The 8350K is a 4 core 4 thread, i just upgraded from a 4.5Ghz Haswell and its way slower in games than the 1600 let alone the 2600, so no.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Ryzen 2600 vs i5 8400, intresting reults
- Thread starter humbug
- Start date
The 8350K is a 4 core 4 thread, i just upgraded from a 4.5Ghz Haswell and its way slower in games than the 1600 let alone the 2600, so no.
He does not say that Dg, what he said was the 8400 is better at gaming out of the box, but the 2600 is better when overclocked, as per results.
@Potty27 4 core 4 thread CPU's cause stutter in high end gaming, don't believe me i can pull up a bunch of reviews where stuttering on Intel's 4 core i5's and 3's is very apparent with high end GPU's, its a very bad recommendation for anything above the GTX 1050TI.
-----------------
At thread, future optimisation, the fact is almost all of these current games are optimised for Intel only, despite this clock for clock Ryzen has around equal performance, give or take, mostly Intel take.
Arma III had a Ryzen patch, as you can see Ryzen at 3.4Ghz is equal to the 8400 at 3.8Ghz, and 17% faster when overclocked, i'm not saying this is what will happen when more Ryzen optimised games arrive but the fact is its only now that we will start seeing Games made with Ryzen in mind, Ryzen didn't exist until a year ago so we don't actually know its full gaming potential, other than perhaps this slide.
@Potty27 4 core 4 thread CPU's cause stutter in high end gaming, don't believe me i can pull up a bunch of reviews where stuttering on Intel's 4 core i5's and 3's is very apparent with high end GPU's, its a very bad recommendation for anything above the GTX 1050TI.
-----------------
At thread, future optimisation, the fact is almost all of these current games are optimised for Intel only, despite this clock for clock Ryzen has around equal performance, give or take, mostly Intel take.
Arma III had a Ryzen patch, as you can see Ryzen at 3.4Ghz is equal to the 8400 at 3.8Ghz, and 17% faster when overclocked, i'm not saying this is what will happen when more Ryzen optimised games arrive but the fact is its only now that we will start seeing Games made with Ryzen in mind, Ryzen didn't exist until a year ago so we don't actually know its full gaming potential, other than perhaps this slide.
Good Grief you haven't even read it, do you just hope that no one will and just take your headline for granted? Techspot are Hardware Unboxed, its the same review in text form, its already been posted a couple of pages back.......
Does this look familiar?
Last edited:
Key words and sentences here.
The key word there is "arguably" in other words he accepts again as he does in the fist extracted sentence that its not black and white, but if he was forced to come down on one side or another for games it would be the 8400 because as he puts it "you don't have to do anything to it to get the most out of it" IE overclock it, the fact is it cannot be overclocked anyway, with that in mind its an asinine argument, what he's saying is the 8400 is better because its less fuss, someone else might say the 2600 is better because it can be overclocked and is faster than the 8400 when it is.
He then goes and contradicts himself....
Dg you're selling it to people who have no interest in overclocking, in that way yes you can justify it, Martini is right.
That's not who i'm speaking to on Overclockers.
But even then your argument is extremely narrow, your argument assumes people with GTX 1080TI's are looking at 8400 vs 2600, they are not, and given that on a lesser GPU, like the GTX 1080 and under there is no difference between these CPU's with the 2600 at stock, and the 2600 is vastly better at most things outside of purely gaming.
That's not who i'm speaking to on Overclockers.
But even then your argument is extremely narrow, your argument assumes people with GTX 1080TI's are looking at 8400 vs 2600, they are not, and given that on a lesser GPU, like the GTX 1080 and under there is no difference between these CPU's with the 2600 at stock, and the 2600 is vastly better at most things outside of purely gaming.
This is true, and I agree with you.
I don't agree with the way the Ryzen 2600 was overclocked in the video, using top end components totalling ~£750 here in the UK, if you are doing that, then you may as well get the 8700K on a Z370 for a similar price. He should have tested on a low end board, with less aggressive over clock, a £30 type cooler and realistic RAM speeds and timings achievable on the low end boards.
Its actually no different to reviewers 'and in this case the same reviewer' using £150 cooling and the most expensive boards and what he himself admits is a golden sample 8700K running at 5.2Ghz for his reviews.
The difference is no one complains about that, because its Intel and that's fine, in fact 'don't mention it'
Because they are used to having to use the best boards and cooling when overclocking Intel CPU's they automatically apply it to Ryzen, the fact is Ryzen will get the same overclocks on a B450 board and a £30 - £40 cooler, so IMO this argument that its not right to use high end components is a bit of a disingenuous argument because it suggest 'deliberately' its needed, its not. the same thing will be done on a mid range board and cooler.
Incidentaly the same arguments were made about Ryzen one, because overclocking was done on X370 boards that was conflated.... just as it is now. my board is a low end board, and the CPU will run at 3.8Ghz even on its box cooler no problem, thats only a little under what its actually running at now.
These are not Intel CPU's.
Last edited:
@gavinh87 The most i ever got out of it was 3.975, that needed 1.47v to be stable, its not that the board can't handle it, its too high volts for the CPU, i have it running at 3.9Ghz 1.425v, the box cooler cannot handle that, it does handle 3.8Ghz just fine.
