Ryzen 2600 vs i5 8400, intresting reults

[humbug]

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.

 

[humbug]

It would surely be more objective if the 2600 was tested with the same DDR4 2666 Ram as the 8400?

For a true apples for apples comparison yes i agree, i think the reason he used 2933Mhz on the Ryzen system is because that's its rated out of the box speed.

 

[humbug]

If it gained 45% when overclocked in any result it would make me question all results because that scaling is just wrong. It also means that the Ryzen 2600's an out and out bottleneck and pretty much validates Gavin's opinion when it comes to the 8700K looking forward with new GPU's.

The biggest outlier was Star Wars Battlefront 2.

101 FPS vs 144 FPS overclocked, that's the only one over 30% difference, and thinking about it that's one where you have to play through the game to benchmark it, so its inconsistent, that may explain it.

Also, 720P with a GTX 1080TI, he did say they are all CPU bound at 720P

 

[humbug]

Couldn't agree more with this comment I read as well "
For the price you pay for the premium ram, new cooler, and mobo for the ryzen 2600 oc, you can buy an i7 8700."

In order to get the best out of Ryzen you will always need expensive high speed RAM. Until RAM is cheap again Intel is still the better option for gaming.

The 8700K cost £160 more, the 2600 will run at 4.2Ghz on a £30 air cooler easily, you could do it on the stock cooler.... the 8Pack memory is £30 more than standard 3200Mhz memory.

Steve added it up, an 8400 setup would cost you $420, an overclocked 2600 with the fast ram $500 and for that you are getting higher gaming performance and much much higher productivity performance.

The truth is if you keep the stock cooler and get the fast ram the overclocked 2600 setup would cost you little more for a lot more bang. the 8400 doesn't even come with a box cooler.

 

[humbug]

lol

 

[humbug]

Ah ok, i thought the 8400 didn't come with a stock cooler.... yeah fair enough, but lets be honest, the Ryzen Box cooler is a good quality cooler thats capable and quiet, capable enough to run a good overclock on the 2600, its a comfortably usable cooler.

Intel's coolers are junk, you wouldn't actually use it unless as a stop gap to buying one.

 

[humbug]

The 8400 can't be overclocked, you'd just use the stock cooler regardless of its quality.

Ok, i'll concede that

 

[humbug]

Anyone know how to role back Arma III builds? 'Arma3Legacy###' Steam code no longer works, damn it! :O i want to test the Ryzen patch vs pre-patch.

 

[humbug]

Anyone know how to role back Arma III builds? 'Arma3Legacy###' Steam code no longer works, damn it! :O i want to test the Ryzen patch vs pre-patch.

This used to work, in fact most of my Arma III play mates are Linux fanboys and they are always slow with update patches so i had to role back often.

 

[humbug]

I do, i like my ears

 

[humbug]

I agree, you'd have to me a massive AMD fanboy if purchasing this just for gaming. Completely negates the whole value argument.

The 8700 is £120 more expensive and also not overclockable, if you put 8700 and 8400 results side by side IMO you're not going to find much difference, i would bet they are quite similar and the 2600 when overclocked is solidly faster than the 8400 so with that at least equal to the 8700 for £120 less.

The 8400 or the 8700 cannot be reasoned over the 2600.

 

[humbug]

I've never understood this. Every single Intel stock cooler I've used is quiet (That said the first Intel stock cooler I used was for an E5200) whereas the same cannot be said of AMD (Until recently)

The 4690K cooler that i had sounded like a leaf blower, that's a standard Intel cooler, it was twice as loud as the Ryzen spire cooler which actually is quiet.

 

[humbug]

You need a decent board for that 2600. There are numerous reports of it not overclocking well on a b350 board. Add in the increased ram cost. I'd like to see how the 2600 does in an mmo like guild wars or wow against the i5. Can't wait for faster Gpus to arrive!

No you don't and no there aren't. my board is a £75 board.

 

[humbug]

No you don't and no there aren't. my board is a £75 board.

Here... no problems with this board, it holds my overclock perfectly, its well featured with USB Type C and A and has 2 NVMe slots for raid..... £75, peanuts.

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/asro...ocket-am4-ddr4-atx-motherboard-mb-153-ak.html

 

[humbug]

Get your fingers out of your ears. Go take a look at other forums and you will see that the 2600 needs better than a b350.
We get that you are impressed that it can beat a 8400 in a few games but lets not pretend its a white wash nor that average joe is going to be overclocking it to 4.2ghz with DDR4-3400 memory with tightened sub timings.


A couple of things Steve said that are worth noting




I think a few people are getting carried away here

Complete nonsense, i should find the proof to prove you right myself? you cannot back up a thing that you say, the reason i keep calling you out everytime you talk crap like this is because i have learned you make a lot of it up in a bid to bolster your arguments.

As for the Ram, average 3200Mhz Ram is £180 to £200, 3000Mhz Ram about the same... the 8Pack stuff is £220, i've seen it for £210 often, sometimes £200, so <£30> more.... Steve lives in Auz land where hardware components are expensive and premium stuff even more so.

 

[humbug]

So go ahead and show me your board doing 3400+ on the memory. Only a matter of time before these poor b350 boards start to pop their **** weak vrms with 1.45v+ going through them.

My Ram is 3000Mhz LPX, its cheap crap, it does a little above its rated speed on this board but it has no chance of running anywhere near 3400Mhz on any board.

Having said that i'm not saying the 8Pack stuff would, the chances are it will not, but it'll do 3200Mhz, its rated speed and that really doesn't make much difference from 3400Mhz.

 

[humbug]

The point here is it took 3400mhz ram with tightened sub timings, an AIO and a (quite expensive) x340 board just to get within touching distance of a 8400 using 2666 on a stock cooler on a cheap b360 board.
Why does this matter? Well I've not seen any B350 board hit 3400, hell even on x370 that was a push. So to beat this 8400 you are going to want an x470 board.

This is all good and well if you like tinkering and overclocking, the vast majority however do not. For a gaming only system I would still recommend the 8400 over the 2600. Though AMD are on the right track.

Well B450 boards are not out yet but i take your point.

It was done as you described, yes, but this doesn't mean its necessary to use those components. using an expensive Z370 board will have made no difference to the 8400, in the same way using an X470 board on the 2600 makes no difference to its performance, the motherboard makes no difference to the CPU's performance.

And it was not "within touching distance of a 8400" it was consistently 10 - 15% ahead, sometimes more.

 

[humbug]

Can we agree on this?

Intel 8400: £170
Ryzen 2600: £167 (the same)

Using conflated round averages if not overclocking the 8400 is 20% faster in games, if you are overclocking the 2600 is 10% faster in games, this measured with a GTX 1080TI at 720P, with a lesser GPU like the GTX 1080 at 1080P there will be nothing between these with the 2600 overclocked or not.

In productivity, which a lot of people do, they have hobbies outside of gaming involving their PC, the 2600 is much faster in most things, as an example the 2600 is 60% faster in Cinebench, which is actually from a real world application, Maxcom Cinema4D. 'Cited by Techspot'

My argument is the 2600 is unlocked, it overclocks with the push of a couple of buttons even on cheap motherboards, getting it to 4Ghz is going to be easy and that will work on its box cooler, cheaper Ram running at 3200Mhz.... its not going to make that much difference from Steves results, its a 5% clock difference and less in scaling on the Ram, so it would still match the 8400 at least in games while having that large performance advantage in productivity.

It has to be the 2600.

 

[humbug]

Depends who its for, for myself that doesn't mind tinkering and entering the bios and messing with memory timings then for me I'd get the 2600 over the 8400.
If its for my brother that knows nothing and wants a build and forget gaming rig then I'd go with the 8400.

These are both purely on gaming situations, as per the video in discussion.

I can agree with that.

But really, you need to teach your brother how to overclock CPU's, you just can't let him be ignorant to the free performance he would get from just pushing a couple of buttons

 

[humbug]

I'll give him your phone number, see how far you get with him before throwing it up the wall!

Ah, .... i'll give it a miss... :O