i5 8400 vs i7 7700 vs i7 8700 for gaming

Status
Not open for further replies.

arfiavenger

Honorable
Nov 30, 2013
298
0
10,790
I am thinking that how much i7 8700 is better than i7 7700 and can i5 8400 is good enough for gaming like PUBG , AC origins , battlefield 1, titanfall 2 , R6 Siege , GTA 5 , and more upcoming games.. i7 8th gen is priced high and its motherboard is also high priced thats why m confused to go with i7 7700 or i7 8700 , Or i5 8400 is enough ?


I will pair it with Zotac GTX 1080 Mini


Thank you and sorry for my English. Btw i live in India
.
 


Yes. For gaming, it has long been seen that the i5 can outperform the i7 clock for clock in many games (the reasons are too technical to quickly explain why). Scroll to the bottom of this Tom's review of the 8400 and check out all the game benchmarks. They are using an 8600K and 7600K in comparison, but it gives you an idea:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-coffee-lake-core-i5-8400-cpu,5281.html

If you are not doing productivity apps half the time and instead mostly gaming, you are throwing your money away on an i7.
 


Don't believe in some random YT videos. Please go read some benchmarks instead. In some games the 8400 even perform almost the same as 7700K.
 
The 8400 will still do you good in video rendering with its six cores. It has changed the game against the i7. Here's a Handbrake comparison of it against the i7 7700k:

https://imagescdn.tweaktown.com/content/8/3/8363_14_intel-core-i7-8700k-i5-8400-coffee-lake-cpu-review.png

Again, it is so not worth spending more on the i7 unless you are mostly gaming. The 8400 is a well balanced CPU for the money if you want to go Intel. And yes, those benchmarks are accurate because other tech websites have reported similar results. Like this one:

https://imagescdn.tweaktown.com/content/8/3/8363_22_intel-core-i7-8700k-i5-8400-coffee-lake-cpu-review.png
 


I agree with this. If you are going for gaming...this new i5-8400 is a game changer and eliminates need for i7 for gaming.
 


Only the more expensive Z370 are available now. You will have to wait until early next year for the cheaper B360 mobos.

Cheapest Z370 mobo i can find for now is

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

Motherboard: MSI - Z370-A PRO ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($99.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $99.99
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-10-29 10:33 EDT-0400
 


While I agree the i5-8400 is the best choice in terms of processor value on the Intel side right now. This comment is completely and truly wrong.

On no planet is an i5 "clock for clock better than an i7 for gaming".

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-kaby-lake-core-i7-7700k-i7-7700-i5-7600k-i5-7600,4870-7.html

In that generation (or any generation comparison within) literally the same CPU, i7 clocked higher, and with Hyperthreading. In fact if you turn HT off its a direct comparison core wise and the i7 will always be faster because they are "golden sample" chips. You can Overclock them further and in software that can benefit from the extra threads they will always perform better.

The i7-7700k is STILL slightly better than an i5-8400 for gaming right now, the Tom's article you linked even says it in the final analysis

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-coffee-lake-core-i5-8400-cpu,5281-11.html

And no using the 7600k for comparison is not correct, its a different lower clocked CPU that is missing features, period. The other reviews you posted show it faster as well, minimally, but it is faster. An 8700 is noticeably faster, hence again the "i5 is faster than i7" story is still wrong.

That said I would still go for the i5-8400 because as software (games ) are built to handle more cores, it may have an opportunity to shine in certain games, the WAY better price and how close it performs already seals the deal. As well for non gaming tasks 6 physical cores vs 4 and 4 HTs is a better proposition.

TL DR: The i5-8400 is the best bet, but the fairy tales about i5's being better than i7's for gaming throughout this thread are all bull.
 


Not trying to disagree with you, but the 8600K review here at Toms does show the 8600K are beating the 8700K in many games.
 


No it doesn't

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-coffee-lake-gaming-i5-8600k,35722.html

Take a look there thats the i5-8600k overclocked to 4.9ghz. Overclock the 8700k and see where the results go.

The 8600k does beat the 7700k in games but thats not what we are comparing here, the 6 physical cores clocked similarly will do that. The 8400 is NOT clocked as high and can't be overclocked.
 


Guess it comes down to which games you are playing. In games like Far Cry, Hitman, GTA, Tomb Raider just to name a few, the 8600K at stock beats the 8700K in the same review.
 


Thats only half the story though. Anything DX12 the 8700k is faster, also look at some of those games, the minimum framerate is higher on the 8700k. In Timespy (DX12) its significantly faster stock than even an overclocked 8600k, and even in the DX11 Firestrike test eats it for lunch. You don't buy a CPU based on 2-3 year old games, buy it based on what it will do for you in the future. The 8600k is a great CPU and competitive value, but calling it a better gaming CPU than the i7-8700k is patently wrong.
 


Not sure if i'm wrong here and please correct me if I am, but the 99th percentile FPS chart you refer to, isn't that also including the synthetic benchmarks from VRmark and 3Dmark? If so it doesn't really give the full picture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.