Personal computing discussed

Moderators: renee, Flying Fox, morphine

 
iamjsmith83
Gerbil
Topic Author
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2014 1:54 pm
Location: Kenosha, Wsconsin

Which processor would you choose?

Mon Dec 31, 2018 6:53 pm

I'm curious to get the opinions from those with more knowledge than me (which is probably all of you). Sticking with Intel 8th/9th generation Intel CPU's, which CPU would recommend assuming the following uses and considerations: Occasional video editing of 1080 footage with Sony Vegas as a hobby, photo editing using Lightroom as a hobby, will never do any gaming, will never overclock, and will never attempt to sell the CPU.

My initial thought is that one of the i5 CPU's would be the one to get.

Core i5-8400 (2.8 GHz) - $200
Core i5-8500 (3.0 GHz) - $235
Core i5-8600 (3.1 GHz) - $250
Core i5-8600k (3.6 GHz) - $260

Is 2.8 GHz slow enough that someone whose existence isn't spent testing/comparing/benchmarking speed and performance of components is going to be performing a task and think, "damn this is really slow, I should have paid the extra $35 to get another 0.2 GHz?" Basing this on nothing but intuition, I feel like the difference between 2.8 and 3.1 GHz while very measurable will in fact be very negligible for the average person to notice and get frustrated by. Am I wrong?

I feel like it's easy to fall into the trap of paying just a few more dollars for another 0.1 MHz but is it actually necessary? I appreciate your input.
 
tu2thepoo
Gerbil Team Leader
Posts: 266
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2002 3:42 pm
Location: WEBSITE OFF THE STARBOARD BROWSER, CAP'N!

Re: Which processor would you choose?

Mon Dec 31, 2018 8:23 pm

What are you upgrading from? I'm using the 6-core 2018 Mac Mini (Core i5-8500B) and compared to my old Mac Pro (3.4ghz 6-core westmere) everything is faster (handbrake transcoding, iPhoto, iMovie, even non-GPU limited gaming). The base speed is 3ghz but it turbos to 4ghz (and keeps 4ghz in most scenarios, otherwise bumping between 3ghz and 3.6ghz). If you're skipping multiple generations like I did, almost any 8th/9th gen Core offering will be plenty fast.

When you're talking about encoding video, it's going to be the difference between "heat up and eat dinner" vs "heat up and eat dinner then think about dessert", if you follow. Unless you have really short or really long project work times, you'll not likely notice the difference unless you're watching it go from 0-99%. Lightroom and image editing is more about how much RAM you can fit in your budget to avoid paging to disk.

On the other hand, if you keep your computer for more than 2-3 years, $60 difference is basically nothing to the total cost of the system. The 8600k will be faster, in every measure, than the 8400. Unless that is keeping you from getting a larger SSD or more RAM, you might as will spring for it.
 
anotherengineer
Gerbil Jedi
Posts: 1677
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:53 pm
Location: Northern, ON Canada, Yes I know, Up in the sticks

Re: Which processor would you choose?

Mon Dec 31, 2018 8:25 pm

P4 Prescott EE!!!!!
Life doesn't change after marriage, it changes after children!
 
JustAnEngineer
Gold subscriber
Gerbil God
Posts: 19061
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: The Heart of Dixie

Re: Which processor would you choose?

Mon Dec 31, 2018 9:13 pm

https://ark.intel.com/products/codename ... e#@desktop
For everyday lightly-threaded use, your processor will be running at close to its maximum turbo boost frequency. For that reason, the $245 Core i5-9600K may be worth considering, since it will run extremely fast when lightly loaded. Keep in mind that with an Intel "K" processor, you'll need to spend another $30 for a CPU cooler like the Arctic Freezer 13 CO.

If your build budget is so sensitive that $35 matters, why are you not looking at a $187 AMD Ryzen 5 2600 and an $84 motherboard with the B450 chipset? The AMD processor comes with a decent Wraith Stealth CPU cooler and you'll save on the motherboard vs. Intel, too.
Last edited by JustAnEngineer on Mon Dec 31, 2018 10:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
i7-9700K, NH-D15, Z390M Pro4, 32 GiB, RX Vega64, Define Mini-C, SSR-850PX, C32HG70+U2407, RK-9000BR, MX518
 
iamjsmith83
Gerbil
Topic Author
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2014 1:54 pm
Location: Kenosha, Wsconsin

Re: Which processor would you choose?

Mon Dec 31, 2018 9:56 pm

I'm not sure I follow...why would my processor running at close to its maximum turbo boost frequency for everyday lightly-threaded use make me want to consider moving up to the i5-9600K? Is there harm in my CPU doing that?

I understand I can move up the spec sheet for a few dollars...this isn't really about money...it's more about is it really necessary...as in can't I get done what I want to get done using an i5-8400 instead of say an i5-8600 or an i5-9600k without it being frustratingly slower or having lag issues, etc? To put things in perspective I haven't done any video editing in several months and I use lightroom on average maybe every other weekend. I get the impression that with what I personally do that I wouldn't notice a difference, at least it wouldn't be significant to me, between the slowest and fastest CPUs I mentioned in my original post. I feel like the difference to me could only be noticed in benchmark tests. But maybe I'm wrong...that's why I came to you guys! I get it that the percentage difference between say 2.8 and 3.6 GHz is significant. But does it REALLY matter for me? Is it like the difference between me touching a 400 degree pan and a 500 degree pan...where yeah, there's a huge difference between the two but both are going to do the job (of burning my hand) really well.
 
iamjsmith83
Gerbil
Topic Author
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2014 1:54 pm
Location: Kenosha, Wsconsin

Re: Which processor would you choose?

Mon Dec 31, 2018 10:03 pm

I actually have an i7-4770k right now. I'm not looking to upgrade at this moment I was just looking into what's on the market right now and trying to learn more about computers (I know very little). But for what I've done the i7 has worked very well. I've had no issues. But I also have no idea if I was lead astray into building my system with it. I just have no idea if I could have done the exact same with one of the i5's from that time. But the more I look into things the more I believe my i7 was likely overkill. Sure the extra money spread out over several years makes it look like it was worth it spending the extra money. But I don't want to have to do any justification for something I didn't actually need just to move up on the spec sheet.
 
Voldenuit
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
Posts: 2888
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 11:10 pm

Re: Which processor would you choose?

Mon Dec 31, 2018 10:25 pm

No gaming, and primarily video editing and RAW processing?

That's a tailor-made use-case for Ryzen/Threadripper.
Wind, Sand and Stars.
 
DrCR
Gerbil Team Leader
Posts: 269
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 7:18 am

Re: Which processor would you choose?

Mon Dec 31, 2018 10:48 pm

iamjsmith83,

For the options you provided, I'd give some consideration to the 8600k [9600k] route: from 2.8 GHz to 3.6 GHz base for just another $60. That's a pretty significant bump for $60 [$45]. JAE's comment applies though re 9600K and the aftermarket you may need to purchase, and re turbo, you may want to look at the turbo numbers rather than base numbers, since that may be more applicable for your general use.

All that said, is the additional $45 + $30whatever for aftermarket HSF worth it do you? That's your call. You may wish to save that for a future build, add it to your Roth IRA, whatever. I personally tend to scrimp a bit on the CPU only to then spend good money on a Thermalright HSF since I like SPCR-spec quietness. Each to their own.

The aforementioned Ryzen 2600, B450 motherboard route is indeed be worthy of consideration for you if buying now. And given you latest post, perhaps you should just hold out for another year or two and check in again later e.g. when Zen 3 is released.
 
DancinJack
Maximum Gerbil
Posts: 4493
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: Kansas

Re: Which processor would you choose?

Mon Dec 31, 2018 10:52 pm

Voldenuit wrote:
No gaming, and primarily video editing and RAW processing?

That's a tailor-made use-case for Ryzen/Threadripper.

Or just more cores than a four core i5 in general. For p much all those tasks more cores is going to be better assuming you buy something recent (read: not Bulldozer).
i7 6700K - Z170 - 16GiB DDR4 - GTX 1080 - 512GB SSD - 256GB SSD - 500GB SSD - 3TB HDD- 27" IPS G-sync - Win10 Pro x64 - Ubuntu/Mint x64 :: 2015 13" rMBP Sierra :: Canon EOS 80D/Sony RX100
 
Usacomp2k3
Gerbil God
Posts: 23043
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 4:53 pm
Location: Orlando, FL
Contact:

Re: Which processor would you choose?

Mon Dec 31, 2018 10:53 pm

I like Ryzen as an option for you.
 
NovusBogus
Silver subscriber
Graphmaster Gerbil
Posts: 1408
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2013 12:37 am

Re: Which processor would you choose?

Tue Jan 01, 2019 4:11 am

The 8400 is probably fine, if not overkill--just be sure it goes with a decent solid state drive.

Do note though that whatever you buy now will probably still be reasonably competitive in 5-10 years' time, which may be reason enough to pay a little extra now for some more power. I generally recommend to either buy as much CPU as possible or buy/reuse/whatever a quad core workstation from a few years ago, depending on budget and existing hardware.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
GZIP: On