[SOLVED] Which is better i5 9400 or i5 8400

[Reiv_4]

Hi, title says it all basically, im planning to build my dad a pc, its not really for gaming more like work stuff and some editing. i was also planning to get him a i5 9600k but im not sure if this motherboard will be advisable for it, https://www.cclonline.com/product/2...51-B365-Chipset-MicroATX-Motherboard/MBD2631/

if i do go for the 9600k should i look for a higher up motherboard or do you think that will be fine?

 

[Roland Of Gilead]

Hey there,

TBH, in terms of performance, there is about 5% separating them. This is down to an uplift in IPC going from one gen to the next. What that really translates to in gaming for example is approx 1-2fps difference.

They are practically the same CPU. In your build case, Id' suggest going with whichever one is the cheapest. The 9400 offers nothing over the 8400 in reality. And any difference will not be noticeable to you or your dad.

 

[TechyInAZ]

Any reason why you can't go AMD? AMD smokes Intel in the editing market.

I'd advise going the 9600 or 9500 for that B365 board, unless that 9600K is really cheap. As you cannot overclock on the B365 chipset, so the k sku will be somewhat pointless.

 

[Barty1884]

A "B" series motherboard won't let you overclock a 9600K, so it's a bit of a waste.

A 9400 is essentially an 8400 with some maturity improvements, that's about it.
If buying either new today, the 9400 is a better buy from a performance standpoint, but price should be considered.

The 9400F is a worthwhile consideration too, if pairing with a discrete GPU - as the "F" variants forgo an iGP. Depending on pricing though, if the 9400 is only $5-$10 more than a 9400F, then having the iGP is a good troubleshooting option to have.

Sticking with Intel, consider an i5-10400 too. 6c/12t and could be paired with a pretty inexpected H410, H470 or B460 motherboard.

Then you have the AMD front... Is there any reason you're sticking with Intel?

 

[Reiv_4]

Any reason why you can't go AMD? AMD smokes Intel in the editing market.

I'd advise going the 9600 or 9500 for that B365 board, unless that 9600K is really cheap. As you cannot overclock on the B365 chipset, so the k sku will be somewhat pointless.

A "B" series motherboard won't let you overclock a 9600K, so it's a bit of a waste.

A 9400 is essentially an 8400 with some maturity improvements, that's about it.
If buying either new today, the 9400 is a better buy from a performance standpoint, but price should be considered.

The 9400F is a worthwhile consideration too, if pairing with a discrete GPU - as the "F" variants forgo an iGP. Depending on pricing though, if the 9400 is only $5-$10 more than a 9400F, then having the iGP is a good troubleshooting option to have.

Sticking with Intel, consider an i5-10400 too. 6c/12t and could be paired with a pretty inexpected H410, H470 or B460 motherboard.

Then you have the AMD front... Is there any reason you're sticking with Intel?

i was thinking of going AMD but i was also looking for ones with integrated graphics with decent cores and threads and i couldnt really find one and the we kinda have a budget around 400-500, i dont plan on getting him a gpu because he only does light gaming. i was also considering the 9600k and mobo complication aswell that you both have mentioned which is true, it would be a waste not to overclock it, unless ofcourse we bump up the price a bit and look for a more suitable motherboard

 

[madmatt30]

Ryzen 3400g over either of these if you're running without a GPU for work use.

If you are running a seperate GPU then a ryzen 1600af for less than £100 is more than enough.

Both these will save you a ton of money with plenty of performance imo.
Also on a way more upgradeable/more current platform.

 

[Reiv_4]

Oh and i wanted to stick to Intel because he prefers it more but he doesnt mind if we switched to AMD

 

[Reiv_4]

Ryzen 3400g over either of these if you're running without a GPU for work use.

If you are running a seperate GPU then a ryzen 1600af for less than £100 is more than enough.

Both these will save you a ton of money with plenty of performance imo.
Also on a way more upgradeable/more current platform.

i was considering a 3400g too at one point but i kinda wanted to get him more cores and threads on the cpu aswell but i'll need to run through it again

 

[Barty1884]

i was considering a 3400g too at one point but i kinda wanted to get him more cores and threads on the cpu aswell but i'll need to run through it again

Ok, let's back up a bit.... What exactly is he looking for the system to do?

like work stuff and some editing

i dont plan on getting him a gpu because he only does light gaming.

"Some" editing? As in hobby-level? If so, 4c/8t should be more than sufficient - and the integrated Vega11 of the 3400G should be a better route to go for 'light gaming'. In most cases, the iGP on Intel is pretty useless beyond being a (fairly) basic display out.

we kinda have a budget around 400-500

400-500 what?

PCPartPicker Part List

CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 3400G 3.7 GHz Quad-Core Processor ($149.99 @ Best Buy)
Motherboard: MSI B450 TOMAHAWK MAX ATX AM4 Motherboard ($114.99 @ Best Buy)
Memory: G.Skill Aegis 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3200 CL16 Memory ($62.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $327.97
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2020-06-15 13:19 EDT-0400

 

[Reiv_4]

Ok, let's back up a bit.... What exactly is he looking for the system to do?





"Some" editing? As in hobby-level? If so, 4c/8t should be more than sufficient - and the integrated Vega11 of the 3400G should be a better route to go for 'light gaming'. In most cases, the iGP on Intel is pretty useless beyond being a (fairly) basic display out.



400-500 what?

PCPartPicker Part List

CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 3400G 3.7 GHz Quad-Core Processor ($149.99 @ Best Buy)
Motherboard: MSI B450 TOMAHAWK MAX ATX AM4 Motherboard ($114.99 @ Best Buy)
Memory: G.Skill Aegis 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3200 CL16 Memory ($62.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $327.97
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2020-06-15 13:19 EDT-0400

hmm sorry if my answers were vague but, i'll have another go aswell with the 3400g but thank you

 

[Roland Of Gilead]

Hi, title says it all basically, im planning to build my dad a pc, its not really for gaming more like work stuff and some editing. i was also planning to get him a i5 9600k but im not sure if this motherboard will be advisable for it, https://www.cclonline.com/product/2...51-B365-Chipset-MicroATX-Motherboard/MBD2631/

if i do go for the 9600k should i look for a higher up motherboard or do you think that will be fine?

Eh, your post has changed somewhat since my first reply. Ill step back and leave the others to answer.

 

[punkncat]

A lot of folks will use a K CPU in a locked mobo simply for the uplift in clock from the non K skew. Even if you don't overclock it, comes out of the box with more oomph.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Intel, not that I would particularly be drawn to anything over the 8/9th gen at this particular moment. They are reliable as they have about a million refresh cycles on this process, and their RAM compatibility and such isn't such a bother...and don't even get started with possible BIOS revisions and such issues that AMD also has on board.

AMD is offering a WHOLE lot of kick for dollar right now, and it's core counts are making a really provocative reason to consider them. My personal rig and work machine is AMD. The work specific office machine I built was an i5 8400 both for cost and reliability purposes. I have had only a very basic couple of issues right after build related to boot order and XMP and essentially nothing since directly related to hardware.

 

[Barty1884]

A lot of folks will use a K CPU in a locked mobo simply for the uplift in clock from the non K skew. Even if you don't overclock it, comes out of the box with more oomph.

It's certainly a consideration - but typically those users are comparing the K and non-K variants of the CPU (so 9600 / 9600K in this case, not 9400/8400 vs 9600K). While there's more potential 'oomph' out of the box, it also necessitates buying a cooler vs a non-K chip. By the time you add $20-$30 to a CPU that already costs maybe $20-$50 more than it's non-K counterpart, it starts to lose viability - in some cases, you'd be into locked i7 $ territory.


Agreed on the AMD front, there is more potential hassle. It's certainly improved a lot, and stability issues are much, much less common - but from a 'rock solid' stability standpoint, Intel should still have the edge. "Value" would be the tradeoff though - especially for light gaming. The iGP of any Intel chip is going to be demolished by the iGP on AMD's APUs.

 

[TechyInAZ]

From a personal standpoint, I would totally go Ryzen 5 3600 with a GT 1030 or something cheap like that. A 3400G is good too but if you can afford a core i5 9400 or 9600/9600K that's going to be better anyways.

The 3400G is pretty overpriced in my opinion, you get a whole lot more bang out of your buck with the 3600 + GT 1030 combo which should be around $275 total. That's just a few more dollars than a 9600K.

 

[punkncat]

It's certainly a consideration - but typically those users are comparing the K and non-K variants of the CPU (so 9600 / 9600K in this case, not 9400/8400 vs 9600K). While there's more potential 'oomph' out of the box, it also necessitates buying a cooler vs a non-K chip. By the time you add $20-$30 to a CPU that already costs maybe $20-$50 more than it's non-K counterpart, it starts to lose viability - in some cases, you'd be into locked i7 $ territory.


Agreed on the AMD front, there is more potential hassle. It's certainly improved a lot, and stability issues are much, much less common - but from a 'rock solid' stability standpoint, Intel should still have the edge. "Value" would be the tradeoff though - especially for light gaming. The iGP of any Intel chip is going to be demolished by the iGP on AMD's APUs.

I am not sure that I feel ANY purchaser of a core CPU from Intel wouldn't benefit from even a very modest cooler upgrade. Their stock coolers are lost in the early 2000's, lol. AMD has taken task to Intel in this dept.

I really feel like Intel has yet to REALLY reply insomuch as what AMD did to their stack in 2017 and in particular how it outmoded the pricing structure of the i7. Even more surprising in that aspect is how they continue to refuse to match or even attempt to meet AMD's business model of undercutting even themselves when the new generation comes out. We could go on to discuss the innovation and such but gets WAY off the subject at hand.

IMO the only Intel chips I try to consider are i5 for pricing to performance and in truth MUCH of that is based in what is quickly becoming an outdated train of though not based in recent performance history. It is sad to say that AMD Ryzen 3 is offering as much performance as what an only 3 generations old and still $300 i7 costs.

 

[Reiv_4]

From a personal standpoint, I would totally go Ryzen 5 3600 with a GT 1030 or something cheap like that. A 3400G is good too but if you can afford a core i5 9400 or 9600/9600K that's going to be better anyways.

The 3400G is pretty overpriced in my opinion, you get a whole lot more bang out of your buck with the 3600 + GT 1030 combo which should be around $275 total. That's just a few more dollars than a 9600K.

Do you think a 2600 would be good too as a bang for buck or will i get more bang for buck on a 3600

 

[madmatt30]

Do you think a 2600 would be good too as a bang for buck or will i get more bang for buck on a 3600

You're falling into that age old trap whereby you think you need more performance than you actually do.

This is for your dad's desktop and editing pc etc?

A 3400g is absolutely more than enough imo.

Are the 2600 and 3600 better??

Yes of course they are, that's why they cost more. They'll also need a GPU though and for your dad's uses he won't notice a blind bit of difference in real world use.