Intel Core i7-8700K, i5-8600K, 8400 versus AMD Ryzen 7 1800X, R5 1600X, 1500X
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 вер 2024
- Check prices now:
Intel Core i3-8350K - amzn.to/2y117ry
Intel Core i3-8100 - amzn.to/2xiLf52
Intel Core i7-8700K - amzn.to/2ypVzZ2
Intel Core i5-8600K - amzn.to/2yqkATZ
Intel Core i5-8400 - amzn.to/2fSvv16
Intel Z370 Motherboards - amzn.to/2hNiMxg
AMD Ryzen 3 1200 - amzn.to/2u11Xzf
AMD Ryzen 3 1300X - amzn.to/2vM8srF
AMD B350 Motherboards - amzn.to/2u3kJtc
AMD X370 Motherboards - amzn.to/2u2D5ZE
AMD Ryzen 5 1400 - amzn.to/2u3yg3X
AMD Ryzen 5 1500X - amzn.to/2u3uur3
AMD Ryzen 5 1600 - amzn.to/2t9Zanz
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X - amzn.to/2uwDfKX
AMD Ryzen 7 1700 - amzn.to/2t9DMyT
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X - amzn.to/2uxakq5
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X - amzn.to/2u3zzzy
Support us on Patreon
/ hardwareunboxed
Read the written review on TechSpot:
www.techspot.c...
8th Gen Intel Core vs. AMD Ryzen [720p, 1080p, 1440p, 9 Games Tested]
Intel Core i7-8700K, i5-8600K, 8400 versus AMD Ryzen 7 1800X, R5 1600X, 1500X
Disclaimer: Any pricing information shown or mentioned in this video was accurate at the time of video production, and may have since changed
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. We may also earn a commission on some sales made through other store links
FOLLOW US IN THESE PLACES FOR UPDATES
Twitter - / hardwareunboxed
Facebook - / hardwareunboxed
Instagram - / hardwareunboxed
Music By: / lakeyinspired
*AMD Bulldozer/Piledriver was powered by 8 Hamsters in 4 Wheels!* LMFAO! Quote of the DECADE! That is my new favorite analogy for how the AMD FX series CPUs work! Because they are JUST 4 cores really, with two separate ALUs, but a shared FPU and cache access!
Actually 6xxx series are 3 cores.
Nope, each Piledriver module actually have *two* FPUs, it's just that those FPUs can't do double precission calculations on their own and you have to use both at the same time to do one of those, and both of them are shared between the two cores.
Meaning that you can have a situation where one core uses both and the other sits waiting on resources or where they use one each.
Also, the front end of Piledriver bottlenecks the CPU so unless you have a loop going on in the background on one of the two cores the two cores on the module only does 3 integer instructions pr clock cycle instead of the 4 that there's actually resources for (two pr core).
Something that's kind of interesting is that a Piledriver module actually have a peak potential throughput that's the same as a Skylake core.
The difference is just that for Piledriver that's corner case scenarios that pretty much never happens while for Skylake it's something that can be done repeatedly, and the available resources for a single thread in Skylake when the other isn't in use is about the same as the sustained performance of the whole Piledriver module when both threads are choke full...
That said, if programming threads had actually shaked out as AMD expected when they started work on the Buldozer arcitecture then Piledriver would actually have been a pretty good CPU and in that case it would have beaten other arcitectures from that time.
That said, AMD made a bet on the future and lost, while Intel won.
Piledriver can still be a good CPU for the money for some workloads.
But you can certainly see its age now.
The *real* issue with Piledriver and Bulldozer isn't really the shared resources but the absolutely horrible cache.
Also, Bulldozer was quite frankly rushed to the market, Piledriver is what they *should* have delivered from the start.
Kaveri and Carrizo actually improved AMDs pr core IPC quite a bit even if the total module IPC throughput didn't change that much and the lower clock speed still left them weaker then a 4 core FX chip.
Also, Carrizo had no L3 cache so despite actually being up to 25% faster then Kaveri in some workloads in terms of IPC it totally tanked in games, and even with the IPC improvements it didn't really cache up with Intel on the CPU side so Kaveri and Richland are probably better actual APUs...
That said Carrizo and Kaveri supports HSA, so for applications that's specifically written to utilize that they're actually decent.
Still, Zen based APUs will be a relief when they come out.
They can potentially *really* make a difference.
It's not true that it's only 4 cores. There is no set definition of a CPU core that eliminates Piledriver cores based on a CMT architecture from being "cores". Sure, they do share some resources with each other within those four modules but you should think of it as hardware-based hyperthreading. It was a good design for server environments as it allowed huge multithreaded performance at a low cost but for gaming and other regular tasks it was not good-enough.
Excavator may have benefited from L3, we'll never know, however having half the L2 of Steamroller definitely hurt it. It's strange that one of the benchmarking obsessions back then, Pi testing, is where Excavator truly performs.
HSA can bring stupidly high performance gains, the problem is it requires coding for it.
Intel fanboys all around. I know its very hard to justify Intel chip prices so you have to attack cheap alternatives. Ignorant. Hardware Unboxed are payed salesman,payed by Intel/Nvidia, so their point is much better then yours
Insane amount of benchmark data, nice work! Keen to see the OC results too.
The 1800x is over 200$ of wasted money. The 1700 is the real deal.
$290 8C/16T OC to 3.7 on the stock cooler on a $90 B350 board with some 3200 RAM?
~$500 for a high tier computer brain, heart, and lungs has been a good deal for like 30 years
I believe he used X processors because of the higher stock clocks.
I bought a R7 1700x at $299
Have one. Totally agree with ya!
Not really a substantial addition to the conversation, but I managed 3.8 on the stock heatsink on my 1700 :D
The bars that you used to separate the processors is brilliant.
Please used them in the future as well.
Will do, I've done this quite a bit in the past for similar tests.
Yeah, Steve's done this before, and it does make it a LOT easier to see which hardware is where. I hate when I have to spend a bunch of time pausing constantly. The separation is great. Just wanted to toss that out there. ;)
I was gonna say the same thing. It's much easier to parse the data with the barred sections than it is to have a bunch of different colored bars. Good stuff!
if only you put the real price of the 1800x and not it's msrp...misleading people that 1800x is worse than it actually is
rsrkulj - Prices change though. If he did that, there'd be somebody else, not unlike yourself, watching this video a month from now, complaining that that price was wrong, because it had changed again, on Amazon...
Thanks Steve,you still are the benchmarking king
And he still has too few subscribers to honour this work. He should get more exposure. I love his benchmarking videos. They're so complete. You get basically every option available.
He argues that 720p makes sense because graphics cards will improve and you'll become more cpu bound... Except as graphics cards improve games will as well and support more cores resulting higher performance from ryzen. So that argument he makes is fairly bunk
*Yes, excellent job as usual Steve.* The cost metrics are included that I don't see other people covering.
Last time I was this early Intel had no competition.
MoonZ 😂😂
LOL nice
Yes Intel is king in gaming
at 720p LOL
Raivo K Intel has been the king of gaming since pretty much forever
You obviously don't remember the Athlon vs Pentium era then. Intel was pretty bad back then. Every gamer who knew anything about anything was running Athlon not Pentium back then. Only when Intel introduced the first Core series processors (Conroe) did thay became the de facto choice for a long time.
Steve benches 650, damn bro
Do you even lift?
Hose2wAcKiEr he did say hes been LIGHT on content this week
Twitter squad checking in! Videos this comprehensive are why you're one of the best hands down, Steve!
now remember, gals and guys, always watch an ad for this guy, for he is the -
benchmarKING!
come on guys, he deserves it...
The way I see it, right now the R5 1600 is the best value option for most gamers. Cheap B350 boards and overclocking to 1600X levels on the stock cooler sorta seals the deal.
You mean the 1600, the 1600X doesn't come with a stock cooler.
I meant that you could easily overclock a 1600 to 3.8ghz on a stock cooler. 🙂
Ah right, misread your comment.
The 1600 has been the best price/performance CPU since it came out and that's not changing soon. I am still amazed how little credit it got, considering it was a hexa-core CPU for sub-250$.... At a time where hexa-cores were still exclusively an HEDT thing....
I bet you the 1600 still loses to the 8400 while overclocked, Intel's Ring Bus architecture is just straight up better in gaming, Ryzen has the same problem as Sky Lake X, at least Ryzen isn't so expensive though.
*Me : guess im Re-considering the Ryzen 1600 and going for Intel's I5.*
*INTEL : OH YEAH 😎*
*Me : Can't Find any in stock.. Guess I'm waiting for Ryzen +*
*INTEL : But,,, WAIT !! 😵*
Edited.
the ryzen 1600 is such a new cpu you shouldnt be swapping out for anything for at least a few generations to maximize your gains and not burn money
he probably was looking at starting a build with a 1600 and now is thinking about going 8400 or just to wait for ryzen +. Maybe ? hard to 100% tell if that what he means. they seem to be up for pre order but slightly over there msrp www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1356629-REG/intel_bx80684i58400_core_i5_8400_2_8_ghz.html/?c3ch=CSE&c3nid=98
that would make more sense
I don't know why nobody show results of games as they should be, we all have same resolution and it is take in account, but monitors have max refresh rate, and results not show how good they are for it. If you have 50/60Hz monitor there is not point in buying most powerful CPU/GPU because you not see it.
And about buying new CPU, if it possible I will wait for march 2018 Ryzen+ should be around that time, and they will shake market a little. (I not say to buy it, but wait because it should change market and prices)
By the time zen+ came out, cannon lake will be around the corner.. My point is, there's no point in waiting for next gen part, just buy what is best right now..
Early for the first time in awhile. Once again Steve bringing us benchmarks that matter. 720 through 1440 to show how much the cpus can factor in during the cpu limited situations, as well as gpu limited situations. Good on ya man. Well done!
I would have wished a 4K also in there. Just so we have the whole range :P But, I'm not the target audience anyway for this video. Not gaming that much plus I would never buy anything I can't overclock ever since the MBO jumper OC days of original Pentiums (and AMD 5x86) hehe
Borna Prpic 4k would show basically the same results as 1440p. Gpu limited situation. Even an FX "8 core" chip which is basically a phenom ii x8+ 15% lol. Wont have too many issues keeping up at 4k.
AMD's commitment to am4 is still worth considering.
The two best reviewers in the industry. Steve from hardware unboxed and Steve from gamernexus
Otherwise known as short hair Steve and long hair Steve.
the real bargain here is the ryzen 5 1600!
comes with an included cooler that overclocks till 3.8ghz, matching almost exactly the performance of the much more expensive ryzen 5 1600x
i'm fairly sure that 1600 is a better deal than the 8400, especially combining the costs of the z370 boards.
i'm really wondering if intel will release any overclockable boards for under 100€ for coffee lake, if that happens the 8600k would be an absolute monster
look out your gonna be labeled a "Fan Boy" ha.. So the ryzen 1600 is in stock, performs over 100fps in 1080p high settings in most games and is about $100 cheaper with MOBO.. why would you even consider intel unless you had a 144hz screen and at that you need to turn the setting to high/medium making AMD and option anyway.
12:58
just saying
so the weakest cpu is clearly the best right? lmao
STEVE I love that you included 720 ress also! For us lunatics playing on 240hz monitors, this information is actually really helpful! Keep up the good work :D
Shiat, still rockin' my i5 2500K @ 4.4GHz in games! 2017, and STILL no complaints! Long live Sandy Bridge!
*My favorite benchmark channel and always will be
Please keep testing on 720p! I hate watching CPU comparisons that are bottlenecked by the GPU.
Yes, this. Everytime I look to see how my cpu performs(x5650) its always paired with a mediocre gpu OR a decent gpu like the 1060 but they crank the graphics up so that the gpu is the bottleneck anyway. I guess it's nice to know that my cpu isn't going to bottleneck nice gpus, but I'd like to know where the ceiling on the cpu is.
At this point I might go lower, watching all the fan boys write a 10,000 word thesis on why 720p benchmarking is flawed has been humorous. I feel like 480p is the next stop from here ;)
ok I will bite. what is the purpose of the 720p Steve? which user audience does it cater for?
+Dave Hartnell It's part of testing. Tests aren't supposed to cater to a specific group since everyone has such vastly different setups. Testing at 720p is part of testing the CPU.
Most games get a GPU bottleneck before they stress the CPU fully. By dropping to 720p, you can find where the limit on a CPU is since the GPU isn't the limiting factor.
The point of testing at 720p is to see the limit of the CPU which makes it very clear which is better for gaming and how much better.
Fantastic video Steve! I love the Cost per Frame graph as it really helps people with a budget. No doubt a lot of effort has been put in for this vid.
Steve, we should name you "Outstanding Steve" because the work you put in for these kind of benchmark videos is just OUT-FREAKING-STANDING!!!
This is indeed the King of ALL benchmark channels in UA-cam HANDS DOWN!
Cheers :) Thanks mate!
Tremendous work, my favorite channel (y)
You'd deserve over a million subs by now
this is the video that i have been looking for since 8th gen got launched , cannot thank you enough steve , well done
Still would not pick the 8400 over the 1600 because: No hyper-threading, no overclocking and pretty low base frequency let alone the lack of suitable mobos which kills the value proposition. It is only better for gaming but the 1600 OCed is still good enough even for 144Hz gaming. And you get the benefit of superior productivity performance. Ryzen is just so much more versatile and with a long upgrade path. With that being said it is good that Intel tried to put at least one good VFM chip in their lineup.
Thanks for making groups and lines for each generations of CPU's in your test.
Thank you for the nonbiased, perfectly equal review. People like you are a rarity nowadays.
Such a nice review with so much work put in. So looking forward to the overclocked results.
240p benchmarks plz
Now that's what I call future-proofing!
Do you even know what the 720p benchmarks are for?
Yes. I do. Do you know that low resolution CPU testing as future predictor of game performance is a theory that is not universally accepted? That's why I say that the DX12 results could be more predictive of what future game software could actually run like. But the truth is that no one really knows how these chips will interact with future game software. Steve is making his best guess with the tools available to him now. He's probably right but no one knows for sure. .
wtf? It shows how good a CPU is. If we had a GPU now that was at least 100% faster than the current fastest card - 1080 ti , we'd be seeing similar results at 1080p resolution.
But no one games at that res! ;)
Awesome video, Steve! I like the cost/fps graphs, they really help put things in perspective.
This is truly the best benchmarks-comparisons channel! Thanks for your time spent!
Looking forward to the 1700x OC video, thanks for making them.
I would still go with AMD, intel just isn't deserving of our money, we should stop funding a company that charges a premium for overclocking and comes up with all kinds of anti consumer bs
besides, you're locked on a 6c12t cpu on intel, while am4 gives you 8c16t down the road, which might crush a 6c even if it has half the ipc, just like newer games would run badly on 4ghz duo vs good on 2ghz quads
You are one delusional AMD fangay. Also, cores aren't everything. Grow up.
This is what you are saying right now: Don't buy the good CPUs, they are anti-consumer! Buy the shitty ones. They care about you! Waste your money for the shitty ones!
TitanXPXXPXXP confirmed! :) (Good video, thanks for the hard work, shall look forward to the follow up)
I haven't watched the video yet but I hope you do some benchmarks with the Creator's update I'm getting more frames in most games with my R5 1600 ..
All benchmarks are done with the latest version/build of Windows 10. I noticed no difference TBH.
Recently updated to the latest Fall creators update, I like it a lot. The UI seems even more so responsive. 👍
Hardware Unboxed upgrade my PC please 😄
AJames845 yeah it's the best Windows update in a while
Same here with R7, I gain some FPS even with GPU maxed out.
Great video i love how in depth you get with these cpu,s .
8400 is good. However by the time Cheap mobo's are out you may as well get Zen+ *shrug*
Arima Reaper Yup, I would get the i5 8400 if it was actually in stock and I didn't have to buy a $130 Z370 board. Better deal to buy Ryzen 1600 and cheap $50 B350
John Connor $50 b350? Might be a crappy quality board, lacks features, and the VRMs might explode trying to OC.
+Infinite64 same can be said about 130$ Z370 boards :D
I can go to my local MicroCenter right now and get a Ryzen 1600 + Gigabyte Gaming 3 board for $250. That makes the board $50 and it is one of the most well respected boards out there.
+John Connor
most people do NOT have access to micro center.
I needed this video, you guys are the best!!! Txs for all the effort and good work, as always.
