About 40 games benchmarked with a couple of things that are unexpected, even interesting.
Out of the box as you might expect the 8400 is faster pretty much across the board, and i have to admit sometimes by quite a lot, more than i would have thought.
But, overclocked the Ryzen 2600 is faster, pretty much across the board, sometimes much faster.
You might expect that if they are close out of the box but in most they are not, and i have to be honest i did not expect these huge gains from overclocking, when overclocked in some cases the 2600 gains 45% performance pushing it solidly ahead of the 8400.
But then looking at the settings of these two CPU's
Out of the box
Ryzen 2600 all core: 3.4Ghz + 2933Mhz Men
Core i5 8400 all core: 3.8Ghz + 2666Mhz Men
So out of the box the 8400 is clocked about 12% higher than the 2600, if the IPC is similar that does actually account for most of the difference in performance out of the box.
Overclocked
The 8400 is not overclockable
Ryzen 2600: 4.2Ghz + 3400Mhz Men (+24% Core + 16% Men)
So the 2600 basically gains 25% just from its overclock, thats a lot, it actually clocked very low out of the box and the +15% Mem... given how well Ryzen scales with memory that ~+45% actually makes a lot more sense when you know the numbers, so i'm quite impressed by it when overclocked.
But there is one other thing.
Arma III is one of those games that was particularly bad for Ryzen, its one of those old badly optimised games that primarily runs on one thread, i don't have any benchmarks to hand but it was one of those games where the 8400 would stomp all over the 2700X let alone the 2600.
Its just had a Ryzen optimisation patch, this is the result.
So optimising for Ryzen here has made a huge difference, its gone from being way behind Intel in the form of the 8400 to equal performance and way ahead when overclocked.
I think this is interesting because Ryzen has been around for a year now and new games coming on tap should have been developed with Ryzen in mind.
Out of the box as you might expect the 8400 is faster pretty much across the board, and i have to admit sometimes by quite a lot, more than i would have thought.
But, overclocked the Ryzen 2600 is faster, pretty much across the board, sometimes much faster.
You might expect that if they are close out of the box but in most they are not, and i have to be honest i did not expect these huge gains from overclocking, when overclocked in some cases the 2600 gains 45% performance pushing it solidly ahead of the 8400.
But then looking at the settings of these two CPU's
Out of the box
Ryzen 2600 all core: 3.4Ghz + 2933Mhz Men
Core i5 8400 all core: 3.8Ghz + 2666Mhz Men
So out of the box the 8400 is clocked about 12% higher than the 2600, if the IPC is similar that does actually account for most of the difference in performance out of the box.
Overclocked
The 8400 is not overclockable
Ryzen 2600: 4.2Ghz + 3400Mhz Men (+24% Core + 16% Men)
So the 2600 basically gains 25% just from its overclock, thats a lot, it actually clocked very low out of the box and the +15% Mem... given how well Ryzen scales with memory that ~+45% actually makes a lot more sense when you know the numbers, so i'm quite impressed by it when overclocked.
But there is one other thing.
Arma III is one of those games that was particularly bad for Ryzen, its one of those old badly optimised games that primarily runs on one thread, i don't have any benchmarks to hand but it was one of those games where the 8400 would stomp all over the 2700X let alone the 2600.
Its just had a Ryzen optimisation patch, this is the result.
So optimising for Ryzen here has made a huge difference, its gone from being way behind Intel in the form of the 8400 to equal performance and way ahead when overclocked.
I think this is interesting because Ryzen has been around for a year now and new games coming on tap should have been developed with Ryzen in mind.
Last edited:
