AMD RYZEN 5 1600 or Intel Core i5-8400 for Workstation

[Louwejay03]

Good day,

I was planning to upgrade my PC, but I'm stuck with these CPU's. Mainly for workstation, gaming, & video streaming.

Intel Core i5-8400 Coffee
https://www.newegg.com/global/ph/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117824

or

AMD RYZEN 5 1600 6-Core
https://www.newegg.com/global/ph/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113435&cm_re=amd_ryzen_5-_-19-113-435-_-Product

Which is better?
I do have a GTX 1060 6gb gpu.

Thanks in advance!

 

[Gon Freecss]

The 8400 with no questions, but I'd recommend springing for the 8500.

 

[herrwizo]

I will take a different approach and say go with Ryzen. It has 6 more threads, which helps in rendering and streaming a lot, and unlike Intel, AM4 platform grants you an easy CPU upgrade on the same motherboard without swapping it for at least several years to come. In fact, now Ryzens 2xxx series are out, you might as well take a look at them. Even better performance and stock clocks.

 

[bigpinkdragon286]

Reviews for the new Ryzen CPU refresh should be out later today. How about you think about the choices for another 24 hours, and then come back with a fresh perspective?

 

[Gon Freecss]

I will take a different approach and say go with Ryzen. It has 6 more threads, which helps in rendering and streaming a lot, and unlike Intel, AM4 platform grants you an easy CPU upgrade on the same motherboard without swapping it for at least several years to come. In fact, now Ryzens 2xxx series are out, you might as well take a look at them. Even better performance and stock clocks.

The 8700K at least matches the 1700 in streaming, when both are stock. The 8700K has 6C/12T, while the 1700 has 8C/16T. Source.

The 8400-8600K are 6C/6T, and the 1600-2600X are 6C/12T. No difference in core counts, only in thread count. So, judging from the performance above, the i5s are more than likely better at streaming.

When it comes to rendering, it depends on the application. What instructions it uses, how memory sensitive it is. You can look up benchmarks on here and here. If the application uses recent instruction sets, the i5s would more than likely beat the R5s. Most of the time, when it comes to rendering, the additional threads would certainly help. You'd see the i5s and R5s on a similar playing field.

Also, the AM4 socket was stated to last until 2020. You don't know if the 300 series motherboards would still support CPUs released in 2020. AMD can claim whatever they want, but it's the motherboard vendors who get to decide what to do. They want to sell motherboards, and validation processes consume a lot of time for older motherboards to use newer CPUs. 300 series motherboards aren't going to support all Ryzen 2000 series features, and it's just a mere refresh. You see where I'm going?

 

[Louwejay03]

The 8400 with no questions, but I'd recommend springing for the 8500.

yea, was thinking of going higher like 8500 or 8600k but my budget is tight.

 

[Louwejay03]

I will take a different approach and say go with Ryzen. It has 6 more threads, which helps in rendering and streaming a lot, and unlike Intel, AM4 platform grants you an easy CPU upgrade on the same motherboard without swapping it for at least several years to come. In fact, now Ryzens 2xxx series are out, you might as well take a look at them. Even better performance and stock clocks.

Yea, I am fascinated with the 6 more threads. Which more likely better (in my own understanding), and i want to keep my rig for more like 5 years or so.
About the new ryzen 2xxx series, they may not be available in our country for many months but I'm not in a hurry so ill take it as my third option.

 

[Louwejay03]

Reviews for the new Ryzen CPU refresh should be out later today. How about you think about the choices for another 24 hours, and then come back with a fresh perspective?

I'll wait for it then.

Thanks man.

 

[Louwejay03]

I will take a different approach and say go with Ryzen. It has 6 more threads, which helps in rendering and streaming a lot, and unlike Intel, AM4 platform grants you an easy CPU upgrade on the same motherboard without swapping it for at least several years to come. In fact, now Ryzens 2xxx series are out, you might as well take a look at them. Even better performance and stock clocks.

The 8700K at least matches the 1700 in streaming, when both are stock. The 8700K has 6C/12T, while the 1700 has 8C/16T. Source.

The 8400-8600K are 6C/6T, and the 1600-2600X are 6C/12T. No difference in core counts, only in thread count. So, judging from the performance above, the i5s are more than likely better at streaming.

When it comes to rendering, it depends on the application. What instructions it uses, how memory sensitive it is. You can look up benchmarks on here and here. If the application uses recent instruction sets, the i5s would more than likely beat the R5s. Most of the time, when it comes to rendering, the additional threads would certainly help. You'd see the i5s and R5s on a similar playing field.

Also, the AM4 socket was stated to last until 2020. You don't know if the 300 series motherboards would still support CPUs released in 2020. AMD can claim whatever they want, but it's the motherboard vendors who get to decide what to do. They want to sell motherboards, and validation processes consume a lot of time for older motherboards to use newer CPUs. 300 series motherboards aren't going to support all Ryzen 2000 series features, and it's just a mere refresh. You see where I'm going?

Can you enlighten me up sir?
By the way, the softwares I commonly use are AutoCAD, 3DsMax, Lumion, SketchUp, & Photoshop.
And i will get 8 or 16 Gb of rams.

Thanks a lot!

 

[Rdslw]

Reviews for the new Ryzen CPU refresh should be out later today. How about you think about the choices for another 24 hours, and then come back with a fresh perspective?

I'll wait for it then.

Thanks man.

2nd Gen Ryzen
AMD SenseMI Technology
Socket AM4
Max Boost Frequency 3.9 GHz (base 3.4 GHz)
DDR4-2933 Support
same price.
I think going for 2'nd gen is a good choice as faster ram and little more cpu horsepower will be good thing, as prices will not be much higher. Let's see the reviews. If you planned to go 8600k then ryzen 2700 will be in your price range, and 8 cores 16 threads will crush 6 cores/ 6 threads in workstation workloads. Games are yet to be seen.
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113498&cm_re=ryzen_2-_-19-113-498-_-Product

 

[Gon Freecss]

The 8400 with no questions, but I'd recommend springing for the 8500.

yea, was thinking of going higher like 8500 or 8600k but my budget is tight.

The 8500 would be like $10 more expensive.

I will take a different approach and say go with Ryzen. It has 6 more threads, which helps in rendering and streaming a lot, and unlike Intel, AM4 platform grants you an easy CPU upgrade on the same motherboard without swapping it for at least several years to come. In fact, now Ryzens 2xxx series are out, you might as well take a look at them. Even better performance and stock clocks.

The 8700K at least matches the 1700 in streaming, when both are stock. The 8700K has 6C/12T, while the 1700 has 8C/16T. Source.

The 8400-8600K are 6C/6T, and the 1600-2600X are 6C/12T. No difference in core counts, only in thread count. So, judging from the performance above, the i5s are more than likely better at streaming.

When it comes to rendering, it depends on the application. What instructions it uses, how memory sensitive it is. You can look up benchmarks on here and here. If the application uses recent instruction sets, the i5s would more than likely beat the R5s. Most of the time, when it comes to rendering, the additional threads would certainly help. You'd see the i5s and R5s on a similar playing field.

Also, the AM4 socket was stated to last until 2020. You don't know if the 300 series motherboards would still support CPUs released in 2020. AMD can claim whatever they want, but it's the motherboard vendors who get to decide what to do. They want to sell motherboards, and validation processes consume a lot of time for older motherboards to use newer CPUs. 300 series motherboards aren't going to support all Ryzen 2000 series features, and it's just a mere refresh. You see where I'm going?

Can you enlighten me up sir?
By the way, the softwares I commonly use are AutoCAD, 3DsMax, Lumion, SketchUp, & Photoshop.
And i will get 8 or 16 Gb of rams.

Thanks a lot!

Sure thing.

AutoCAD 2D and 3D performance respectively.

3Ds Max performance.

More information here and here. Click on the words "here" so you can go to the links I linked.

That's the performance of Coffee Lake CPUs in Photoshop. You can see the 8600K beating even the 1800X, which means it will most definitely beat the 6 core Ryzen chips. Intel hardware are much better suited for your workloads.

 

[Rdslw]

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Photoshop-CC-Multi-Core-Performance-625/
photoshop scales in most tasks up to 4 cores, so INTEL will win as it have more per core power. Still I like to use something while rendering, and in general I'm not running 1 job at a time, so for me AMD as it might be slower, will be better in multitask (will not freeze while running something heavy)
For reference intel i7-6700 VS Ryzen 1700. This is workload that will scale with cores and here you see more less what you will get with intel 8600 vs ryzen 2700
https://youtu.be/Y18llm7nA2U?t=202

also by looking at other related threads, AMD just got support in Vegas 15
https://youtu.be/RO7MMB38l2s

https://screenshots.firefox.com/jdJVuWVqfXqFLzpM/www.youtube.com

 

[aldaia]

I concur with bigpinkdragon286, you will probably see Ryzen 2600 reviews later today. I'll wait a bit.

Regarding 1600 vs 8400 at stock settings:
8400 is better at gaming with high end cards. However, with a GTX 1060 the difference is very narrow, winning one or the other depending on the game.
They are on par at workstation and rendering wining one or the other depending on the application.
On very paprallel applications 1600 has the advantage.

Have in mind however that 1600 can be overclocked even with the stock cooler. It seems very common to overclock to 3.8 GHz with stock cooler https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/6ayixp/overclocking_1600_on_the_stock_cooler/

 

[Louwejay03]

Reviews for the new Ryzen CPU refresh should be out later today. How about you think about the choices for another 24 hours, and then come back with a fresh perspective?

I'll wait for it then.

Thanks man.

2nd Gen Ryzen
AMD SenseMI Technology
Socket AM4
Max Boost Frequency 3.9 GHz (base 3.4 GHz)
DDR4-2933 Support
same price.
I think going for 2'nd gen is a good choice as faster ram and little more cpu horsepower will be good thing, as prices will not be much higher. Let's see the reviews. If you planned to go 8600k then ryzen 2700 will be in your price range, and 8 cores 16 threads will crush 6 cores/ 6 threads in workstation workloads. Games are yet to be seen.
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113498&cm_re=ryzen_2-_-19-113-498-_-Product

Thanks for the info sir. I'll wait for more reviews then.

 

[Louwejay03]

The 8400 with no questions, but I'd recommend springing for the 8500.

yea, was thinking of going higher like 8500 or 8600k but my budget is tight.

The 8500 would be like $10 more expensive.

I will take a different approach and say go with Ryzen. It has 6 more threads, which helps in rendering and streaming a lot, and unlike Intel, AM4 platform grants you an easy CPU upgrade on the same motherboard without swapping it for at least several years to come. In fact, now Ryzens 2xxx series are out, you might as well take a look at them. Even better performance and stock clocks.

The 8700K at least matches the 1700 in streaming, when both are stock. The 8700K has 6C/12T, while the 1700 has 8C/16T. Source.

The 8400-8600K are 6C/6T, and the 1600-2600X are 6C/12T. No difference in core counts, only in thread count. So, judging from the performance above, the i5s are more than likely better at streaming.

When it comes to rendering, it depends on the application. What instructions it uses, how memory sensitive it is. You can look up benchmarks on here and here. If the application uses recent instruction sets, the i5s would more than likely beat the R5s. Most of the time, when it comes to rendering, the additional threads would certainly help. You'd see the i5s and R5s on a similar playing field.

Also, the AM4 socket was stated to last until 2020. You don't know if the 300 series motherboards would still support CPUs released in 2020. AMD can claim whatever they want, but it's the motherboard vendors who get to decide what to do. They want to sell motherboards, and validation processes consume a lot of time for older motherboards to use newer CPUs. 300 series motherboards aren't going to support all Ryzen 2000 series features, and it's just a mere refresh. You see where I'm going?

