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.
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Aug 2017
- Posts
- 2,209
8350 is utter junk, so it can run some crap games at decent speeds... it will also feel like a slug in almost everything else.
I have some dual core i3s still on campus bought by someone else who had a budget and no clue a while back, these things are awful when they are asked to do anything significant while your using something else. The virus checkers were a constant drain on there resources and windows updates were particularly slow. One of the reasons we now only buy i5s or above as everyone was complaining they had to wait 15mins in the morning after they logged in before they had a chance of doing anything productive.
I have some dual core i3s still on campus bought by someone else who had a budget and no clue a while back, these things are awful when they are asked to do anything significant while your using something else. The virus checkers were a constant drain on there resources and windows updates were particularly slow. One of the reasons we now only buy i5s or above as everyone was complaining they had to wait 15mins in the morning after they logged in before they had a chance of doing anything productive.
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Aug 2017
- Posts
- 2,209
Yes i know, i am only pointing out a lack of threads available tends to make a bigger difference than a few hundred mhz in a lot of situations.
Just sitting with one window open in Chrome and normal windows 10 activity i am at 158 processes in use, those and there associated few thousand threads in memory take a lot of seeing too. Nowadays it pays to have more cpu resources instead of just raw speed.
Just sitting with one window open in Chrome and normal windows 10 activity i am at 158 processes in use, those and there associated few thousand threads in memory take a lot of seeing too. Nowadays it pays to have more cpu resources instead of just raw speed.
More like 700-800mhz vs the 2600 OC and I believe higher IPC too.
As such in most of the situations I mentioned (mmorpg's, badly optomized games) it should be a lot better.
"Games" is a wide area, not everyone wants to play the latest FPS games.
Comparing a 8350k to old i3 dual cores is totally pointless, as it's basically a Kaby I5 7600k.
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Aug 2017
- Posts
- 2,209
There is little between intels latest architecture and Zen+ IPC wise, not a lot at all.
If all you want to do is play old badly coded games at low resolutions, dont care about modern titles and not have a care for the near future then yeah the 8350k is totally legit
Personally i would want something more robust, the 8400 is a bit better and would look ok in isolation but the 2600x is almost the same price and while it might need an overclock to keep up in the fps department its also got more grunt overall.
If all you want to do is play old badly coded games at low resolutions, dont care about modern titles and not have a care for the near future then yeah the 8350k is totally legit
Personally i would want something more robust, the 8400 is a bit better and would look ok in isolation but the 2600x is almost the same price and while it might need an overclock to keep up in the fps department its also got more grunt overall.
£147 for the 8400 vs £194 for the 2600x, hardly "almost the same price", but what it is "almost the same price" is the 8600k at £200.
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Aug 2017
- Posts
- 2,209
Overclockers has the 8400 for £169.99 and the 2600x for £209.99 which is a fair difference,
However they also have the 2600 none X for £166 which is cheaper than the 8400 is and i would bet the non X can put on a fairly decent show as well like the old 1700 was compared to the 1700x. Prob not much in it when you go to manual overclocking.
Ok its got a crappier cooler but hey so has the 8400.
Edited to say, just noticed that the whole thread is supposed to be about the 2600non X anyway - a lot of grunt for not a lot of £s
However they also have the 2600 none X for £166 which is cheaper than the 8400 is and i would bet the non X can put on a fairly decent show as well like the old 1700 was compared to the 1700x. Prob not much in it when you go to manual overclocking.
Ok its got a crappier cooler but hey so has the 8400.
Edited to say, just noticed that the whole thread is supposed to be about the 2600non X anyway - a lot of grunt for not a lot of £s
To be fair, it's a better comparison to use current prices from "whole of market" (trusted retailers) to gauge value, for some reason ocuk seem to compete more with prices on current AMD than current Intel CPU's. Sure it makes AMD look better value, but it does skew the real picture a little.
