel core i7 8700K base clock of 3.7GHz and 4.7GHz boost, That's almost a 1GHz difference out of the box and unlike the Ryzen counterpart we all know the i7 doesn't stop there, it can reach speeds around the 5GHz mark. That's why in many applications the six core i7 can beat the 8 core Ryzen. My opinion I'll go for the 8700K why? because is the king of gaming CPU's beating Ryzen by a good margin and is strong enough to fight CPU's with more cores and be equal or better than them. At the end they are both very capable CPU's.


Core i7 8700K $339 https://www.amazon.com/Intel-BX80684I78700K-Core-i7-8700K-Processor/dp/B07598VZR8/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1519048158&sr=8-3&keywords=i7+8700k
Ryzen 7 1800X $349 https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-1800X-Processor-YD180XBCAEWOF/dp/B06W9JXK4G/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?ie=UTF8&qid=1519048158&sr=8-1-spons&keywords=i7+8700k&psc=1


https://wccftech.com/intel-core-i7-8700k-cpu-benchmarks-leak-faster-than-8-core-ryzen/

 

[oriol.delavega]

Lets not start a Intel vs AMD war.

Of course not. That would be pointless. I myself have computers powered both by Intel and AMD CPUs.

 

[YoAndy]

Lets not start a Intel vs AMD war.

Of course not. That would be pointless. I myself have computers powered both by Intel and AMD CPUs.

Same here. My computer is powered by the core i7 7800X and my wife's computer is powered by the Ryzen 7 1700.

 

[The Original Ralph]

frankly, i'd do some serious research on your software - i don't use Premiere, but some software prefers multiple cores, and other programs don't render any faster with higher core count. My first rig, that i still use, i built with a 4790(non-k), and i'm still amazed how fast it renders with some programs, basically as fast as the rig in my signature does, with an 8 core CPU.

Other programs, the 5960X is twice as fast as the 4790 cpu.

There were some cpu comparisons here on Toms that showed benchmarks for a number of CPUs, running a number of different video software, and premiere was one of them. I'll see if i can find one, but it wil tell you whether Premiere likes huge core count

here's one - there'll be a number of others here on Toms that should help with the decision

taken from http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/intel-core-i7-5960x-haswell-e-cpu,review-33029-5.html

 

[Karadjgne]

Not really fair to bench a 3.0GHz Haswell vrs a 4.2GHz Ivy-Bridge, even discounting the @10% IPC difference, the Ivy will win every time.

And not to propagate the constant war, but the Ryzens have seen significant improvement since day 1, not only in ram compatability with higher speed ram, vendors etc but also in the way their infinity engine works.

And not to throw out the bones, but single core games are pretty much pointless and obsolete. Nothing new runs just a single thread in gaming, even csgo and lol use 2-3 threads. You can also throw out Ashes of the Singularity as a possible example. That game is so horribly optimized for any cpu, regardless of Intel or AMD the results are going to be screwed up to behind with.

You also can't judge by 2-3 games. Gimme an aggregate score over 29-30 games, then come talk. You'll find the 1700 will hold its own overall, especially at 1080p where 90% of users have 60Hz monitors and fps lows don't come close. The difference between 100fps and 200fps is absolutely meaningless to anything other than a benchmark, under specific conditions, on specific hardware, using specific software.

Guarantee Mom doesn't give a rats a.. if her car does 0-60 in 5 seconds or 6 seconds, as long as it'll tote the kids and haul groceries without much effort or inconvenience.

Benchmarks are a tool, they aren't Gospel or even Proof.

 

[The Original Ralph]

not sure if you're responding to my post or everyone's but as far as the benchmark i posted, that's a "time to render" comparison, which is, i feel a pretty valid "benchmark".

That one was only an example of what i was suggesting the OP look for, in deciding which cpu to consider.

The architecture of the 8700K is vastly different from the earlier gen CPUs, so obviously that plays a factor.

 

[Karadjgne]

If you look, the 'time to render' best cpu is 2:35 vrs worst cpu 2:54. That's minutes and seconds. Not really that much different, honestly. Even if set to hours/minutes, that's only a @5 minute difference on a 1 hour render, between a Sandy-Bridge E and Haswell E cpu. Still not that big of a difference considering the generation gap and ages of the cpu/platform.

Now a professional who renders all day, every day might justify the difference, over a month or two, but even the average user who only renders once every few days is not going to quibble over a 5 minute extra on a 1hr render after taking 3 days to setup, film, edit etc.
You could probably expect the 8700k to land close to the top, it's stock clocks alone will put it there, faster IPC and available threads only further helping, but even still, there's not going to be that huge of a difference. You are still only talking about minutes on a 1hr render. With its Haswell IPC, fast ram and a decent OC, you could expect the R7 1700 to land behind the 8700k, but still ahead of the 4790k, again, minutes on a 1hr render.

Justify that on a $1200 pc? There's just no simple way to wave a magic wand and get much better performance. Op's 4790 is a damn good cpu to start with, far from obsolete and can hold its own in any battle. It might not come in first, but he could have done damn sight worse initially. Upgrade from i3 or i5? Oh, worth it for sure, but i7 to r7/i7, ehh, that's a personal decision vrs a performance need decision considering the differences.

 

[The Original Ralph]

THANKS for stating the obvious - that's why i put that up, to encourage the OP to find comparions showing the CPU he might consider to judge if it's worth it for him

 

[Karadjgne]

Lol. No worries. 😀 I find it surprising just how many ppl get stuck on benchmark numbers, which very seldom have much relevance in real world situations. Sure, the 8700k is king of gaming cpus, but if the 4790 is capable of 200 minimum fps, and the 8700k is capable of 300 minimum fps in a given game, does that really make any difference to a 1080p/60Hz monitor? But ppl will still insist the need to justify the 8700k.

 

[YoAndy]

Lol. No worries. 😀 I find it surprising just how many ppl get stuck on benchmark numbers, which very seldom have much relevance in real world situations. Sure, the 8700k is king of gaming cpus, but if the 4790 is capable of 200 minimum fps, and the 8700k is capable of 300 minimum fps in a given game, does that really make any difference to a 1080p/60Hz monitor? But ppl will still insist the need to justify the 8700k.

According to the question, We are not talking about just gaming on here. The 8700K will be a lot better in rendering and every single program that uses multi-cores. That's why the only clear choice is to upgrade to the 8700K. The 8600K has only six cores without multi-thread, his 4790 already has 8 multi-threaded cores. That's why the 8700K with 12 multi-threaded cores makes more sense it will takes advantages in many applications while maintaining best in class strong single core performance. And like I said before the 8 core Ryzens are a really good choice for multicore applications but they lack a bit in single core.

Cinema 4D Rendering