Going to use Ryzen 5 1600 for 1440P gaming (w. GTX1080). Viable until I get my i5 8400?

[ObserverOfClouds]

Hey people, just a thought. I've actually downgraded my current order (getting my machine sometime this week) due to the new i5 MB's being overly expensive. My plan is to use the Ryzen 5 1600 for a year or two and then get the i5 8400 (or whatever) at that point. But then I kept reading all of those "8400 beats Ryzen everyday" posts and got some serious angst 😛

But Ryzen 5 1600 should be more than viable atm, right? Keep in mind I only do 1440P. Thanks.

 

[coozie7]

Coffee Lake only puts any serious hurt on equally priced Ryzen parts at 1080 rez, at 1440 the playing field is much more level, with the Intel parts only having a slight lead in most cases.
Or, t0 put it another way: You'll probably have to run FRAPS or benchmarks to spot the difference.

 

[daswilhelm]

If you get a Ryzen now, in a couple years you can upgrade to a Ryzen+ or Ryzen2 cpu. no need to switch to coffee lake in two years.

 

[ObserverOfClouds]

Coffee Lake only puts any serious hurt on equally priced Ryzen parts at 1080 rez, at 1440 the playing field is much more level, with the Intel parts only having a slight lead in most cases.
Or, t0 put it another way: You'll probably have to run FRAPS or benchmarks to spot the difference.

Oh, man. I thought that was the case but I got confused due to the massive 8400 hype threads. This is truly good news.

 

[coozie7]

Check out the 1440 benchmarks: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i5_8400/
If you were playing at 1080 rez I'd advise you to hold off if at all possible for the i5, but at 1440 the GPU tends to become the primary restriction, making CPU choice less critical.

 

[ObserverOfClouds]

Check out the 1440 benchmarks: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i5_8400/
If you were playing at 1080 rez I'd advise you to hold off if at all possible for the i5, but at 1440 the GPU tends to become the primary restriction, making CPU choice less critical.

Cool site, thanks. Well, well, well - there is practically no difference at all. Found one game with 20 fps difference in 1440P, the rest were plus minus 1-3 fps. That's it. Sweet, Ryzen 5 1600 actually seems to be preferable in terms of a cost-benefit approach 😀

 

[rob.salewytsch]

Hmm....I am in the same boat as the OP, but I was considering moving from the 8600k to the R7 1700. I guess with the AM4 platform giving an upgrade option, I can't tell if the best plan is either to go budget R5 1600 now and plan on upgrading with the new Ryzen, OR go R7 1700 now and see if upgrading is worthwhile.

Or go 8400 now lol...I am officially no help to the OP.

 

[coozie7]

@ Rob.salewytsch: No, but you might want to start a thread elsewhere to discuss your own situation, which is similar, but not quite the same.
In the meantime:
The R5 1600 is usually a little faster for games, due to its higher overall clocks, but the R7 1700 is faster elsewhere where its extra cores can work ( like CPU based rendering ).
If you're mainly playing games AND at 1080 rez then I'll suggest you go for the faster i5 8400, if, like the OP you'll be playing at 1440 rez or over the choice of CPU is less critical than the GPU.

 

[ObserverOfClouds]

And then an article like THIS comes along :.(

http://www.pcgamer.com/the-best-pc-gaming-cpus-processors/

@ Rob.salewytsch: No, but you might want to start a thread elsewhere to discuss your own situation, which is similar, but not quite the same.
In the meantime:
The R5 1600 is usually a little faster for games, due to its higher overall clocks, but the R7 1700 is faster elsewhere where its extra cores can work ( like CPU based rendering ).
If you're mainly playing games AND at 1080 rez then I'll suggest you go for the faster i5 8400, if, like the OP you'll be playing at 1440 rez or over the choice of CPU is less critical than the GPU.

 

[coozie7]

They test at 1080 rez, where Intel still rules without question.
At 1440 rez the playing field gets much, much closer.