Question Is i5 9400f worth?

I think the i5-9400f would be worth upgrading to, just be sure to update your BIOS before you swap chips just in case.

The AMD suggestion is good but not worth the cost of a new Mobo IMO and with the AMD announcement at the end of the month it would be better to hold off on anything AMD till then.
 

Javi7707

Commendable
Feb 20, 2017
61
4
1,545
1
The 8700 has 6 cores, you must be confused with the 9700, which has 8 cores. The 9400F is going to be a much more cost effective upgrade than an 8700 while having most of the performance of gaming and everyday tasks.
Seriously? The 8700 has 6 cores and 12 threads, so it has way more power, also if we compare both cpus performance we can we the 8700 clearly wins: 1007 points vs 673 multicore speed. Data from userbenchmark. I won't doubt about it the i7 even has more quad core speed, it is miles away from the 9400.
 

hftvhftv

Reputable
May 26, 2014
301
8
4,815
15
Seriously? The 8700 has 6 cores and 12 threads, so it has way more power, also if we compare both cpus performance we can we the 8700 clearly wins: 1007 points vs 673 multicore speed. Data from userbenchmark. I won't doubt about it the i7 even has more quad core speed, it is miles away from the 9400.
If you read your original post you'll see that you said an i7 8700 "has twice the cores and much more power". The CPU they stated having was an i3 8100, which has 4 cores. 4 * 2 = 8, not 6, so that means that an i7 8700 does not have "twice the cores and much more power" as an i3 8100. An i7 9700 does have "twice the cores and much more power" as an i3 8100. But an i7 8700 costs $299 on Newegg right now, while a i5 9400F is $159. That is almost half the price for a single digit percentage less performance.
 
Reactions: TJ Hooker
Seriously? The 8700 has 6 cores and 12 threads, so it has way more power...
It is a bit faster per core, and has SMT allowing it to better handle more than 6 threads, but it's also way more expensive. Looking at US online pricing, the i5-9400F is currently around $155, while the i7-8700 is $300 or more, effectively doubling the cost of the upgrade. And the vast majority of current games won't even fully utilize those extra threads.

In terms of clock rates, the 8100 is clocked at 3.6Ghz with four cores, while the 9400 is clocked at 4.1GHz with 6 cores, and the 8700 adds Hyperthreading and can boost between 4.6 to 4.3Ghz depending on the number of active cores, assuming it has proper cooling. The 8700 is probably a bit more "future-proof", but I'm not sure that justifies it costing around $150 more.

As for whether even the 9400F is a worthwhile upgrade right now, if you can sell the 8100 to recoup a good chunk of its purchase price it might be worthwhile. I would not expect a big difference in the performance of most of today's games though. With a 1070 Ti running at 1080p resolution, moving from an i3-8100 all the way to an i7-8700 is only likely to boost average frame rates by around 10% or so in most games, with the 9400F performing a little behind that. And unless you have a high refresh rate screen that can display those extra frames, you probably won't notice much difference in most current titles. And if you are running a higher resolution like 1440p, the performance difference between these processors in current games will be even smaller. The extra cores might still help smooth performance and avoid stutters in some situations though, and that will likely become more common in future games that utilize more cores.
 

retroforlife

Commendable
Apr 19, 2017
106
3
1,585
0
i5 9400f is worth it if your only gaming etc the i7 8700 8th gen with hyper threading is better for muti tasking such as streaming or other heavy thread loads but if you go for the 9th gen I7 it does have 2 extra cores for gaming that could be useful in the future as games get more demanding 🤔
 

hang-the-9

Titan
Moderator
Numbers do not say the same, almost double the performance, pls search for a comparison before speaking.
Double the performance in what? In most games an i5 is not going to be any slower than an i7, and any speed difference is not likely to be worth the extra cost.
Benchmark numbers not looking at specific programs are not the most useful outside of getting a very general idea about a part.

In fact for that system with a quad core i3-8100 I would not touch the system unless there was some specific issue that was happening. Getting a game to 100 fps vs 80 or going from 7 to 9 quality settings is not really worth the money or time. Going from 40 to 60 fps may be worth it, but that needs some specific examples of the reason to upgrade that the l imitation is the CPU in what is running.
 
Reactions: TJ Hooker
Numbers do not say the same, almost double the performance, pls search for a comparison before speaking.
An 8700K only gets an extra ~5 fps (~6%) over a 9400F on average at 1080p with a GTX 1080. At higher resolutions the difference would be even less.
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i5-9400f-cpu-integrated-graphics,6107-8.html

If you want to compare gaming performance look at gaming benchmarks. Don't look at some arbitrary multi-core score value in a synthetic CPU benchmark.
 
Last edited:

Rogue Leader

Titan
Moderator
Numbers do not say the same, almost double the performance, pls search for a comparison before speaking.
Might I suggest presenting numbers to back up when you make such a bold and incorrect assertion. My cohorts above have done a good enough job with that so I will just leave you with a warning @Javi7707 do not call people out like that, especially without any plausible evidence other than a single synthetic benchmark when the user is asking about gaming, to back up your point.
 
Seriously? The 8700 has 6 cores and 12 threads, so it has way more power, also if we compare both cpus performance we can we the 8700 clearly wins: 1007 points vs 673 multicore speed. Data from userbenchmark. I won't doubt about it the i7 even has more quad core speed, it is miles away from the 9400.
Problem with 'userbenchmark' is that it seems to award lots of 'multi-core' points just based on threads and clockspeed, scaling upward in a formula that almost doubles for more threads, when actual performance in assorted games dam*ed sure does not scale upward as nicely) :)

Hyperthreading is nice with many games and applications, but,....the recent security hooplah might have it falling from favor quicker than Enron stock in the year 2000!
 
Reactions: TJ Hooker

Similar threads


ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS