Gadgetory

welcome back to harbor box for another big benchmark video and I am sick for this one if you can't tell already say if I sound a bit off that is the reason why anyway not a big deal the show will continue and it has to because it's now time to compare the overclocked horizon 5 1602 the core i5 80 409 games at a range of resolutions now if you missed yesterday's video it's probably worth watching that first as does talk about a lot of things relating to this video I basically I touched on a few things like why I do tests at a range of resolutions why the Vegas 64 liquid cooled graphics card is used and I addressed a number of misconceptions about the core i5 8400 skipping all of that information for this video we're just going to get right into the benchmarks please note in addition to the Radeon rx of Vegas 64 liquid core graphics card both the AMD and Intel systems were also tested with the same ddr4 3200 CL 40 memory the core i5 8400 is a lock CPU so that obviously hasn't me to have a clocked in anyway meanwhile the husband five six 700 has been overclocked 4 gigahertz while I've included these stock r5 1600 X results for a reference additionally the core i7 semi san roque has also been included though note it hasn't been overclocked the focus of this video will be the overclocked horizon 5 6 300 at 4 gigahertz which will obviously be compared to the core i5 8400 I guess the question is can the horizon CPU deliver comparable gaming performance what overclocked and how does it stack up in terms of value well we're about to find out let's jump into the benchmarks first up we have the battlefield 1 results and here we find some pretty disappointing numbers right off the bat for horizon that said I wasn't expecting the overclocked 1600 to be significantly faster than the 1600 X which already operates quite close to foggy goats for the most part here at 720p overclocking the cheaper r5 1600 boost of the frame rates by just 5% and this meant even overclocked horizon was much slower than the 8th gen Core i5 in fact the core i5 8400 is 40 FPS faster for the frame rate and that's almost a 30 percent increase essentially you're getting 70 similar K light performance slightly better in fact but at a much lower price looking at the MSRP anyway as dire as the low resolution testing looks as the GPU bottleneck starts to creep in at 1080p using the ultra quality settings the Rison 5 1600 mounts a swift comeback and is now within a 5 percent margin there are of course two sides to these results some will say that they're realistic as they show gamers how much difference there will be under realistic conditions that they intend to play with the other side being that it's hiding how much faster the Intel CPUs are and in future with faster GPUs the margin will again open up I'm simply going to note both sides of the argument and leave it up to you the viewer to decide which results should influence your buying decision then finally at 1440p we are even more GPU limited and here the CPUs impact is reduced further needless to say all CPUs offered a smooth experience in battlefield 1 next up we have another DirectX 12 title civilization 6 for testing I use the GPU benchmark I measure performance with present Mon the test runs for 30 seconds and it takes the same amount of time on a pentium g 45 60 as it doesn't 8700 K for example as far as I can tell it is a very accurate test and this is based on results it's given me over time here we see something very different to the results just shown when looking at battlefield 1 I'm not sure what it is about civilization 6 but the game runs significantly better on AMD arisin CPUs when using a Radeon graphics card in the DirectX 12 mode it's really hard to say if this is an indication of how future native DirectX tiles will perform on rise and in relation to Intel or if this is just some strange anomaly again the test method here doesn't favour slower processors or some believed based on information given by gamers Nexus for this test we're not using the term based AI benchmark I'm not really interested in how long it takes the CPU to calculate the AIS move I realize this turn-based game doesn't really require a high frame rate but the frame rate is still more what I'm interested in is a good point to how future DirectX 12 titles will perform any way similar margins are again seen at turn appears this is a heavily CPU bound game so we aren't seeing much reduction in frame rate this is again true even at 1440 pegan here there isin five 1600 is a massive 47% fast and the core i5 8400 when comparing the minimum frame rate result honestly I'm not sure how this is possible for Aizen to be so much faster in this game but it's not because it's rendering a static scene for a longer period of time Dawn of War 3 is a DirectX 11 title and here we see that when overclocked their eyes are 5 6 200 processor is able to match the core i5 80 400 at 720p the average frame rate was only boosted by 6% over the 6800 X but that was enough to match the core i5 processor that said the 70s on our case still remains out in front here performance goes virtually unchanged at Tony P so we're obviously CPU bound here and not limited by the Vega 64 graphics card much the same as also found at 1440p as well though the overclocked Rison v 1600 just edges out the core i5 8400 f1 2017 utilizes the CPU about as well as any DirectX 11 tunnel does and what's overclocked well you see fairly competitive numbers from the Rison v 1600 it was 10% slower than the core i5 8000 for the minimum result but just 6% slower for the average so not a huge margin that said the margins do remain much the same even at 1080p as the overclocked Rison CPU continues to trail the new core i5 fan at 1440p the r5 1600 delivers 77 ok light performance and is now just 7% slower than the 8400 overwatch was tested using the ultra quality preset so it's fair to say any of these CPUs will be sufficient even for the most demanding players that said the overclocked arisin v 1600 was still 15% sold nearly 400 in this tile mat meant that frame rates did dip 25 FPS lara not ideal for those chasing extreme frame rates in this title still with an average of over 200 FPS the r5 1600 obviously provided a very smooth experience then at 1080p we ran into a severe GPU bottleneck as vega 64 limits us to an average of around 165 FPS of course the same is also seen at 1440 pay and here the CPU isn't afforded the opportunity to make a difference project cars 2 is another new racing simulator and this one is also quite CPU demanding overclocking Rison only boosted the average framerate by 6% investment the r5 1600 was still 15% slower the core i5 8400 at 720p moving eternity P reduces this margin just 9% here the r5 1600 was good for 115 FPS on average while the 8400 managed 127 fps then finally a 1440p we ended up with the same 100 FPS average and 84 FPS minimum for the r5 16 hundred and 80 400 next that we have player knowns battlegrounds and these results are more competitive than what I was expecting though that's mostly because CPUs with more than full cause seem to confuse this title well the 77 ok looks a very mighty the only 400 is quite a bit slower in fact only matches the performance of the overclocked Rison v 1600 that said once we jump to 1080p we're now GPU limited and the overclocked r5 1600 delivered the same experience as the 77 ok a 400 this is of course also seen at 1440p and here this stock 1600 X also catches up so not much else to report here really so let's move on the Rainbow six siege Tom Clancy's Rainbow six siege is another CPU demanding title and at 720p the 8th gen core series pushes over a hundred and eighty FPS at all times this is another older DirectX 11 title that just doesn't play that well with Verizon here the overclocked r5 1600 was 21% slower than 8400 that's obviously a huge margin the massive deficit can also be seen even at 1080p as the overclocked r5 1600 was still 20% slower than the core i5 8400 when comparing the minimum result as you would expect the margins did close up at 1440p but even so the r5 1600 is still 11 percent slower nearly 400 for the minimum result total war Warhammer offers both DirectX 11 and DirectX 12 support but I've test using dx12 that said even with the more modern API the game doesn't utilize a CPU that well and doesn't really call for more than a quad core in fact like what we saw with pup G it seems that game is it better off with the 70 Summer of Code quad core for these titles testing at 720p showed the 77 R K to be 13% fast and the 8400 for the average frame rate and 27% faster than the overclocked five sixteen hundred however once we make the jump to 1080p framerate stumble and now the CPUs deliver the same average and minimum result as you would expect this is also true at 1440p as we are heavily GPU bound here alright so we've checked out the nine games a benchmark with it's time to break down the data and work out what's what first up everyone's favorite the 720p data here we can see on average the core i5 8400 was 11% fast in the overclocked Verizon five six two hundred comparing the minimum frame rate not a massive margin but the 8400 is clearly faster overall it's worth noting it also matched the minimum result of this 7700 K so now if we check out the cost per frame this is what we find please don't I'm combining both the CPU and motherboard cost to you so the 8400 is paired with a cheap said 370 board in the r5 1600 with a be 350 board here we see based on the 720p data at the core i5 8400 combo despite costing 9% more actually ends up costing 2 percent less per frame thanks to that superior performance overall obviously not a lot in it so it's fair to say the 8400 and r5 1600 are very similar in terms of value assuming you're willing to overclock the rise in the CPU movie to 1080p we see whereas the 8400 was 11 percent faster previously it's now just 4% faster at 1080p this means when comparing cost per frame they only 400 now costs 5 percent more making their overclocked horizon 5 1600 slightly better value then at 1440p where we are heavily GPU bound there is zero performance difference between the r5 1600 8400 this means when comparing the cost per frame the 8400 is now 9% more expensive as the combo costs nine percent more so no surprises there okay so based on that data worst case of the core i5 8400 being that it costs nine percent more and delivers the same performance that figure is just accounting of course for the CPU and motherboard remember the Intel combo is just $25 us more so for those building a full system you can probably safely add on another thousand dollars us to the total and now the 8400 cost slightly less than two percent more what I'm getting at here is regardless of how you look at it they're very similar if we focus on non GPU bound results which I feel we really the 8400 is the better value option as the performance increase outweighs the slight cost increase at any P there much of a muchness and naturally at 1440p where we're very GPU bound the cheapest combo delivers the most value the core i3 8100 for example the risin 3 1300 Rex would win here if we included them so I'll let you decide how much weight those 1440p results should carry now I realize it is extremely difficult to buy the core i5 8400 right now and getting one for $190 is even harder however this doesn't invalidate the results or my opinion the MSRP is 182 dollars us and it won't be long before you can readily purchase the 8400 and around that price if this upsets you so much that you just can't get over it think of it this way you're getting a preview of what's to come shortly Intel will release the core i5 8400 and this is how it will perform nothing about the performance data I've shown here will change and the 8400 will become available at around $180 us now armed with that information you have a choice take the red pill or patiently wait for your local pharmacy to restock the blue pill versus to say by the horizon 5 6100 now or wait and get the core i5 8400 once supply meets demand I know there's gonna be AMD fanboy screaming that I'm biased because I included low resolution testing or I didn't base my pricing analysis on a limited time only sale price at Micro Center then on the other side of the fence Intel fans will be up in arms that I didn't use at GTX 1080i for the testing or that 1440p limits CPU performance and therefore AMD paid me truth is I really just don't care either way by their Eisen 5 buy the core i5 it's really all the same to me I'm just trying to provide the best information I can on the subject for potential buyers just for fun though something a bit different let's make a case for buying their eyes in 5 1600 and then for the core i5 8400 I'd buy their eyes in 5 1600 because it's cheaper Hey $25 buys you a decent cooler or some flashy RGB lights it's also available right now at the MSRP or a little when on sale and it's supported by a massive range of affordable be 350 motherboards if you're using anything less than a gtx 1080i or you play a realistic resolutions the experience is going to be similar or identical to that of the more expensive intel cpus the included cooler is good enough to support a 4 gigahertz overclock with a custom fairing kurvin most chips will hit at least 3.9 gigahertz with the right voltage settings horizons efficiency is also very good the r5 1600 is very power efficient for a 6 quart 12 thread cpu speaking of which it does support 12th Reds and that could come in very handy in the future gaming aside the r5 1600 even before it's overclocked is the superior productivity CPU vastly superior in some tests ok so there my arguments for buying horizon I'd buy the core i5 8400 because it's the stronger gaming CPU for the vast majority of titles available right now a stronger low resolution performance could point to it being a better CPU down the track and a bit of pairing for future generation GPUs those rocking a high refresh rate gaming monitor right now will surely be better served by the 8400 it's also a beast out of the box there's no need to fine-tune or overclock I mean you can't but you're getting superior performance in games anyway all those dead 370 motherboards I have the only option right now that combo is only slightly more expensive and it provides a flexible upgrade path in the future so it might not even be worth saving the 30 to 50 dollars on a B 360 board for a lot of gamers in the end the 8400 is a simple yet powerful option for gamers okay so that's me looking at this as objectively as I can you can certainly make a strong case for by either Verizon v 1600 or the core i5 8400 the only hiccup being that while you can purchase the rise in CPU right now you can't the 8400 this could all change in the coming weeks so let's just not complicate the issue with that availability mess you'll have to cross that bridge when it comes time to upgrade or build your new gaming PC you have the performance data and you've seen how that translates when measuring the cost per frame based on the u.s. MSRP if pricing is different in your region take the average data and recalculate that it's based on your pricing it's really that simple I'm not sure there's much more that needs to be said or can be said for now on the subject so let's leave it that I'll continue to compare these two CPUs and new games as they arrive and monitor how things evolve I realize there's a few new games right now that do need to be tested and you can bet I am testing them as we speak kind of for now though I'm your host Steve apologies for my voice again I know it's a bit painful for this one but there's nothing I can do about it I'll catch you on another video real soon thanks for watching like subscribe and share