Ryzen 5 1600 or i5 8600k gaming

[nikola_kocha]

I know cofeelake is faster single/quad/six core but for future games(in 3-4-5 years) wouldnt ryzen 12 threads give it more smoothness, by that i mean less average fps but more minimum fps even in todays games ?

 

[CooLWoLF]

I have a hard time not recommending the Ryzen 1600; the price/performance is king IMO.

Coming from someone with a Ryzen 1700x, I have nothing but good things to say about the Ryzen line at this time.

 

[aquielisunari]

I know cofeelake is faster single/quad/six core but for future games(in 3-4-5 years) wouldnt ryzen 12 threads give it more smoothness, by that i mean less average fps but more minimum fps even in todays games ?

You want the power of Intel and not the efficiency of the 1600. The extra cores in the aforementioned Ryzen CPU's are GREAT for productivity tasks like CAD, photo and video editing, music production etc..

BUT with pricing in mind I'd choose the 8400.

 

[nikola_kocha]

I know cofeelake is faster single/quad/six core but for future games(in 3-4-5 years) wouldnt ryzen 12 threads give it more smoothness, by that i mean less average fps but more minimum fps even in todays games ?

You want the power of Intel and not the efficiency of the 1600. The extra cores in the aforementioned Ryzen CPU's are GREAT for productivity tasks like CAD, photo and video editing, music production etc..

BUT with pricing in mind I'd choose the 8400.

 

[aquielisunari]

I know cofeelake is faster single/quad/six core but for future games(in 3-4-5 years) wouldnt ryzen 12 threads give it more smoothness, by that i mean less average fps but more minimum fps even in todays games ?

You want the power of Intel and not the efficiency of the 1600. The extra threads in the aforementioned Ryzen CPU's are GREAT for productivity tasks like CAD, photo and video editing, music production etc..

BUT with pricing in mind I'd choose the 8400.

 

[nikola_kocha]

I'm talking about minimum/smoothness over maximum/average fps in that manner ryzen is more future proof ( games that are scheduled to come in 2019/2020 there is possibility that i5 cofeelake can have stutters and frame drops that ryzen will not have ) ?

 

[burdenbound]

I'm talking about minimum/smoothness over maximum/average fps in that manner ryzen is more future proof ( games that are scheduled to come in 2019/2020 there is possibility that i5 cofeelake can have stutters and frame drops that ryzen will not have ) ?

No one can speak with any accuracy that games in the next few years will utilize more cores better.

This has been a prediction for quite some time now and it has yet to come true. Intel's faster single core performance has let it come out on top for gaming in the past and will probably continue into the future, especially due to games better utilizing the GPU and becoming less reliant on the CPU.

For pure gaming I would go with intel. And to your point about having higher lows, intel definitely pulls ahead in that category.

 

[nikola_kocha]

I'm talking about minimum/smoothness over maximum/average fps in that manner ryzen is more future proof ( games that are scheduled to come in 2019/2020 there is possibility that i5 cofeelake can have stutters and frame drops that ryzen will not have ) ?

No one can speak with any accuracy that games in the next few years will utilize more cores better.

This has been a prediction for quite some time now and it has yet to come true. Intel's faster single core performance has let it come out on top for gaming in the past and will probably continue into the future, especially due to games better utilizing the GPU and becoming less reliant on the CPU.

For pure gaming I would go with intel. And to your point about having higher lows, intel definitely pulls ahead in that category.

 

[sizzling]

Currently the 8600k wins for gaming in all benchmarks I look at, this is across minimum, average and maximum fps. It's impossible to predict what will happen in the future, 5-6 years ago people claimed the old FX6xxx & FX8xxx would take the lead over Intel due to higher core counts but that never happened. In the last couple of years we are only just seeing games use more than 4 threads.

In 4-5 years I expect current generation Ryzen cores will look very weak, just like FX look today. Although games are starting to use more cores there is no indication that single core performance is becoming less important, quite the opposite that not only do games want more core they need to be faster too.

Of course this massively depends on target fps. If only aiming for 60fps then in todays games both cpu will perform the same but if going for maximum fps possible then Intel is the clear winner in my opinion.

