Thing is....that potential might not play out with games getting more threaded...my bet is the stock 2600 pulls ahead of the 8400 in a couple years.
Ryzen 5 2600 vs. Core i5-8400: 36 Game Benchmark
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
Thing is....that potential might not play out with games getting more threaded...my bet is the stock 2600 pulls ahead of the 8400 in a couple years.
hahahanoobs
Posts: 5,219 +3,074
hahahanoobs
Posts: 5,219 +3,074
When the 2600 is overclocked....
hahahanoobs
Posts: 5,219 +3,074
So buy AMD today, for tomorrow? Um...
A really great article, thank you.
Unfortunately you've made my choice much more difficult in terms of which route to go with a major system upgrade later this year! Common sense and that fact I'm mostly gaming should point me in the direction of the 8400, but I'm so impressed with AMD's offerings recently and I really want to support competition in this area!
Unfortunately you've made my choice much more difficult in terms of which route to go with a major system upgrade later this year! Common sense and that fact I'm mostly gaming should point me in the direction of the 8400, but I'm so impressed with AMD's offerings recently and I really want to support competition in this area!
merikafyeah
Posts: 359 +345
Even at stock actual gameplay will be virtually indistinguishable between the two CPUs.
The avg difference between Intel and stock AMD for 1080p is 98 vs 93 minimum fps and 82 vs 79 for 1440p. No one will notice this when gaming.
And god forbid you use your PC for anything other than gaming, AMD takes the lead hands down.
CheekyP
Posts: 75 +55
I wouldn't call a $180 CPU a 'budget' part. Mainstream perhaps. A $60 Pentium is a budget CPU. A $100 2200G is a budget APU. I don't even consider the $120 i3 8100 truly budget class, but I guess where you draw the line is entirely up to you
I would be comfortable pairing a 8400 with say, a 1070/1070 Ti/1080 and not have to worry about the CPU being the bottleneck in most games. With a 1080 Ti I would probably opt for a 8700K, if you are spending $700 on a GPU you can afford a $350 CPU, though as this review shows a 8400 (or overclocked 2600) still runs OK with a 1080 Ti, but it wouldn't be my ideal pairing.
Finally, all this ''sympathy buying" logic doesn't make sense at all to me, even 'little' AMD is a multi billion dollar company that wants to please it's investors first and foremost, not to gain a sympathy buy because they are the ''underdog". When AMD was on top with no competition from Intel during the Athlon X2 days, they were charging $500 to $600 for their high end CPUs. So they are no saints when it comes to taking advantage of a leading position, they are there to make money like any other company
CheekyP
Posts: 75 +55
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
Define 'productivity'? People seem to think Cinebench scores define productivy performance these days, but it's not as simple as that. Last I checked Intel runs better with Adobe products and that's with a thread disadvantage and no overclocking involved.
Not all 'productivity' workloads can max out every core / thread in a Ryzen CPU, but when it does, that's where it shines.
You can't make any general claims like that about Adobe. You can look at the link I gave to see that when using CUDA in Adobe Premiere AMD does better and when doing warp stab Intel is very close to AMD and needs heavy OCing to get a noticeable lead (and in this case the 8400 can't OC)
Let's get a few things straight, the productivity workloads are not to be generalised, but after many tests you can safely infer that AMD chips will do better with a few exceptions. This is why, as a professional, you have to do your research.
And I've yet to meet someone that uses Adobe products to limit himself to just one application when working and they almost never have only 1 thing open at a time. This is something extremely hard to test, but I doubt that more threads will hurt you there.
What I said has nothing to do with sympathy, it's pure logic, competition is good for our pockets. 2 big & competing players is better than a monopoly, simple logic.
dirtyferret
Posts: 898 +1,273
Just a few thoughts;
16 GB of 3400 DDR4 is $200, 16 GB of 2400 DDR4 is $90, I think most AMD gaming set ups will not be using 3400 DDR4 so what will the tests look like if both CPUs used 2400 or 2666 ghz RAM?
Ryzen 2600 is $200 so shouldn't be up against the intel i5-8500 at $205?
Picked up an intel 8600k for $219 at microcenter plus an asus ATX z370 mobo for $100.
the AMD 2600/x is a very good CPU and a no brainer for those who need a CPU for content creation...but the vast majority of people still just use their PC for gaming, MS office, and web browsing/streaming and all lean towards Intel. My i5-4430 on my work PC zips file fine on a HDD (mostly just PDFs), and I don't zip files on my gaming PC, plus I don't run cinebench on a regular basis.
16 GB of 3400 DDR4 is $200, 16 GB of 2400 DDR4 is $90, I think most AMD gaming set ups will not be using 3400 DDR4 so what will the tests look like if both CPUs used 2400 or 2666 ghz RAM?
Ryzen 2600 is $200 so shouldn't be up against the intel i5-8500 at $205?