Can you enlighten me up sir?
By the way, the softwares I commonly use are AutoCAD, 3DsMax, Lumion, SketchUp, & Photoshop.
And i will get 8 or 16 Gb of rams.

Thanks a lot!

Sure thing.

AutoCAD 2D and 3D performance respectively.

3Ds Max performance.

More information here and here. Click on the words "here" so you can go to the links I linked.

That's the performance of Coffee Lake CPUs in Photoshop. You can see the 8600K beating even the 1800X, which means it will most definitely beat the 6 core Ryzen chips. Intel hardware are much better suited for your workloads.

Oh the numbers are surprisingly higher than the 6c/12t ryzen 5. Mopped the AMD easily.
Thanks for this detailed info sir. But I will wait for the reviews of the new ryzen, then I'll decide which chip I'll get.

Thanks a lot!

 

[Louwejay03]

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Photoshop-CC-Multi-Core-Performance-625/
photoshop scales in most tasks up to 4 cores, so INTEL will win as it have more per core power. Still I like to use something while rendering, and in general I'm not running 1 job at a time, so for me AMD as it might be slower, will be better in multitask (will not freeze while running something heavy)
For reference intel i7-6700 VS Ryzen 1700. This is workload that will scale with cores and here you see more less what you will get with intel 8600 vs ryzen 2700
https://youtu.be/Y18llm7nA2U?t=202

also by looking at other related threads, AMD just got support in Vegas 15
https://youtu.be/RO7MMB38l2s

https://screenshots.firefox.com/jdJVuWVqfXqFLzpM/www.youtube.com

Was looking for this, actual might be accurate.
On the other hand, rendering is my priority. That's why my eyes are stuck on Ryzen. More threads the better.
Thanks for the info.

 

[Louwejay03]

I concur with bigpinkdragon286, you will probably see Ryzen 2600 reviews later today. I'll wait a bit.

Regarding 1600 vs 8400 at stock settings:
8400 is better at gaming with high end cards. However, with a GTX 1060 the difference is very narrow, winning one or the other depending on the game.
They are on par at workstation and rendering wining one or the other depending on the application.
On very paprallel applications 1600 has the advantage.

Have in mind however that 1600 can be overclocked even with the stock cooler. It seems very common to overclock to 3.8 GHz with stock cooler https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/6ayixp/overclocking_1600_on_the_stock_cooler/

Thanks for this info sir. I'll wait for the reviews for the new ryzen chip.

 

[bigpinkdragon286]

Interesting things being shown by the reviews. After all of the current Spectre and Meltdown patches are applied to both the AMD and Intel systems, the Ryzen 2700x is either beating the Intel 8700k, or coming within margin of error, when both systems are run at stock clocks.

Tom's review is good, but be aware, the numbers shown don't represent final performance, as neither the Intel or AMD platforms were fully patched. Tom's numbers are subject to future revision once they get their testing done with all of the approved patches in place.

Also, when looking at a lot of the reviews out there, it's very likely to see old, pre patch numbers being recycled for both the first revision Ryzen and Coffee Lake parts.

Since you run a 1060, your bottleneck when gaming is going to be your GPU, no matter what CPU you choose, unless you run at low resolutions and or low details.

If by streaming, you mean, live encoding of your gaming sessions, the choice between getting an i5 of any sort, and a Ryzen 6-core with SMT is a non-choice. The i5 is not going to both game and stream smoothly if you use CPU based encoding. Heck, even an R5 4-core, 8-thread CPU performs CPU encoding like a potato while gaming, unless your streaming settings are turned down. If this is a something you plan to do, I would consider looking at the 8-core, 16-thread Ryzen CPUs.

If by streaming, you mean, just watching online streams, pretty much any CPU can handle that.

 

[Louwejay03]

Interesting things being shown by the reviews. After all of the current Spectre and Meltdown patches are applied to both the AMD and Intel systems, the Ryzen 2700x is either beating the Intel 8700k, or coming within margin of error, when both systems are run at stock clocks.

Tom's review is good, but be aware, the numbers shown don't represent final performance, as neither the Intel or AMD platforms were fully patched. Tom's numbers are subject to future revision once they get their testing done with all of the approved patches in place.

Also, when looking at a lot of the reviews out there, it's very likely to see old, pre patch numbers being recycled for both the first revision Ryzen and Coffee Lake parts.

Since you run a 1060, your bottleneck when gaming is going to be your GPU, no matter what CPU you choose, unless you run at low resolutions and or low details.

If by streaming, you mean, live encoding of your gaming sessions, the choice between getting an i5 of any sort, and a Ryzen 6-core with SMT is a non-choice. The i5 is not going to both game and stream smoothly if you use CPU based encoding. Heck, even an R5 4-core, 8-thread CPU performs CPU encoding like a potato while gaming, unless your streaming settings are turned down. If this is a something you plan to do, I would consider looking at the 8-core, 16-thread Ryzen CPUs.

If by streaming, you mean, just watching online streams, pretty much any CPU can handle that.

Thanks for this info.
And I'm thinking of getting this things.

•AMD RYZEN 7 2700X 8-Core 3.7 GHz (4.3 GHz Max Boost)
•x470 Board (cant decide what/which brand)
•G.SKILL TridentZ RGB Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 3000 (PC4 24000)
•SAMSUNG 850 EVO 2.5" 250GB SATA III 3D NAND

My old stuff to pair with:
•Palit GeForce GTX 1060 JetStream 6GB
•VS Series™ VS450 — 450 Watt Power Supply
• 2 500GB WD HDD.

Should I upgrade my PSU and buy new HDD?
I was thinking about the bottleneck, but I dont play graphically demanding games.
And for the streaming, yea, watching online stream it is.

Thanks!

 

[Louwejay03]

The 8400 with no questions, but I'd recommend springing for the 8500.

yea, was thinking of going higher like 8500 or 8600k but my budget is tight.

The 8500 would be like $10 more expensive.

I will take a different approach and say go with Ryzen. It has 6 more threads, which helps in rendering and streaming a lot, and unlike Intel, AM4 platform grants you an easy CPU upgrade on the same motherboard without swapping it for at least several years to come. In fact, now Ryzens 2xxx series are out, you might as well take a look at them. Even better performance and stock clocks.

The 8700K at least matches the 1700 in streaming, when both are stock. The 8700K has 6C/12T, while the 1700 has 8C/16T. Source.

The 8400-8600K are 6C/6T, and the 1600-2600X are 6C/12T. No difference in core counts, only in thread count. So, judging from the performance above, the i5s are more than likely better at streaming.

When it comes to rendering, it depends on the application. What instructions it uses, how memory sensitive it is. You can look up benchmarks on here and here. If the application uses recent instruction sets, the i5s would more than likely beat the R5s. Most of the time, when it comes to rendering, the additional threads would certainly help. You'd see the i5s and R5s on a similar playing field.

Also, the AM4 socket was stated to last until 2020. You don't know if the 300 series motherboards would still support CPUs released in 2020. AMD can claim whatever they want, but it's the motherboard vendors who get to decide what to do. They want to sell motherboards, and validation processes consume a lot of time for older motherboards to use newer CPUs. 300 series motherboards aren't going to support all Ryzen 2000 series features, and it's just a mere refresh. You see where I'm going?

Can you enlighten me up sir?
By the way, the softwares I commonly use are AutoCAD, 3DsMax, Lumion, SketchUp, & Photoshop.
And i will get 8 or 16 Gb of rams.

Thanks a lot!

Sure thing.

AutoCAD 2D and 3D performance respectively.

3Ds Max performance.

More information here and here. Click on the words "here" so you can go to the links I linked.

