i5 8400 or Ryzen 1600

[EarthDog]

Ddr3 wasnt really the culprit. Memory bandwidth, unless you amd ryzen or use integrated gpu, typically doesnt offer large increases. Ddr4 from 2133 to 3200 didnt make much of a difference, for example...
https://www.anandtech.com/show/8959...-3200-with-gskill-corsair-adata-and-crucial/8

2 770s...
https://www.anandtech.com/show/8959...-3200-with-gskill-corsair-adata-and-crucial/7

And ddr3....
https://www.anandtech.com/show/7364/memory-scaling-on-haswell/7


If you have some other results, feel free to post them.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Ddr3 wasnt really the culprit. Memory bandwidth, unless you amd ryzen or use integrated gpu, typically doesnt offer large increases. Ddr4 from 2133 to 3200 didnt make much of a difference, for example...
https://www.anandtech.com/show/8959...-3200-with-gskill-corsair-adata-and-crucial/8

2 770s...
https://www.anandtech.com/show/8959...-3200-with-gskill-corsair-adata-and-crucial/7

And ddr3....
https://www.anandtech.com/show/7364/memory-scaling-on-haswell/7


If you have some other results, feel free to post them.

Well doing real world comparisons I saw maybe a 5-10 FPS difference between the 2600K and a 6700K. That was the MOST in FPS difference and those were all well above 60FPS so it didn't make much of a difference.

 

[Vario]

I think I'd just try to save for the 8700K. It should be competitive for gaming for the next 5+ years.

 

[EarthDog]

Well doing real world comparisons I saw maybe a 5-10 FPS difference between the 2600K and a 6700K. That was the MOST in FPS difference and those were all well above 60FPS so it didn't make much of a difference.

i mean, its the buyer's choice if they want to pay for an expensive card and lop off 10%(more? Less?) percent performance (going by fps isnt a great idea. 5-10 fps means something at 60 fps, not so much at 100+... talk in percent ).

Sure a high end card will play 60 fps+, but, i dont see paying so much for a high-end card (1080+) and limiting it. Others may not care.

 

[hat]

I think I'd just try to save for the 8700K. It should be competitive for gaming for the next 5+ years.

Agreed. That's what kept the 2500k/2600k going for so long. The platform was already strong, but the open endedness of the K platform made it last. I wish I had a K series CPU right now. I could run faster than 1333 ram, which is a pretty decent bottleneck, and I could clock my chip higher than 3.2GHz. I still wouldn't be thinking about upgrading. Since I'm held back by the locked, non-k CPU, I'm stuck with a slow core speed and slow RAM. The 8700k (or 8600k) will not face this issue.

 

[Vario]

Agreed. That's what kept the 2500k/2600k going for so long. The platform was already strong, but the open endedness of the K platform made it last. I wish I had a K series CPU right now. I could run faster than 1333 ram, which is a pretty decent bottleneck, and I could clock my chip higher than 3.2GHz. I still wouldn't be thinking about upgrading. Since I'm held back by the locked, non-k CPU, I'm stuck with a slow core speed and slow RAM. The 8700k (or 8600k) will not face this issue.

You would need a different motherboard too, right? You could update your processor, might be like $50 out of pocket. Maybe buy a used CPU ram mobo bundle and sell your whole setup for the same.

As far as K series, its not like the 8700K will be that much faster for having the K, it starts off at 4.7 turbo and I think all cores at 4.3? Most overclockers max out at 5.0 on typical cooling solutions. Still, looks to be the first CPU in a while from Intel that might be worth upgrading from 1155 and definitely will extend its range over non K.

 

[hat]

It's not just core speed that counts. It has been shown that faster ram has a noticeable impact on gaming and truly overall performance. That's the other thing the K platform offers - faster than standard ram. The i5 8400 supports ddr4 2666, but the sky is the limit with a K CPU. I'm not sure how much faster than 2666 ram makes a difference, or will in the future, with the 8600k or 8700k, but faster than 1333 damn sure makes a difference on the older platforms like sandy bridge.

As for your comment on the 8700k's overclockability, remember I'm comparing the overall performance level of the K platform with the standard i5 8400 based platform. The i5 8400 is only 3.8ghz all core turbo, period. Just because the 8700k doesn't overclock very far (because it starts off much faster) doesn't mean it won't be better than the locked i5 8400.
Maxing out at 5.0 still means 1200mhz faster across 6 cores than the i5 8400. And then there's the faster ram too.

 

[Mussels]

playing pubg at 4k, i lost about 30FPS when my 3770k dropped from 2400 to 1333 on the ram due to a bios screwup

the actual hit will vary between the various platforms, but RAM speed definitely matters for feeding video cards at high resolutions (not for high FPS at low res like 1080p, so it doesnt show in standard benchmark programs that are all GPU load, and no VRAM load)

 

[hat]

playing pubg at 4k, i lost about 30FPS when my 3770k dropped from 2400 to 1333 on the ram due to a bios screwup

the actual hit will vary between the various platforms, but RAM speed definitely matters for feeding video cards at high resolutions (not for high FPS at low res like 1080p, so it doesnt show in standard benchmark programs that are all GPU load, and no VRAM load)

That's what I'm talking about. There have been noticeable differences with faster RAM on the older platforms. Like I said I'm not sure what difference faster than DDR4 2666 makes, or will make in the future, but because of how good Sandy K was, I wouldn't want to buy into a limited platform again. If I had the money to upgrade right now I wouldn't settle for any less than the 8600k.