Picked up an intel 8600k for $219 at microcenter plus an asus ATX z370 mobo for $100.
the AMD 2600/x is a very good CPU and a no brainer for those who need a CPU for content creation...but the vast majority of people still just use their PC for gaming, MS office, and web browsing/streaming and all lean towards Intel. My i5-4430 on my work PC zips file fine on a HDD (mostly just PDFs), and I don't zip files on my gaming PC, plus I don't run cinebench on a regular basis.
OcelotRex
Posts: 558 +302
I mean that's the point though. My ASUS MB oc'd my i5-3750k to 4+ Ghtz automatically but if I wanted better gains I needed to play around, stress test, etc. I had fan profiles for winter and summer months since the ambient temp can vary in my home enough to take my gaming temps above comfort when the the house was warmer.
Stock CPUs/GPUs don't have that issue. It's lower hassle.
CheekyP
Posts: 75 +55
Where can you get 16GB of DDR4 2400 for $90?!
I agree most people won't be running their Ryzen setups with DDR4 3400 (or 3200 even). In fact, many combo deals and prebuilt Ryzen systems ship with DDR4-2400 to keep costs down, which would have a major effect on gaming performance.
dirtyferret
Posts: 898 +1,273
I would have wanted to buy some 90$ sticks too. Would have made a quick buck reselling them
hahahanoobs
Posts: 5,219 +3,074
*Checks date. Nope, not April 1.
I have no explanation for your comment, because I can't find any truth in it.
hahahanoobs
Posts: 5,219 +3,074
Yeah that's a strange one. I've been using the 1950X exclusively for video editing every day for the last 4 months and not had any crashing issues and performance is noticeably better than the Core i7-6950X rig that I came from. The 1950X is also much faster than an overclocked 8700K at encoding, though the 8700K is a bit faster for quite a few editing tasks, but that hardly makes the 1950X slow.
Here you can see the overclocked 2700X beating the 8700K @ 5.2 GHz and I can assure you the stock 1950X is faster again.
The 8700K does shine in some editing tasks but like I said the 1950X isn't far behind and far from slow.
merikafyeah
Posts: 359 +345
The gaming numbers are pulled straight from these benchmarks. Scroll up.
That's not true, unless you are going for some extreme overclocks and / or trying to use the lowest voltage possible. I have overclocked every single CPU I owned, from fx 8350, to R5 1600 and now the 8700k, every single one of them took 10 minutes to get them stable. I just use the common settings that pretty much everyone is stable with.
Of course there is always the chance that you get a really bad CPU, like a 0.1% chance, but hey, that's highly unlikely, and still, it won't take more than a couple of extra minutes to set a lower frequency or higher voltage.
Actually productivity involves a couple of application running together, or so I would assume. Running a single application (adobe in this case) that can't even max out more than a few cores isn't really an indicative benchmark.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
Define 'productivity'? People seem to think Cinebench scores define productivy performance these days, but it's not as simple as that. Last I checked Intel runs better with Adobe products and that's with a thread disadvantage and no overclocking involved.
Not all 'productivity' workloads can max out every core / thread in a Ryzen CPU, but when it does, that's where it shines.
And the reason I'm saying it is because even if we just compare Intel cpu's with each other, there are lower end CPUs that do better in adobe due to being unlocked, like for example 8350k > 8400 in a couple of adobe applications. That doesn't make the 8400 a worse productivity CPU.
But since we are talking about 200$ CPU, obviously no one is going to buy it to do serious production work, like hour long videos etcerera. The most common usage for this kind of CPU's would be streaming or rendering / applying filters while gaming, and that's where the 2600x shines.
Still, bottom line, if you want to plug and play, you go for the 8400. If you like tinkering you go for the 2600x. Personally I would never buy a locked CPU, since I like creating a mess in the bios
Actually I can find it for just 10€ more than the 8400, 169 vs 179,
hahahanoobs
Posts: 5,219 +3,074
Yeah that's a strange one. I've been using the 1950X exclusively for video editing every day for the last 4 months and not had any crashing issues and performance is noticeably better than the Core i7-6950X rig that I came from. The 1950X is also much faster than an overclocked 8700K at encoding, though the 8700K is a bit faster for quite a few editing tasks, but that hardly makes the 1950X slow.
Here you can see the overclocked 2700X beating the 8700K @ 5.2 GHz and I can assure you the stock 1950X is faster again.
The 8700K does shine in some editing tasks but like I said the 1950X isn't far behind and far from slow.
I just know the QuickSync driver just came out recently and leaves Ryzen in the dust encoding in 4K. Other resolutions seemed to be closer.
hahahanoobs
Posts: 5,219 +3,074
Then I repeat, Ryzen is the better choice when overclocked...
Those are some very interesting results especially with the overclocked 2600. I've seen other benchmark reviews with 2600X using 3400mhz ram but they don't get anywhere near your results. I would be very interested to see a video on your step by step process (and hardware setup) for overclocking this system, but most importantly, your memory timings and how you tuned them.
Similar threads
- Locked
