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

[Shadowboxer]

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.

I think most people understood the point I was making, but let me rephrase it to mark it easier for you to grasp. AM4 will not see any new releases on it after 2020. It’s actually not clear from AMD if they plan to release new CPUs for AM4 next year or if they plan to just continue selling this year’s chips until next year where they could launch a new socket. I can see a refresh of Zen 2 rolling out to be the last parts for the AM4 platform, that would be my prediction. Followed up of course by AM5 with DDR5. Let’s wait and see.

I don’t think many users upgrade a $200 CPU in the first couple of years, it’s too expensive to be a placeholder and if you need more performance that soon you’re a lot better off just buying today’s more expensive parts. I do agree, you have the option to drop a higher core count part on an AM4 board but on the other hand you can get a bigger gaming performance upgrade on the Intel board. If you are the sort of lunatic who buys a midrange CPU one year and then decides to upgrade to a high end part the following year then it depends on what you’re using it for really. If you’re a gamer and decide to upgrade to a 144hz monitor then having an Intel socket would allow you to buy a part that will max this panel for example. On the other hand if you buy a fancy video camera and find your master times are too long then you would prefer to be on an AMD socket so you can buy a part that can dramatically reduce your master times.

Don’t get me wrong though, I really don’t see why anyone would want to save $50 on a 9400F. 25% of the cost sure but it’s still less money than one full priced game.

 

[Boshum]

I think most people understood the point I was making, but let me rephrase it to mark it easier for you to grasp. AM4 will not see any new releases on it after 2020. It’s actually not clear from AMD if they plan to release new CPUs for AM4 next year or if they plan to just continue selling this year’s chips until next year where they could launch a new socket. I can see a refresh of Zen 2 rolling out to be the last parts for the AM4 platform, that would be my prediction. Followed up of course by AM5 with DDR5. Let’s wait and see.

I don’t think many users upgrade a $200 CPU in the first couple of years, it’s too expensive to be a placeholder and if you need more performance that soon you’re a lot better off just buying today’s more expensive parts. I do agree, you have the option to drop a higher core count part on an AM4 board but on the other hand you can get a bigger gaming performance upgrade on the Intel board. If you are the sort of lunatic who buys a midrange CPU one year and then decides to upgrade to a high end part the following year then it depends on what you’re using it for really. If you’re a gamer and decide to upgrade to a 144hz monitor then having an Intel socket would allow you to buy a part that will max this panel for example. On the other hand if you buy a fancy video camera and find your master times are too long then you would prefer to be on an AMD socket so you can buy a part that can dramatically reduce your master times.

Don’t get me wrong though, I really don’t see why anyone would want to save $50 on a 9400F. 25% of the cost sure but it’s still less money than one full priced game.

If history on prices is any guide, the 3600 buyer might be able to get a 4900X or 4950X in 2022 at a huge cost reduction, while the 9400F user is stuck with a 9900K upgrade at almost full MSRP.

 

[TechCat]

Yeah nothing like basing cost per frame on the rate generated by a $1000+ GPU. If you cost match the GPU $150-250 there would be not enough difference worth mentioning. Even a $300 card. An OCd 2600 with 6c12t would beat this and a PBO 3600 would too. Plus a 3400GHz kit is only a few dollars more but even a 3200 can be OCd or tuned for a good additional gain. I know not all gamers get good prices and I wish that was not the truth

 

[motoDrizzt]

AMD long time fan, here and I completely disagree with the method used for the review. Direct comparisons of two CPU must be done with items on the same price level, and 33% more is not the same price range at all. It doesn't matter if it's "only" 50 euro of difference, the R5 3600 costs 33% more than the Intel CPU, and 33% of difference is a lot.

And then according to your cost per frame analisys the i5-9400f is a much better deal, so the conclusion cannot be that the 3600 "destroys it": otherwise, following the same logic, nobody should buy any AMD processor because the i9-9980XE Extreme Edition destroys them all, despite being more expensive.

