Is the i5 8400 > Ryzen 5 1600? Or vice-versa?

[Preds]

Hello, this question comes when comparing i5 8400 to Ryzen 5 1600;they're very similar in price and performance, the major differences are the cooling capability of the included coolers and that one comes with a higher turbo boost clock and the other has XFR.

Okay, so which in your guys' opinion is better for gaming as well as an all around computer? Also which has the better cooler? Thank you!!

 

[ceae]

The funny thing is, you're mentioning two different purposes that each one of them is known for. The Ryzen 5 1600 excels at 'being an all around compter' because of the 6 additional threads they have and better general multithreaded performance (rendering, editing, ...), while the i5-8400 will give you better gaming performance. If you're going to use it for gaming only (which I think you are), go for the i5-8400 as it will probably give you 5-20 more fps at 1080p, which could matter a lot in some games.

However, as of now, Z370 MB's are still quite expensive and their price should be taken into account as well. If you're not in a rush and want to save a considerable amount of money when opting for the i5-8400, you could wait for the cheaper B360 MB's to be available, as a Z370 MB won't be useful anyway for a locked CPU. But as I said, I think it's still going to take some time before they get released

 

[guanyu210379]

I5 8400 is better in general for gaming, since games tend to prefer faster cores/threads than more cores/threads.
More to the differences between I5 8400 and R5 1600, if you plan to game on 60fps, the difference is not really big but if you game on.g. 144fps, the difference is really noticeable.

Additional infos,
The prices for all Intel 8xxx series start to go down, here where I live. The exagerated €440 for an I7 8700k is not longer existing. I7 8700k is now about €370.
If you plan to use a non-k variant, I would wait until the H370 or anything cheaper than Z370 to be avaiable.

 

[Preds]

The funny thing is, you're mentioning two different purposes that each one of them is known for. The Ryzen 5 1600 excels at 'being an all around compter' because of the 6 additional threads they have and better general multithreaded performance (rendering, editing, ...), while the i5-8400 will give you better gaming performance. If you're going to use it for gaming only (which I think you are), go for the i5-8400 as it will probably give you 5-20 more fps at 1080p, which could matter a lot in some games.

However, as of now, Z370 MB's are still quite expensive and their price should be taken into account as well. If you're not in a rush and want to save a considerable amount of money when opting for the i5-8400, you could wait for the cheaper B360 MB's to be available, as a Z370 MB won't be useful anyway for a locked CPU. But as I said, I think it's still going to take some time before they get released

Hi ceae, thank you very much for your reply. Yes, I guess they are different in that way, one for multi-threaded applications and one for gaming. I had the b360 boards in mind actually, and the topic of a locked cpu, reminded me of it. That would be the better option I guess and the more budget- friendly one as well.

What about the cooler, is the stock Intel cooler capable enough or is investing in a Hyper 212 EVO or another better?

 

[Preds]

I5 8400 is better in general for gaming, since games tend to prefer faster cores/threads than more cores/threads.
More to the differences between I5 8400 and R5 1600, if you plan to game on 60fps, the difference is not really big but if you game on.g. 144fps, the difference is really noticeable.

Additional infos,
The prices for all Intel 8xxx series start to go down, here where I live. The exagerated €440 for an I7 8700k is not longer existing. I7 8700k is now about €370.
If you plan to use a non-k variant, I would wait until the H370 or anything cheaper than Z370 to be avaiable.

Hello guanyu, thanks again for your reply to this post. Why exactly does the difference in fps exist on 144 Hz monitors though? I was just wondering that, although I do plan on gaming on 1080p, don't mind the quality difference too much. Is it because the CPU has to work harder to relay the data to the GPU, to translate it to the display, or something like that? Haha, I'm not at all experienced in these areas.

Yea, I also think that the b360/70 and h370 would be the better bargain, especially for non-K chips. I don't mind waiting though.

 

[guanyu210379]

Although it is not as simple as it looks...since the dependencies on proc or on gpu for different games are different...
I will try to explain as simple as possible.
Assuming the GPU is strong enough and the processor is already strong enough (meets the minimum core numbers, etc), most new processors today can handle games relatively well to produce up to 60fps. Thus, you won't see big difference for 60 fps gaming.
In order to produce high fps, faster processor (mostly faster core/thread) is needed.
Not all processors are designed equally. You will start noticing fps differences more on higher fps.

The best example is to remove the possibility of gpu bottlenecking as far as possible, e.g. lighter games with only 1080p.
The game can go beyond 60fps since the gpu actually permits it e.g. it could go to 144fps.
The processor A howéver can not follow and can only support 100fps. You will get then only 100fps.
The other way around today is the GPU bottlenecking, e.g. mostly on higher res like for 4k gaming
Tthe GPU could perhaps only go up to 70fps for the same game but the proc A can support 100fps. You will get only then 70fps.
Now, we replace this proc A with proc B.
Proc B can support let say up to 130 fps. if the GPU is the same and strong enough, you can get 130fps this time on 1080p and only still 70fps on 4k.
Now..if you game only on 60hz a.k.a. max 60 fps, you get 60 fps all the time on both proc A and B.

 

[Preds]

Although it is not as simple as it looks...since the dependencies on proc or on gpu for different games are different...
I will try to explain as simple as possible.
Assuming the GPU is strong enough and the processor is already strong enough (meets the minimum core numbers, etc), most new processors today can handle games relatively well to produce up to 60fps. Thus, you won't see big difference for 60 fps gaming.
In order to produce high fps, faster processor (mostly faster core/thread) is needed.
Not all processors are designed equally. You will start noticing fps differences more on higher fps.

The best example is to remove the possibility of gpu bottlenecking as far as possible, e.g. lighter games with only 1080p.
The game can go beyond 60fps since the gpu actually permits it e.g. it could go to 144fps.
The processor A howéver can not follow and can only support 100fps. You will get then only 100fps.
The other way around today is the GPU bottlenecking, e.g. mostly on higher res like for 4k gaming
Tthe GPU could perhaps only go up to 70fps for the same game but the proc A can support 100fps. You will get only then 70fps.
Now, we replace this proc A with proc B.
Proc B can support let say up to 130 fps. if the GPU is the same and strong enough, you can get 130fps this time on 1080p and only still 70fps on 4k.
Now..if you game only on 60hz a.k.a. max 60 fps, you get 60 fps all the time on both proc A and B.

Okay! yes! that explains it clearly, thanks for that. The frames scale negatively with the refresh rate- 60, 144, 4K, etc. Therefore, for more fps, on higher resolutions, we need more "horsepower" from both GPU and CPU, else, one would bottleneck the other. Alright, thanks bro!