Ryzen 5 2600 vs. Core i5-8400: 36 Game Benchmark

[Julio Franco]

For the past few weeks we've been busy benchmarking AMD's Ryzen 5 2600 and Intel's Core i5-8400. For testing we have 36 games on the menu, each tested at 720p, 1080p and 1440p using the GeForce GTX 1080 Ti. That is, 324 individual tests, three times each... almost 1,000 benchmark runs, so grab a drink, some snacks and get comfortable.

Read the full article here.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1627-core-i5-8400-vs-ryzen-5-2600/

 

[tractorphil]

Great article. I’m looking to build a new computer this summer

 

[Kyaaaaaaaaaa]

This in an impressive comparison, Ryzen 2 competes better than Ryzen 1 in gaming. From that level 1 tech vid I saw that I don't really understand that improvement from Zen+, the cache latency decrease and such, may play a role in this? Though, 2600x and 8600k would be a more meaningful pair of candidates in my eye. Former showcases Ryzen 2's stock frequencies and boosting, latter has much more impressive frequencies.

 

[Banan]

Very nice test.
BTW I am curious what would be the difference in using these memory with i5-8400:

DDR4-2666 CL16
VS
DDR4-2666 CL13

Is the better CL worth the extra cost?

 

[Siakad]

Very nice test.
BTW I am curious what would be the difference in using these memory with i5-8400:

DDR4-2666 CL16
VS
DDR4-2666 CL13

Is the better CL worth the extra cost?

If your GPU is a gtx 1070 or slower then no, it's not worth it

 

[regiq]

So... When using more affordable GPU it doesn't really matter which one of those CPUs you choose.
That was a lot of work to get to this point but it's still a valuable conclusion...

 

[Evernessince]

So... When using more affordable GPU it doesn't really matter which one of those CPUs you choose.
That was a lot of work to get to this point but it's still a valuable conclusion...

Pretty much. If you are only looking for 30-60 FPS at 1080p, almost any CPU 2500K or newer will do. That's not really the point of this article though. It's more trying to show potential future performance by removing the GPU bottleneck. That is unless you are using a high refresh rate monitor.

 

[Puiu]

This is an incredible amount of games. Congrats on the multiple sleepless nights!
What I got from this article is that the 8400 is slightly better out of the box and uses cheaper memory. It's an easy to recommend CPU for people that are less tech-savvy.
As for the 2600, if you don't have a problem OCing it, you can easily match the gaming results and have much better results outside of gaming.

TL;DR get the one that is cheaper in your region. it seems prices vary a lot across different countries.

 

[Adi6293]

Nice article man, a lot of work was put into this I was planning on getting Ryzen build but instead I chose to go second hand and I got into the Xeon bandwagon W3680 its on its way hopefully I can get it to 4.5Ghz

 

[Gahl1k]

TL;DR get the one that is cheaper in your region. it seems prices vary a lot across different countries.

True this. AMD is usually much more expensive than Intel here (same goes for their GPUs, though, I don't know why), hence they lose their advantage for me. Also they run hotter, and in a really hot, humid place like where I live, it becomes more of a disadvantage.

 

[CMH]

Why not test CPUs using games that are actually CPU intensive, like Kerbal Space Program (build a ridiculously large rocket) or Factorio (with a huge savegame)?

 

[Puiu]

True this. AMD is usually much more expensive than Intel here (same goes for their GPUs, though, I don't know why), hence they lose their advantage for me. Also they run hotter, and in a really hot, humid place like where I live, it becomes more of a disadvantage.

I do believe that at stock speeds AMD CPUs don't really run hotter than Intel ones (especially when comparing CPUs like the 8400 which come with a very bad box cooler compared to AMD).
AMD CPUs do indeed run hot if you OC them but that's also true for Intel too. For both you'll generally need third party coolers if you want to max them out.

 

[BSim500]

"For testing we have 36 games on the menu. Each game has been tested at 720p, 1080p and 1440p resolutions..."

^ Now this is what I like about Techspot. And yes Steve, many of us do appreciate the work that goes into testing 36x games x3 resolutions = 108x runs per chip (plus separate for OC) tested... (y)

 

[OcelotRex]

It's an easy to recommend CPU for people that are less tech-savvy.

I'd also like to add there is some value in not having to "fuss" over setup and maintenance, regardless of savviness. I used to tinker with my i5 K setup a lot more. Nowadays I barely have the time to game and even less to mess around in the bios. I need performance out of the box or a simple utility for automation.

I will add the disclaimer that I have not tried out AMD's Master Utility or OverDrive yet.I'm getting a Ryzen 5 or 7 though for video editing so I could be off base here if those utilities take the hassle out.

