Ryzen 1800x for gaming or 7600k

Martini1991 · 10 Jun 2018 at 12:46

humbug said:
Ah, yes i see it now, 16GB cost you £80 more

I still think that's a great deal.

Certainly cheaper than an 8700K set up, but an 8700K set up is better, but you pay more for it.

AMD just need higher clocks and then things will be more interesting.

humbug · 10 Jun 2018 at 12:50

Martini1991 said:
Certainly cheaper than an 8700K set up, but an 8700K set up is better, but you pay more for it.

AMD just need higher clocks and then things will be more interesting.

Oh yeah.... the 8700K is the best gaming CPU, but you would only need one of those on a GTX 1080TI, he's on an RX 580, my 1600 is plenty capable of driving my 1070 which is about 50% faster so with a 2600 he's certainly not going to have any issues.

chaparral · 10 Jun 2018 at 12:51

humbug said:
That whole system, X370 Gigabyte board, 240GB SSD, 8GB 3000Mhz Ram and the 2600 is £355, the 8700K on its own is currently £360.

Just my motherboard alone cost more then that

humbug · 10 Jun 2018 at 12:54

chaparral said:
Just my motherboard alone cost more then that

That is a nice board tho....

Panos · 10 Jun 2018 at 13:01

humbug said:
That is a nice board tho....

But for just that CPU. Next CL cpus might not be compatible :/

chaparral · 10 Jun 2018 at 13:06

humbug said:
That is a nice board tho....

Yes it a lovely board but even I will admit it don't really give you any useful extra's compared to boards that are over £100 cheaper like the X hero

Would be really nice to had some more internal USB 2 & 3 headers & 3 M.2 sockets instead of only 2

Panos · 10 Jun 2018 at 13:07

chaparral said:
Yes it a lovely board but even I will admit it don't really give you any useful extra's compared to boards that are over £100 cheaper like the X hero

Would be really nice to had some extra internal USB 2 & 3 headers

I have the Z370I believe me I love it also. But I do not see myself upgrading to Intel again. Next one up is the 3700X next year.

humbug · 10 Jun 2018 at 13:08

Panos said:
But for just that CPU. Next CL cpus might not be compatible

Yeah, and yes Ryzen 3000 will drop into existing 400 and 300 series boards, or at least AMD have made that promise and reiterated it recently, notice the 2600 is bundled with a 300 series board? not that there is anything wrong with that, its a Gigabyte Gaming 3 X370 which is a good board full stop.

wam7 · 10 Jun 2018 at 13:13

humbug said:
Lets stop cherry-picking words out of context then and just go to the 36 game result slide.

You really are quite risible in the face of the glaringly obvious.

Let me help you with the understanding of what context is.

Context: "the parts of something written or spoken that immediately precede and follow a word or passage and clarify its meaning."

Therefore, for me to have taken your words out of context I would have had to remove words/phrases on either side that would have then changed the original meaning.

So, stay with me, this is the phrase you used in it's entirety, I have not cherry picked anything...

humbug said:
Old review, 2600 is now best.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1627-core-i5-8400-vs-ryzen-5-2600/

In it you are telling the previous poster that the review they linked to is old and info now out of date so here is a newer review that shows the 2600 is now best value for gamers, BUT lo and behold the conclusion of the massive 36 game review is that...

Intel CPU was faster overall this makes it the better value choice for gamers.

This was written by Steven Walton, who spent many hours benchmarking 36 games at 3 different resolutions.
Not only that, though you noted the CPU's cost the same you failed to acknowledge (though it's been mentioned a few times) there is a large disparity in favour of the 2600 in the motherboard used.

·The AMD motherboard cost £240 on OcUK
·The Intel motherboard cost £105 on OcUK

Also
·The AMD memory was run at either 2933Mhz or 3400Mhz
·The Intel memory was run at 2666Mhz.

Yet, in spite of these advantages in the 2600's favour the conclusion from the reviewer Steven Walton (not taken out of context!) is:

Intel CPU was faster overall this makes it the better value choice for gamers.

How on earth you come away with the opposite conclusion is just.... words fail me. The irony is that you posted a link to the review in the first place, yet you seem hell bent on extrapolating a different conclusion to the reviewer himself. :rolleyes:

humbug · 10 Jun 2018 at 13:15

wam7 said:
You really are quite risible in the face of the glaringly obvious.

Let me help you with the understanding of what context is.

Therefore, for me to have taken your words out of context I would have had to remove words/phrases on either side that would have then changed the original meaning.

So, stay with me, this is the phrase you used in it's entirety, I have not cherry picked anything...

In it you are telling the previous poster that the review they linked to is old and info now out of date so here is a newer review that shows the 2600 is now best value for gamers, BUT lo and behold the conclusion of the massive 36 game review is that...

This was written by Steven Walton, who spent many hours benchmarking 36 games at 3 different resolutions.
Not only that, though you noted the CPU's cost the same you failed to acknowledge (though it's been mentioned a few times) there is a large disparity in favour of the 2600 in the motherboard used.

·The AMD motherboard cost £240 on OcUK
·The Intel motherboard cost £105 on OcUK

Also
·The AMD memory was run at either 2933Mhz or 3400Mhz
·The Intel memory was run at 2666Mhz.

Yet, in spite of these advantages in the 2600's favour the conclusion from the reviewer Steven Walton (not taken out of context!) is:

How on earth you come away with the opposite conclusion is just.... words fail me. The irony is that you posted a link to the review in the first place, yet you seem hell bent on extrapolating a different conclusion to the reviewer himself.

I have already addressed that here.... you're conflating their choice of hardware with needs, what they used is not what you need to get the same results.

humbug said:
That's irrelevant, i've already said the same overclock can be done on much cheaper £85 boards, its just that B450 board's were not available at the time of this review so they had to use what they had at hand.

This is another difference between Intel and Ryzen, on budget boards Intel lock you out of overclocking and even running fast RAM, on Ryzen Budget boards you can do both, it is what it is and Intel's policy is not AMD's fault.

You want better budget Intel boards and overclockable budget Intel CPU's make Intel hear you instead of complaining the review isn't fair because Ryzen is overclocked and running faster RAM, its like that because it can and the other cannot.
This is why Intel just keep doing what they do because clearly people keep making arguments and excuses for them to keep doing what they are.

One year ago people used to vigorously and ridiculously defend Intel's 4 core mainstream policy arguing "its all any anyone needs"
That's now gone out of the window and why is that?

Overall the minimum frame rates are 8% higher on the 2600, averages 5% higher, the one thing i will concede is on a budget build its not practical to use the 8Pack Ram clocked to 3400Mhz, the 4.2Ghz overclock will do on a £25 cooler and you're going to use the same sort of cooler on the 8400 if you value your ears.

So 16GB of this Team Group RAM is currently £150 and its 3200Mhz, thats only going to make a 5% difference so its still at least as fast as the 8400 in games and much faster in everything else.

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/team...al-channel-kit-black-grey-tlgd-my-09s-tg.html

Look at 2666Mhz Ram, it isn't actually any cheaper than 3200Mhz even without deals.

wam7 · 10 Jun 2018 at 14:09

humbug said:
I have already addressed that here.... you're conflating their choice of hardware with needs, what they used is not what you need to get the same results.

What that reply has to do with what I posted escapes me. OK let me just ask a simple question, let's see if we can get a straight answer. (you're not a politician by any chance?)

You said the 2600 is the best value gaming CPU, Steve Walton the reviewer in the review you linked to in order to prove this says the opposite, the 8400 is the best value gaming CPU. Care to reply to that directly? Probably not - I can see how some people get to 26.000 post count by going around in a circle of their own making.

humbug · 10 Jun 2018 at 15:38

wam7 said:
What that reply has to do with what I posted escapes me. OK let me just ask a simple question, let's see if we can get a straight answer. (you're not a politician by any chance?)

You said the 2600 is the best value gaming CPU, Steve Walton the reviewer in the review you linked to in order to prove this says the opposite, the 8400 is the best value gaming CPU. Care to reply to that directly? Probably not - I can see how some people get to 26.000 post count by going around in a circle of their own making.

That's not the full quote, the other half of it was his reasoning, that because it was less hassle to get the resulted performance out of the 8400, you needed to overclock the 2600.

That's one man's reasoning, my reasoning is that's moot because its not that you don't need to overclock the 8400, it cannot to any significant extent and even then you need much more expensive motherboards.

You cannot make one mans reasoning 'biblical fact' because it suits your argument, it may also be your argument, it would be because its convenient for you, it doesn't change the fact that with the 2600 people have the option to overclock and make it a faster CPU.
My argument is; do that.

Panos · 10 Jun 2018 at 19:26

wam7 said:
What that reply has to do with what I posted escapes me. OK let me just ask a simple question, let's see if we can get a straight answer. (you're not a politician by any chance?)

You said the 2600 is the best value gaming CPU, Steve Walton the reviewer in the review you linked to in order to prove this says the opposite, the 8400 is the best value gaming CPU. Care to reply to that directly? Probably not - I can see how some people get to 26.000 post count by going around in a circle of their own making.

8400 needs also GTX1080/1080Ti at 1080p resolution to beat the 2600X. Which is bit stupid trying to go for cheap 8400 when you have 1080Ti.
On anything less, let alone the OP RX580, 2600X is better CPU and better value for money paired with a B450 and overclocked.

And since we are on value for money, he can keep the B450 motherboard for next year 3xxx series CPUs, and the year after for 4xxxx. But he cannot keep his H370 for another CPU.

imginy · 10 Jun 2018 at 21:37

Panos said:
8400 needs also GTX1080/1080Ti at 1080p resolution to beat the 2600X. Which is bit stupid trying to go for cheap 8400 when you have 1080Ti.
On anything less, let alone the OP RX580, 2600X is better CPU and better value for money paired with a B450 and overclocked.

And since we are on value for money, he can keep the B450 motherboard for next year 3xxx series CPUs, and the year after for 4xxxx. But he cannot keep his Z370 for another CPU.

You say if you have an 8400 and a z370 you can't use it for any other cpu?

You must be forgetting the 8700k/8086 etc.. if next year or year after the 8400 is no longer cutting it there is already processor that fits the socket with 40%+ performance increase.

Panos · 10 Jun 2018 at 21:43

imginy said:
You say if you have an 8400 and a z370 you can't use it for any other cpu?

You must be forgetting the 8700k/8086 etc.. if next year or year after the 8400 is no longer cutting it there is already processor that fits the socket with 40%+ performance increase.

What is the point switching from a 6 core to another 6 core? Which is useless idea especially since we talking about budget boards which do not support OC?
Just to do go from 122fps to 132fps at 1080p with GTX1080? That is not 40% increase.

imginy · 10 Jun 2018 at 22:01

Panos said:
What is the point switching from a 6 core to another 6 core? Which is useless idea especially since we talking about budget boards which do not support OC?
Just to do go from 122fps to 132fps at 1080p with GTX1080? That is not 40% increase.

You said someone with 8400 and z370 cant use that board for another cpu.

But clearly they can, you can swap the 8400 straight out for 8700k.

The 8400 to 8700k would be 30% increase in clock speed and double the threads so you can't say it's a useless idea.

Panos · 10 Jun 2018 at 22:23

imginy said:
You said someone with 8400 and z370 cant use that board for another cpu.

But clearly they can, you can swap the 8400 straight out for 8700k.

The 8400 to 8700k would be 30% increase in clock speed and double the threads so you can't say it's a useless idea.

What is the point someone who goes for budget H370+8400 look as upgrade a 8700K which costs as a whole new AMD system with ram and SSD of similar performance?
Especially when there is no upgrade path from 6 core CPU to something bigger.

As for your 30% claims, going from 122fps to 132fps with GTX1080, is not 30% performance upgrade is 8.9%.

AiiR · 11 Jun 2018 at 01:05

Think the best option depends on your needs. If I was building a system for someone that didn't know about PCs, didn't have any interest in PCs and just wanted to play games then I'd definitely go for an i5 8400.

If I was building a system for myself, then I wouldn't touch the 8400 with a barge pole. Not only is the 2600 quicker if you pair it with fast memory and a very achievable overclock, but the opportunity to drop in an 8c16t CPU in a couple of years time which will arguably have the same or better IPC than the 8400 by the time it rolls round is too good to pass up for the sake of the pennies between the 2 platforms.

If you buy the 8400, the best upgrade you're going to get is an 8700k at stock speeds (Assuming you went with the cheaper chipset). A lot of assumptions here, but in 2-3 years time a 2nd hand 8700k is still likely going to be £150-200 in price which would put it straight in the price bracket of a brand new mid range Ryzen from that time which will definitely have more threads, and potentially equal or better IPC.

But the CPUs in question are the 1800x and 7600k of course.

humbug · 11 Jun 2018 at 12:51

I will agree the 8400 is a better gaming CPU if you're overclocking phobic, in a years time he may have a card that's as fast as a 1080TI and does not want to overclock the CPU, but then if he later changes the CPU for the only thing he can, the 8700K then he's still on a motherboard that cannot overclock it, so most of the reason for having something like that is gone.

From a personal perspective, aside from individual points of arguments, like gaming, for me there is also a subjective argument, as an enthusiast i'm not quite satisfied with something that i cannot play with, just getting an overclock out of the 2600 is actually really easy or advanced if you want to get really into it because AMD's CPU's are very unlocked, and with that your 2600 is not just faster than how you bought it, its different to the next one, you have made it yours by setting it up just how you like it, there is joy in that, given the choice between one or the other why wouldn't you get the one you can customise?

Also, when talking about these things people tend to concentrate on gaming, as if that is the only thing that matters, for a lot of people it is so ok fine, that doesn't matter because clock for clock at least Ryzen has virtually identical gaming performance as Coffeelake, so for CPU's like the 8400 that don't clock any higher the performance isn't any better, and i'm willing to bet Ryzen 3000 will get another small IPC bump and clock much more like the 8700K, i digress....
The 2600 has 12 threads vs 6 on the 8400, if the the 8400 would overclock to 5Ghz that wouldn't matter as much but it doesn't, what really does meter in a performance aspect that i think is also important is 9MB cache on the 8400 vs 19MB on the 2600, that is important for heavy multitasking, since having the 1600 i have taken to using software encoded streaming through OBS as opposed to Hardware on the GPU, because now i can and the image quality is so much better, i use this Desktop for work as well as indulging in my hobbies, those hobbies are 3D art, game development, i run a lot of heavy load productivity applications and your workflow means its not practical to use one at a time, so for example i'll be designing / rendering Height Maps on the fly in World Machine, making adjustments to texture maps in Photoshop, building textures in Substance Designer, building 3D meshes in Blender while building 3D Wolds Cryengine with enough FPS to work with comfortably, I'm Alt + Tabbing between them on the fly while singing along to The Verve: Bitter Sweet Symphony playing in Spotify, Ryzen just loves that level of Multitasking and its a real joy to use the PC like that.

That also matters.

gpuerrilla · 13 Jun 2018 at 21:54

Jeez my eyes are burning after reading all that. Good old cpu forum!