Intel Core i5-9400F vs. AMD Ryzen 5 2600X

[bluetooth fairy]

I know those in person who don't OC their CPUs, having bought unlocked K-parts. But it doesn't imply that there's no reason to buy it at all. I'm sure you know that usually K-parts have higher clocks and boost more, so they are just the best CPU one can get in terms of performance. Many people buy the best and don't upgrade it at all, like they do it with flagship phones.

I never said there was NO reason. I said manual memory overclocking is even more rare than manually overclocking a CPU. Know what's even rarer? Undervolting.

We both have seen not only what was stated, but also the emotional colouring of it (incl. "!"). Like you were amused/surprised or wanted to express it unconsciously. I hope you won't deny it, mate. I've answered in accordance, like it's not really surprising and pointed why.

 

[OptimumSlinky]

Why you speak 3200, when there's 3400 CL15 with tighter sub-timings in the article? Regular 3000 is nowhere near this OC'd 3400.

Look here, for Steve's direct comparison between 2666 and 3200 for R7-1700:
https://static.techspot.com/articles-info/1457/bench/Civ.png

It probably is the worst case scenario for Ryzen, but it correlates to 10-20% drop.

2666 vs 3200 is not the same as 3000 vs 3200. OP was implying that dropping from 3200 to 3000 would cripple Ryzen performance, which is just flat out not true. Additionally, Civ is one heavily CPU-bound title.

I'm not trying to say that Ryzen doesn't benefit from faster memory; it absolutely does (as Steve showed), more so than Intel. But to imply that all of Ryzen's other benefits (high-core count, multi-threading, platform price/value proposition) are outweighed by having to buy super-expensive memory is ridiculous.

 

[Puiu]

Very few people overclock their CPU. Even fewer will know 3400MHz performs better in [specific] games than 2933MHz. Fewer still won't overclock their memory beyond using XMP. I've talked to and read forum posts where people with Intel K chips that were not overclocked!

Techies know this stuff, but don't assume every system builder is a techie. As for playing Youtube videos playing in the background while gaming, I can do that with a 2500K...

which is why I mentioned that if someone tightens the timings on the 3400MHz RAM like the one used here) he will do the same if he buys 3200MHz. The comments here also try to say that the difference between stock 3200MHz and 3400 is "huge". in reality a stock 2600x with stock 3200MHz ram is enough to keep the performance in line with a stock 9400F with 2666MHz ram in gaming while still providing all of the other benefits.

Contrary to what some believe we already know that memory scaling is not linear and beyond 3000MHz you see very small gains like 1-2% between the ram speed steps.

 

[bluetooth fairy]

2666 vs 3200 is not the same as 3000 vs 3200. OP was implying that dropping from 3200 to 3000 would cripple Ryzen performance, which is just flat out not true. Additionally, Civ is one heavily CPU-bound title.

I'm not trying to say that Ryzen doesn't benefit from faster memory; it absolutely does (as Steve showed), more so than Intel. But to imply that all of Ryzen's other benefits (high-core count, multi-threading, platform price/value proposition) are outweighed by having to buy super-expensive memory is ridiculous.

Observation 1 (O1)
The article is focused on gaming performance, it has ~20 graphs full of it.

Observation 2 (O2)
OP explicitly said "Samsung b-die 3200/3400" and put "I would stick to Intel for budget builds for GAMING. Simple. Great performance out of the box for a good price." in the end of his post.

My personal conclusion from O1 & O2:
you've started this flame for your own reason.

 

[hahahanoobs]

We both have seen not only what was stated, but also the emotional colouring of it (incl. "!"). Like you were amused/surprised or wanted to express it unconsciously. I hope you won't deny it, mate. I've answered in accordance, like it's not really surprising and pointed why.

I stand by what I said.

 

[Puiu]

Observation 1 (O1)
The article is focused on gaming performance, it has ~20 graphs full of it.

Observation 2 (O2)
OP explicitly said "Samsung b-die 3200/3400" and put "I would stick to Intel for budget builds for GAMING. Simple. Great performance out of the box for a good price." in the end of his post.

My personal conclusion from O1 & O2:
you've started this flame for your own reason.

You are not limited to samsung b-dies anymore and the article was written before the price drops became so pronounced. You go for samsung memory if you want more wigle room to OC it/tighten the timings.

it all depends on the pricing in your country and if you actually care about OCing the CPU. out of the box, if you are not replacing the intel box cooler, you are looking at around 25euros more where I live with a mobo that is good enough to support higher core CPUs with no issues (good vrms) and 3200MHz ram.

 

[OptimumSlinky]

Look, we can dive into the semantics all day, but the following points are still true:

1. Memory performance scaling on Ryzen is real.
2. It's also non-linear (2666 to 3000 is a bigger impact than 3000 to 3400 in most applications)
2. You do not need special expensive Samsung B-die memory to get solid performance out of the B450 platform.

That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying that Intel isn't competitive for gaming in the segment (now that AMD has forced Intel to drop prices), or even that Ryzen is a better value (depend on your intended tasks).

I'm simply saying the argument that Ryzen is more expensive because you "need" special B-die RAM is a straw man at best UNLESS you're obsessive about overclocking and manually tuning your timings.

 

[LogiGaming]

You can see by this article that even with a 3400 CL15 ram Ryzen struggles to beat 9400F + 2666 in some games, in others it gets beaten or equal. And you are saying that using 3000 or 3200 CL16 is already good. But you will lose performance compared to these results. And is not 1% or 2%.

And don´t tell me 3200 CL14 or 3400 CL15 ram is only 20€ more expensive. Those are B-Dies that cost at least 180€, some of them even more expensive like the ones used on this review.

Funny fact, on Intel side we don´t need this discussion about Ram sticks. You buy the cheapest 2666 you can, enable XMP and you´re good to go with good gaming performance. That was the whole point.

 

[Michael Lindo]

Solid performance by the i5, and £15 cheaper than the 2600X (in the UK). Intel might be coming back on the front foot, if they keep this strategy up.

 

[Bradjm]

1ghz is massive difference and can be the difference between 80min fps and 110

Sorry that should have read .125 GHz

2600x will only really go to 4.2 maybe 4.3 if you are very very lucky

 

[Bradjm]

You can see by this article that even with a 3400 CL15 ram Ryzen struggles to beat 9400F + 2666 in some games, in others it gets beaten or equal. And you are saying that using 3000 or 3200 CL16 is already good. But you will lose performance compared to these results. And is not 1% or 2%.

And don´t tell me 3200 CL14 or 3400 CL15 ram is only 20€ more expensive. Those are B-Dies that cost at least 180€, some of them even more expensive like the ones used on this review.

Funny fact, on Intel side we don´t need this discussion about Ram sticks. You buy the cheapest 2666 you can, enable XMP and you´re good to go with good gaming performance. That was the whole point.

There would be stuff all difference between 3200cl16 and 3200cl14

What you are paying for with the 3200 cl14 is the ability to overclock the ram

 

[Strawman]

So basically:

Buy a cheap B360 board + cheap 2666 ram + i5 9400f. No need for overclocks or bios tweaks apart from activating XMP. Low power consumption. No need for great cooler or PSU.

OR

Buy a decent B450 board with decent VRMs + expensive Samsung B die 3200/3400 ram (200€ in Europe) + 2600x. Need to overclock it on the bios, tweak settings to find optimal perfrormance. Need a decent cooler for 4,2ghz on most chips, and it will use more power.

In the end you get the same performance as Intel, slightly better on some games, slightly worse on others.

I would stick to Intel for budget builds for GAMING. Simple. Great performance out of the box for a good price.

Your build is a huge waste of money though. Consider this. The non overclocked 2600x was 4 fps slower at average than the 9400 you are suggesting. So, no expensive mobo or cooler for overclocking is required.

The only price difference would be the ram. Now with the ram you are suggesting, the 9400f is already stuttering in a number of titles (bf4, farcry 5 etc.). Also, you are hugely sacrificing upgradability with that shitty ram + mobo combination. All of that for saving what, 20-30€ on the ram?! Yeah, not worth it pal

 

[Strawman]

yeah I confused you with the troll that likes to copy paste the same comment everywhere, I didn't look at the name. sorry. but it isn't my fault that your post was similar in nature

As for your "it can't do it" go check the 9900k review done by techpowerup. it has BF1 at 1080p with a 1080ti.

As for using the 2080ti, trusted reviews are hard to find but Steve did test the 2700x and the 8700k and the averages were 164 vs 183 with the 1% lows being over 100 for both but well below the 144Hz mark. I don't see the point in comparing the 2700x with a 9900k here anyway.

Telling me to go "check" a streamer's FPS counter... really? Those don't update fast enough to show the small dips and I don't know all of his settings. If you want to stream, the 2600x will blow the 9400F out of the water. It's not even close.
But to please you I did check. His BF V video from Dec 17, 2018 shows his FPS counter swing from 170+ to 240+ (270 when looking at the sky) on his 2080ti + 9900k rig (I picked it because of the name used). The video actually starts at under 200 FPS.

The FPS will be lower if you open youtube or twitch while gaming, that is normal. Since we are arguing about extremely small percentages (1-2-3%) it should be taken into account, right? Otherwise what is the point of recommending the 9400F over the 2600X? Every intel fan likes to point out the extra 2-3 FPS but never look at the simple fact that it is up to 50% slower in many other thread intensive tasks.

A gaming PC is not a console, you can and will do other things with it too.

I would also like you to show me any benchmark from a trusted source that shows that big of a difference in performance for the RAM (not a streamer again please) because most tests tell a similar story to what I wrote. You also like to ignore the simple fact that if someone is going to tighten the timings on the 3400MHz RAM then he will do the same on the 3200MHz one so all you are left with is a small bump in speed.

PS: yes I am triggered by people trying to intentionally fool me with fake or intentionally misleading arguments. but beyond confusing the name I only responded with things that can be verified by everybody.

You keep ignoring the fact I said multiplayer, not single player. Also check ryzen fps on gta v, black ops 4, escape from tarkov and quake, compared to intel. Is a massive difference. I have a 240hz monitor and wanted to play at 160fps to 200fps. With ryzen it was literally impossible in most games. It would drop frames for no reason. Since I switched to Intel, I didmt even need to overclock and here I am blasting everything at 200fps+.

Ryzen sucks for high refresh rate
Ryzen is too sensitive to ram speeds
Ryzen clocks are low combined with an already worse IPC

I5 9400F offers an objectively easier out of the box experience for less money, while having the same performance.

Meanwhile techspot/hu were basically the only ones saying 2600 is the winner vs 9400f. Wonder why...

Seriously, you want to play battlefield amongst others, and you are saying the 9400f is better? Did you miss the part about stuttering with the 9400f on the SINGLE PLAYER?!?!?

 

[LogiGaming]

Seriously, you want to play battlefield amongst others, and you are saying the 9400f is better? Did you miss the part about stuttering with the 9400f on the SINGLE PLAYER?!?!?

I think you need to learn how to read. He didn´t say he got an i5 9400 for battlefield. He said he had a ryzen before and switched to a beefier Intel chip most likely. And he is right, ryzen can´t keep up with high refresh monitors. Maybe Zen 2 will. For now clocks are too low for that and the CCX latencies do not help either.

Also 2666mhz ram doesn´t cause any stutter, you are clueless about hardware.

 

[Strawman]

I think you need to learn how to read. He didn´t say he got an i5 9400 for battlefield. He said he had a ryzen before and switched to a beefier Intel chip most likely. And he is right, ryzen can´t keep up with high refresh monitors. Maybe Zen 2 will. For now clocks are too low for that and the CCX latencies do not help either.

Also 2666mhz ram doesn´t cause any stutter, you are clueless about hardware.

Doesnt matter what he said he did. The article is about 9400f vs 2600x, and he is advocating the performance of Intel on battlefield V, a game that the Intel cpu gets crushed by the 2600x.

It's not me saying that 2666mhz on the 9400f cause stuttering, it's Steve. Did you actually read the review you are commenting on? Apparently not. Go ready it and then come back and tell Steven he is clueless..I'll be waiting

Again, your build is a waste of money. You are buying a shitty mobo and shitty ram, killing any chance at upgrading to a better CPU in the future, while suffering major dips and stuttering in a multitude of games (bf5 / fc5 amongst others) to save what? 20-30€? And to gain what? 4 average fps out of 130+?

That's not even taking into account how better the 2600x is at everything else besides games.

 

[Zoobit186]

Just buttoned up a machine with a very inexpensive Z370 board and a 9400f and I have to say it's a pretty impressive setup for such a low price. It's a friend's first build and she's only using it for gaming and streaming from an elgato.

We were comparing AMD and Intel builds and when it came down to it, the 9400f and mobo we picked was less expensive to get the features she really wanted/needed which I found surprising. Having a Z series chipset was a nice bonus offering a bit of an upgrade path and overclocking if she wants a bit more oomph down the road.

I know a lot of people would say go AMD for that route because a BIOS upgrade will allow you to run the next gen Ryzen chips, etc. Sure, back in the day I used my Crosshair II Formula from a Phenom 9600 to 9950 and eventually up to a Phenom II 1090t, but that hex core was still stuck with old DDR2. I dont see the point in holding on to old stuff...upgrade after a year and then get the shiny new stuff you're drooling over after 2. Who really is going to be using the same base build and mobo for 4-5 years, honestly?