 

[codgerface]

"For testing we have 36 games on the menu. Each game has been tested at 720p, 1080p and 1440p resolutions..."

^ Now this is what I like about Techspot. And yes Steve, many of us do appreciate the work that goes into testing 36x games x3 resolutions = 108x runs per chip (plus separate for OC) tested... (y)

Agreed! And I'm assuming each of those results is an average of (at least) three runs. So at least 324 runs per chip. Quite sure Steve is a replicant... ;-)

 

[Syl1979]

I bought a few weeks ago a i5 8400 with an Asus h370M prime to replace an athlon 860k on a SFF system, to be plugged on living room TV for browsing / music / gaming. GPU is GeForce 970.

I got it for very cheap CPU at 169usd +motherboard 79 , with an additional 30 USD discount.
The 16gb memory were almost as expensive (169 for 3000 cl16).. the prices seem to be going down for these now...
This chip is impressive. Same 1core perf as my 2500k overclocked to 4.6ghz. Multicore perf very good.

Only thing to "optimize" is the ram timings at 2666mhz.. and it changes just theoretical perf. by 2%, the normal guy should not bother.

 

[Puiu]

I'd also like to add there is some value in not having to "fuss" over setup and maintenance, regardless of savviness. I used to tinker with my i5 K setup a lot more. Nowadays I barely have the time to game and even less to mess around in the bios. I need performance out of the box or a simple utility for automation.

I will add the disclaimer that I have not tried out AMD's Master Utility or OverDrive yet.I'm getting a Ryzen 5 or 7 though for video editing so I could be off base here if those utilities take the hassle out.

Indeed OCing isn't hard anymore for either AMD or Intel. It depends though at how much you want to optimise things.

 

[Strawman]

It's an easy to recommend CPU for people that are less tech-savvy.

I'd also like to add there is some value in not having to "fuss" over setup and maintenance, regardless of savviness. I used to tinker with my i5 K setup a lot more. Nowadays I barely have the time to game and even less to mess around in the bios. I need performance out of the box or a simple utility for automation.

I will add the disclaimer that I have not tried out AMD's Master Utility or OverDrive yet.I'm getting a Ryzen 5 or 7 though for video editing so I could be off base here if those utilities take the hassle out.

You'll need an hour at the very most to tune your ram and OC the CPU. Unless of course you are looking for some extreme overclocks with as low voltage as possible, which of course takes time.

 

[ZackL04]

Awesome video Steve. So much data to look at and consider when making a CPU choice.

I do have one question though, what if we used a Z intel board and utilized multi-core enhancement? Do you imagine the i5 would run away in almost every game?

I think this would be the cheaper solution too vs the 2600, with pricier ram or overclocking and a spendy cpu cooler..right?

 

[Sausagemeat]

In the UK the 2600 (non X) is closer in price to the 8600K. So I would just get the 8600k. Still im dam impressed at how the 8400 beats out the 2600 even though the 8400 has half the thread count and a gimped clock speed (for an Intel CPU).

It makes me laugh that people here are claiming you can overclock in an hour. Technically I can overclock in less than a couple of minutes. But testing it and then improving the result takes considerably longer than that. I usually wait for a rainy weekend or validate when im at work. The results are worth it though. Im currently running a 4790K at 4.7ghz at 1.275 volts. It never gets hotter than 73C and performs faster in games than any Ryzen CPU ever made. And it only cost me £245 just under 4 years ago.

Also its not good that these AMD chips need an overclock to beat its locked Intel competition. What if you get a bad silicon lottery and your chip only goes to 3.9? You will have been better off going with the cheaper 8400. The forums make it clear that not everyone is getting to 4.2 on these things. Or what if your MOBO has no heatsink on the VRM severely limiting OC ability? This actually happend to me on an old FX board and has been pointed out by other tech bloggers on some cheap B series AMD boards.

Finally 4.2 ghz on the stock AMD cooler isnt happening at reasonable temperatures.

 

[GhafuPK]

There's actually no difference in both the processors even when both run on stock. that 5-10% difference in frame rates, no gamer is going to notice that since all the games already cross 60FPS especially on lower resolutions and on 1440p GPU becomes a factor.

So there's no real difference in real gaming, there's only difference if you are benchmarking them.

 

[Puiu]

In the UK the 2600 (non X) is closer in price to the 8600K. So I would just get the 8600k. Still im dam impressed at how the 8400 beats out the 2600 even though the 8400 has half the thread count and a gimped clock speed (for an Intel CPU).