Conclusion, if you have 60hz monitor as 99% of people, buy ryzen 1400 and enjoy until 2022
even 120hz in most cases high settings
Haha pretty much. Human nature is to seek the best of the best and very few want to settle for 'ok' performance. I'm still rocking an i7 2600K lol
What a better way to start your free morning, if not with some fresh good benchmark from our one and only Steve!
Ryzen prices needs revision now. The 8400 is the new value cpu for gaming. However the 1600 is still the better overall cpu in my opinion. It has more threads for productivity workloads.
In terms of how the cpu ages. It depends on what API developers use. I have seen Vulkan max out ryzen cpu to almost 100% and delivering mind blowing benefits over dx11 in ashes of the singularity. The problem is Nvidia is no good at Vulkan so they will always push dx11 and encourage developers to skip dx12 and Vulkan. It's up to Microsoft push dx12 to the masses and encourage developers to use dx12 properly.
Problem with the 8400 for me is that it doesn't seem that future proof, just seems like the sweet spot right now. I don't want to buy a locked 6 thread CPU if I'm going to keep my CPU for 6+ years. At ;east with Ryzen since the motherboard will be supported going forward I can just swap out CPUs for not that much of a loss. Tbh though all this just makes me wants to get a 8700k set it up all core turbo and just let it ride for the next 6 years without even thinking about upgrading.
Daaaaamnnn bro! Now i remember why i suscribed to your channel.
That´s a proper comparison and well explained with every angle covered.
YOU NAILED IT!
waiting for the OC version of this.
*Moral of the video:* Buy a Ryzen CPU with B350 mobo for ~10% worse gaming performance and get Pinnacle Ridge CPU's or Matisse (Zen 2) CPU's in 2018 and 2019 which will crush Coffee Lake and Ice Lake respectively because they will all run on AM4 so no need for new mobo's every year saving around $250. Nice deal to me!
the money savings is true but rember by the time zen 2 comes out we will have cannon lake so will it matter if they beat coffee lake from 2017? if intel goes up to 8 cores since they are already beating or matching amd with 6/12 vs 8/16. I do hope amd pulls threw as Id love to get an amd build when i need an upgrade in 2019 as i am tiered of intels garbage but i will just get which ever cpu is best come 2019 or 2020 when i decide to upgrade
I hope you are right and my CH6 will be supported with next gen Ryzen CPU's and that those CPU's will be worth upgrading to. I do wonder though, that just because AMD will stick to AM4 socket, I recall hearing them say they will use the current chipsets. Intel has been using same socket for years but new chipset with every new gen CPU. It is something that has been on my mind but I do hope that even if they introduce a new chipset with the next CPU's, the current ones are still supported and not limited in any significant way. Time will tell, competition is great and I look forward to Intel and AMD truly battling for our dollars. My wallet has no bias... mostly just dust and the wife's fingerprints. ;)
I don't think amd CPU will ever beat Intel CPU in gaming....
Same motherboard dosent matter as the CPU should be used for years and no need to upgrade at all......
Teemo4Life depends how far back you look.
Devon Yerbury From like 5 years ago...modern era 2nd gen intel
Thanks for taking the time to push quality content and not quantity content. I find myself waking up daily checking my Samsung Galaxy S8+ to see if there's a UA-cam notification for a new Hardware Unboxed video. You've inspired me to get back into technology and specifically computers and the building of them and at the same time, blog about it. Thanks for everything you do Steve, it's greatly appreciated! ;-)
1080ti version please??
Gavin Hawley the Intel CPUs will pull further anyway...
Add testing of open world games, which will ship the CPU the most, such as Watch dogs 2, Assassin creed Syndicate, Ghost Recon Wildlands, Mafia 3, Rise of the Tomb Raider, the Witcher 3, Agents of Mayhem, Battlefield 1 multiplayer and with Gtx 1080 ti too.
Thank you for the review! I was searching so long for something like this! Love your content!
And now I will watch the video! :p
Edit: Just amazing work Steve!
My problem is that I still can't decide between the 1600X and i5-8400 for nothing but 1080p gaming. I get both for ~190€ here in Germany... I have a lot more sympathy for AMD but I kind have the feeling that I'll be better off with the Intel considering I will use my old GTX GPU at least for 1 year more . Also I can still use my old CPU cooler without any issues. Therefore the price difference for the boards is negligible. What do you guys think?
I'd say if it is a toss up, go with amd.
Considering the i5-8400 review from techpower up and another video ua-cam.com/video/tGC1dgxrLKM/v-deo.html I'm now leaning towards AMD... For me as a student it's a lot of money, the CPU will probably be used for the next five years that's why I'm so afraid buying the "wrong" CPU ;)
I feel you man,if u consider only gaming intel is better,but if you are really going to use that cpu for 5 years than maybe u should consider ryzen,after all it has more threads,and it should work longer,since maybe some programs or games will start using more threads in future.Anyway why would u go for 1600x if u already have proper cooler go for 1600,it is cheaper and if u OC it u will get almost same perf.
@Hello my friend - Please don't link to "NJ Tech", it's a fraudulent channel. Those are my Core i5-8400 results stolen from my review. That channel often steals my numbers.
Would love to see a comparison like this while streaming, cause many people love to stream and i guess many are curious how the differences will be with the higher cores and threads of AMD, so not only the raw gaming, also streaming on atleast 720p would love to see that
Benchmark God
Now this is what I really like to see, you got everything covered. Good job!
I completely support Steve's 720 p testing because it helps to show the true power of a CPU
i would also like to see 1080p low settings for less gpu bottleneck, we are testing CPUs here arent we? And if youre a high framerate gamer, you will never play on Ultra/high quality anyways.
Only for gaming (doing nothing but game)
Rabab Noor Islam yeah 8400 is pretty sweet for gaming :) but nothing can beat a R5 1600 and1700 B350 combo for productivity and gaming at the same time.
Intel CPU is only right choice if user has 120Hz+ monitor..... For 60hz display Ryzen is the best decision
Sheikh Tashdeed Ahmed Why not 480p?
Thanks for the really in depth benchmarks!
So...you need to go down to 720p with a top of the line GPU to see a difference? :X
and....Z370 is gonna last as much as Z270 did, till its replaced with Z390....huh
Lets see how Zen+ at 12nm goes
Cuzeg Spiked the thing is, once Zen+/zen2 árrives, I can just replace my 1400 and thats it.
But hey, maybe changing motherboard and CPU every 6 months is a good thing.
Not that Id see any difference with my crappy mid range GPU.
atretador
The board lasts as long as the CPU
Metamancer Exacly, thats why its important to be able to upgrade.
Intel could probably be still using LGA1155 all The way till Skylake probably. But, they wanted to change it, same way they wanted to go for Z370 instead of keeping Z270.
So, when you "need"/want an upgrade, you need to replace the kit, $$ for the new chipset+CPU.
Im sad for those who ignored ryzen and went with Kabylake till the end, ryzen at least offers a path to upgrade. If they manage another 50% improvement from 14 to 7nm, or just fix the clock barrier, its still gonna be pretty competitive.
Even better if they lower prices xd
atretador IMO it's pointless to upgrade the CPU without changing platforms. CPU's on the same platform perform very similarly and have virtually no feature differences. Look at Bulldozer vs Piledriver and Skylake vs Kabylake for example.
Personally, I have an R7 1700. I'm not upgrading to Zen 2 or Zen because I would end up spending $300 or more to improve CPU performance by 20% at most. By the time it's actually time to upgrade, AM4 and maybe even AM5 will be long gone.
It's a different story if you start out with a lower end CPU like an R5 1400, in that case it would actually make sense to upgrade on the same platform, but it still makes less sense to get a cheap CPU knowing that you're going to replace it because the money you spent on the first CPU will end up going to waste.
Great video but I don't understand how 720p results are a true measurement of cpu performance in games when there's a lack of cpu core utilization & optimization?
Why the X versions of Ryzen? 1700 vs 1800X, $299 vs $430. With zero performance difference (pretty much).
Previously you always made sure you highlight to viewers that the non-X versions are the real deal. Why change now? It skews the price/performance section completely. Yes it's facts. But show me 1 person who'd choose the 1800X over the 1700. Since your channel's size means it can influence a lot of people, this move was really odd.
dude bashs AMD any chance he gets even with a 3 fps difference in a chart. all hes charts are skued with false pricing
Where i live
R7 1700 : $350
I7 8700k: $550
R5 1600 :$250
I5 8400 : $300
Fucking hell Intel.
Waifu Hunter where i live :
8700k : they still don't know what it is.
8400 : same.
1700 : 400$
1600 : 258$
.....
I'm considering stucking my face in the socket to see what happens..
8700k $700 ebay or no pricing with over 1 month wait
8400-$??? 1 month wait time
1800x- $350
1700x=$280
1700= $250
1600x=200
1600= $170
Oh the disparity!
Great work Steve. I just grabbed the 1600X on sale, since my monitor refresh rate is 75hz I think it's all the CPU I'm going to need.
Happy Diwali
From INDIA............
You benchmark machine!!! And again thanks for talking throughout the video, as I have it on in the backround most of the time:)
12:08
Thank you for saying that. There were a lot of ignorants who started ranting about 720p testing being bs and all that ever since a certain someone with a :cough: weird accents :cough: said it was a useless testing methodology.
Thanks mate. You know if Ryzen was faster than Intel at 720p, that testing would be very vaild ;) The AMD fanboys are already getting upset about the low resolution testing being included, even though it's alongside 1080p and 1440p!
Well he did use numbers from computer base, anandtech, PCGH, and techreport to show his point and I wouldn't expect anyone to claim that all of those review sites are bad sources.
+Steve Honaker II we've covered this. It's old news and I strongly disagree.
Hardware Unboxed I must have missed the explenation, where did he go wrong in his approach?
www.techspot.com/community/topics/tackling-the-subject-of-gpu-bottlenecking-and-cpu-gaming-benchmarks-using-ryzen-as-an.233727/
Wow, incredible amount of work. Greate job Steven. Regards.
intel won in performance however ryzen is still the best bang for your buck in the future when you can throw in ryzen 2 chip probably out perform intel current coffee lake.
only 3 more months for Zen + and coffee lake technically didn't launch because i cant buy a CPU for another 6 weeks anywhere.
Thanks for including the platform costs. Thats a good approach when comparing the pricepoint. :)
Do not use DX12 BF1. It is problematic =)
Works fine now.
Hardware Unboxed, Not for me 2 Hehe. DX12 BF1 has improved, but DX11 is still more stable.
DX 12 runs much better for me. DX 11 stutters so much.
I don't understand what's the point of DX12 support in games which also support DX11. Does it even help the low end rigs with slower/dual core CPUs with draw calls?? There are obviously no graphical enhancements with DX12, and Microsoft simply likes to lock their own games with DX12 only support for shitty reasons (read forced upgrade to Win 10).
Sikandar Khan DX 12 delivers much better performance for some people. As for me DX 12 Runs so much better than DX 11. That’s why devs give you the option to pick which one you like on certain games.
This is a very self interested comment, but as an i3570k owner I'd be really interested in an all generation i5Ks comparison video with overclocking, focusing on gaming. I'm sure there are many like me wondering when to bite the upgrade bullet
Oh how have the tables turned! Intel has the best price-to-performance CPU For Gaming, Even when including the omg-so-expensive z370 motherboard!
Fugboi no they haven't, Intel has always been better in gaming it's multitasking they were behind.
At stock, you're not factoring in that unlike Intel you don't have to pay a premium to overclock Ryzen CPU's, not that the non-k chips can OC to begin with. 3.8GHz on the stock cooler is fairly easy.
They haven't really turned, they're more neck 'n neck now, which is good. Intel's CPU's pretty much fit between AMD's in each market segment.
well, you can still go for a R5 1600 with a cheap B350 motherboard and overclock it to 3.8GHz, thats alot more value than Steves comparison here with the 1600X. With that said, we still dont have Intels B360 motherboards. Steve is also benchmarking all ryzen CPUs with 3200MHz memory, there are still lots and lots of people who cant get past 2666MHz.
yeah when steve uses overpriced retailers for his AMd cpu's sure intel looks good. tell me again where i can find a coffee lake chip for MSRP and in stock??
I'd still buy Ryzen just for the included cooler, I just can't stand Intel's stock cooler.
Everything is perfect in this vídeo. Congratulations.
Awesome work!
Future performance in games... but games in the future will use more threads and better. As well as use SMT (and HT) better. So it is still useless.
Source for this knowledge: History.
+Alexander Yordanov history disagrees with you. The fastest CPUs 5 years ago are still the fastest today.
Then why do games these days mostly benefit from HT when they didnt 6 years ago and even regressed with it on?
Why do higher thread counts win vs dual and quad cores?
This isnt about Bulldozer, which apart from very niche circumstance was generally weaker. It is about Threads and HT/SMT. And here, I am right.
+Hardware Unboxed Because CPUs not change in 5 years at all? 4c and same IPC. You test 2500k and you see it, is not like games not use more threads, is more there wasn't more threads so they not use. Now Microsoft push Dx12, and console and PC get more cores, do you really thing games not move at all in next 5 years?
It isnt so simple.
Anyways, the FPU in Intel CPUs was upgraded with Ivy and Haswell so its HT does better in games in general, but Devs learned to use more threads better.
@Alexander Yordanov - Actually it was faster GPUs that brought HT into play first, not new games. I tested this about a year ago.
(for months now UA-cam comments haven't worked for creators so I might not be able to find this thread again easily. Notifications are completely dead)
@Sędziwój - I was simply talking about the history we've seen, not the future that's yet to happen. The next 5 years is irrelevant for someone buying a high-end CPU today, they care about the here and now and maybe 2 years down the track before they build their next high-end PC.
Like the new benchmark chart it stands out and easy to see, great work bro waiting for part 2.
RYZEN 1600X #MASTERRACE and its not even overclocked =)
Des Jones I guess you missed in the video where i5 8400 beat it price/perf in every single resolution..... Smfh
X is not the best bang for the buck, 1600 non X is the real one. It's cheaper than both, with a little OC is basically the same processor as the X, and comes with a great stock cooler made by coolermaster. Not bad at all. The I5 is amazing, but won't be able to beat that in price/performance until the day those cheap motherboards become available.
Lets see what happens by then. Since ryzen + will be out too, and claims to have decent improvements over current Ryzen lineup. That battle has just begun... and that's good for all of us! :D
Blasto never mentioned anything about best price to performance I was referring to how well it was doing vs the coffelakes fps-wise without an OC. Though it might as well be price/perf since its like a mere 10-12 bucks more than regular 1600. just other day recently the 1600x was literally like $190 on sale. also stock 1600x does slightly better than 1600 in multithread benches. As I speak now lowest 1600 is 195 bucks and 1600x is 220. might as well spend extra minor dosh for the higher bin and clock, ofc minus the stock cooler on 1600😁. but we all know most of us enthusiasts/gamers purchase AIOs or custom watercooling kits
because it can't be overclocked, it boosts to 4GHz and you can't really push it further
Blasto best bang for buck? is a FUCKING 1700 ON SALE @250USD 😂
Great job Steve, I'm looking forward to the overclocking results, especially say overclocked 1600 vs locked 8400 with price to performance factored in.
I particularly liked the grouping and highlighting when discussing particular models/results, made it easier to follow.
Did anyone catch if he used MSRP for price/performance or current selling price?
The hero we deseve, and the one we need right now :D
dope af video. so sick that this much benchmarking effort was done for us. such a good samaritan
ryzen 1600 is still the best budget cpu
Ryan Sherman No, just stop. Even with the pricey z370 boards the 8400 beat it..
But you can't buy an i5 8400! and you can't overclock it.
Overclocking, motherboard prices, higher price, availability, etc. *cough*
ah dang random that sucks right now the i5 8400 is on pre orders as intels stock on this relase has been garbage. so prices have been hiked up
he said buget
Great video overall. Can't wait for the overclocked results. Since the gaming is so close at 1080p and up, I think the non gaming performance will be the deciding factor for people who don't just build a rig for gaming.
Hmm.. just try to get hands on the 8700k now and use it for 4-6 years, or get a Ryzen CPU and upgrade every year to zen+ and zen 2 trying to match 8700k's gaming performance. (not likely even Zen 2 will)
There is no official confirmation yet as to whether zen2 might launch. Like how the FX series existed for a long time without any upgrade, chances are Ryzen may not get an upgrade until 2020.
Vikram Bhaskar go check on google.
according to sources like fudzilla, wccftech, videocardz etc. ryzen 20xx is getting ready for Q1'18 (probably computex), don't BS ppl
oops you are right! sorry for not researching properly. i just hope they improve upon the overclocking capabilities of the chip and also address the compatibility issues with many high frequency ddr4 memory kits
Same dilemma, it's so tough making this decision. The only Intel CPU I would consider getting is the 8700k for future proof reasons, the 8400 and 8600k are better value now but I would probably regret that looking back in 6 years. With Ryzen at least I can upgrade with relative ease down the road
Thanks for these videos man. Very helpful in making decisions. And like you said we can guess the results but having data sets is undoubtedly important. Someone has to put in this work and I'm glad that someone does. So thanks.
Gonna go out on a limb and say benching at 720p is a complete waste of time, the amount of people playing at 720p is so small that there's just no reason to test it, especially since most of the 720p-ish resolutions out there (1366x768 which does have a somewhat significant chunk of people using it [steam hardware survey]) are laptops and these tests aren't even applicable to them.
Did you even watch the video? You've completely missed the point of low resolution testing!
Should probably watch the video first...
If you want to KNOW how much the CPU can push you NEED lower res for no GPU bottleneck. did you even watch the video?
The problem with that is a lot of people also lower the graphical settings themselves which can affect things like physics, which are not just GPU but CPU as well. Also you need to consider cache sizes, with small data sets, they can more easily fit into Intel's smaller cache making it appear artificially faster when in practice it is not.
ChristarpFP - Steve tested that resolution to remove GPU bottlenecking. And the Steam survey you're quoting is woefully misrepresented by your strange characterization of the numbers.
Can't wait for the OC results. It very well may change my current plans for a PC overhaul
While watching all this games at 720p i keep thinking to myself here is 4 cores cpu(7600, near 100fps) and here is 16 cores(95+fps) cpu(1800x). Steve: "this is another cpu intensive game". Bhaha, some of this games can barely(or can't at all) use 4 cores at 85+ percent load. The coding is complete trash except for Civ(amd+amd working together, with nvidia gpu u woun't have such nice fps with 1800x). If you want cpu intense run crysis 3(but who needs it today anyway), You will have i5 having 40fps(full load) and 1800x(and i7-s) like 80-90% fps boost minimum. Anyway, crysis 3 engine is complete trash also. And this s..t was always. 2 cores with higher freq? bb 4cores lower freq. 4 cores higher freq? bb i7-s lower freq. now it comes to 6(or still 4 xD) cores higher freq bb 16 cores, 24, 32, etc. lower freq cores. So for gaming you can stick with least expensive cpu(i'd say go for 8400(but wait for cheaper mobos)/r5, coz 4cores(i3) and r3(4/8) woun't be that great in a year, for gaming it will soon be/already legacy(watch dogs 2)) capable of 60-80fps(60-75Hz monitor) or for least expensive cpu with good oc potential(120+Hz monitor), like for i5k 6 cores/r5 12 cores. Coz games are trash(companies make games like every year or 2) and no one will try to code EVERY game that way so you can achieve your monitors refresh rate(120-144) in minimal fps. Additional threads(cores) will be just a waste. So don't go for i7-s or r7's if you are not STREAMING/not using prof programs that can load up to 96 cores or even more :). i5/r5 is best for gaming period
youre saying their coding is trash, im saying that ur wall of text is trash. like what the hell am i reading!?
Crysis 3 actually scales well with cores, almost reaching a linear scaling!
In extremely intensive scenes it will favor the processor with more cores/threads. 1800X beats 7700k easily when the GPU isn't the main bottleneck. I have seen some videos of that and I don't doubt their legitimacy. ua-cam.com/video/1LScXqoZRbg/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/QPwdpCY4-l4/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/enJA4ZmPl60/v-deo.html I expect the overclocked 8700k to beat the overclocked 1800X in this scenario though, but for them to be really close if RAM is overclocked and subtimings low.
i didn't know the 1800x had 16 cores.......
i know, i was being ironic... this guy is a complete idiot
A game could be called CPU intensive if it gets limited by a single core btw.
(Edit: should probably wait to leave a comment until the end of the video next time 😂 but still a good piece of comparative content - looking forward to part 2!)
Given your comment about Ryzen + Nvidia not playing nicely in Civ 6 gets me interested in seeing how all these CPU's fair with Nvidia GPU's
But more of interest to me is considering 7 of these CPU's can be overclocked (and considering the available motherboards for Coffee Lake right now) I'd really like to see how overclocking changes these results, if at all! Keep up the good quality material Steve
good performance i5 8400 :)
Yeah, it's a beast ;)
but how will it perform on a budget mother board
no!!! 1600 the best!!! ha ha ha 8400>1600 on 5%.
6 additional threads and the solder is more than +5%
Yeah but basically on a dead platform only can upgrade to i7 8700k. Coffee Lake can barely beat ryzen zen 2 will destroy this. Especially if it allows higher clock speeds.
Don't get me wrong not bad for the money but virtually no futureproof. My if you have ryzen already no need to switch, and if you want to build a fresh new computer this is a good option it just limits your upgrade path.
Thanks for the very thorough video! Major props for trying to be as details as possible. I'm curious to see how the OC results change things with the 1600 and 1700. When doing the price/performance analysis. Would you consider having maybe one graph that considers the currently available price for CPUs? We all no that MSRP != Purchase price in a lot of markets. I know it would be difficult to decide on which price you should use. But, I think it would be cool to see the numbers for the purchase cost and see if that changes things. Mostly, I think this comes down to how market demand and pricing tactics from the manufactures and retailers impact the landscape from the consumer's perspective.
Great video and article! :-D
so basicly if you don't overclock the new king under 200$ is 8400. but tbh better wait for the mid tier motherboards
That a pretty big assumption, I'm not sure the R5 1600 can make up that margin even at 4.2 GHz. We will know soon. Of course if you are after 1440p gaming with a mid to high-end graphics card using 'high quality' settings it probably doesn't matter.
+Hardware Unboxed yeah true. Still nice to see that Intel has something pretty good to offer sub 200$ for gaming atleast. Gotta wait the oc benchmarks. Great comparison video still!
To know that you would need to test it in gameplay tests, built in benchmarks can be misleading when you compare CPUs.
Look at the AdoredTV's review of Ryzen R5 1600X and 1500X at 12:20 , he tested Total War : Warhammer with both builtin benchmark and a gameplay one, the results are quite different. As he said in his video he doesn't trust built-in becnhmarks.
They certainly allow Steve not to die from exaustion since he makes so many runs, but they are not unbiased willingly or not.
And since the fps battle are played with sponsored games now, it's way too easy to tailor benchmarks to certain products.
Thank you for the highlights mate :)
Vega 64lc is pure garbage for the price please just do 1080ti
Not interested in the price, used it for the DX12 support.
Nvidia cards favor Intel CPU's. Using the Vega 64 allows you to see more of the full potential in the Ryzen line-up, without handicapping the Intel Sku's. It just sort of levels the playing field.
Hardware Unboxed were all the games dx12? Oww well didn't even notice
nappydrew and you got a source?
BattleExtremeNL - My primary source is over 20 years of hands-on PC building experience, with just about any piece of hardware you could possibly imagine. I bench test every CPU/GPU that I get my hands on, before installing them into a customer's build. I won't compile a playlist for you, or link you to some biased article, like some fanboy would. I'm simply telling you what I know. Whether you choose to believe me or not, is up to you. I don't blame you for being skeptical. There's a lot of BS on the internet, especially UA-cam.
Hey Steve, you really did some heavy benchmarking! So many runs, respect! I cannot wait to see an OC price/performance comparison at 1080p and 1440p while factoring in cost of Motherboards (and maybe you should mention cost of coolers on Intel's platform and 1800X) as this should change our view here a bit. Also keep an eye on chart titles, some small mistakes there but no worries :) Good job!
Why bother with all this work? We trust you Steve, just tell us what to buy!!
Mostly because it's fun :D
I'm almost done buying parts for my first build... I went with the 1600x since there was a deal putting it at same price as the 1600 and I was already planning to buy a better cooler and overclock it. For the gpu I was able to grab a 580 for the same price as the 1060 in Canada and it will do an amazing job for a couple years on my new 29" ultra wide 1080p 75hz freesync monitor! Can't wait to build and try it.
720p lel
Fantastic review. Thank you very much for adding the CPU+MOBO price per performance results. This truly gives us a fair overview of the competitive landscape. There's speculation on whether i5-8400's performance would be impacted by cheaper motherboards but I have doubts about that as well. I haven't built a machine yet but this gives me something to think about when ordering hardware. Cheers.
Looks like the figures speak for themselves, the i5-8400 is the golden chip for gamers in 2018! Thanks again for your hard work Steve!
Thank you for this video, Steve. This is really a hard work.
If you have spare energy, please include 2 ultrawide resolutions in the future? 2560x1080 and 3440x1440.
You're making me feel very good about the i5-8400 system I built a few days ago. And to think, I almost got an i3-8350k.
great stuff Steve, but probably on the cost per frame explanation, it should be written lower is better
Great review Steve, the High Turbo frequency plays a huge role on this 720p benchmarks. Could you consider an all-cpu fixed at 3.5GHz Gaming benchmark using 720p/1080p with a top of the line GPU for academical reasons.
Great video Steve. Keep up the hard work man.
Steve the issue isn't that "No one games at 720p", the issue is that current 720p gaming is not a reliable indicator of future 4K or even 1080p gaming performance. I know you hate when people bring up AdoredTV, but the fact is people will need to keep bringing that Scotsman up until some other channel (you?) tests the same things he looks at:
ua-cam.com/video/ylvdSnEbL50/v-deo.html
The 2500K supposedly should have gained performance over the FX-8350, but it LOST its lead over time despite what the hilariously ridiculous 720p tests showed. And for the record, I have an i7 processor so it isn't an AMD fanboy thing. I am just well aware that these 720p test also spread disinformation regarding certain Intel CPU's.
Do you remember the 720p tests showing the 4c/4t i5's beating the 4c/8t i7's in low resolution tests? Not exactly panning out that way in this video is it?
+Tom Splittstoesser I've already tested and disputed those claims.
Hardware Unboxed Please point me to where you "dispute" this because less than half a year ago you said "720p is too far":
www.techspot.com/community/topics/tackling-the-subject-of-gpu-bottlenecking-and-cpu-gaming-benchmarks-using-ryzen-as-an.233727/
In fact you bring up the i5 example I also just brought up. What changed? My own testing showed the same thing AdoredTV did - 720p tests are not indicators of future 4K (or even 1080p) cpu performance.
Wrong I said "720p with low quality settings, though that'd be going a bit too far the other way". That's not 720p with high settings. Also feel free to watch this.
ua-cam.com/video/76-8-4qcpPo/v-deo.html
Great video Hardware unboxed as always.
I do have to ask and maybe you mentioned it in the video but that white case you were stuffing parts into what is it called and who makes it...I really like all that drive storage it has....thanks
wow a lot of work here dude ! Good job nice video !
cheers dude, good video. waiting to make a ryzen vs coffeelake purchase, these videos are informing my decision