Unfortunately we didn't provide that key bit of content at TechSpot, but you can find it here:
Ryzen 5 2600 vs. Core i5-8400: 36 Game Benchmark
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
Unfortunately we didn't provide that key bit of content at TechSpot, but you can find it here:
Yes.
merikafyeah
Posts: 359 +345
regiq said that it doesn't really matter which CPU you choose because gamers will not notice a difference while gaming, especially when using more affordable GPUs.
To which you implied that this was ONLY true if the Ryzen CPU was overclocked.
And what I said was that even with Ryzen at stock gamers will not notice a difference. This was my main point. You don't need to overclock to have a great gaming experience, but you could if you wanted to unlike with the locked 8400.
Umm..no. Buy AMD because the current difference in gaming is insignificant while the extra horsepower isn't.....and don't give the Intel too much credit for future gaming performance based on current benchmarks, when it might just go the other way.
hahahanoobs
Posts: 5,219 +3,075
I can't believe I'm reading this.
hahahanoobs
Posts: 5,219 +3,075
So buy AMD now based on average gaming performance, and prepare for Intel to possibly perform worse in the future?
I need to know this now? Based on what? A gut feeling? Smh....
Btw, 80% of consumers buying 8 core Ryzen's have no use for all those cores. Intel is a recognizable brand, and performance has been consistent for years. AMD can't say the same. Their are usually many hiccups when AMD releases a new product or piece of software. Consumers kinda hate that.
It is really cool to see what tighter timings can do for Ryzen. You don't need hyper expensive ram, either. Tinkering with some 2933 mhz will get you a nice boost.
These CPUs are very close in gaming performance. That is where the similarities end. Live streaming on the Intel is a joke. The extra threads really give the AMD an edge in multi tasking.
Sure, it is a little more work, but I think most here like to tinker.
These CPUs are very close in gaming performance. That is where the similarities end. Live streaming on the Intel is a joke. The extra threads really give the AMD an edge in multi tasking.
Sure, it is a little more work, but I think most here like to tinker.
Last edited:
So buy AMD now based on average gaming performance, and prepare for Intel to possibly perform worse in the future?
I need to know this now? Based on what? A gut feeling? Smh....
Btw, 80% of consumers buying 8 core Ryzen's have no use for all those cores. Intel is a recognizable brand, and performance has been consistent for years. AMD can't say the same. Their are usually many hiccups when AMD releases a new product or piece of software. Consumers kinda hate that.
That's not what I said....you are a strange person.
hahahanoobs
Posts: 5,219 +3,075
You: my bet is the stock 2600 pulls ahead of the 8400 in a couple years.
Me: So buy AMD today, for tomorrow? Um...
You: Umm..no. Buy AMD because the current difference in gaming is insignificant while the extra horsepower isn't..
I'll just leave this here....
You: buy AMD
Me: Hey I agree with you! Way to go dude. Who cares about context or responses to previous posts...just pull out some words...right!
Last edited:
hahahanoobs
Posts: 5,219 +3,075
And this is why you shouldn't talk in circles. You're clearly dizzy.
Projecting much..huh? It's you who is confused...starting with your very first response to me about buying AMD.
Last edited:
hahahanoobs
Posts: 5,219 +3,075
The i5 8400 is $200cdn cheaper and beats the 2700X in 9 out of 10 gaming tests @ 1080p, so unless 80% of consumers trade gaming for Handbrake, Adobe Premier or Blender, Intel will continue to dominate. You're buying Ryzen for bragging rights if an 8400 would suit your needs.
https://www.techspot.com/review/1613-amd-ryzen-2700x-2600x/page3.html
My i5-2400 suits my needs, and likely runs 9/10 existing games on the planet like butter. These are tests done with very demanding modern games, with super high end graphics cards at high framerates and low resolutions. This is such a tedious argument, but the vast majority of gamers in the vast majority of setups with the vast majority or kinds of games probably wouldn't tell the difference between an R5 1500x and an 8700K in a blind test...in my opinion. It's still useful for people that know how to interpret it, but Intel is way overhyped to average everyday gamers. Even if they don't do encoding all day, I'm betting that more people have felt a negative experience from maxing their cpu utilization more often then they have experienced 'feeling' the difference between 70 and 90fps. That is my judgment call, but obviously you come from the camp that more people find themselves cpu bottlenecked and experience a loss in gaming pleasure from lost extra frames after having already reached a buttery smooth gaming experience.
hahahanoobs
Posts: 5,219 +3,075
FPS = Feels Per Second? No thanks.
i5 8400 destroys Ryzen in gaming. That's in price AND performance. AMD has nothing left if it doesn't have that.
But if you insist on paying hundreds more for fewer feels... go right ahead!
Last edited:
Over 36 games using a 1080ti at 720p and whats the difference?
A stock R5 2600 has 1% minimums of 101 fps
A stock i5-8400 has 1% minimums of 111 fps
I'd hardly call that destroy...more like mildly ahead. I guarantee you wouldn't notice it at all while gaming without a benchmark. The R5 is much farther ahead in multithreaded power and can also be overclocked. I think most people would agree that i7's with smt/hyperthreading have aged a little more gracefully than i5's so it's reasonable to think the Ryzen 12 thread will age a little better than Coffee Lake 6 thread.....but If you do want or need to upgrade the cpu later, the AM4 platform also looks to have a much better future.
What you showed here is extreme 2600 overclock.
It is pricey but it is also an overachievement with +7% on minimums over 8400.
There should be a test with light overclock.
Something like
B350 Prime PLus
Hynix 2400 or Samsung 2400 non-b-die OCed on auto timings
Ryzen 2600 highest achievable clock on 1.30-1.35V (4.0 or 4.1?)
And simple Gammaxx 400 level cooler.
Can it still match 8400 gaming performance?
It is pricey but it is also an overachievement with +7% on minimums over 8400.
There should be a test with light overclock.
Something like
B350 Prime PLus
Hynix 2400 or Samsung 2400 non-b-die OCed on auto timings
Ryzen 2600 highest achievable clock on 1.30-1.35V (4.0 or 4.1?)
And simple Gammaxx 400 level cooler.
Can it still match 8400 gaming performance?
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.
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
Nothing to add. I just felt everything in this comment was gold.
Dont bother with hahahanoobs comment friend. Maybe he just know computer info around 7-8 years. Ppl who play pc for more than 20 years imo will know it. Basicly I agree with u
Indeed, pls dont support locked cpu. Let it rip please. Its just the ways they try to make more money from custumers. companys always find ways to steal our money. Remember when intel have core2duo, all their product have unlocked. Now since intel is dominant they put limit to their product. Custumers need more money just to enjoy unlocked cpu, and their platforms always changes very fast. Its bad for customers.I hope amd will lead market in this years. Tight competition always give benefit for customer. Market Monopoly is **** thing. I am not a fans form both side. Iam a huge fans of my moneys, I believe customers must get best product for every dollars which their spent. Forgive for my bad english coz its not my mother langguage.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.
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
Nothing to add. I just felt everything in this comment was gold.
hahahanoobs
Posts: 5,219 +3,075
*hands santoso a tissue
I don't giv anything for this review because of the difference in ram speed, if ram speed didn't matter why would there be anything higher than 2400mhz ddr 4 ? Try both cpu's with the same ram speed and cl I bet there would be a bigger difference
msroadkill612
Posts: 112 +43
Silly test?
If u can afford a 1080ti, why nickel and dime on a cpu?
get a 2700x and be done with it.
If u can afford a 1080ti, why nickel and dime on a cpu?
get a 2700x and be done with it.
Similar threads
- Locked
Latest posts
-
Nintendo DMCA lawyers shut down everything Mario on Garry's Mod
- Cal Jeffrey replied
-
How Sam Altman became a billionaire without equity in OpenAI
- anastrophe replied
