-
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.
i5 8400 pricing?
- Thread starter rtho782
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Oct 2003
- Posts
- 15,678
- Location
- Chengdu
Supply issues causing price increase.
You'd be absolutely mental to be buying an 8400 at these prices.
You'd be absolutely mental to be buying an 8400 at these prices.
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 708
I'd include all Intel processors at the moment, ridiculous pricing and blatant price gouging.
How annoying.
I have a couple of friends wanting to build reasonably low end PCs and the 8400 was my go to recommendation (no GPU needed as no gaming and no photo editing etc).
Going the AMD route means a quad core or fitting a GPU into the budget, plus the ITX options are thin on the ground.
I have a couple of friends wanting to build reasonably low end PCs and the 8400 was my go to recommendation (no GPU needed as no gaming and no photo editing etc).
Going the AMD route means a quad core or fitting a GPU into the budget, plus the ITX options are thin on the ground.
At the price of the AMD 2600 you still have change to spare for a cheapy GPU compared to the nearest Intel offerings.
My basket at Overclockers UK:
Total: £148.69 (includes shipping: £8.70)
4 core 8 thread and no need for gpu. Can also game at decent 1080p settings> Comes with a cooler too.
"no GPU needed as no gaming and no photo editing etc" No gaming and no photo editing means 4 core 8 threads is PLENTY good.
For the 30 quid more than the price of that 8400 you can actually get all this stuff
My basket at Overclockers UK:
- 1 x AMD Bundle - AMD Ryzen 5 2600, Gigabyte X370-Gaming 3, Team Group RAM *FREE 240GB SSD* *ONLINE ONLY* = £319.97
- Memory Capacity:Team Group Vulcan T-Force 8GB (2x4GB) DDR4 PC4-24000C16 3000MHz Dual Channel Kit - Grey (TLGD48G3000
Total: £330.47 (includes shipping: £10.50)
You'd think at that price the CPU would be rubbish but it's just as good if not better.
You'd think at that price the CPU would be rubbish but it's just as good if not better.
The ITX options on the AMD side are thin on the ground, and actually more expensive than the intel options. Add in the need for a GPU on the 2600 and you're getting close to eating much of the price saving on the CPU. It's also a much higher TDP CPU and with a GPU as well, so is somewhat defeating the object of a small low power PC.
I think I'll just make him wait for prices to normalise.
I think I'll just make him wait for prices to normalise.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,462
- Location
- Planet Earth
A Core i5 8400 isn't low end and seems massively OTT for a basic build,when a Core i3 8100 or cheaper Ryzen 3 2200G would do the same job.
FFS,I "only" had a Xeon E3 1230 V2/Core i7 3770 and it was fine for a lot of things like gaming,image editing and it only struggled when outputting gigabytes of processed RAWs.
So I am failing to see why a "quad" core is such a limitation,especially when it is faster overall.
I mean going even further the Core i5 8400 by its very nature is still a 65W TDP CPU. If I was going for a basic build a 200GE would do the job as it only has a 35W TDP and sips power.
FFS,I "only" had a Xeon E3 1230 V2/Core i7 3770 and it was fine for a lot of things like gaming,image editing and it only struggled when outputting gigabytes of processed RAWs.
So I am failing to see why a "quad" core is such a limitation,especially when it is faster overall.
I mean going even further the Core i5 8400 by its very nature is still a 65W TDP CPU. If I was going for a basic build a 200GE would do the job as it only has a 35W TDP and sips power.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Oct 2003
- Posts
- 15,678
- Location
- Chengdu
AMD 2400G sounds perfect for these builds tbh, save on the CPU spend a little more on the mobo. It's a good plan.
One thing to be aware of is that some of the bundle deals with the 2600 available at the moment make it really hard to do better money wise with the 2400G even with the spending extra on a discrete GPU - though very much a case by case basis.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 3,708
Retailer BUSINESS as well
Yeah completely agree. And all 2000 clock similarly to 4.2-4.3 and 2600 is pretty good CPU especially paired with a good B450
@rtho782
have a look here
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/t...00x-cpu-mb-so-easy-it-is-ridiculous.18833603/
Made a post that my 8600K @ 5.1Ghz is 20% slower in the above benchmarks compared to the 2600/2600X @4.35
I haven't spent any time overclocking the 2600 - but one of the systems I built a couple of tweaks in the BIOS had it boosting to 409xMHz on stock voltage stable with no hassle so suspect it would be pretty easy to get to 4.2GHz. Shame it was a build for someone else in a way as I have a gut feeling that CPU was a good clocker.
Imho all 2000 series (incl TR4) are good clockers and no hassle overclocking either (PBO). True 4.3ish is the cap but they all do clock similarly. You have to be very unlucky with the motherboard quality mainly.
And so easy to OC. I saw a 2990WX with just PBO, 27 cores at 4.3, 5 between 4100-4200. Madness.
AMD needs to get these CPUs respun on a good TSMC (or even Samsung) process IMO especially smaller node - the clock speeds should be significantly more potent - I'm certain Ryzen is being held back by the GF process.
I do not remember were read it a month go, but someone said the 7nm Ryzen are not low power any more, but high power ones.
12nm Samsung/GF is the same process, as GF bought it from the former.
TSMC that would be interesting, considering the first ever "3700X" engineering sample that came out has 4.5Ghz clock.
So we should be looking 4.8+ for the final product.