 

[nikola_kocha]

"For pure gaming I would go with intel. And to your point about having higher lows, intel definitely pulls ahead in that category." I watched several youtube comparisons where minimum fps for ryzen is better than intel ( processors from same class ) . Do you have any accurate info on that topic ? Btw i agree that 8400 is great gaming cpu, but in price per performance i would wait beginning of 2018 for some low priced mobos since 8400 doesn't overclock

 

[burdenbound]

"For pure gaming I would go with intel. And to your point about having higher lows, intel definitely pulls ahead in that category." I watched several youtube comparisons where minimum fps for ryzen is better than intel ( processors from same class ) . Do you have any accurate info on that topic ? Btw i agree that 8400 is great gaming cpu, but in price per performance i would wait beginning of 2018 for some low priced mobos since 8400 doesn't overclock

Going off of Tom's review of the 8600k it pretty handedly beats ryzen in games and applications like autocad and cinebench.

EDIT: Sorry didn't post the link http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-coffee-lake-core-i5-8600k-cpu,5264.html

 

[nikola_kocha]

Currently the 8600k wins for gaming in all benchmarks I look at, this is across minimum, average and maximum fps. It's impossible to predict what will happen in the future, 5-6 years ago people claimed the old FX6xxx & FX8xxx would take the lead over Intel due to higher core counts but that never happened. In the last couple of years we are only just seeing games use more than 4 threads.

In 4-5 years I expect current generation Ryzen cores will look very weak, just like FX look today. Although games are starting to use more cores there is no indication that single core performance is becoming less important, quite the opposite that not only do games want more core they need to be faster too.

Of course this massively depends on target fps. If only aiming for 60fps then in todays games both cpu will perform the same but if going for maximum fps possible then Intel is the clear winner in my opinion.

"For pure gaming I would go with intel. And to your point about having higher lows, intel definitely pulls ahead in that category." I watched several youtube comparisons where minimum fps for ryzen is better than intel ( processors from same class ) . Do you have any accurate info on that topic ? Btw i agree that 8400 is great gaming cpu, but in price per performance i would wait beginning of 2018 for some low priced mobos since 8400 doesn't overclock

Going off of Tom's review of the 8600k it pretty handedly beats ryzen in games and applications like autocad and cinebench.

EDIT: Sorry didn't post the link http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-coffee-lake-core-i5-8600k-cpu,5264.html

 

[nikola_kocha]

Ryzen OC on 3.9 GHz for 60 fps ( cause if i want 120 without stutters i need i7 8*** and that's 150 $ more plus 200-300$ for monitor that will backup all those frames and if u get all that u want better mobo and there goes 500-600$ more for pc ) is more future proof than i5 coffee lake, or at least at same level (10% +/- on different games ). This is without looking at price for coffee lake that are 100-150$ ( 50% ) more. Am i correct ?

 

[dudeman509]

If you are aiming for 120+ FPS, go with a high-clocked Intel like the 8600k. Cut and dry, that's what you want/need.

If you're aiming for productivity, 60 FPS gaming, or 1440-4k resolution gaming, the current Ryzen lineup will handle it just fine.

 

[nikola_kocha]

Just for the record, https://youtu.be/9f5JQrnOwTE?t=516 this is proof of what i was talking bout, those little stutters on intel can make difference in first person shooter or some instant reaction games where every milisecond counts

 

[burdenbound]

Just for the record, https://youtu.be/9f5JQrnOwTE?t=516 this is proof of what i was talking bout, those little stutters on intel can make difference in first person shooter or some instant reaction games where every milisecond counts

That was a really good review, but I interpreted it as Crysis being the only game that exhibited that behavior, and not big enough to overcome the fps lead.

 

[clintonmeier]

A better gpu will beat having a better cpu every time. Cpu gives like 5% gaming performance each gen if lucky while gpu's increase over 25% gaming performance with each gen.

People are over praising and counting on these new cpu's so much while ignoring the fact that the speeds aren't minded blowing to prior cpu's and being ignorant to except the reason these are much faster and better in real life is because of higher core counts in addition to better and more optimized architectures paired with ssd tech and high speed ram. The faster ram properly configured if compadible will be much more noticable improvement than the little gap which exists between the 2 brands currently combined with Intel losing a bit of performance after patching meltdown and spectre. Personally other than launching time of a couple of multi process apps like vpn and steam taking up to 10 seconds to load up i honestly can't see how my computer can possibly get any faster as I'm never waiting on anything and programs don't lock up so for those who can't bottleneck them and even when my cpu is 100% running blend test i can still watch kodi, surf the net, play pubg, run benchmarkers or whatever 1 can do with a computer and it's still as quick as my fx4300 without load with a 7200rpm hdd.

Benched while running prime 95 blend test 100% cpu load 100% the time to demo my point.

www.userbenchmark.com/userrun/6889649

Now here's the same configuration benched with 0 load.
www.userbenchmarks.com/userrun/6887636

M.2 drive does 2300 read 1200 write but don't display on this benchmarker.