Ryzen 2600 vs i5 8400, intresting reults

[humbug]

It is tho. You keep preaching but the truth is Intel are better and they know how to price.....

I have to admit, if no more CPUs were ever made, AMD would end up better with more cores. But the fact is, Intel release what they need to.

Now more cores are used they will bring out CPUs with more cores.

Please for the love of this forum stop believing every YouTube video you see

Cue proverbial fake outrage

You bring nothing but foot stomping to this, you're typical for people who cannot articulate a counter argument but don't like it, so in frustration jump up and down pretending to be shocked by it.

If you were a C4 news reader to you the video would be Alt-Right... Yawn.

 

[humbug]

Let all stop arguing and relax to some beats along with humbug.

Way too much cringe :O

 

[humbug]

Steve says this might trigger some people, watch at your own risk

 

[humbug]

Let's be real, AC:O. BF1 and AotS are probably the games that scale best with more cores/threads. They are definitely not the standard.

If you're playing modern games they all do, reasoning like this is now getting daft.

36 Games tested, games of all sorts and in 9 out of 10 the Ryzen CPU wins, at what point do we accept that Intel are no longer thie de-facto go to CPU? what's actually left where Intel stand out compared to AMD?

What do you make of this? where we previously went to games like Arma II to point and say "look Intel are so much better" do we now also speak about Arma III as one of those with excuses for Intel?

 

[humbug]

lol this thread delivers, and this is only a glimpse of the hilarity that will ensue is AMD get the jump on Intel on 7nm... IDL will have a field day here defending... cant wait.

End of the day, buy what suits your budget and needs tbh. Im happy with my 1700, happy enough to move to a 2700X and after that the 3700X or whatever it will be called. Dont miss my old Intel chips one bit.

I like how there are a lot of excuses for Intel these days, something is going very wrong, or very right, depending on your view point.

Competition is not just good for us ALL, its also fun.

 

[humbug]

What was the 2600 standard speed run in this? It's quite a bump! Is it more the memory or the CPU overclocking?

3.4Ghz, so an 800Mhz overclock.

The 8400 3.8Ghz.

 

[humbug]

Am I right in thinking the 2700x boosts higher than the 2600x in single core performance? Also would it work like this on an X370 gaming 5 also? As I believe you can only overclock for an all core boost?
Final thing am I right in thinking the x processors are the go to this time round?

The X processors do boost a lot higher on all cores this time, probably deliberately by AMD in a move to make them look more attractive over the cheaper none X

However, they all still overclock and the X is still only 100Mhz or so better binned, yes they overclock to 4.1 - 4.3Ghz on X370 however the X470 boards do better for memory overclocking, provided of course you have the faster RAM in the first place, if not....

The reason some reviews say the X is the one to go for this time is because the cost difference is not as great this time round, so its a bit "well why not?" i agree, i will be going Ryzen 2### at some point and this time i'm going 2600X.

Edit you also get StoreMI with X470

 

[humbug]

Stock yeah, I think. Though I have had 2700x boosting to 4497 with PBO and bclk overclocks.

Really? :O nice...

 

[humbug]

At stock, with twice the threads and faster ram, still losing :thinking:

No denying they are good processors, but from my experience, the performance wasn't consistent. Some areas of games they'd hold me at my fps cap and would be on par with my new 8600k, other parts they'd drop massively and be a long way behind the i5.
If the testing is done in areas where those issues aren't present, then it's not painting a complete picture of ryzen's performance.

But from my experience pigs do fly.

 

[humbug]

In my experience, ***** do ****.

My point exactly, anyone can say anything about any experience they claim to have as a way to try and rubbish hard tested facts, verbal claims are just that, i'm going to tell you my i5 was absolute trash compared with the 1600, me saying that is meaningless because its so easy to say something like that and ##### when i get called out on it.

That's why actual hard facts matter, i can produce the evidence to my claims and have, you have done nothing but repeat the same claims over and over again against the evidence proving your claims wrong.

Its becoming like a broken record, actually back up your claims for a change.

 

[humbug]

Yeah pubg always played ok. Had quite substantial drops in places, but that's very possibly just pubg! I always found pubg ran better on my 1600 with SMT off.

I'll give you an example of providing proof to backup your claims.

The i5 has huge frame drops in CPU intensive places compared with the Ryzen 1600/X, it also causes huge stutter on the i5.

Now look at this screenshoot and note not just the frame rates but also the blue Intel line, how uneven that is.... this is in contrast to your empty claims.

I'll dig up the video for you too...

Edit: https://youtu.be/4RMbYe4X2LI?t=4m59s

 

[humbug]

Whats the best program to record a vid with things like the above?

I can give pubg, destiny2, farcry 5 a test to see what happens.

I believe its FCAT.

An nVidia tool.