----------------
For 4.2Ghz this is what i would recommend
ROG Strix B350-F Gaming AMD B350 £107
On a budget for 4Ghz (5% less)
Prime B350-Plus AMD B350 (Socket AM4) DDR4 ATX Motherboard £82
Or more fancy for slightly more money
GA-AB350-Gaming 3 AMD B350 (Socket AM4) DDR4 ATX Motherboard £87
X470 boards start at £120
X470 Gaming Plus AMD X470 (Socket AM4) DDR4 ATX Motherboard £120
4.2Ghz Cooling
Arctic Freezer 33 TR White CPU Cooler - 120mm £38
4Ghz cooling, the box cooler should be fine but for lower temps:
Arctic Freezer 33 eSports Edition White CPU Cooler - 120mm £32
Yeah i don't get it, my ram is 3000Mhz, i set it to 3066Mhz and save, done.... 15 seconds and two buttons, i don't understand what people find so difficult about that.
My RAM still isn't even on the compatibility list yet its perfect.
----------------
For 4.2Ghz this is what i would recommend
ROG Strix B350-F Gaming AMD B350 £107
On a budget for 4Ghz (5% less)
Prime B350-Plus AMD B350 (Socket AM4) DDR4 ATX Motherboard £82
Or more fancy for slightly more money
GA-AB350-Gaming 3 AMD B350 (Socket AM4) DDR4 ATX Motherboard £87
X470 boards start at £120
X470 Gaming Plus AMD X470 (Socket AM4) DDR4 ATX Motherboard £120
4.2Ghz Cooling
Arctic Freezer 33 TR White CPU Cooler - 120mm £38
4Ghz cooling, the box cooler should be fine but for lower temps:
Arctic Freezer 33 eSports Edition White CPU Cooler - 120mm £32
Yeah i don't get it, my ram is 3000Mhz, i set it to 3066Mhz and save, done.... 15 seconds and two buttons, i don't understand what people find so difficult about that.
My RAM still isn't even on the compatibility list
yet its perfect.Unlucky....
No one is talking about the 1700, that CPU is now EOL.
Now buy the 2600 and make the same claim to bolster your argument
Would like to see a b450 do 3400
So would i but its not needed, the difference between 3200Mhz and 3400Mhz is 6%, after scaling the actual performance difference is 3 or 4%, meh..... Ryzen 2600 is still faster in games.
No it isn't.
Again this video should actually be watched, Dg's headline to it ignored.... he actually put the 2600 as the best $200 CPU.
When ever Dg puts a video up, ignore anything he says about it, actually watch it its likely to be completely the opposition to what he says it is, this is the kind of guy with will put up a link, tell you whats in it and then hope you don't actually go there to read it.
This time next year.
In that he tested 4 games, the first game AoTS the 2600 beat the 8600K and 7800X let alone the 8400, the second Assassins Creed game there was 6% to the 8400, BF1 again 5% in it, Overwhatch all CPU's GPU bound....
One other thing, he tested BF1 and AC with Medium settings, that actually reduces the load on the CPU, if you look at the 36 game benchmark he used the highest settings and that shows the opposite story 8400 vs 2600.
In fact here it is... see the difference? you know why that is, because when you use medium settings you are turning off physics, draw distance, stream shadow calculation........... a lot of things the CPU needs to work on.
Can we just conclude both teams have decent CPU's now.
I am, i do... its a loud minority that don't like the idea that any AMD CPU might actually be at least as good as an Intel for gaming. that's blasphemy.
A Coffee Lake Quad at 5ghz is bad for anything above a 1050ti?
Correct.
Yes, you are, At 4.2Ghz the 2600 is 9% faster in this game than the 8400 which is locked to 3.8Ghz
i honestly don't understand your meaning or reasoning here.
This is my reasoning. Average FPS are just as important as the 1% lows, yes they are both getting 70 FPS in the 1% lows but given the Ryzen is 9% higher on the averages it indicates its above 70 FPS more consistently than the 8400, that indicates the frame rates are more consistent and if they are more consistent its smoother.
Because of the 1080P results?
If that's the case yes, you are right, however, i stand by it, my argument is in the real world no one plays anything at 720P on a GTX 1080TI, and if the performance is the same at 1080P because the GPU is the bottleneck then WhyTF?
So yes in the real world the 8400 is just as fast, by the same token the 2600 is just as fast without overclocking.
Yet the argument here is about the CPU's ability to push the frame rates when it is the bottleneck, so when the argument is about that of course one cannot ignore the results.
I have always said if you have a 1080TI you should get an 8700K. because it is the undisputed gaming king for the undisputed best gaming card, you need that combination to get the most out of them.
But if you have a GTX 1080 a 2600/X is the better option because they have more than enough performance to push the frame rates for all the GTX 1080 is worth while being much more cost effective than the 8700K.
They are separate arguments.
So yes in the real world the 8400 is just as fast, by the same token the 2600 is just as fast without overclocking.
Yet the argument here is about the CPU's ability to push the frame rates when it is the bottleneck, so when the argument is about that of course one cannot ignore the results.
I have always said if you have a 1080TI you should get an 8700K. because it is the undisputed gaming king for the undisputed best gaming card, you need that combination to get the most out of them.
But if you have a GTX 1080 a 2600/X is the better option because they have more than enough performance to push the frame rates for all the GTX 1080 is worth while being much more cost effective than the 8700K.
They are separate arguments.