That's the performance of Coffee Lake CPUs in Photoshop. You can see the 8600K beating even the 1800X, which means it will most definitely beat the 6 core Ryzen chips. Intel hardware are much better suited for your workloads.

And im back!

So was going for them. Am I on the right track or nah?

•AMD RYZEN 7 2700X 8-Core 3.7 GHz (4.3 GHz Max Boost)
•x470 Board (cant decide what/which brand)
•G.SKILL TridentZ RGB Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 3000 (PC4 24000)
•SAMSUNG 850 EVO 2.5" 250GB SATA III 3D NAND

My old stuff to pair with:
•Palit GeForce GTX 1060 JetStream 6GB
•VS Series™ VS450 — 450 Watt Power Supply
• 2 500GB WD HDD.

.Thanks!

 

[Louwejay03]

And im back!

So was going for them. Am I on the right track or nah?

•AMD RYZEN 7 2700X 8-Core 3.7 GHz (4.3 GHz Max Boost)
•x470 Board (cant decide what/which brand)
•G.SKILL TridentZ RGB Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 3000 (PC4 24000)
•SAMSUNG 850 EVO 2.5" 250GB SATA III 3D NAND

My old stuff to pair with:
•Palit GeForce GTX 1060 JetStream 6GB
•VS Series™ VS450 — 450 Watt Power Supply
• 2 500GB WD HDD.

.Thanks for the answers!

 

[bigpinkdragon286]

If you're sticking with your 1060, you're pretty much capping your performance in games right there. Nothing wrong with that, but much of the performance advantages Intel shows in games become non-existent when the GPU used isn't fast enough to show the difference.

Looking at Gon Freecss's benchmarks, it just shows there is still software out there that isn't very well threaded, and raw single core performance coupled with higher single core clock speeds will make a difference. While those benchmarks may be perfectly accurate, for those particular programs, they are not representative of every workload. It pays to look at benchmarks for the software you intend to run, not just a couple of benchmarks that may or may not have been hand picked to paint a particular CPU company in a particular light.

I think your power supply is cutting things a bit close.

Your hard drives are neither here nor there. If you are happy with them, there's really no reason to throw them away and buy something else.

If I read correctly, you're opting for a SATA based SSD rather than an M.2 based device? I'm not sure why you would prefer the slower interface over the newer, faster one for your primary boot drive. Also, if you're willing to go through a slightly more convoluted setup process, x470 boards get a free license for AMD's StoreMI software, which basically allows you to use an SSD as a cache drive for your hard drives. It's been reviewed and shows that it does a really good job in speeding up frequently accessed data stored on hard drives.

Not sure I'm going to be much help picking a motherboard. I usually just recommend you look at the features of each, and pick whichever one meets your needs. I'm partial to Gigabyte myself, if for no other reason than their dual-BIOS feature, making bricked BIOS flashing pretty non-existent, although I will admit they sometimes make some idiotic UEFI / BIOS head scratching design choices.

 

[Louwejay03]

If you're sticking with your 1060, you're pretty much capping your performance in games right there. Nothing wrong with that, but much of the performance advantages Intel shows in games become non-existent when the GPU used isn't fast enough to show the difference.

Looking at Gon Freecss's benchmarks, it just shows there is still software out there that isn't very well threaded, and raw single core performance coupled with higher single core clock speeds will make a difference. While those benchmarks may be perfectly accurate, for those particular programs, they are not representative of every workload. It pays to look at benchmarks for the software you intend to run, not just a couple of benchmarks that may or may not have been hand picked to paint a particular CPU company in a particular light.

I think your power supply is cutting things a bit close.

Your hard drives are neither here nor there. If you are happy with them, there's really no reason to throw them away and buy something else.

If I read correctly, you're opting for a SATA based SSD rather than an M.2 based device? I'm not sure why you would prefer the slower interface over the newer, faster one for your primary boot drive. Also, if you're willing to go through a slightly more convoluted setup process, x470 boards get a free license for AMD's StoreMI software, which basically allows you to use an SSD as a cache drive for your hard drives. It's been reviewed and shows that it does a really good job in speeding up frequently accessed data stored on hard drives.

Not sure I'm going to be much help picking a motherboard. I usually just recommend you look at the features of each, and pick whichever one meets your needs. I'm partial to Gigabyte myself, if for no other reason than their dual-BIOS feature, making bricked BIOS flashing pretty non-existent, although I will admit they sometimes make some idiotic UEFI / BIOS head scratching design choices.

I was thinking of downgrading the MOBO from x470 to x370. Is it ok?
But if im goin for x470, Gigabyte Aorus is what im up to and for x370 im going MSI Gaming x370.
About the SSD over M.2 device, I dont quite know what are the difference of the two. I'll read some comparisons of the two later. Considering the M.2 device is quite cheaper than SSD.

I cant upgrade my GPU now, out of budget. hehe
Well, as long as i can play my games with the average fps. I'm fine with it

Thank you for the response sir.

 

[Gon Freecss]

The 8400 with no questions, but I'd recommend springing for the 8500.

yea, was thinking of going higher like 8500 or 8600k but my budget is tight.

The 8500 would be like $10 more expensive.

I will take a different approach and say go with Ryzen. It has 6 more threads, which helps in rendering and streaming a lot, and unlike Intel, AM4 platform grants you an easy CPU upgrade on the same motherboard without swapping it for at least several years to come. In fact, now Ryzens 2xxx series are out, you might as well take a look at them. Even better performance and stock clocks.

The 8700K at least matches the 1700 in streaming, when both are stock. The 8700K has 6C/12T, while the 1700 has 8C/16T. Source.

The 8400-8600K are 6C/6T, and the 1600-2600X are 6C/12T. No difference in core counts, only in thread count. So, judging from the performance above, the i5s are more than likely better at streaming.

When it comes to rendering, it depends on the application. What instructions it uses, how memory sensitive it is. You can look up benchmarks on here and here. If the application uses recent instruction sets, the i5s would more than likely beat the R5s. Most of the time, when it comes to rendering, the additional threads would certainly help. You'd see the i5s and R5s on a similar playing field.

Also, the AM4 socket was stated to last until 2020. You don't know if the 300 series motherboards would still support CPUs released in 2020. AMD can claim whatever they want, but it's the motherboard vendors who get to decide what to do. They want to sell motherboards, and validation processes consume a lot of time for older motherboards to use newer CPUs. 300 series motherboards aren't going to support all Ryzen 2000 series features, and it's just a mere refresh. You see where I'm going?

Can you enlighten me up sir?
By the way, the softwares I commonly use are AutoCAD, 3DsMax, Lumion, SketchUp, & Photoshop.
And i will get 8 or 16 Gb of rams.

Thanks a lot!

Sure thing.

AutoCAD 2D and 3D performance respectively.

3Ds Max performance.

More information here and here. Click on the words "here" so you can go to the links I linked.

That's the performance of Coffee Lake CPUs in Photoshop. You can see the 8600K beating even the 1800X, which means it will most definitely beat the 6 core Ryzen chips. Intel hardware are much better suited for your workloads.

And im back!

So was going for them. Am I on the right track or nah?

•AMD RYZEN 7 2700X 8-Core 3.7 GHz (4.3 GHz Max Boost)
•x470 Board (cant decide what/which brand)
•G.SKILL TridentZ RGB Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 3000 (PC4 24000)
•SAMSUNG 850 EVO 2.5" 250GB SATA III 3D NAND

My old stuff to pair with:
•Palit GeForce GTX 1060 JetStream 6GB
•VS Series™ VS450 — 450 Watt Power Supply
• 2 500GB WD HDD.

.Thanks!

If you're budgeting for the 2700X, I'd recommend the 8700K. It performs better in pretty much every task you'd run. Or, you could wait for the new 8 core Coffee Lake.