Intel Core i5-8400: how good is the "small" i5 in practice?

Since Coffee Lake-S is becoming more and more a digital launch and the hardware is not really available in quantities, we could actually take our time. The new Intel Core i5-8400K, like the rest of the family, is also... In the AI test of Civilization IV, all CPUs again position themselves exactly as one might expect from the technical data. In the Time Spy CPU test, AMD's Ryzen 5 1600X is very positive, which is well ahead of the new C... At this benchmark, the Core i5-8400 is slightly behind the Ryzen 5 1600X, but ahead of the overclocked Ryzen 5 1500X. The Ryzen 5 1400 and the older Core i5, on the other hand, do not matter. Individual results of all maps Both Core i5 slate up to about 140 FPS, but are already scratching at the GPU limit. The (overclocked) Ryzen 5 1600X can still keep up, the rest then drops continuously. Individual results of all maps AMD is ahead with the Ryzen 5 1600X, rare enough, but even quite clear. The overclocked Ryzen 5 1500X can also be cleared. Individual results of all maps Clock is everything, at least for the Ryzen 5, because you can only hold the connection if the processor has been overclocked properly. But that's exactly what Ryzen 5 includes, you just have to do it. The Core i5 8400 is exceptionally fast... Intel ahead of AMD and only the overclocked Ryzen 5 can hold port. Without extra clock, however, nothing can be done. The Core i5-8400 cuts a good figure and the Ryzen 5 1400 is a total failure without overclocking. Individual results of all maps ... Intel again ahead of AMD, but the overclocked Ryzen 5 can hold port and place themselves in front of the older Core i5. The Ryzen 5 1400 is once again the clear final light without overclocking. Individual results of all maps Intel as usual before AMD, but this time much clearer. The overtaken Ryzen 5 can't hold on, but they're still ahead of the older Core i5. The Ryzen 5 15600X also makes it unbeatable in front of the older Core i5-7600K and the... Finally, Intel's Parade(at) game. AMD's Ryzen 5 must completely stroke the sails, the GTA scales extremely modestly with the number of possible threads. Even the older Core i5-7600K with the overclocked Ryzen 5 1600X can hold with you... Important preliminary remark on CPU selection and overclocking Contrary to our usual handling, not benchmarking the productive areas with overclocked CPUs, as it is also rather unlikely in reality, this time we have two of the R... 2D Performance In order to better understand some of the later results, we are putting forward a good old acquaintance. With our GDI/GDI+ benchmark, we are first testing two different output methods for 2D objects, how to... CPU Performance: Workstation Of course, in the production area, not only the 3D graphics performance is important in the production area for the just-set applications, because many things are calculated by the CPU in parallel within these applications (Simu... Power consumption in detail There are no really dramatic differences in the Idle. Nothing really dramatic and all the other CPUs are still within the limits of what we were able to measure before. The fact that the Ryzen 5 is partly Summary As with the slightly more expensive Core i5-8600K, the Same applies to the Core i5-8400: Two cores more for the middle class are a nice addition. But whether they will really be sufficient in the near future remains ...

CPU Performance: Workstation

Of course, in the production area, not only 3D graphics performance is important in the application, because many things are calculated by the CPU in parallel within these applications (simulations, compute tasks, preview rendering, etc.). In order to get a truly objective impression, you always have to look at both in context.

Many of the current software packages also contain modules based on pure calculations and simulations, so that you always have to include all possible aspects in productive use. However, software packages such as Solidworks do not fully scale with the large number of possible threads, so that often enough quad-cores with high IPC (and SMT) can exist here. This can also be seen in the direct comparison between the Core i5-7600K and the Core i5-8400K, which cannot always benefit from the higher core count and the larger cache.

At Creo, the pure clock counts as long as up to 8 threads can run stress-free. Otherwise, the new Core i5-8400 can only take small benefits from the two additional cores when looking at the core i5-7600K.

At 3ds Max, the clock and core count, whereby the Core i5-8400 can now set itself off slightly from the Core i5-7600K. However, the overclocked Ryzen 5 1600X is close to his heels.

In the CPU composite, on the other hand, extensive rendering is also included (which we will come to separately) so that the overall rating of the AMD Ryzen 5 provides a slightly different picture. The Ryzen are now the absolute measure of things in this test. A feat, because here there are 12 instead of 6 threads, as double.

CPU Performance: Photorealistic Rendering

In final rendering, it is no longer so much universality that matters, but the most efficient and fast, parallelized processing. That's why we're looking at this section now. So let's get back to 3ds Max right at the beginning. In pure rendering, the Core i7-8400 in its class only makes the Ryzen 5 1600 a thing of the present if it is overclocked. Core count goes ahead with clock, although the performance with the latter also scales beautifully.

The console version of Luxrender confirms this image, whereby none of the Core i5 can compete with the Ryzen 5 1600X. The new Core i5 simply no longer sees land and the hyper-threading of the Core i7 is missing at all corners and edges.

Let us now turn to Blender. The usual workload (but with a sample size of 200 pixels) confirms the image of the previous tests very impressively. The Core i7-8400 is still behind the Ryzen 5 1600X, unclocked.

If we run the blender loop of the SPECwpc, the result looks very similar, even if the task is somewhat different. Ryzen 5 before Core i5.

If the share of pure rendering power continues to decrease, the non-overclocked Core i5-8600 will also move upwards. But the rest looks like it was back and the Core i5-8400 is also lagnitating due to lack of HT.

This becomes even clearer with the changing task and suitability of the respective CPUs, if one does not limit oneanother to photorealistic image output, but also plays a role in the loop, in which not only the core number of decisive factor, but also the IPC. The Core i5-8600K even takes the lead, followed by the Core i5-8400.

In this part, the Ryzen 5 1600X pushes itself back to the top, because the core and thread numbers are not unimportant.

Intermediate conclusion

Intel's Core i7-8400 is certainly useful in semi-professional use and not just in gaming. However, the Core i5 lacks hyper-threading at all corners and edges when it comes to parallelizable tasks. This throws the actually potent six-nucleus back exactly where Intel probably likes it with the current pricing policy. AMD thanks in many benchmarks with the dominance of the Ryzen 5 1600X in computing and rendering. The Ryzen 5 1500X suffers a bit of the fate of Intel's Core i5 due to the lack of cores/threads.

Pages: