Intel 8000-series CPUs

[CheloSF]

I have an opinion on these that nobody seems to share, so I'm throwing it out there for discussion

My theory is that new gaming computers (not needing content creation power) have no need for any CPU more expensive than the i3-8100 now that Intel have kindly made it a quad-core.

My unscientific but relevant user-experience evidence is that our current "most powerful" gaming rig is pairing a GTX 970 with an i5-3550 (a locked multiplier mid-range i5 from 2013). It has no issues with current games (1080p) while running Netflix on a second monitor.

Most budget-gaming specs I see on here pair an i5-8600K with a GTX 1060 6GB. I contend that an i3-8100 is perfectly capable, saving £130 of a limited budget. Thoughts?

 

[Oussebon]

If you want to make that argument, then you might as well advocate a Pentium G4560 + GTX 1060, which is an entirely adequate combination: https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2913-when-does-the-intel-pentium-g4560-bottleneck-gpu and save even more £. (And I've suggested quite a few G4560 builds on this forum)

But for those who have the budget for an i5, the arguments against the i3 8100 are, in my view, pretty easy to make.

First, there are quite a few games already that benefit significantly from more cores/threads. e.g. Fallout 4:

1920x1080, Ultra Settings, Titan X GPU	Low/Avg FPS
Core i3 4130 (3.4GHz, two cores, four threads)	25.0 / 48.1
Core i5 4690K (Max 3.9GHz, four cores, four threads)	30.0 / 64.5
Core i7 4790K (Max 4.4GHz, four cores, eight threads)	51.0 / 80.7
FX-6300 (Max 4.1GHz, six cores, six threads)	23.0 / 48.4
FX-8350 (Max 4.2GHz, eight cores, eight threads)	30.0 / 55.5

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-the-best-pc-hardware-for-fallout-4-4023

Note the significant difference in minimum FPS from an i5 vs an i7. This means gameplay is a lot smoother on an i7 with its extra threads than an i5.

If you prefer something from my user experience, see:

Dat CPU load... And no, even a few chrome tabs and windows media player in the background weren't enough to make a meaningful contribution to that load...

There are plenty of other games that also benefit from more threads/cores, such as Watch Dogs 2 and Metro titles.


Second, futureproofing. Which, to some degree, is an argument our own purchase choices make (if a CPU broadly equivalent to a Haswell/IB i3 still gives satisfactory performance, what was the point in your i5 or my i7?).

An i5 was pretty much as good as an i7 in most titles back then, and in many titles now. But it is starting to show its age, and can lead to choppier gameplay performance in currently available titles - to say nothing of future titles. The i5 8400, however, offers similar performance (or a bit better) than an i7 7700k and should help support GPU upgrades much further into the future.

Third, I disagree with your premise that most budget / mid-range gaming builds here suggest an i5 8600k. The ones I've seen and posted myself usually suggest an i5 8400.

Versus an i3 8100, one gets:

~25-30% more gaming performance, in an average of current gen titles.

Certainly one can point to the numbers of average FPS and say that as they're all often capable of providing 60fps, who cares? In which case I'd point to minimum FPS as per the above, and also more detailed info in the article, such as:
Though for sure that's not the picture in all titles:
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-10...est/5/#diagramm-total-war-warhammer-1920-1080
https://www.techspot.com/review/1271-titanfall-2-pc-benchmarks/page3.html

I's also add (4th point?) that it's not just 8000-series CPUs. Once *AMD released Ryzen and specifically the R5 1600(x) there wasn't much argument to be made for the Intel quad-cores any more in terms of performance. The i5 7600k still beat the R5 1600 in average FPS, but the R5 often had a lead in minimum framerates. Granted that's not directly relevant to an i3 in terms of pricing, since the R5 is more expensive and a different class of CPU, but it does reinforce the point that people aren't just bowing to Intel's new shiny-shiny - the 4C/4T CPU's value as a gaming purchase has been undermined since well before Intel's latest release.

As Gamersnexus put it:

Yes, i5 CPUs still provide a decent experience – but for gaming, it’s starting to look like either you’re buying a 7700K, because it’s significantly ahead of R5 CPUs and it’s pretty well ahead of R7 CPUs, or you’re buying an R5 CPU.(…)
If you’re already settling for an i5 from an i7, it’s not much of a jump to go for an R5 and benefit in better frametimes with thread-thrashing games. The i5 is still good, don’t get us wrong, it’s just not compelling enough.
https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2875-amd-r5-1600x-1500x-review-fading-i5-argument/page-4

But all of this leads to my main argument in favour of an i5 8400: value. The i5 8400 which is only £60 more than an i3 8100.

I 100% agree it's very valid to point out the limited impact on many games' performance that the CPU has. People pairing an i7 8700k with a 1050 ti would find themselves very disappointed with that balance. I also agree that quad core CPUs are still going to give good performance in many titles. It's not like the i5 6600k has snuffed it overnight.

But if people are planning on keeping their systems for ~5 years and doing one or two GPU upgrades, or want a smoother experience in a wide range of modern titles, I can't agree that it isn't worth £60 out of a ~£800-£850 build to go for the i5 8400 given the very clear benefits it offers vs an i3

If you can't afford an i5 8400, you can't afford it - but if you can, or you can wait to purchase until you can, it seems to have a lot more merits in terms of giving a better gaming experience and potentially delaying the need for a CPU upgrade much further into the future

 

[Oussebon]

I didn't say so explicitly in the above, so just to be clear, I do agree that the i5 8600k seems very questionable value in most cases VS an i5 8400. The price varies but atm it seems to be about £67 more for only 300MHz:

Active Cores	Base Frequency	1	2	4	6
Intel Core i5-8600K	3.6 GHz	4.3 GHz	4.2 GHz	4.2 GHz	4.1 GHz
Intel Core i5-8400	2.8 GHz	4.0 GHz	3.9 GHz	3.9 GHz	3.8 GHz
Intel Core i5-7400	3.0 GHz	3.5 GHz	3.4 GHz	3.3 GHz	-

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/intel-coffee-lake-core-i5-8400-cpu,review-34073.html

I did suggest a build with an i5 8600k in it recently but that was for something quite specific. Normally I'd go with the 8400.

 

[CheloSF]

Some great info here, thank you.

Two things you've definitely pointed out that I wasn't aware of before are that the price difference to the i5-8400 is so small as an alternative and that the i5-8400 clocks so high under normal use (from reading the linked reviews, it's normally running higher than the i3-8100's fixed 3.6GHz despite the much lower theoretical base clock). The small price difference means that a GTX 1070 isn't even close to viable in trade for taking the cheaper CPU.