i5 8400 with GTX 1060 6GB or Ryzen 5 1400 with GTX 1070 8GB

i5 8400 with GTX 1060 6GB (1200€) or Ryzen 5 1400 with GTX 1070 8GB (1300€)?

  • i5 8400 with GTX 1060 6GB

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    6
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

OmniDyne

Active Member
A very short term view, also even now new gpu's are just around the corner

By your own logic, the 1070 would be the better option. OP could spend $150 on a new processor down the road and it would re-invigorate the 1070.

If he went 1060, he'd have to spend well over $300-$400 for a new GPU sooner than later.

New GPU's are not guaranteed to be around the corner. We have no idea when they will be released.

the weaker cpu would put him at a disadvantage for all the years of usage in the future and will cause him to need to upgrade sooner.

That's simply not true. Most games are GPU bound. In reality with the trend being current games favoring higher threads, the 4 core/ 8 thread Ryzen 5 1400 will last just as along as the 6 core/ 6 thread i5-8400.

Again, the 1070 is far superior to the 1060. At 60Hz, there's almost no difference between the 1400 and the 8400.

At 60hz, there's a massive difference between the 1060 and 1070.
 
Last edited:

Shlouski

VIP Member
1070 absolutely makes the most sense now

Sure, I agree if you can afford one, but it will reduce the lifespan of the computer if you need to take a weaker cpu. For example whats better, a 1400 with a 1170 or an 8400 with a 1170? Most likely 2 gpu upgrades can be done in both builds, so long term the Intel will be better, by the time he needs upgrade he will need buy everything anyway. I'm not arguing that he can't upgrade, he can upgrade every year maybe until AM5 comes out if he wants to waste his money, for gaming he really shouldnt need to should save his money and spend it on graphics cards that will make the really difference.
 

Shlouski

VIP Member
By your own logic, the 1070 would be the better option

No, my logic is that gpu's are easier to upgrade than cpu, mobo and ram combos, again your view is short term, both cpu's will facilitate future gpu's, but the Intel will do this more so. Your logic is spend more for a better pc, yes sure this works of course, he can spend all the money he wants buying all the new cpu's he wants, not that it will help much for gaming in the next few years, he can use that money to buy better gpu's in the future. Come on guys, if you have a decent pc which you use mostly for gaming, do you upgrade your cpu's or gpu's more often?

New GPU's are not guaranteed to be around the corner. We have no idea when they will be released

You think they may not bother to release any for the next few years? They hardly likely to be far off.

That's simply not true. Most games are GPU bound

True, most games are gpu bound, which is why he should spend his money on future gpu's upgrades not cpu's, but at some point years from now those cpu's won't be able to keep up with the new cards, starting with the weaker one, but this will most likely be when both socket are no longer relevant anymore, just like my am2 am3 example.

trend being current games favoring higher threads

The 8400 destroys the 1400 in both single and multi tread applications.
 

Darren

Moderator
Staff member
You can overclock the difference out of the 1400 with a 30 dollar air cooler anyway. They're set at pretty low speeds. Clock for clock they're pretty equal.
 

Måns Eriksson

New Member
I've checked the prices on gpus and they seem extremely expensive..Where i live the GTX 1070 alone costs 500-600€.. Wouldn't it be better to go with the R5 1400 since i've heard that their socket will be around for longer and the R5 doesn't really bottleneck the 1070 in most games.. Also the R5 seems to offer more bang for the buck than Intel? What i wanna acomplish with this PC is play stuff like GTA V, COD WW2 etc on good graphics and high fps and i want to get the most out of my money and something that is future proof.. (relatively)
 

Shlouski

VIP Member
You can overclock the difference out of the 1400 with a 30 dollar air cooler anyway. They're set at pretty low speeds. Clock for clock they're pretty equal.

Yes as I already stated, but does he want to overclock? Has he been asked?
 

Shlouski

VIP Member
That's simply not true. Most games are GPU bound. In reality with the trend being current games favoring higher threads, the 4 core/ 8 thread Ryzen 5 1400 will last just as along as the 6 core/ 6 thread i5-8400.

I'm sure that before you had a battlefield 1 link as an example, but I can find it, maybe you deleted it in an edit. I wanted to touch on the subject of threads a little more in my last post but I didn't have time. For starters you need to compare apples to apples, you can't compare an Intel cpu and an AMD cpu and automatically assume that the performance differences are only due to numbers of threads they are running, there are numerous other variables that could affect performance, for starts they have completely different architectures. You would need to compare two identical cpu's, the only difference being the number of threads they run, so you can get the most accurate results.

Also as far as I'm aware when if comes to gaming, core speed is still very important, as you can see here:
https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2111?vs=2112
Even when having 4 threads less, the Ryzen 5 2600X is still faster or equal in the most part when it comes to gaming, but we can also compare apples to oranges, better quality threads vs number of threads for gaming:

Civilization 6 1080p - i5 8400 beats 1500x
Civilization 6 4k - i5 8400 beats 1500x
Civilization 6 8k - i5 8400 beats 1800x
Civilization 6 16k - i5 8400 beats 1800x

Ashes of the Singularity Escalation 1080p - i5 8400 beats 1800x
Ashes of the Singularity Escalation 4k - i5 8400 beats 1800x

Shadow of Mordor 1080p - i5 8400 beats 1800x
Shadow of Mordor 4k - i5 8400 beats 1800x

Rise of the Tomb Raider 1080p - i5 8400 beats 1800x
Rise of the Tomb Raider 4k - i5 8400 beats 1500x, they are all very close on this one.

Grand Theft Auto V 1080p - i5 8400 beats 1600
Grand Theft Auto V 4k - i5 8400 beats 1800x, but not in time under 30fps

https://www.anandtech.com/show/1185...lake-review-8700k-and-8400-initial-numbers/13

Intel owns when it comes to gaming right now, but I'm really happy AMD is improving.

Now these are some of the few games that work well with multi threaded cpu's, keep in mind the thousands of games on services like steam that don't work well with multi threaded cpu's, literally the overwhelming majority of games don't work so well on multi threaded cpu's. Even if he were to upgrade to the 1800x in the future, in the most part it would still be a downgrade compared to the 8400.

Of course we can have faith that threads are better utilized in the future, but I had a quad all the way back in 2008 and even today I still find so many new games that don't support 4 threads or do so poorly, so I will stick with quality.
 

Darren

Moderator
Staff member
144Hz? 1070 no question. CPU's aside this isn't even a debate. 1070 is way faster than 1060. Your GPU has a much more direct impact on performance when it comes to frame per frame.

The age old "4 cores is enough" line is just that. Old. If the market wasn't shifting towards more cores/threads then why is Intel suddenly pushing 6 cores on their mainstream chips? I see more than 4 threads used consistently on my chip, frequently even 8+. Civ 6 uses all 16. Battlefield I know scales well with cores and in an FPS (main things he wants to play) the GPU is far more important anyway.

@Shlouski nothing you're saying is inherently wrong and there's a lot to consider when comparing CPU's, much of which you mentioned. Simple fact is 1070 crushes a 1060 and if you're buying a computer you get the best thing you can get for your money.

I would heavily recommend overclock in the 1400 to around 4.0GHz. My 1700 got a nice bump from its low stock clocks. I imagine you could lock it at 3.6ish on the stock cooler even.
 

Shlouski

VIP Member
144Hz? 1070 no question. CPU's aside this isn't even a debate. 1070 is way faster than 1060. Your GPU has a much more direct impact on performance when it comes to frame per frame.

I have NEVER argued over this. He asked for opinions, I would go for the build which would leave me with the better computer in the long run, because its normal to upgrade gpu's for gaming as they do impact so much and progress so fast, there is no need to upgrade the cpu, use the money on better graphics cards.

The age old "4 cores is enough" line is just that. Old. If the market wasn't shifting towards more cores/threads then why is Intel suddenly pushing 6 cores on their mainstream chips?

Easy answer, because computers perform countless other task other than gaming which do benefit from high core count, but we are talking about GAMING. Let hope future games will support multiple cores better. I never said 4 cores is enough for everything, I was just pointing out that its been 10 years and still so many programs can't use them properly, if at all, one day the majority of games will support high cores counts, but it been 10 years already, how many more years will it take.

I see more than 4 threads used consistently on my chip, frequently even 8+. Civ 6 uses all 16. Battlefield I know scales well with cores and in an FPS

You could have 100+ cores being used, but is the point if they are crap, getting wrecked by a cpu with less cores. The facts are not debatable, at this time core speed is still very important and I have given links to undeniable proof, I'm sorry but we are yet to see anything to backup what you are claiming and one exception does not prove the point. My 8700k can use all 12 cores in civ too, you know its actually faster when only the 6 real cores are enabled, the higher thread cores hurt my performance. You should watch this video:

We should do a gaming showdown between my 8700k and your 1700, you have those 4 extra cores right, so you should wreck me.

I would heavily recommend overclock in the 1400 to around 4.0GHz.

So did I, even before you did I believe, if he gets the 1400 then really he should. So you have asked him and he's cool with overclocking right? I hope he is, but nobody in this thread has asked him yet.
 

Darren

Moderator
Staff member
I have NEVER argued over this. He asked for opinions, I would go for the build which would leave me with the better computer in the long run, because its normal to upgrade gpu's for gaming as they do impact so much and progress so fast, there is no need to upgrade the cpu, use the money on better graphics cards.

Never said you didn't. We're comparing two computers. 1 with a faster GPU than the other. Buy that one. You gotta understand I agree with you for the most part on everything you're saying but he asked for a comparison of these 2 computers, one with a way faster GPU (and thus better gaming computer).


Easy answer, because computers perform countless other task other than gaming which do benefit from high core count, but we are talking about GAMING. Let hope future games will support multiple cores better. I never said 4 cores is enough for everything, I was just pointing out that its been 10 years and still so many programs can't use them properly, if at all, one day the majority of games will support high cores counts, but it been 10 years already, how many more years will it take.

This is deeply flawed logic. Especially since it's already happening.

You could have 100+ cores being used, but is the point if they are crap, getting wrecked by a cpu with less cores. The facts are not debatable, at this time core speed is still very important and I have given links to undeniable proof, I'm sorry but we are yet to see anything to backup what you are claiming and one exception does not prove the point. My 8700k can use all 12 cores in civ too, you know its actually faster when only the 6 real cores are enabled, the higher thread cores hurt my performance. You should watch this video:

I never said IPC or single core performance is irrelevant. The point is that Ryzen (when overclocked to ~4.0GHz) is more than enough for gaming (except the ultra high end) and the vast bulk of your performance will stem from a faster GPU. Future proofing be damned, the 1070 machine is a better gaming machine as it stands off the shelf right now. This is a fact that you can't disagree with.

We should do a gaming showdown between my 8700k and your 1700, you have those 4 extra cores right, so you should wreck me.

With a matched GPU you'd win every day of the week. And you should, and I never said any different. I'm not saying higher core count is always better. I owned an 8320 and got severely burned with that mentality. The single core performance was laughable. Intel chips usually are better for strictly gaming purposes when comparing similarly priced models. Ryzen systems are within a close margin of gaming performance while excelling at everything else. I don't even game that much anymore, I'm just a hardware enthusiast. My machine is massive overkill. I run 1440p at 60Hz so the 1700 vs an 8700K for instance is pointless as the framerate is capped below where you'd even find that difference.

My ultimate point with all of this is the 1070 based machine is a better gaming computer. The 8400 is a better gaming CPU than the 1400 (even overclocked). I never said it wasn't. Hell the 8400 is probably a "better" gaming CPU than my 1700 except in heavily multithreaded games. But between the two systems the 1070 based machine is a better gaming computer. As a perk it has better upgradeability options. I'm not gonna keep running in circles about this, you're not even really debating the same thing as what I'm trying to say.
 

OmniDyne

Active Member
No, my logic is that gpu's are easier to upgrade than cpu, mobo and ram combos

As has been stated multiple times, he'd only need to upgrade the processor. The AM4 socket will be supported until 2020, and he could upgrade to a 2600X/ 2700X for extremely cheap next year, on the same motherboard. The 2600X has been on sale for close to $150 already. The 2600X is a superior processor to the 8400 in gaming and workstation use.

$150 for a processor is a much cheaper alternative to $400 - $500 for a new GPU. So the OP still comes out ahead with the Ryzen build, and he won't have to upgrade for another 3 to 4 years.

both cpu's will facilitate future gpu's, but the Intel will do this more so.

This is not true. The OP would be stuck on Coffee Lake, and processors will not drop in price on the 1151 socket when Intel releases its next generation of processors. Sure, he may not need to upgrade the processor, but he'll have to spend $500 on a GPU. And then he'll still have to do a full motherboard/ processor/ RAM upgrade 3 to 4 years later.

Your logic is spend more for a better pc

It's 100 dollars more. For 144Hz gaming, no question he needs a 1070. It's that simple. No question, he will be better served by the Ryzen build, any way you cut it. And it'll be far cheaper in the long run.
 
Last edited:

Shlouski

VIP Member
Never said you didn't. We're comparing two computers. 1 with a faster GPU than the other. Buy that one. You gotta understand I agree with you for the most part on everything you're saying but he asked for a comparison of these 2 computers, one with a way faster GPU (and thus better gaming computer).

I agree, in the short term it will be the better gaming PC, but I trying to take into consideration the PC's lifespan, it was just my opinion that he would probably upgrade the gpu at some point and at this point it would become the better gaming pc.


This is deeply flawed logic. Especially since it's already happening.

One day I will die of old age I hope, it has already started, so by your logic is I'm going to die soon, I really hoped to live many more years, I have so many more debates left in me. Something starting has no indication of when or if it will be finished. My point is multiple thread have been around for over a decade and still today the overwhelming number of games still suck at using them, AAA games are using more cores better and that's great, but for each one of those games there are likely a few thousand other games that don't. To clear this up, I have never said multiple threads suck, I have never said that they aren't the future, I believe they are the future, but I just don't believe the 1400 will one day be faster than the 8400 just because it has more threads, even now in multi thread application it gets wrecked. My point has always been that there is no point in choosing I high core count cpu over one which has less, when the one that has less is more powerful. Of course you could buy a cpu that would theoretically be more powerful than another if I were to use all of it cores effectively, you may have the faith it will happen soon, but history shows it can take years.

I never said IPC or single core performance is irrelevant. The point is that Ryzen (when overclocked to ~4.0GHz) is more than enough for gaming (except the ultra high end) and the vast bulk of your performance will stem from a faster GPU. Future proofing be damned, the 1070 machine is a better gaming machine as it stands off the shelf right now. This is a fact that you can't disagree with.

Ok, again I have never disagreed with this, everyone knows the 1070 is faster than the 1060, please stop bringing this non issue up. Future proofing be damned are words that will be regretted in the future and likely not a distant one. I offered my opinion that I would take the slower gaming pc now, but the faster future one, when having that extra cpu performance will count for more.

With a matched GPU you'd win every day of the week. And you should, and I never said any different. I'm not saying higher core count is always better. I owned an 8320 and got severely burned with that mentality. The single core performance was laughable. Intel chips usually are better for strictly gaming purposes when comparing similarly priced models. Ryzen systems are within a close margin of gaming performance while excelling at everything else. I don't even game that much anymore, I'm just a hardware enthusiast. My machine is massive overkill. I run 1440p at 60Hz so the 1700 vs an 8700K for instance is pointless as the framerate is capped below where you'd even find that difference.

My ultimate point with all of this is the 1070 based machine is a better gaming computer. The 8400 is a better gaming CPU than the 1400 (even overclocked). I never said it wasn't. Hell the 8400 is probably a "better" gaming CPU than my 1700 except in heavily multithreaded games. But between the two systems the 1070 based machine is a better gaming computer. As a perk it has better upgradeability options. I'm not gonna keep running in circles about this, you're not even really debating the same thing as what I'm trying to say.

I agree with all this and I too feel like do not understand what I'm trying to say. Like you say the 8400 is a better gaming cpu, which is why I would want it, the 1070 is better than the 1060, but its normal to upgrade and once upgraded the intel build will no doubt be better and in my opinion the limited upgradeability options (talking cpu's here) are a waste of money for gaming, in a few years when it comes time to upgrade they will be obsolete, there will also be new motherboard technology's released he would miss out on.


As has been stated multiple times, he'd only need to upgrade the processor.

As stated multiple times, he would only need to upgrade his gpu, it is normal for gamers to upgrade this, so actually what you are saying he will need to upgrade his gpu and cpu.

The 2600X is a superior processor to the 8400 in gaming

How superior? Did you know they are very close when it comes to gaming performance, so close the 8400 often beats it. Also this would be a complete waste of money in this particular situation.

This is not true.
Sure, he may not need to upgrade the processor

Colour me confused.

The OP would be stuck on Coffee Lake

Yes, he will be stuck with a better cpu, which like you say he may not need to upgrade, well he will need to upgrade, but not before both platforms are irrelevant.

but he'll have to spend $500 on a GPU

Why, is there a gun to his head? We have no idea about future gpu pricing and performance.

he'll still have to do a full motherboard/ processor/ RAM upgrade 3 to 4 years later
The AM4 socket will be supported until 2020

See what I did here^^

3 years sounds way too early in my opinion, 4 to 5, he could keep it even longer, has he told you how long he wants to keep it? For gaming the cpu will likely keep up for the next 4-5 years, maybe longer, its hard tell for sure and we can only go off history. Unlike you, I'm not going jump to the conclusion that the OP is going to run out and buy a new cpu just because its getting a little low, 20 years of building computers for people I have found they are all very different, I only offer advice based on fact and leave the decisions to them, I was asked my opinion and gave it, I never even opposed the 1400 build. By the time he NEEDS to upgrade both platforms will be irrelevant and he will need to buy motherboard/ processor/ RAM anyway, but this will come sooner with the slower 1400 build.

It's 100 dollars more.

100 dollars more, plus the cpu you think he needs to upgrade:
and he could upgrade to a 2600X/ 2700X

For 144Hz gaming, no question he needs a 1070. It's that simple.

No, it is definitely NOT simple. My 1080 can and can't do 144hz, my 1050 can and can't do 144hz, its also possible that my 1050 can do 144hz when my 1080 can't. why is this? Do I need to explain this? I can, but damn I've been here long enough, I don't want another long-winded post.

By the time he needs to upgrade, both platforms will be irrelevant and he won't have a damn 1060 or 1070 anymore.

I can accept and I understand your opinions, but I disagree with them. The above questions I will just say are rhetorical. Peace, I'm out.
 

OmniDyne

Active Member
How superior? Did you know they are very close when it comes to gaming performance, so close the 8400 often beats it

That is incorrect. The 2600X beats the 8400 in almost every game by 7 percent, with the exception of 2 games where it decimates the 8400 with over 40 percent more frames in 2 games that take advantage of higher thread processors, and is only beaten by the 8400 in around 3 games due to lack of optimization. The 2600X is superior in every way, especially considering price.

We have no idea about future gpu pricing and performance.

History tells us what the next generation of cards will cost. So yes, we have an excellent idea.

, it is definitely NOT simple. My 1080 can and can't do 144hz, my 1050 can and can't do 144hz, its also possible that my 1050 can do 144hz when my 1080 can't.

A GTX 1060 will provide 144Hz at lower resolutions and lower graphics in fewer games. Hardly worth it considering the price tag.
 

Shlouski

VIP Member
Ok I'm back damn it.

That is incorrect.

You say this and then proceed to show how close they are.

in almost every game by 7 percent

A website that benchmarks every game in the world, damn I need a link plz :D. Nice 7 percent in some games, if he got 60fps with the 8400, then he would be getting a huge gain of 4.2 fps or 144fps then he would get a extra 10fps, for the small sum of $150, on top of the price of his original cpu, damn you have a good eye for a bargain :D. Also the 5 games that do stand out to you, the 8400 wins in 3 and the 2600x in 2, lol.

due to lack of optimization

Like the overwhelming majority of games.

History tells us what the next generation of cards will cost. So yes, we have an excellent idea.

Ah that's cool, then its no problem for you to give me the prices and performance figures now plz, so I can start planning what to get now plz.

Just a quick google shows prices can change significantly from 1 year to the next.

Fall 2013 - GeForce GTX 780 - $500
September 2014 - GeForce GTX 980 - $550

March 2014 - Radeon R9 280 - $280
May 2015 - AMD Radeon R9 380 - $199

Just a quick google shows performance can change significantly from 1 year to the next

580 vs 680 - 46%
680 vs 780 - 35%
780 vs 980 - 19%
980 vs 1080 - 65%

So if we go by history with NVidia its possible we could get a card $50 more expensive and only 19% faster or $50 cheaper and 65% faster, that is a HUGE difference, but plz tell me prices and % performs increases, thx.

A GTX 1060 will provide 144Hz at lower resolutions and lower graphics in fewer games. Hardly worth it considering the price tag.

True, both cards would need to be adjusted accordingly, the 1060 more so. 144 fps is a hard ask for even a 1080 at decent settings: https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1940
He's going to have to upgrade anyway if he want to stay playing at 144fps with decent settings, irrelevant which system he's buys he going to need a stronger gpu asap, he shouldn't be buying another $150 cpu, he should get the strongest cpu he can afford now and saving up to buy the best card possible.
 

Shlouski

VIP Member
Not anymore.

Lol, this must be a joke right. There are over 16,000 games on steam alone, how many do you reckon even support 4 threads, never mind 12 threads? Play a few and you will soon find out.
Tell you what, to hell with the 8400 or the 1400, I vote for 2600x overclocking and 1060, no way should he pay $140 for the 1400 and then pay another $230 for 2600x, a total of $370 for a 7% improvement over a $190 8400, that's balls.

That's simply not true

Its simply a fact, benchmarks using games that are already 1 or 2 years old and the 1070 already can't achieve 144 fps and you think it will last a few more years...........no way:
https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1941

Even the 1080 struggling to achieve 144 fps in older games:
https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1940
 

Darren

Moderator
Staff member
I think we can all agree they're both poorly balanced systems and a custom build is the way to go. This thread is a prime example as to why prebuilds suck.
 

Måns Eriksson

New Member
I think we can all agree they're both poorly balanced systems and a custom build is the way to go. This thread is a prime example as to why prebuilds suck.
But pre-built is more worth it as of right now and i want a PC now.. I agree that these pre-built computers use poorly balanced hardware and yes that sucks but manufacturers likely do it to save money, trying to use as many similar components as possible so they can buy more and cheaper instead of using different but balanced components in all their builds.. I am simply trying to find a good bang for the buck gaming PC that has balanced hardware and is decently future proof.. But that seems to be allmost impossible as of right now..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top