AMD Ryzen 5 3600 vs. Intel Core i5-9400F: Mainstream Titans Clash

[Julio Franco]

When we reviewed the new Ryzen 5 3600 we had plenty of positive things to say about it, and that was comparing it to the more expensive Core i5-9600K. Now against the 9400F, the cheapest 9th-gen Core i5 processor you can buy at $150. Budget-minded builders may be considering going Intel after all. Does it make sense?

Read the full article here.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1885-ryzen-5-3600-vs-core-i5-9400f/

 

[Theinsanegamer]

"The Core i5-9400F is a good processor today, but when you consider the platform, future upgrade options are slim. In two years you’ll ideally want more than six threads and you will be stuck to second hand 8700K, 9700K or 9900K processors for a more powerful drop-in replacement"

Going to be devil's advocate here, but you dont talk about AMD here either. If you choose the ryzen 3600, in two years you'll ideally want more then 6 cores, and you'll be stuck with second hand 3700x and 3900x processors for a more powerful drop in replacement. AM4 is only supported through 2020, and its highly likely that zen 3 will have its own socket if it supports DDR5.

Besides that, I find the whole upgrade argument curious. Even old ivy bridge i5s (like the one in my backup rig) are still capable of keeping 60FPS+ in modern games, especially when OCed. People dont upgrade their CPU every 2 years anymore like they did in the 90s, I can easily see a modern machine lasting 6-8 years, 10 if you are stretching it. The only reason I upgraded was for a platform upgrade, NVMe boot and 32 GB RAM support, the CPU was just fine.

And "likely want more then 6 cores"? What would make you suddenly want 8 cores instead of 6 after 2 years? Dont say gaming - game consoles have had octo cores for an entire generation now, and still the main benefit of a 6 core is keeping background tasks off of the gaming cores, games themselves still rarely use more then 2-3 cores effectively. If you are the target market for 8 cores, you likely are already shopping ryzen 7 CPUs, and no matter how you slice it upgrading your CPU to a slightly better one ends up costing a lot more money then just buying what you need when you buy the machine in the first place.

 

[Steve]

"The Core i5-9400F is a good processor today, but when you consider the platform, future upgrade options are slim. In two years you’ll ideally want more than six threads and you will be stuck to second hand 8700K, 9700K or 9900K processors for a more powerful drop-in replacement"

Going to be devil's advocate here, but you dont talk about AMD here either. If you choose the ryzen 3600, in two years you'll ideally want more then 6 cores, and you'll be stuck with second hand 3700x and 3900x processors for a more powerful drop in replacement. AM4 is only supported through 2020, and its highly likely that zen 3 will have its own socket if it supports DDR5.

Besides that, I find the whole upgrade argument curious. Even old ivy bridge i5s (like the one in my backup rig) are still capable of keeping 60FPS+ in modern games, especially when OCed. People dont upgrade their CPU every 2 years anymore like they did in the 90s, I can easily see a modern machine lasting 6-8 years, 10 if you are stretching it. The only reason I upgraded was for a platform upgrade, NVMe boot and 32 GB RAM support, the CPU was just fine.

And "likely want more then 6 cores"? What would make you suddenly want 8 cores instead of 6 after 2 years? Dont say gaming - game consoles have had octo cores for an entire generation now, and still the main benefit of a 6 core is keeping background tasks off of the gaming cores, games themselves still rarely use more then 2-3 cores effectively. If you are the target market for 8 cores, you likely are already shopping ryzen 7 CPUs, and no matter how you slice it upgrading your CPU to a slightly better one ends up costing a lot more money then just buying what you need when you buy the machine in the first place.

Cores and threads aren't the same thing.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

"The Core i5-9400F is a good processor today, but when you consider the platform, future upgrade options are slim. In two years you’ll ideally want more than six threads and you will be stuck to second hand 8700K, 9700K or 9900K processors for a more powerful drop-in replacement"

Going to be devil's advocate here, but you dont talk about AMD here either. If you choose the ryzen 3600, in two years you'll ideally want more then 6 cores, and you'll be stuck with second hand 3700x and 3900x processors for a more powerful drop in replacement. AM4 is only supported through 2020, and its highly likely that zen 3 will have its own socket if it supports DDR5.

Besides that, I find the whole upgrade argument curious. Even old ivy bridge i5s (like the one in my backup rig) are still capable of keeping 60FPS+ in modern games, especially when OCed. People dont upgrade their CPU every 2 years anymore like they did in the 90s, I can easily see a modern machine lasting 6-8 years, 10 if you are stretching it. The only reason I upgraded was for a platform upgrade, NVMe boot and 32 GB RAM support, the CPU was just fine.

And "likely want more then 6 cores"? What would make you suddenly want 8 cores instead of 6 after 2 years? Dont say gaming - game consoles have had octo cores for an entire generation now, and still the main benefit of a 6 core is keeping background tasks off of the gaming cores, games themselves still rarely use more then 2-3 cores effectively. If you are the target market for 8 cores, you likely are already shopping ryzen 7 CPUs, and no matter how you slice it upgrading your CPU to a slightly better one ends up costing a lot more money then just buying what you need when you buy the machine in the first place.

Cores and threads aren't the same thing.

A red herring. to get more threads or more cores, you will still need to upgrade to a better CPU, regardless of platform, and both platforms will require you to buy a second hand chip from the same generation to upgrade.

So the question still stands: why in the next year or 2 would someone want more then 6 threads/cores that they do not want now, outside of some nebulous idea that someday, eventually, gaming MIGHT make use of more then 3-4 cores at once, and why is this seen as a negative only for intel when AMD's platform is nearing EOL status?

 

[DeadManIV]

"The Core i5-9400F is a good processor today, but when you consider the platform, future upgrade options are slim. In two years you’ll ideally want more than six threads and you will be stuck to second hand 8700K, 9700K or 9900K processors for a more powerful drop-in replacement"

Going to be devil's advocate here, but you dont talk about AMD here either. If you choose the ryzen 3600, in two years you'll ideally want more then 6 cores, and you'll be stuck with second hand 3700x and 3900x processors for a more powerful drop in replacement. AM4 is only supported through 2020, and its highly likely that zen 3 will have its own socket if it supports DDR5.

Besides that, I find the whole upgrade argument curious. Even old ivy bridge i5s (like the one in my backup rig) are still capable of keeping 60FPS+ in modern games, especially when OCed. People dont upgrade their CPU every 2 years anymore like they did in the 90s, I can easily see a modern machine lasting 6-8 years, 10 if you are stretching it. The only reason I upgraded was for a platform upgrade, NVMe boot and 32 GB RAM support, the CPU was just fine.

And "likely want more then 6 cores"? What would make you suddenly want 8 cores instead of 6 after 2 years? Dont say gaming - game consoles have had octo cores for an entire generation now, and still the main benefit of a 6 core is keeping background tasks off of the gaming cores, games themselves still rarely use more then 2-3 cores effectively. If you are the target market for 8 cores, you likely are already shopping ryzen 7 CPUs, and no matter how you slice it upgrading your CPU to a slightly better one ends up costing a lot more money then just buying what you need when you buy the machine in the first place.

Cores and threads aren't the same thing.

A red herring. to get more threads or more cores, you will still need to upgrade to a better CPU, regardless of platform, and both platforms will require you to buy a second hand chip from the same generation to upgrade.

So the question still stands: why in the next year or 2 would someone want more then 6 threads/cores that they do not want now, outside of some nebulous idea that someday, eventually, gaming MIGHT make use of more then 3-4 cores at once, and why is this seen as a negative only for intel when AMD's platform is nearing EOL status?

If you read the article, you'll see that the 9400, with 6 threads, stuttered in core heavy games like Assassin's Creed. That's why you'd want more than 6 threads.

 

[Nobina]

How the tables have turned, AMD with the higher priced product...

 

[jbc029]

"The Core i5-9400F is a good processor today, but when you consider the platform, future upgrade options are slim. In two years you’ll ideally want more than six threads and you will be stuck to second hand 8700K, 9700K or 9900K processors for a more powerful drop-in replacement"

Going to be devil's advocate here, but you dont talk about AMD here either. If you choose the ryzen 3600, in two years you'll ideally want more then 6 cores, and you'll be stuck with second hand 3700x and 3900x processors for a more powerful drop in replacement. AM4 is only supported through 2020, and its highly likely that zen 3 will have its own socket if it supports DDR5.

Besides that, I find the whole upgrade argument curious. Even old ivy bridge i5s (like the one in my backup rig) are still capable of keeping 60FPS+ in modern games, especially when OCed. People dont upgrade their CPU every 2 years anymore like they did in the 90s, I can easily see a modern machine lasting 6-8 years, 10 if you are stretching it. The only reason I upgraded was for a platform upgrade, NVMe boot and 32 GB RAM support, the CPU was just fine.

And "likely want more then 6 cores"? What would make you suddenly want 8 cores instead of 6 after 2 years? Dont say gaming - game consoles have had octo cores for an entire generation now, and still the main benefit of a 6 core is keeping background tasks off of the gaming cores, games themselves still rarely use more then 2-3 cores effectively. If you are the target market for 8 cores, you likely are already shopping ryzen 7 CPUs, and no matter how you slice it upgrading your CPU to a slightly better one ends up costing a lot more money then just buying what you need when you buy the machine in the first place.

Cores and threads aren't the same thing.

A red herring. to get more threads or more cores, you will still need to upgrade to a better CPU, regardless of platform, and both platforms will require you to buy a second hand chip from the same generation to upgrade.

So the question still stands: why in the next year or 2 would someone want more then 6 threads/cores that they do not want now, outside of some nebulous idea that someday, eventually, gaming MIGHT make use of more then 3-4 cores at once, and why is this seen as a negative only for intel when AMD's platform is nearing EOL status?

For the 9400, yes, you would need to upgrade. You are capped at 6 serviceable threads. For the 1600/2600/3600, no you do not, as you have 12 thread processing available. It provides longevity to the cpu, much the same way that the 7700k is still a viable all arounder, but the 7600k is not. And that happened in just 2 years.

 

[GetInTheSpace]

Unless you're looking for bleeding edge single core gaming performance, I don't see any reason to buy Intel today. They need to get their 10nm or 7nm processes out soon or they will be completely irrelevant.

There is a good reason the Ryzen 3000 series are flying off the shelves.
I'm excited for Threadripper 3 for some more memory capacity intense multi-core workloads.
A new workstation is in my future this year.

 

[dbhood]

How the tables have turned, AMD with the higher priced product...

If you read his review pitting the 3600 against the 9600k, you'd know that it competes there for $65 less when you factor in a cheap $40 cooler for the Intel part.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1871-amd-ryzen-3600/

 

[CodeCreator]

"The Core i5-9400F is a good processor today, but when you consider the platform, future upgrade options are slim. In two years you’ll ideally want more than six threads and you will be stuck to second hand 8700K, 9700K or 9900K processors for a more powerful drop-in replacement"

Going to be devil's advocate here, but you dont talk about AMD here either. If you choose the ryzen 3600, in two years you'll ideally want more then 6 cores, and you'll be stuck with second hand 3700x and 3900x processors for a more powerful drop in replacement. AM4 is only supported through 2020, and its highly likely that zen 3 will have its own socket if it supports DDR5.

Besides that, I find the whole upgrade argument curious. Even old ivy bridge i5s (like the one in my backup rig) are still capable of keeping 60FPS+ in modern games, especially when OCed. People dont upgrade their CPU every 2 years anymore like they did in the 90s, I can easily see a modern machine lasting 6-8 years, 10 if you are stretching it. The only reason I upgraded was for a platform upgrade, NVMe boot and 32 GB RAM support, the CPU was just fine.

And "likely want more then 6 cores"? What would make you suddenly want 8 cores instead of 6 after 2 years? Dont say gaming - game consoles have had octo cores for an entire generation now, and still the main benefit of a 6 core is keeping background tasks off of the gaming cores, games themselves still rarely use more then 2-3 cores effectively. If you are the target market for 8 cores, you likely are already shopping ryzen 7 CPUs, and no matter how you slice it upgrading your CPU to a slightly better one ends up costing a lot more money then just buying what you need when you buy the machine in the first place.

AMD explicitly stated that Zen 3 will be supported on the AM4 platform, so that second hand Ryzen 3000 series argument is moot. They also mentioned they plan to keep using AM4 past 2020, making it compatible with Zen 5 at least. (They are skipping the Zen 4 name because it's an unlucky number)

All that to say that if you invest in a Ryzen 3600, you will not be limited to the current generation for a future upgrade unlike the 9400f.

 

[trparky]

"In two years you'll ideally want more than six threads and you will be stuck to second hand 8700K, 9700K or 9900K processors for a more powerful drop-in replacement"
Yep, and be prepared to still pay overpriced prices for them on eBay. You got to hand it to Intel, even their older high-end processors still maintain their resale value years after release. That may be good for people selling their older hardware but not good for those people who want to buy second-hand.

 

[Boshum]

"The Core i5-9400F is a good processor today, but when you consider the platform, future upgrade options are slim. In two years you’ll ideally want more than six threads and you will be stuck to second hand 8700K, 9700K or 9900K processors for a more powerful drop-in replacement"

Going to be devil's advocate here, but you dont talk about AMD here either. If you choose the ryzen 3600, in two years you'll ideally want more then 6 cores, and you'll be stuck with second hand 3700x and 3900x processors for a more powerful drop in replacement. AM4 is only supported through 2020, and its highly likely that zen 3 will have its own socket if it supports DDR5.

Besides that, I find the whole upgrade argument curious. Even old ivy bridge i5s (like the one in my backup rig) are still capable of keeping 60FPS+ in modern games, especially when OCed. People dont upgrade their CPU every 2 years anymore like they did in the 90s, I can easily see a modern machine lasting 6-8 years, 10 if you are stretching it. The only reason I upgraded was for a platform upgrade, NVMe boot and 32 GB RAM support, the CPU was just fine.

And "likely want more then 6 cores"? What would make you suddenly want 8 cores instead of 6 after 2 years? Dont say gaming - game consoles have had octo cores for an entire generation now, and still the main benefit of a 6 core is keeping background tasks off of the gaming cores, games themselves still rarely use more then 2-3 cores effectively. If you are the target market for 8 cores, you likely are already shopping ryzen 7 CPUs, and no matter how you slice it upgrading your CPU to a slightly better one ends up costing a lot more money then just buying what you need when you buy the machine in the first place.

Cores and threads aren't the same thing.

A red herring. to get more threads or more cores, you will still need to upgrade to a better CPU, regardless of platform, and both platforms will require you to buy a second hand chip from the same generation to upgrade.

So the question still stands: why in the next year or 2 would someone want more then 6 threads/cores that they do not want now, outside of some nebulous idea that someday, eventually, gaming MIGHT make use of more then 3-4 cores at once, and why is this seen as a negative only for intel when AMD's platform is nearing EOL status?

For the 9400, yes, you would need to upgrade. You are capped at 6 aerviceable threads. For the 1600/2600/3600, no you do not, as you have 12 thread processing available. It provides longevity to the cpu, much the same way that the 7700k is still a viable all arounder, but the 7600k is not. And that happened in just 2 years.

Right on. Not only will the 3600 last longer, but if you do another upgrade...you will probably have access to 16-core 4950X chips at marked down prices in 2021 instead of 9900K's at MSRP.

 

[codgerface]

@Techspot staff.

Just a heads up that the first 'Cost Per Frame' graph needs to be swapped out for one that represents cost per frame using the average framerate. It appears that the cost per frame graph using 1% Lows was repeated and inverted. Thanks

 

[Kn0xx]

Yes, long lasting tech, when DDR5 and PCIe5 is close to prime time. and thats when we have the leap in performance that everyone will get on and it will make a diference. For me, just buy best bugdet/plug-n-play that will work in the next 2 years(if you really have to) and save money for the big tech leap.
Care to mention that Ryzen needs tunning and digging to understand why some games with get shuttering, and strange frametimes.
i5-9400f is just best safe buy/plug-n-play for domestic use.

 

[liljom]

"bla bla..."

You so miss it.
6 cores not the same as 6 threads. So 9400F might need an upgrade, 3600 will be fine for more time.
9400F owners will have the option of 5 CPUs (up to 8 cores/16 threads), 3600 owners will have the option of more than 12 CPUs (up to 16 cores/32 threads).

 

[liljom]

How the tables have turned, AMD with the higher priced product...

This article was requested, that's why it has a more expensive AMD CPU. i7 9700 might be a better match for the comparison.
I would say, if you need the PC mostly for gaming, go Intel. If that's not the priority, go AMD.

 

[a4mula]

This is mildly disingenuous as the 3600 really isn't in the same price class as the $50 less expensive 9400f. Not to mention the high cost of x570 and faster dimms vs b360 and dirt cheap ram. The 9600k is the real comparison and for the vast majority of users, the 9600k still dominates in the lion's share of situations barring those that stream. The story hasn't changed. If you're a content creator, AMD and their heavy threads. If you're a gamer, Intel still holds the crown.

 

[CodeCreator]

This is mildly disingenuous as the 3600 really isn't in the same price class as the $50 less expensive 9400f. Not to mention the high cost of x570 and faster dimms vs b360 and dirt cheap ram. The 9600k is the real comparison and for the vast majority of users, the 9600k still dominates in the lion's share of situations barring those that stream. The story hasn't changed. If you're a content creator, AMD and their heavy threads. If you're a gamer, Intel still holds the crown.

You clearly haven't read the entire article.

 

[AlexMond]

The 1 percent average of the ryzen 5 3600 is 91 instead of 96.

 

[AlexMond]

This is mildly disingenuous as the 3600 really isn't in the same price class as the $50 less expensive 9400f. Not to mention the high cost of x570 and faster dimms vs b360 and dirt cheap ram. The 9600k is the real comparison and for the vast majority of users, the 9600k still dominates in the lion's share of situations barring those that stream. The story hasn't changed. If you're a content creator, AMD and their heavy threads. If you're a gamer, Intel still holds the crown.

That's true!

 

[CodeCreator]

That's true!

"When we reviewed the new Ryzen 5 3600 we had plenty of positive things to say about it, and note that in our review we compared it to the more expensive Core i5-9600K. Regardless, that was a battle that AMD largely won. Even so, we've seen many requests of a direct comparison to the Core i5-9400F which is now more affordable than ever at just $150."

"We're using 16GB of DDR4-3200 CL14 memory for both CPUs, meaning the 9400F was tested on a Z390 motherboard. Given you can snag one of these for as little as $120-130 these days, we didn't see the issue. You’ll be paying similar money for a good B450 board."

 

[pit1209]

That's true!

"When we reviewed the new Ryzen 5 3600 we had plenty of positive things to say about it, and note that in our review we compared it to the more expensive Core i5-9600K. Regardless, that was a battle that AMD largely won. Even so, we've seen many requests of a direct comparison to the Core i5-9400F which is now more affordable than ever at just $150."

"We're using 16GB of DDR4-3200 CL14 memory for both CPUs, meaning the 9400F was tested on a Z390 motherboard. Given you can snag one of these for as little as $120-130 these days, we didn't see the issue. You’ll be paying similar money for a good B450 board."

That's totally correct but "there's no worse blind man than the one who doesn't want to see", since Ryzen 2 launch there's a lot of them around.

 

[Boshum]

Yes, long lasting tech, when DDR5 and PCIe5 is close to prime time. and thats when we have the leap in performance that everyone will get on and it will make a diference. For me, just buy best bugdet/plug-n-play that will work in the next 2 years(if you really have to) and save money for the big tech leap.
Care to mention that Ryzen needs tunning and digging to understand why some games with get shuttering, and strange frametimes.
i5-9400f is just best safe buy/plug-n-play for domestic use.

Why get a 9400F when you can get an R5 2600/X? Unless you play Far Cry all day, the R5's are more consistent at gaming, and crush the 9400F in productivity. You are not likely to run into any teething problems with 2nd gen Ryzens, and you have a much better upgrade path.

 

[ewOOx]

Yes, long lasting tech, when DDR5 and PCIe5 is close to prime time. and thats when we have the leap in performance that everyone will get on and it will make a diference. For me, just buy best bugdet/plug-n-play that will work in the next 2 years(if you really have to) and save money for the big tech leap.
Care to mention that Ryzen needs tunning and digging to understand why some games with get shuttering, and strange frametimes.
i5-9400f is just best safe buy/plug-n-play for domestic use.

Agreed.
Strictly for gaming got i5 8400 like 2 years ago,1st gen Ryzen was already launched and I went Intel based on poor r5 1600 gaming benchmarks.Back then people were hoping that games will soon become even more multicore friendly and such multithreaders like r5 1600 will beat Intel's 6 core coffeelake cpus in no time.To this day this baby beats r5 1600 AND r5 2600 in most new games and still has what it takes to compete with r5 3600 in some games.Of course if you're going for productivity AMD is a no brainer,there's no doubt.I will wait for new stuff to come out,like ddr5,by that time AM4 will be absolete,new,more powerful CPUs from both camps will be out.Future proofing is dumb IMO,new stuff is always around the corner,get what you need now and be done with it.

 

[Boshum]

How the tables have turned, AMD with the higher priced product...

This article was requested, that's why it has a more expensive AMD CPU. i7 9700 might be a better match for the comparison.
I would say, if you need the PC mostly for gaming, go Intel. If that's not the priority, go AMD.

I would say if you need the PC mostly for gaming go AMD. If you absolutely need the highest framerates in shooty shooters with an ultra high end graphics card and high refresh monitor to the exclusion of everything else, go with the 9700K. If you actually need the 16 threads of a 9900K outside of gaming, then a 3900X might be worth a slight drop in gaming frames for all the extra power. The 6-core i5's are already running into frametime issues and aren't worth it for the price against Ryzen R5's and R7's.