 

[Boshum]

AMD long time fan, here and I completely disagree with the method used for the review. Direct comparisons of two CPU must be done with items on the same price level, and 33% more is not the same price range at all. It doesn't matter if it's "only" 50 euro of difference, the R5 3600 costs 33% more than the Intel CPU, and 33% of difference is a lot.

And then according to your cost per frame analisys the i5-9400f is a much better deal, so the conclusion cannot be that the 3600 "destroys it": otherwise, following the same logic, nobody should buy any AMD processor because the i9-9980XE Extreme Edition destroys them all, despite being more expensive.

I believe it was mentioned that this comparison was requested by people, and they do also have a 9400F vs 2600X review from April 16th if you want a more equitable matchup.

 

[Lounds]

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.

When the i5 8400 came out only the z370 motherboards were available so in late 2017 it was still cheaper and better to go with the R5 1600 over the i5 8400, as you was literally spending over £100 for an intel setup, even if the i5 is 5% better in games, I don't think 5% performance increase in games is worth an extra £100.

 

[Lew Zealand]

When the i5 8400 came out only the z370 motherboards were available so in late 2017 it was still cheaper and better to go with the R5 1600 over the i5 8400, as you was literally spending over £100 for an intel setup, even if the i5 is 5% better in games, I don't think 5% performance increase in games is worth an extra £100.

I was making similar choices at similar times but waited for the B360 boards to arrive and went with the i5-8400, but it only really beat the 1600 in 2 areas: gaming and h.265. Well, the 2 most performance limiting things I was building the computer for were those 2 exact metrics. So 8400 it was. More than a year later, I'm building a PC for a more productivity-oriented person so it's an R5 2600 this time around.

 

[Lounds]

I was making similar choices at similar times but waited for the B360 boards to arrive and went with the i5-8400, but it only really beat the 1600 in 2 areas: gaming and h.265. Well, the 2 most performance limiting things I was building the computer for were those 2 exact metrics. So 8400 it was. More than a year later, I'm building a PC for a more productivity-oriented person so it's an R5 2600 this time around.

The R5 2600 is so affordable right now. When I built my PC I was hoping to get 5-7 years out of it, but I think if and when I replace my graphics card the R5 1600 even at 3.9Ghz will be the bottleneck, so I'll either try and pick up a 3600 cheap as they work on B350 motherboards or see if the 4600 is compatible.

Going forward I think gaming is going to require more than 6 threads as the next Gen consoles are definitely having 8 core Ryzen inside, whether or not they'll have SMT enabled for 16 threads is yet to be seen but if they do could be a game changer for PC gaming expectations. I assume the consoles will be clocked at a much lower frequency though.

 

[CodeCreator]

I think most people understood the point I was making, but let me rephrase it to mark it easier for you to grasp. AM4 will not see any new releases on it after 2020. It’s actually not clear from AMD if they plan to release new CPUs for AM4 next year or if they plan to just continue selling this year’s chips until next year where they could launch a new socket. I can see a refresh of Zen 2 rolling out to be the last parts for the AM4 platform, that would be my prediction. Followed up of course by AM5 with DDR5. Let’s wait and see.

I don’t think many users upgrade a $200 CPU in the first couple of years, it’s too expensive to be a placeholder and if you need more performance that soon you’re a lot better off just buying today’s more expensive parts. I do agree, you have the option to drop a higher core count part on an AM4 board but on the other hand you can get a bigger gaming performance upgrade on the Intel board. If you are the sort of lunatic who buys a midrange CPU one year and then decides to upgrade to a high end part the following year then it depends on what you’re using it for really. If you’re a gamer and decide to upgrade to a 144hz monitor then having an Intel socket would allow you to buy a part that will max this panel for example. On the other hand if you buy a fancy video camera and find your master times are too long then you would prefer to be on an AMD socket so you can buy a part that can dramatically reduce your master times.

Don’t get me wrong though, I really don’t see why anyone would want to save $50 on a 9400F. 25% of the cost sure but it’s still less money than one full priced game.

AMD mentioned that they were planning to continue using AM4 past 2020 and the roadmap shows that they are planning to release a new generation next year.

 

[CodeCreator]

AMD long time fan, here and I completely disagree with the method used for the review. Direct comparisons of two CPU must be done with items on the same price level, and 33% more is not the same price range at all. It doesn't matter if it's "only" 50 euro of difference, the R5 3600 costs 33% more than the Intel CPU, and 33% of difference is a lot.

And then according to your cost per frame analisys the i5-9400f is a much better deal, so the conclusion cannot be that the 3600 "destroys it": otherwise, following the same logic, nobody should buy any AMD processor because the i9-9980XE Extreme Edition destroys them all, despite being more expensive.

Are you guys incapable of reading the article before commenting?

 

[motoDrizzt]

I believe it was mentioned that this comparison was requested by people, and they do also have a 9400F vs 2600X review from April 16th if you want a more equitable matchup.

I have the habit to read accurately the entire article if I want to comment on it. Yes, I read that the comparison was required, that doesn't change my point.
It's not about writing an article like this, kudos for that and kudos to TechSpot for the nice job they do. Is that even if the comparison is wrong to begin with, you still need to stick to a methodology that makes sense.

The conclusion of the article cannot be "it's better because it goes faster and cost only 33% more". 33% is an abyss, people, cannot be "only".
Those one that think buying a 150$ processor are people that nearly certainly consider 50$ of difference a sensible difference, the same way someone evaluating a 500$ processor will not think of a 660$ one as "just 33% more". And that's why we use percentages and not fixed numbers: 33% is the same to everyone, 50$ are not.

As it is the Intel grant better performances for the money, performances that are more than enough in every scenery, price wise it is a clear winner. That should be the conclusion of the article if the writer keep focusing on the price -as he does, actually.

Then there are obviously so many advantages to the R5 3600 over the Intel that the conclusion can be "AMD is a better choice because [...] even if it's way more expensive", and that would have been fine too.

Let's hope I've been understood, this time.

 

[Boshum]

As it is the Intel grant better performances for the money, performances that are more than enough in every scenery, price wise it is a clear winner. That should be the conclusion of the article if the writer keep focusing on the price -as he does, actually.

Are you saying that it always comes down to which processor has better performance for the money when considering processor price only? No other considerations? When you recommend a processor to a loved family member that wants the most for their money....do you really ignore everything outside of frames per second per dollar in games? Well ok then I guess we need to have the caveat after every CPU review that an R5 1600 would be a better choice, because it's the clear winner.

 

[swagman]

Where’s Fortnite? The biggest game out right now? Why do you guys only do fortnite benchmarks for your gpus?

 

[neeyik]

https://www.techspot.com/review/1878-amd-ryzen-3400g/

There's a Fortnite test in that review.

 

[Strawman]

I believe it was mentioned that this comparison was requested by people, and they do also have a 9400F vs 2600X review from April 16th if you want a more equitable matchup.

I have the habit to read accurately the entire article if I want to comment on it. Yes, I read that the comparison was required, that doesn't change my point.
It's not about writing an article like this, kudos for that and kudos to TechSpot for the nice job they do. Is that even if the comparison is wrong to begin with, you still need to stick to a methodology that makes sense.

The conclusion of the article cannot be "it's better because it goes faster and cost only 33% more". 33% is an abyss, people, cannot be "only".
Those one that think buying a 150$ processor are people that nearly certainly consider 50$ of difference a sensible difference, the same way someone evaluating a 500$ processor will not think of a 660$ one as "just 33% more". And that's why we use percentages and not fixed numbers: 33% is the same to everyone, 50$ are not.

As it is the Intel grant better performances for the money, performances that are more than enough in every scenery, price wise it is a clear winner. That should be the conclusion of the article if the writer keep focusing on the price -as he does, actually.

Then there are obviously so many advantages to the R5 3600 over the Intel that the conclusion can be "AMD is a better choice because [...] even if it's way more expensive", and that would have been fine too.

Let's hope I've been understood, this time.

You have a point but you are also missing one. The 3600 isn't a better purchase just because it's faster, which is to be expected cause of the price just like you mentioned. It is because it is insanely faster. It has almost 70% more processing power. Whether this or that app takes advantage of it is kinda irrelevant for plenty of reasons which I'm not going to go through unless you ask me.

So a 70% better cpu for 33% more money is an insane deal actually. Absolutely magnificent. Even gaming workloads seem like they start strching the 6 core 9400 thin. For better understanding, go back to the 1600 vs 7600k revisit and see that there are games we're the 1600 has double the 1% lows. Soon that's going to be the fate of the 9400, with the difference that it doesn't have the higher IPC or frequency like the 7600k did.

 

[Shadowboxer]

Where’s Fortnite? The biggest game out right now? Why do you guys only do fortnite benchmarks for your gpus?

That’s a very good point. It should be tested. So I did some googling, it seems that Fortnite runs very badly on AMD hardware, it’s an i5 8400 scoring better minimums and averages than a 2700X. Even an i3 was faster than a 2600X.

It does make me wonder if this shows a bit of bias on techspots behalf. In their reviews in general, we get games benchmarks for the division 2 and dirt, ashes of the singularity etc, all games no one plays but performs comparatively well on AMD hardware. But then Fortnite, GTAV etc always seem to be missing. Games that way way more people play but performs relatively badly on AMD hardware.

I guess it’s very difficult to pick your benchmark suite.

 

[msroadkill612]

"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.

"Devils advocate" is apt, and we know who the devil is. Whate a contrived and convoluted argument. Upgrade options are upgrade options. One has them in spades, the other has ~none. Baba bim...

 

[Shadowboxer]

"Devils advocate" is apt, and we know who the devil is. Whate a contrived and convoluted argument. Upgrade options are upgrade options. One has them in spades, the other has ~none. Baba bim...

I thought it was a good point actually. I understand if someone were emotionally attached to AMD they might not like to hear it. Seems to be a lot of that around, to both manufacturers, it’s ridiculous.

 

[msroadkill612]

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.

I would be wishing I had an AM4 platform were I in your shoes. All those upgrade options...sigh.

 

[Irata]

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?

As others have mentioned, it seems that the next gen Ryzen will still be offered on AM4. That's the the beauty of the chiplet design - you could could couple the new CPU core chiplets to one I/O die for AM4 an another for a new AM5 socket that would support DDR5....

And even if this is not the case, if you have the right mainboard you could always get a good deal on a 3900x or 3950x when they are EOL in a year, just like you can now for Ryzen 2xxx CPU. Depending on the budget you could go with a 3600 and one of the cheape X570 mainboards and you'd even have PCIe 4 support going forward.

 

[Irata]

"Devils advocate" is apt, and we know who the devil is. Whate a contrived and convoluted argument. Upgrade options are upgrade options. One has them in spades, the other has ~none. Baba bim...

I thought it was a good point actually. I understand if someone were emotionally attached to AMD they might not like to hear it. Seems to be a lot of that around, to both manufacturers, it’s ridiculous.

The post you are replying to does indeed have a very good point.

 

[Strawman]

That’s a very good point. It should be tested. So I did some googling, it seems that Fortnite runs very badly on AMD hardware, it’s an i5 8400 scoring better minimums and averages than a 2700X. Even an i3 was faster than a 2600X.

It does make me wonder if this shows a bit of bias on techspots behalf. In their reviews in general, we get games benchmarks for the division 2 and dirt, ashes of the singularity etc, all games no one plays but performs comparatively well on AMD hardware. But then Fortnite, GTAV etc always seem to be missing. Games that way way more people play but performs relatively badly on AMD hardware.

I guess it’s very difficult to pick your benchmark suite.

Yeah, great research buddy. This very site tested the 2600 vs 8400 on fortnite and... proved you wrong. The 2600 had the better minimums. Your claims of i3s outperforming the 2700 are apparently delusions.

 

[Lounds]

As others have mentioned, it seems that the next gen Ryzen will still be offered on AM4. That's the the beauty of the chiplet design - you could could couple the new CPU core chiplets to one I/O die for AM4 an another for a new AM5 socket that would support DDR5....

And even if this is not the case, if you have the right mainboard you could always get a good deal on a 3900x or 3950x when they are EOL in a year, just like you can now for Ryzen 2xxx CPU. Depending on the budget you could go with a 3600 and one of the cheape X570 mainboards and you'd even have PCIe 4 support going forward.

Not to mention that the 3600 can be paired with a B350 with very little decline in performance.

 

[Irata]

As others have mentioned, it seems that the next gen Ryzen will still be offered on AM4. That's the the beauty of the chiplet design - you could could couple the new CPU core chiplets to one I/O die for AM4 an another for a new AM5 socket that would support DDR5....

And even if this is not the case, if you have the right mainboard you could always get a good deal on a 3900x or 3950x when they are EOL in a year, just like you can now for Ryzen 2xxx CPU. Depending on the budget you could go with a 3600 and one of the cheape X570 mainboards and you'd even have PCIe 4 support going forward.

Not to mention that the 3600 can be paired with a B350 with very little decline in performance.

Good point - so you should be able to easily upgrade from a Ryzen 3 1200 (Ryzen 1's entry level option) to a 3600 not having to change anything.

@Steve: Wouldn't that be a nice review ? Upgrading from a low end Ryzen 1 to a low end Ryzen 3 using the same board and memory.

 

[Ludak021]

I believe it was mentioned that this comparison was requested by people, and they do also have a 9400F vs 2600X review from April 16th if you want a more equitable matchup.

I have the habit to read accurately the entire article if I want to comment on it. Yes, I read that the comparison was required, that doesn't change my point.
It's not about writing an article like this, kudos for that and kudos to TechSpot for the nice job they do. Is that even if the comparison is wrong to begin with, you still need to stick to a methodology that makes sense.

The conclusion of the article cannot be "it's better because it goes faster and cost only 33% more". 33% is an abyss, people, cannot be "only".
Those one that think buying a 150$ processor are people that nearly certainly consider 50$ of difference a sensible difference, the same way someone evaluating a 500$ processor will not think of a 660$ one as "just 33% more". And that's why we use percentages and not fixed numbers: 33% is the same to everyone, 50$ are not.

As it is the Intel grant better performances for the money, performances that are more than enough in every scenery, price wise it is a clear winner. That should be the conclusion of the article if the writer keep focusing on the price -as he does, actually.

Then there are obviously so many advantages to the R5 3600 over the Intel that the conclusion can be "AMD is a better choice because [...] even if it's way more expensive", and that would have been fine too.

Let's hope I've been understood, this time.

You have a point but you are also missing one. The 3600 isn't a better purchase just because it's faster, which is to be expected cause of the price just like you mentioned. It is because it is insanely faster. It has almost 70% more processing power. Whether this or that app takes advantage of it is kinda irrelevant for plenty of reasons which I'm not going to go through unless you ask me.

So a 70% better cpu for 33% more money is an insane deal actually. Absolutely magnificent. Even gaming workloads seem like they start strching the 6 core 9400 thin. For better understanding, go back to the 1600 vs 7600k revisit and see that there are games we're the 1600 has double the 1% lows. Soon that's going to be the fate of the 9400, with the difference that it doesn't have the higher IPC or frequency like the 7600k did.

it's actually not that faster at all. Synthetic benchmarks are meh, winrar is outdated + the whole idea of faster archiving is insane to compare seriously and the rest is productivity. I'll bet that 99% people here do 0% productivity, and 99% of browser, movies and games. So almost every point made here is moot point. No body goes for cheap mobo and cheap CPU and has gtx2080 and will upgrade to 500$ CPU next year be it intel or AMD.

Also, people buying intel cpu have 0 memory or bios compatibility issues. That's priceless to me.

edit: for people doing productivity (ie. making money on their PCs) higher end CPUs are far better choice. For those that do not, having a 77, or 777% faster CPU in something that they dont use is like having nvme vs SSD comparison in scrolling web pages.