It makes me laugh that people here are claiming you can overclock in an hour. Technically I can overclock in less than a couple of minutes. But testing it and then improving the result takes considerably longer than that. I usually wait for a rainy weekend or validate when im at work. The results are worth it though. Im currently running a 4790K at 4.7ghz at 1.275 volts. It never gets hotter than 73C and performs faster in games than any Ryzen CPU ever made. And it only cost me £245 just under 4 years ago.

Also its not good that these AMD chips need an overclock to beat its locked Intel competition. What if you get a bad silicon lottery and your chip only goes to 3.9? You will have been better off going with the cheaper 8400. The forums make it clear that not everyone is getting to 4.2 on these things. Or what if your MOBO has no heatsink on the VRM severely limiting OC ability? This actually happend to me on an old FX board and has been pointed out by other tech bloggers on some cheap B series AMD boards.

Finally 4.2 ghz on the stock AMD cooler isnt happening at reasonable temperatures.

Just like how Intel needs an heavy OC to get close to AMD in terms of productivity results. It's not like you don't understand this.

Sure, in games the 8400 is slightly better, but it's a whooping 60% slower in Cinebench or 70% in 7-zip (decompression) as stated in the conclusion. This is why it's really hard to recommend the 8400 unless you are building a PC purely for gaming (at which point I'll doubt that you'll be using anything better than an 1070 with it). Even with an 1080ti you are still GPU bound most of the time at 1440p.

For me, I do some light gaming but work is my main usage for such a CPU. Besides the fact that I need all the cores I can get for my own work, some of the graphic designers I work with can create huge archives. They sure like to make big shiny stuff

 

[raimundojcc]

Hello Steve,

Pretty disruptive results from 2 weeks ago vs i7 8700k, the i5 runs about 20% slower in ACO Ultra High 1080P, and the ryzen @ 4.2 runs about 9% slower. Any reason for that?

Kindly,
JCR.

 

[meric]

In the UK the 2600 (non X) is closer in price to the 8600K. So I would just get the 8600k. Still im dam impressed at how the 8400 beats out the 2600 even though the 8400 has half the thread count and a gimped clock speed (for an Intel CPU).

It makes me laugh that people here are claiming you can overclock in an hour. Technically I can overclock in less than a couple of minutes. But testing it and then improving the result takes considerably longer than that. I usually wait for a rainy weekend or validate when im at work. The results are worth it though. Im currently running a 4790K at 4.7ghz at 1.275 volts. It never gets hotter than 73C and performs faster in games than any Ryzen CPU ever made. And it only cost me £245 just under 4 years ago.

Also its not good that these AMD chips need an overclock to beat its locked Intel competition. What if you get a bad silicon lottery and your chip only goes to 3.9? You will have been better off going with the cheaper 8400. The forums make it clear that not everyone is getting to 4.2 on these things. Or what if your MOBO has no heatsink on the VRM severely limiting OC ability? This actually happend to me on an old FX board and has been pointed out by other tech bloggers on some cheap B series AMD boards.

Finally 4.2 ghz on the stock AMD cooler isnt happening at reasonable temperatures.

Just like how Intel needs an heavy OC to get close to AMD in terms of productivity results. It's not like you don't understand this.

Sure, in games the 8400 is slightly better, but it's a whooping 60% slower in Cinebench or 70% in 7-zip (decompression) as stated in the conclusion. This is why it's really hard to recommend the 8400 unless you are building a PC purely for gaming (at which point I'll doubt that you'll be using anything better than an 1070 with it). Even with an 1080ti you are still GPU bound most of the time at 1440p.

For me, I do some light gaming but work is my main usage for such a CPU. Besides the fact that I need all the cores I can get for my own work, some of the graphic designers I work with can create huge archives. They sure like to make big shiny stuff

I totally agree you perhaps because I have similar computing needs to yours. 8400's advantage in gaming is obvious but it's still a budget part and it would be not logical to pair a 8400 with a high-end graphics card (like you mentioned). AMD now is not so much behind like it was in bulldozer times, we are talking about maybe 5 fps difference max when both CPUs are paired with a budget graphics card (which is the real world scenario anyways). Besides, I still wouldn't support the intel monopoly even if I was building a gaming-oriented pc unless they give me a huge advantage for the same price as competition. Support the underdog now, invest in better products for better prices in the future.

 

[Steve]

Hello Steve,

Pretty disruptive results from 2 weeks ago vs i7 8700k, the i5 runs about 20% slower in ACO Ultra High 1080P, and the ryzen @ 4.2 runs about 9% slower. Any reason for that?

Kindly,
JCR.

Also the ACO results aren't directly comparable, the previous test used the built-in benchmark, for this one we're ridding though the town. You will have no doubt noticed that both the 8400 and 2600 are slower in this updated more demanding test.