• 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.

Intel 8400 VS 8700K VS 2700X

Depends on your refresh rate simply put. At higher refresh rates, CPU needs to prepare more frames (for similar games) in turn which means a higher CPU load. 8700k comes into its own here. For 60hz panel however, those CPUs (basing the 2700x on the 1700x) would be fine for it.

If your using a 4k panel which you are from your suggestion, would not bother to move platforms, CPU will be fine to get 60hz in most games and the limiation will be the 1080Ti in demanding games at that resolution.
 
If you're using a 60 Hz monitor it makes naff all difference which CPU you get (within reason). Same for 4K right now. Anything in between then an i7-8700K won't be beaten right now, but whether it's worth the extra outlay and buying into (yet another) dead end platform is another question. Even then you'd probably have to sample a lot of games to find some where it makes enough of a difference for you to notice. Hell, it took until yesterday for me to finally find a game that maxes out one of my (ancient) CPU cores at 1440p, and it's using a 15 year old engine.
 
DragonQ said:
Um, no it isn't. What graph are you looking at?
Click to expand...
I'm going to hazard a guess that he read the Ryzen R3 1300 as Intel i3 and saw that the R5 2400G was behind it in the benchmarks. I'd put that down to the new APUs being brand new and not fully optimised for the game.

From those charts the most notable thing for me was how well the Vega cards were doing. The Vega 64 has a clear lead over the GTX 1080 and, although can't catch the Ti, looks mighty impressive. Same with the Vega 56 being ahead of both the 1070 and 1070Ti.
 
TallPaul1878 said:
I'm going to hazard a guess that he read the Ryzen R3 1300 as Intel i3 and saw that the R5 2400G was behind it in the benchmarks. I'd put that down to the new APUs being brand new and not fully optimised for the game.

From those charts the most notable thing for me was how well the Vega cards were doing. The Vega 64 has a clear lead over the GTX 1080 and, although can't catch the Ti, looks mighty impressive. Same with the Vega 56 being ahead of both the 1070 and 1070Ti.
Click to expand...

Yep, vega doing well here. Ryzen not so much.
 
Sorry to spoil the Ryzen bashing. What I take from those results from a selfish view, it doesn't matter if I have a brand new Intel / AMD CPU or a 6-year old Intel / AMD CPU, you can run this game no problem with an Nvidia GTX 970 3.5GB / AMD R9 290 4GB at 60FPS.
 
Last edited:
imginy said:
They using the old intels that i5 at the top is now equivalent of i3.

So basically ryzen is 20% behind the i3
Click to expand...
Ah I see what you mean now. A current Core i3 (4c/4t) would win against Ryzen, mainly because of clock speed. Notice the i5-7600K is the highest clocked CPU in the chart because they haven't overclocked any of them, so it'd be around 4 GHz, with the R7 1800X being around 3.7 GHz. The i5-6600 scores the same as the R7 1800X and they'd both be at around the same clock speed (maybe 100 MHz difference).

Basically going above 4 cores doesn't provide any benefits for this game and clock speed is king (according to this chart anyway), so I'd laugh a bit more at the developers than at Ryzen. :p
 
fowler002 said:
Don’t go taking away the one thing in this world that keeps the two amd bashers happy.....
Click to expand...
I am not interested in taking sides or labelling people as Intel/AMD/nVidia bashers/fanboys, this thread is about gaming performance in Far Cry 5. We have some data points now that suggest it won't effectively use more than 4 threads and will depend heavily on clock speeds. If you're after maximum FPS in this game and have a high end GPU, Intel is going to be a preferred option it seems. We won't know for sure until Ryzen 2 reviews come out but let's say it's very likely they won't match Coffee Lake in this case. Whether they'll offer close enough performance for a better price, we'll see.
 
DragonQ said:
Ah I see what you mean now. A current Core i3 (4c/4t) would win against Ryzen, mainly because of clock speed. Notice the i5-7600K is the highest clocked CPU in the chart because they haven't overclocked any of them, so it'd be around 4 GHz, with the R7 1800X being around 3.7 GHz. The i5-6600 scores the same as the R7 1800X and they'd both be at around the same clock speed (maybe 100 MHz difference).

Basically going above 4 cores doesn't provide any benefits for this game and clock speed is king (according to this chart anyway), so I'd laugh a bit more at the developers than at Ryzen. :p
Click to expand...

Considering this is an AMD sponsored game.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom