Great CPU for the price. Get a decent B350 motherboard and OC to 3.7-4.0GHz with the stock cooler.
23 comments
vulcanproject
9 Sep 17#12
At this pricepoint I would recommend waiting for the i3 8100 because it'll knock the 1400's block off for gaming. Failing that get the 1200 and OC
Uncommon.Sense to vulcanproject
9 Sep 17#13
I'd say the i3 8100 would be a great choice, it's a bloody shame that Intel are only releasing expensive Z370 chipset, until Q1' 18, so no cheap H310, or H370 etc. so makes the Intel choice much less appealing vs. a good mid-range B350 board. at £90 ish.
vulcanproject to Uncommon.Sense
9 Sep 17#14
Intel will obviously push the K series processors harder before Christmas but it really depends how the pricing falls. Since cheap (£100-£120) Z270 chipset boards even now are usually worth the extra £20 over the average sub H270 £100 boards around. We don't know the exact price of the i3 8100 either yet. Have to wait and see in 3 weeks
Uncommon.Sense to vulcanproject
9 Sep 17#15
I've never bothered to use a Z series chipset board on an non K CPU, not a great deal of difference from the H, other then PCI-E layout, and the overclocking options.
The i3 8100 is going to be about £120 Inc VAT, so a nice middle ground price, especially with four full cores, and decent stock clocks
shu123 to Uncommon.Sense
10 Sep 17#16
We could probably see Price competition however expect higher TDP on the Coffee Lake chips. Going to move to AMD tired of these new chipsets.
montana78
9 Sep 17#10
Id rather buy from China than france :joy:
fishmaster to montana78
9 Sep 17#11
The Ricezen 1399 definitely to improve all your CPU lives.
michaeljb
9 Sep 17#4
Ebuyer have the 1200 at £98 delivered, Id prefer that as they both have roughly same speed when oc'd and save £40. Just my 2 pence.
Zoea to michaeljb
9 Sep 17#5
This one has hyperthreading, so basically twice the effective threads. Not sure that's worth £40 but it might be.
NenoDealHunter to michaeljb
9 Sep 17#6
1200 is pure gaming. With 1400 you should be able to do some streaming aswell. It has better video rendering speeds than the 1200. It has more cache than 1200 if you can utilize it :wink:
At the bottom, the choice always depends on what you're looking forward to do. Also, this CPU is a little bit more future-proof having 8 threads than the 1200 :wink:
Nate1492 to NenoDealHunter
10 Sep 17#17
Like, what use case are you even picturing?
If you want to stream while gaming and you refuse to use hardware encoders, why would you buy the 1400? If you are doing 'video rendering' why would you buy the 1400? This isn't a chip aimed at people rendering videos or streaming.
Also, another thing to consider is what the 'extra' 4 threads will actually provide.
Both the 1200 and the 1400 are 4 core chips (physical) and the 1400 has 4 'SMT' cores. This adds up to, at most, 1 extra physical core.
Let's also not forget that SMT is in it's infancy and has been shown in the past to *actually slow down performance*.
This may no longer be the case, but expecting those extra threads to be a huge benefit is a bit silly.
You can see just how small of difference there is here....
1400 is actually a really good starting option for this price for doing video rendering and streaming tasks. Not the extreme-use case obviously, but good for "basic" streaming and bit more challenging video rendering where the threads will help.
Now, gaming performance-wise, it is matched by the 1200. The reason behind it is that the games aren't actually optimized to utilize the threads as more of the video rendering actually comes from the GPU (hence the use case of G4560 / R3 1200). Intel beats Ryzen in gaming performance because of the single core performance.
"This adds up to, at most, 1 extra physical core." No (lol). 4 SMT cores do not slow down performance in general. It's the optimization of the games. There was a video from "Science Studio" that showed his BO3 FPS drop with SMT enabled. Keep in mind, that was one of the rare cases of the SMT slowing down / ruining the FPS.
"Let's also not forget that SMT is in it's infancy and has been shown in the past to "actually slow down performance"." What past? FX series was a failure considering the core speeds and has been matched (at that time), and destroyed later on with the newer Intel generations. This is a new architecture.
"but expecting those extra threads to be a huge benefit is a bit silly." In what case? After that you refered how G4560 beats the 1400 at gaming and keeps up with the CPU tests. G4560, and all other newer generation Intel chips HAVE better single-core performance. It's because they had more time to experiment and bring the optimal performance. AMD has been in the shadows for the past 4-6 years (not even sure how long) without really getting new sockets out there and new chips (apart from the FX-9 series which was a fail again).
It's not a hard argument to make 1400 seem worth. It's actually pretty easy. You're buying a Ryzen chip. That means YOU ARE buying a B350 / X370 motherboard. There's no other way around it. Everyone shopping for Ryzen platform should forget A320 exists.
Now, if you haven't been following every single Ryzen build, they're pretty easy to overclock with the stock cooler. Add a bit of voltage + a ton of speed = stable. Most builds have done 3.7GHz without a big bump. Some even got to 3.9GHz with the very least voltage possible and with REASONABLE temperatures. 4GHz on the other hand, is a different jump and I'd recommend a water cooler at that part, just for the temeperatures.
All in all, I'm not ******** on either chips. They're all appealing to each customer's needs.
Nate1492 to NenoDealHunter
11 Sep 17#19
I think you may not fully understand how SMT and HT actually work.
They are not additional, physical, threads.
SMT simply means each of the 4 physical cores has a 'virtual core'
Intel claims the HT threads can go as 'high as 30%' but most places agree upon 15-30% being correct.
When you say 'No :joy: ' in a reply, that just comes off as asinine.
How much performance do you think the 4 SMTs add?
Again, you do understand there are only 4 physical cores on the 1400, and the 4 'logical' cores are (essentially) virtualizing the core to appear as 2 to applications (which has advantages and disadvantages, see my links).
You had a huge reply, with lots of stuff you talked about, but I feel you may be ignoring your own knowledge base here...
The 'Past' being the early benchmarks, you may be confusing my term 'the past' with FX/bulldozer, I wasn't. I meant early Ryzen benchmarks with SMT on / Off.
I've actually yet to see a positive SMT benchmark, to be honest, have you seen any?
NenoDealHunter to Nate1492
11 Sep 17#20
I do understand how HT / SMT work respectively. The claims of the speed improvement, as you say, are correct from 15-30%.
Then again, you do understand that both of us are talking different use cases here? I'm going to guess you're still refering to the gaming benchmarks, as you've been forcing them in all of your previous claims.
I've already addressed, G4560 and R2 1200 respectively are the better buy for gaming performance. (read previous comment if you haven't already) The SMT cores, or virtual cores if you prefer to call them that, do improve performance in certain tasks AND GAMES.
I believe this video you shall find interesting :
Now then again, the use case is where you don't get me. I see R5 1400 as a solid starting option of streaming and more "intense" gaming.
You do you :wink:
Nate1492 to NenoDealHunter
12 Sep 17#21
You just linked a video who suggests to use the A320 motherboard. And he assumed the person would do that and use that as the comparison.
We all know slow RAM and ryzen doesn't work. 2667/3200 for R3 1200+ A320 mobo vs 3200/3200 + B350.
I mean, did you hope I didn't watch it?
And I've said that SMT does improve performance, the 4 SMT cores add about 1 physical core of processing power. I've backed that up with sources! What's left to talk about? Do you want to find a couple more bad reviews that support a bad point?
Here's where he says it, in case you were wondering, save you some time so you don't actually have to 'watch' the video you linked me.
A320 boards are usually 50 pounds. You can find a regular B350M / AB350M / B350 board for around 60 pounds. Don't really see why to go for the A320 myself. If you're going Ryzen, there's no reason why you shouldn't OC.
Also, you can easily get a good OC on RAM with a decent motherboard, so there's no major issues there. Just loosen the timing a little bit and you can get pretty good results.
About the SMT making 4 "virtual" cores 1 physical, not going to argue with that. They're there for a reason, and people don't only game. It will boost performance for more than a "one physical core" in certain tasks which I've explained before, but you've kept ignoring.
Nate1492 to NenoDealHunter
13 Sep 17#23
Find some results that suggest my performance numbers are wrong 15-30%, with 30% tops.
If you agree with that, that is almost precisely one extra core of performance.
Uncommon.Sense to michaeljb
9 Sep 17#7
It's a very sensible choice of you are on a tight budget, as that £47 saving could buy you other components or mean you can go for a better graphics card, it more RAM etc. without sacrificing too much performance. :smile:
NenoDealHunter to Uncommon.Sense
9 Sep 17#8
Then again, performance for what :wink: Saving 47 pounds and almost doubling the render times in some cases isn't really a good tradeoff for someone that does that. On the other hand, for gaming purely, I recommend the 1200 any time :wink:
Uncommon.Sense to NenoDealHunter
9 Sep 17#9
What sort of nut job would buy any four core CPU for that sort of work? You could get the 6c/12t 1600 for £185ish, which is 75%+ faster for that sort of work, and the cost per thread is only £15.50ish vs £18.12. :smile:
Whaetever the application, make sure you do your research, is the clear message here!
Uncommon.Sense
9 Sep 17#2
Montant total :EUR 157,74
So including shipping, and using the best possible conversion it comes to £144, so still cheaper than More Computers at £148.72 with free shipping. Basically what I am saying is if you are not using a fee free card, with a perfect exchange rate, it'll cost the same as getting it in the UK. :smile:
NenoDealHunter to Uncommon.Sense
9 Sep 17#3
True :smile: Still not a bad deal if you have a fee free card. Amazon.co.uk priced this at 150 pounds so it's still somewhat of a save.
![Fresh Breakfast Meat Box (Using code) @ Campbells Meat [Haggis / Lorne Sausage / Bacon / Black Pudding & More]](/images/topics/208684_1.jpg)
![[Xbox One] Q. u. b. e: Director's Cut on Deals with Gold](/images/topics/208716_1.jpg)
Opening post
Get a decent B350 motherboard and OC to 3.7-4.0GHz with the stock cooler.
23 comments
The i3 8100 is going to be about £120 Inc VAT, so a nice middle ground price, especially with four full cores, and decent stock clocks
With 1400 you should be able to do some streaming aswell.
It has better video rendering speeds than the 1200.
It has more cache than 1200 if you can utilize it :wink:
At the bottom, the choice always depends on what you're looking forward to do.
Also, this CPU is a little bit more future-proof having 8 threads than the 1200 :wink:
If you want to stream while gaming and you refuse to use hardware encoders, why would you buy the 1400? If you are doing 'video rendering' why would you buy the 1400? This isn't a chip aimed at people rendering videos or streaming.
Also, another thing to consider is what the 'extra' 4 threads will actually provide.
Both the 1200 and the 1400 are 4 core chips (physical) and the 1400 has 4 'SMT' cores. This adds up to, at most, 1 extra physical core.
Let's also not forget that SMT is in it's infancy and has been shown in the past to *actually slow down performance*.
This may no longer be the case, but expecting those extra threads to be a huge benefit is a bit silly.
You can see just how small of difference there is here....
techpowerup.com/rev…tml
You can also see the G4560 Pentium chip beats the 1400 at gaming and keeps up with the CPU tests.
And at 54 quid.... It's really a hard argument to make that the 1400 is worth it's salt.
box.co.uk/Int…719
Now, gaming performance-wise, it is matched by the 1200. The reason behind it is that the games aren't actually optimized to utilize the threads as more of the video rendering actually comes from the GPU (hence the use case of G4560 / R3 1200). Intel beats Ryzen in gaming performance because of the single core performance.
"This adds up to, at most, 1 extra physical core." No (lol). 4 SMT cores do not slow down performance in general. It's the optimization of the games. There was a video from "Science Studio" that showed his BO3 FPS drop with SMT enabled. Keep in mind, that was one of the rare cases of the SMT slowing down / ruining the FPS.
"Let's also not forget that SMT is in it's infancy and has been shown in the past to "actually slow down performance"."
What past? FX series was a failure considering the core speeds and has been matched (at that time), and destroyed later on with the newer Intel generations. This is a new architecture.
"but expecting those extra threads to be a huge benefit is a bit silly." In what case? After that you refered how G4560 beats the 1400 at gaming and keeps up with the CPU tests. G4560, and all other newer generation Intel chips HAVE better single-core performance. It's because they had more time to experiment and bring the optimal performance. AMD has been in the shadows for the past 4-6 years (not even sure how long) without really getting new sockets out there and new chips (apart from the FX-9 series which was a fail again).
It's not a hard argument to make 1400 seem worth. It's actually pretty easy.
You're buying a Ryzen chip. That means YOU ARE buying a B350 / X370 motherboard. There's no other way around it. Everyone shopping for Ryzen platform should forget A320 exists.
Now, if you haven't been following every single Ryzen build, they're pretty easy to overclock with the stock cooler.
Add a bit of voltage + a ton of speed = stable.
Most builds have done 3.7GHz without a big bump. Some even got to 3.9GHz with the very least voltage possible and with REASONABLE temperatures. 4GHz on the other hand, is a different jump and I'd recommend a water cooler at that part, just for the temeperatures.
All in all, I'm not ******** on either chips. They're all appealing to each customer's needs.
They are not additional, physical, threads.
SMT simply means each of the 4 physical cores has a 'virtual core'
en.wikipedia.org/wik…ing
And here...
en.wikipedia.org/wik…ing
Intel claims the HT threads can go as 'high as 30%' but most places agree upon 15-30% being correct.
When you say 'No :joy: ' in a reply, that just comes off as asinine.
How much performance do you think the 4 SMTs add?
Again, you do understand there are only 4 physical cores on the 1400, and the 4 'logical' cores are (essentially) virtualizing the core to appear as 2 to applications (which has advantages and disadvantages, see my links).
You had a huge reply, with lots of stuff you talked about, but I feel you may be ignoring your own knowledge base here...
The 'Past' being the early benchmarks, you may be confusing my term 'the past' with FX/bulldozer, I wasn't. I meant early Ryzen benchmarks with SMT on / Off.
I've actually yet to see a positive SMT benchmark, to be honest, have you seen any?
The claims of the speed improvement, as you say, are correct from 15-30%.
Then again, you do understand that both of us are talking different use cases here?
I'm going to guess you're still refering to the gaming benchmarks, as you've been forcing them in all of your previous claims.
I've already addressed, G4560 and R2 1200 respectively are the better buy for gaming performance. (read previous comment if you haven't already)
The SMT cores, or virtual cores if you prefer to call them that, do improve performance in certain tasks AND GAMES.
I believe this video you shall find interesting :
Now then again, the use case is where you don't get me.
I see R5 1400 as a solid starting option of streaming and more "intense" gaming.
You do you :wink:
You just linked a video who suggests to use the A320 motherboard. And he assumed the person would do that and use that as the comparison.
We all know slow RAM and ryzen doesn't work.
2667/3200 for R3 1200+ A320 mobo vs 3200/3200 + B350.
I mean, did you hope I didn't watch it?
And I've said that SMT does improve performance, the 4 SMT cores add about 1 physical core of processing power. I've backed that up with sources! What's left to talk about? Do you want to find a couple more bad reviews that support a bad point?
Here's where he says it, in case you were wondering, save you some time so you don't actually have to 'watch' the video you linked me.
youtu.be/6Gm…=69
A320 boards are usually 50 pounds. You can find a regular B350M / AB350M / B350 board for around 60 pounds.
Don't really see why to go for the A320 myself. If you're going Ryzen, there's no reason why you shouldn't OC.
Also, you can easily get a good OC on RAM with a decent motherboard, so there's no major issues there. Just loosen the timing a little bit and you can get pretty good results.
About the SMT making 4 "virtual" cores 1 physical, not going to argue with that.
They're there for a reason, and people don't only game.
It will boost performance for more than a "one physical core" in certain tasks which I've explained before, but you've kept ignoring.
If you agree with that, that is almost precisely one extra core of performance.
Whaetever the application, make sure you do your research, is the clear message here!
So including shipping, and using the best possible conversion it comes to £144, so still cheaper than More Computers at £148.72 with free shipping. Basically what I am saying is if you are not using a fee free card, with a perfect exchange rate, it'll cost the same as getting it in the UK. :smile: