Games have already gotten more multicore friendly. The 1600 is beating the 7600K now, even if not a match for your 8400. The 2600 is barely behind your chip and can beat it with a good overclock. Did you even pair a 1080ti with your 8400 and run it at low res so it could show off those higher average framerates? Or are you running a midrange card so you are really just the same at gaming and lower everywhere else than the Ryzens?
AMD Ryzen 5 3600 vs. Intel Core i5-9400F: Mainstream Titans Clash
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
Games have already gotten more multicore friendly. The 1600 is beating the 7600K now, even if not a match for your 8400. The 2600 is barely behind your chip and can beat it with a good overclock. Did you even pair a 1080ti with your 8400 and run it at low res so it could show off those higher average framerates? Or are you running a midrange card so you are really just the same at gaming and lower everywhere else than the Ryzens?
That's good you brought that up, because the 9600K is 89 instead of 98. The 3600 is beating the 9600K in 1% mins now.
If I'm reading correctly here, the answer is really easy for the Intel fanboys here:
Between the i5-9400F and the R5-3600, you buy the i5-9400 if you mate it to a 2080Ti because the CPU cost per FPS is lower. Because you're looking for lower cost with a 2080Ti, LOL.
Of course nobody does this. You couple that CPU to a midrange GPU which will perform similarly on both CPUs. So the advantage of the Intel chip is lower CPU cost and the advantage to the AMD chip is better productivity performance and a wider range of upgrade options in the future.
Or you could buy an R5 2600 for $135 and get:
the same gaming performance with a midrange GPU
much lower cost than the 3600
higher productivity performance than the 9400F
have even more future CPU upgrade options
…so I did.
Between the i5-9400F and the R5-3600, you buy the i5-9400 if you mate it to a 2080Ti because the CPU cost per FPS is lower. Because you're looking for lower cost with a 2080Ti, LOL.
Of course nobody does this. You couple that CPU to a midrange GPU which will perform similarly on both CPUs. So the advantage of the Intel chip is lower CPU cost and the advantage to the AMD chip is better productivity performance and a wider range of upgrade options in the future.
Or you could buy an R5 2600 for $135 and get:
the same gaming performance with a midrange GPU
much lower cost than the 3600
higher productivity performance than the 9400F
have even more future CPU upgrade options
…so I did.
There are plenty games that already use more than 4 cores, BF5 might be the best example if you look at the charts (1% low). I have an i5-4690K and it is totally unplayable due to constant fps drops and If I dont limit the fps, even my mouse input starts stuttering. My friend has an i7 of the same generation and the extra 4 threads makes a huge difference.
And I'm hitting CPU limit in almost every new game recently.
As games get more and more complex, the only option is to use more cores, as the speeds are not likely to go above 5GHz. And since like 99% of games use common game engines like Unity or UE4, if they implement it in the engine then suddenly every game will require 4+ cores/threads.
And I'm hitting CPU limit in almost every new game recently.
As games get more and more complex, the only option is to use more cores, as the speeds are not likely to go above 5GHz. And since like 99% of games use common game engines like Unity or UE4, if they implement it in the engine then suddenly every game will require 4+ cores/threads.
I'm running it with a rtx 2060 now,had a 1060 before.I never cared about high averages,what I wanted was high minimums,so I could lock to 60fps without major framedrops.Back then ryzen was not good enough.Then came Zen+,which requires a hefty oc and some fast ddr4 that you also have to tweak to get best performance.IMO only now that r5 3600 is out Intel's budget i5s are getting some serious competition in this level of gaming performance.Yeah,mainly for productivity it's a no brainer - go AMD,no doubt about it.Choose by what is more important to you - more consistent gameplay or a few extra seconds shaved of at video editing etc.
Im no Intel fanboy,if I were to built a completely new system today,I'd go AMD.
Thank you for the heads up. We mistakenly uploaded the same graph data twice. It's now been corrected. The first Cost per Frame graph shows data for average frame rates and the second for 1% lows.@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
PetrolHead
Posts: 68 +36
Outside synthetic benchmarks, where will the leap in performance be? Heavy workloads employing lots of RAM and needing fast storage space? Because gaming will probably see only "meh" level improvements. PCIe 3.0 is enough for any current single GPU system (and multi-GPU has never really been a thing for gamers), so PCIe 4.0 will be overkill for the vast majority for several years still without some miraculous leap in GPU performance. Sure, PCIe SSD drives will work faster, but loads of people still store their game data on HDDs, so I doubt shorter load times are a big priority. What of DDR5, then? Gaming performance scaling with DDR4 leads me to believe that the DDR5 will not be a major improvement and the CPU's IPC and clock speed will still be the major factors contributing to FPS figures - unless, of course, that DDR5 is paired with an APU, but how many are biting their nails in anticipation of better APU performance?
The AMD has 6cores and 12 threads the Intel chip has only 6cores/6threads this is why the Intel gets thrashed on benchmarks though it's good for gaming right now the minute the next gen consoles come out it's gonna be useless also it's a locked processor and can't be overclock at least with the multiplier that is where the AMD can be. Intel at the moment is not competitive and price versus performance.
You are right!
amstech
Posts: 2,662 +1,825
Look at that old 8700K at stock clocks still doing work.
Crank that sucker up another 500MHz and call it a day, no wonder they still sell for $300 (or more) used.
For the money though, god damn is AMD impressive.
The 6/12 3600 is a beast for $200 but I will say that, overall, I found the 9400F to be a little disappointing, even putting aside the price difference and the very underwhelming stock turbo of 4.1GHz (its even slower then the Ryzen while only being a 6/6?) with 9MB cache. I'd like to see this same review with the 9400F running at 4.8GHz - 5.2GHz, 4.1GHz, while fair and stock, is just unprofessional! Hehe.
Crank that sucker up another 500MHz and call it a day, no wonder they still sell for $300 (or more) used.
For the money though, god damn is AMD impressive.
The 6/12 3600 is a beast for $200 but I will say that, overall, I found the 9400F to be a little disappointing, even putting aside the price difference and the very underwhelming stock turbo of 4.1GHz (its even slower then the Ryzen while only being a 6/6?) with 9MB cache. I'd like to see this same review with the 9400F running at 4.8GHz - 5.2GHz, 4.1GHz, while fair and stock, is just unprofessional! Hehe.
Last edited:
The 9400F is a locked part. If you want 4.8 - 5.2GHz from Intel, you need to pay 53% more for a 9600KF. That's Intel's level of professionalism.
I'm still waiting for someone to release a 7-core CPU. Because even numbers are boring.
treetops
Posts: 3,064 +784
Gaming wise, intel is a better path, you have better performance options every tier above the 3600. 9600k $245, 9700k $364, $9900k. The 7700k is one of the last intel gens supported by windows 7, $350 brand new.
Newegg prices as today. Maybe Ryzen will get better with time.
Newegg prices as today. Maybe Ryzen will get better with time.
Realistically, this should happen. If 6-core parts are just 8-core ones with 2 inactive cores due to flaws, then there should be loads of CPUs with a single flawed core. Do cores somehow fail in pairs?
Gimme my 7-core CPU and I will lord over those plebeian 6-core losers!
amstech
Posts: 2,662 +1,825
A moment after I wrote that I felt a little silly, I thought it most likely was although I had never personally checked, maybe I should read the entire article and do my research before posting.
I thought we might see 3-core/6-thread chips, but guess it's not going to happen. Figured they would be pretty decent for entry level.
Jeffrey2009
Posts: 45 +14
Yep, even numbers are boring. But, odd numbers are ODD.
There’s nothing really to stop a CPU being an odd number core unit - for example, AMD released a 3 core CPU back in 2009. AMD and Intel do it now purely to have sufficient market separation for the various SKUs.
Kn0xx
Posts: 46 +51
DDR4 had always some "latency" issues that got compensated with speed. DDR5 will correct these latency issues, better bandwidth(double ?), great speed, low voltage, everything is just better at DDR5. Its a leap! a great one actually(and you can fit a DDR4 stick in DDR5 slot). CPU will get advantage from these sticks. AMD already made CPU that benefits from this with Infitiny Fabric.
AMD always tried to stay ahead of the game, and they do. but Intel always get the better version of it.
The same is for PCIe4, AMD just using hype thing for marketing. Intel will use and abuse from PCIe5. With PCIe5 we will have Multi-Core/Die GPU things not constrained by PCIe bandwidth and CPU/RAM limitations. I think( well I can imagine ) the overall leap goes up to 50% better performance in all PC perfomance. Gaming, workloads. True 4k 60fps gaming. the tech industry needs 4k mainstream.
Forebode
Posts: 197 +45
Steve, your in-depth vids are great, but this article is missing vital information. Like how the Ryzen memory was set up. I'd hope readers of techspot are Luddites and are willing to do minor adjustments in their bios or with a tool in the OS to hone their system to better performance.
Why is this written like parts were purchased solely for price and plugged together like Lego blocks? There are reports that adjusting both timings/speeds and or IF that Ryzen could be even faster.
Perhaps these reviews are strictly for Lego building. For those who want to build a computer and never go into the bios.
Why is this written like parts were purchased solely for price and plugged together like Lego blocks? There are reports that adjusting both timings/speeds and or IF that Ryzen could be even faster.
Perhaps these reviews are strictly for Lego building. For those who want to build a computer and never go into the bios.
Steve, did you remove World War Z from the test bench?
I know you've been corrected multiple times, but I want to add my 2 cents as well.
Not only you can upgrade to the 3900X, but also to the 3950X AND to the whole of Ryzen 4000, so 4700X/4900X and most likely 4950X as well.
The AM4 is simply vastly superior, especially if you chose a flagship X70 based chipset or even B450.
Steve tested 3200 CL14 vs. 3600 CL16 in another video/article and found little difference in Zen 2 performance between the two in games (<2%) so he is sticking with 3200 CL14 to level the playing field with Intel.
Shadowboxer
Posts: 2,074 +1,655
So AMD finally did it, they beat Intel. But the more I see the comparisons the more I can’t help thinking that if Intel had delivered 10nm on time then AMD wouldn’t have done it. AMDs 7nm stuff appears to only be a tiny bit faster than Intel’s 14nm stuff and doesn’t even clock as high.
The comments are amusing, if the manufacturer of these chips swapped places then lots of the usual names here would be saying buy the 9400F as the difference is barely noticeable and you save $50!
Personally I’d pick the 3600 but then I’d always pick the better performing gaming part, regardless of how bad value it is or whatever.
Also, AMD gets credit for being upgradeable? I thought AM4 was being discontinued next year? I mean if you need to upgrade a $200 CPU in just one year then you made the wrong choice now! And it’s too expensive to be a “placeholder” to tide you over until you can get a higher end part.
The comments are amusing, if the manufacturer of these chips swapped places then lots of the usual names here would be saying buy the 9400F as the difference is barely noticeable and you save $50!
Personally I’d pick the 3600 but then I’d always pick the better performing gaming part, regardless of how bad value it is or whatever.
Also, AMD gets credit for being upgradeable? I thought AM4 was being discontinued next year? I mean if you need to upgrade a $200 CPU in just one year then you made the wrong choice now! And it’s too expensive to be a “placeholder” to tide you over until you can get a higher end part.
Last edited:
AM4 is *supported* until at least next year. Where did you read that it will be discontinued? It's all in the words you choose and why you choose them.
Buying a 6C12T processor now with an already guaranteed 16C32T upgrade path (among many others) is a fine example of upgradability and anyone disputing that is doing so with a disingenuous axe to grind. If you buy a 6-core part from Intel now, you get a single significantly better option in the future, an 8C16T.
Similar threads
- Locked
