• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

8400 turbo on all cores?

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
The ASRock seemed better for the memory part though. OTH,looks like your current MSI board has served you well!
Click to expand...

Yeah my msi board and 3570k I had since release bought from here, even overclocked it to 5ghz for some benches on air and had it at 4.8ghz 1.4v for few years done me well.

Not sure the high memory matters as I already ordered some ddr4 16gb 2800mhz. I was going to get faster but it was going very cheap new.
 
imginy said:
Yeah my msi board and 3570k I had since release bought from here, even overclocked it to 5ghz for some benches on air and had it at 4.8ghz 1.4v for few years done me well.

Not sure the high memory matters as I already ordered some ddr4 16gb 2800mhz. I was going to get faster but it was going very cheap new.
Click to expand...

Faster RAM gives a boost,but its not proportional to the cost ATM anyway,especially if you are getting a Core i5 8400!!
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Faster RAM gives a boost,but its not proportional to the cost ATM anyway,especially if you are getting a Core i5 8400!!
Click to expand...

Yeah after reading the other threads I knew not to get 2133 or 2400 with these after seeing the gaming benchmarks, I was planning on getting the 3200 but hopefully 2800 shouldn't be much different.
 
I just got the asrock as it was the cheapest at the time (~£100) and there didnt seem much in it (ie pros and cons for both). Also the asrock has one more rear usb3.0 and a usb c port which the msi doesnt (has a couple of usb2.0 instead.

Probbaly worth getting whichever is the cheaper at the time to be honest, espeically as its unlikely you will be doing any mad overclocking with an 8400 anyway.
 
gavinh87 said:
Can't really compare those scores, they are using different versions of cinebench
Click to expand...

Looking I'm using the same version of cpuz unless im missing something?

The ryzen isn't too far behind in single core, I think if the 8400 was readily available I may have gone for it.

Very happy with the Ryzen though.
 
Jono8 said:
I just got the asrock as it was the cheapest at the time (~£100) and there didnt seem much in it (ie pros and cons for both). Also the asrock has one more rear usb3.0 and a usb c port which the msi doesnt (has a couple of usb2.0 instead.

Probbaly worth getting whichever is the cheaper at the time to be honest, espeically as its unlikely you will be doing any mad overclocking with an 8400 anyway.
Click to expand...

yeah I will get which ever ones cheapest probably.

I do plan on maybe upgrading the cpu in a couple of years by swapping out the 8400 for a 8600k/8700/8700k if it I need it.
 
imginy said:
yeah I will get which ever ones cheapest probably.
I do plan on maybe upgrading the cpu in a couple of years by swapping out the 8400 for a 8600k/8700/8700k if it I need it.
Click to expand...

if you planning on changing chips in a year or so, depending on the games you play buy the K chip i3, the new i3 is a true quad core and with many games still only using 2 to 4 cores the overclocking would give you more performance.

the i3 as been seen to hit 5Ghz easy
 
P4Clock said:
if you planning on changing chips in a year or so, depending on the games you play buy the K chip i3, the new i3 is a true quad core and with many games still only using 2 to 4 cores the overclocking would give you more performance.

the i3 as been seen to hit 5Ghz easy
Click to expand...

I did think about it but by the time I buy a cooler it will cost more than the 8400 and perform worse.

I seeing more and more of my games max out all 4 cores of my 3570k even with the 280x and they don't feel nice to play like that. I bought that origin access for a year and most the games on there overload the 4 core like bf3/bf4/bf1 starwars need for speed etc.
 
Your 3570k is very old now and the performance of the i3 I would think is going to be 30% better.

I would like to see some test on the i3 @ 5/5.2ghz Vs the 8400, I think it would be 50/50 as the single core upto 4 core performance of the i3 would kill the 8400 but as you say when you need more cores could the overclocking help the i3 keep up?
 
P4Clock said:
Your 3570k is very old now and the performance of the i3 I would think is going to be 30% better.

I would like to see some test on the i3 @ 5/5.2ghz Vs the 8400, I think it would be 50/50 as the single core upto 4 core performance of the i3 would kill the 8400 but as you say when you need more cores could the overclocking help the i3 keep up?
Click to expand...

I think clocking the i3 would help a lot but when all 4 cores get loaded games normally get a bit choppy, I know a lot of people on here have said it's much smoother with more cores.
 
imginy said:
I think clocking the i3 would help a lot but when all 4 cores get loaded games normally get a bit choppy, I know a lot of people on here have said it's much smoother with more cores.
Click to expand...
I would pick the 8400 over the 8350k. Although I wouldn't pick either at current prices, especially the 8400 which is £30+ too expensive currently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom