[SOLVED] i5 8400 vs i5 8600k

[Pradeesh87]

Does the Base clock really matter.?

i5 8400(2.8Ghz) vs i5 8600k(3.6Ghz)

Because the Turbo clock frequency is almost near 8400(4Ghz) and 8600K(4.3Ghz).

Dose the Base Clock difference of 1Ghz really matters.?

 

[mdd1963]

It matters, several hundred more MHZ per 6 cores, but, the 8400 does amazingly well for the money spent, IMO. Sort of choosing between very very good and excellent, gaming- wise.

 

[Pradeesh87]

It matters, several hundred more MHZ per 6 cores, but, the 8400 does amazingly well for the money spent, IMO. Sort of choosing between very very good and excellent, gaming- wise.

So whats the verdict.?? i5 8400 or 8600k for gaming.??

 

[rgd1101]

How much do you want to spend?

 

[madmatt30]

The 8600k IS better.

Its just not even close to $120 better though - which is what it costs extra as you need an aftermarket cooler

Compared to the 8400 it looks horrendously overpriced IMO


I'd you're not running a 100htz + screen there is no benefit at all.


I think Intel set the 8400 base clock intentionally low so as to make the 8600k look exponentially better & justify the price.

The 8400 has been seen to boost to 3.5/3.6GHz on all 6 cores so the base clock is fairly irrelevant

 

[theonerm2]

I guess what this really hinges on is whether or not you want to overclock. The base clocks don't really matter because they turbo to whatever the turbo speed is anyway when doing work. When looking at the turbo speeds there is a 300MHz difference between the 2 processors. That's not very significant so the 2 should perform similarly in games. It's only when you start to overclock the 8600K that the 2 processors start to really differ from each other. Really when overclocked the Core i5 8600K shouldn't be much different than the Core i7 8700K in gaming.

If it were me and I wanted to save some money I'd go ahead and get the Core i5 8400. If money was no object well then I wouldn't even consider the 8600K. I'd go ahead and get the 8700K. The 8600K should only be considered if you plan to overclock and can't afford the 8700K. The thing is... I can't decide for you. You have to make the decision but hopefully I have given you enough information to make it.

 

[rgd1101]

Is only stay in turbo if it under the TDP, which 8400 have a lower TDP
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/turbo-boost/turbo-boost-technology.html
"accelerates processor and graphics performance for peak loads, automatically allowing processor cores to run faster than the rated operating frequency if they’re operating below power, current, and temperature specification limits. "

Still. 8400 will be better value.

 

[quad2012]

I was kind of in the same situation. I think it really depends on lots of things. In my case the main consideration for me where the future, I think we will see quite a jump in CPU performance with AMD coming back and some other factors making for higher demand in terms of CPU power. ¨

So I plan to sell the thing after two years max. when we see mature Ryzen or Intel chips with new architecture. Now for a range of 2 years an i5 is more than enough, I'm not going to need the extra threads for gaming until then.

In terms of whether to go for 8400 or 8600k I think it's really a question of Overclocking, as far as I've seen the 8600k OCs quite nicely, matching the performance of a 8700k in gaming, which for me was the nobrainer argument. So if you don't plan to OC don't go with the 8600k, if you do I think it's a great deal.

 

[chikutkarsh2909]

i5 8600k is slightly better than i5 8400
but save yr money by buying 8400 and invest in a better graphics card if u if want it for games rather than video editing