 

[humbug]

I posted screenshots in the same spot in D2 before. dropping to 55fps on Ryzen. Only dropping to 111fps on the i5. Apparently that wasn't good enough for you so it's been disregarded. I have no interest in jumping through hoops to prove anything to you because you've proved time and time again, you are unreasonable.
I have no stake in the cpu argument. I've tried both platforms first hand and have seen myself which performs significantly better for my uses, with better stability and memory support.

And for the record, I only called you a cu-ck. The **** **** makes it look much worse than intended. Hooray for censorship.

This is news to me, again talk without proof, if this exists it should be easy for you to find.

Edit: i do remember it, i also remember you saying you had to look quite hard to find the right spot.

 

[humbug]

@prjwebb

So you have proved one spot in one game, and basing your entire argument on that, if you look hard enough you can always find one or two examples of something, there is a name for people who do that.

That doesn't make your claim a universal truth, like you're trying to hammer home, or even anything beyond the one game and spot in it that you keep recycling for the same argument, if there was anything actually in it you wouldn't have to recycle that one thing over and over again, there'd be more, a lot more.

The fact is testing over 30 / 40 games there are only a couple of instances, against 30+ where Ryzen is better, a straw man would take only those couple of instances and ignore those overwhelmingly more where Ryzen is better, as you keep doing.

At the end of the day no one CPU is always better than the other, you can always find something to point at with both and say "look see" while ignoring the rest.

 

[humbug]

I use examples within games I have 100s of hours in. I can't run a benchmark on a game I've played for 2 minutes and claim on platform is better than the other because I haven't experienced both platforms extensively throughout the entirety of the playable spaces in those games. In the games I have, I'm in a position to comment on my experiences.

I no longer have the Ryzen rig to record instances where this happens, this was the last one I did before ordering the i5 as it was the huge wake up call that I didn't buy a 1080ti to push 70fps at 1080p, even if it is only in a specific area of a specific game, which it was not for the record.

lol.... so you haven't even use the 1600 enough to make any of the judgement calls you have, its an astonishing thing to do to say the 8600K was better in one game and one spot within said game and then use that to make the argument against every review that doesn't agree with you.

Do you really not see how insane that is?

 

[humbug]

@pjrwebb i can post pics if you want showing 2 diff cpus showing diff FPS and ZERO other settings mentioned.... your post is lolworthy at best, you could have turned down a bunch of settings and not really smash the graphic fidelity that much but up the fps count... I fail to believe there is a 50 fps difference between just CPU alone, sorry, not buying it.

Oh i believe him, if you look hard enough you can find instances like this on both sides, for or against and its genuine.

The trouble comes when you then use that as an overriding argument against everything that doesn't agree with that very specific finding.
That is lol bonkers.

 

[humbug]

I just trawled the web for the average FPS of a 1600 and a 1080ti as that is what @prjwebb is using right? https://www.techspot.com/review/1478-destiny-2-pc-benchmarks/ shows lows of over 90fps...

Im seeing people with a 1600 and a 580 getting over 75fps on max settings... so something tells me his system was not setup correctly.

Good spot, even the 1% lows on the 1600 are 93 FPS, thats 21 FPS higher than your screenshot prjwebb.

 

[humbug]

"Since you can't save your progress during the single-player tutorial/intro, I only tested the first 60 seconds of the game"

Gee, I wonder why these results can't be taken too seriously.

We do however see the gap between a solidly overclocked quad core intel and an absolute max overclocked 6 core ryzen in D2 right there. So thanks for posting.

Does not mean anything, 4Ghz vs 4.9Ghz, so 25% high clocks for 25% higher performance and you can't assume 4 SMT cores vs 6 SMT cores makes any different here, in reality it rarely does, 4 core without SMT yeah maybe, but that not what the 7700K is, often you see it as fast or faster than the 8700K.

This is also on a GTX 1080TI, not even using the highest settings.

The 2600 at 4.2Ghz would probably match the 4.9Ghz 7700K here.

Again. its also 21 FPS higher than your sceeenshot.

 

[humbug]

May of missed this bit but why are they running the Ryzen on the higher memory and not the intel, does memory speed not effect the 8400 as much as the Ryzen?

The maximum memory speed on a B360 is 2666Mhz, on an X370 the memory is still limited to 2933 and it doesn't make much difference, sub 5%.

Motherboard for Ryzen is almost irrelevant since you can overclock the CPU and the Memory on B350/450 and X370/470.

 

[humbug]

Indeed with the 8400 on a Z370 and both using the same 3400Mhz RAM, the 8400 is slightly faster in most games

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtnhborQW3s

Actually that is interesting, he tested the CPU's all at stock, and the 2600 does a lot better stock vs the 8400 than in Steve's review, in every game they are about even.

The thing is the 2600 can OC while the 8400 can't, so the 2600 has more to give, the 8400 that's yer lot.