2600 seems a decent chip, certainly a better "all rounder", but it certainly does not blow Intel out of the water and does get beat in most gaming situations. I admit with newer games using more cores etc etc, then the gap will start to close and will probably pass their Intel counterparts, but that day is not today and will likely be a couple of years. For people like myself who play mmorpg's (even the newer ones use old gfx engines), Intel certianly has more to offer in terms of performance.
I personally went with the 8700k as I hope it will last well and perform excellent now, but it was tempting to go for the 2700x. Time will tell I guess
2600 seems a decent chip, certainly a better "all rounder", but it certainly does not blow Intel out of the water and does get beat in most gaming situations. I admit with newer games using more cores etc etc, then the gap will start to close and will probably pass their Intel counterparts, but that day is not today and will likely be a couple of years. For people like myself who play mmorpg's (even the newer ones use old gfx engines), Intel certianly has more to offer in terms of performance.
I personally went with the 8700k as I hope it will last well and perform excellent now, but it was tempting to go for the 2700x. Time will tell I guess
No surprise the 8400 gets beat by the 2600, 6 locked threads Vs 12 fully unlocked for a similar price. No brainer.
Intel only really have the 8700k that's worth a look in. And that's once you buy the beefy cooler and potentially delid to hit high frequency.
I chose a Ryzen 1600 over the 8400 for my VR rig and couldn't be happier at the better performance at a cheaper price.
Intel only really have the 8700k that's worth a look in. And that's once you buy the beefy cooler and potentially delid to hit high frequency.
I chose a Ryzen 1600 over the 8400 for my VR rig and couldn't be happier at the better performance at a cheaper price.
Forgetting about the overclocking potential for a second (which let's face it is merely a bonus in this price bracket if you're talking about pure gaming), would you buy a chip without SMT? I mean you often claim that an i7-8700K is a better choice even at higher resolutions because newer GPUs might cause a CPU bottleneck in Ryzen even where none exists today, so wouldn't a chip that is more likely to last longer be a better choice even if it has 5% lower minimums today?The motherboard will play a part in how far you can push the CPU and memory overclocks.
Not every CPU will do 4.2ghz the same as not every one can hit 3400mhz on the RAM.
I'd rather base my purchase on guaranteed performance rather than lottery.
36 Game Average
720P 8400 vs [email protected] = 4.9% avg | 7.2% mins
1080P 8400 vs [email protected] = 3.4% avg | 7.1% mins
1440P 8400 vs [email protected] = 2.5% avg | 6.1% mins
A far cry from the 10-15% consistently claim but hey, whatever makes you feel you made the right choice
Really enjoyed the comparison Steve did here, but I'd like to see it redone with a B450 board when it is out, since achieving a 4.2GHz, with RAM stable at 3400MHz and VLL is pretty challenging on current budget boards. It's not impossible, but really he should have done 4.1GHz (maybe) and 3200MHz LL, on a B350 to add more credibility to the outcome. Spending £250 on a motherboard for a £160 CPU, and then using a £150 cooler, with £200 worth of RAM is not really where the value shines. Totalled up it's over £750 (UK pricing), vs. £375 (£150 CPU, £75 board, £150 RAM), you'd hope it is going to be better if you spend twice as much!
If someone asked me to build a system, I'd certainly point them to the 2600, for the simple fact it offers those extra threads and future-proofing on the socket. However I wouldn't tell them the same performance of the Intel could be achieved at the same budget, but using the stock setup they might be able to claw back some of difference, just using the box cooler, and some luck on the RAM kit they get.
If someone asked me to build a system, I'd certainly point them to the 2600, for the simple fact it offers those extra threads and future-proofing on the socket. However I wouldn't tell them the same performance of the Intel could be achieved at the same budget, but using the stock setup they might be able to claw back some of difference, just using the box cooler, and some luck on the RAM kit they get.
This isn't serious. Newer GPUs will use Ryzen in a more optimised way. It is always like this with any AMD product - they just get better with time - because their architectures have always been wider.
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Aug 2017
- Posts
- 2,209
This is exactly my point, i dont see the 6 core chips from intel lasting as well as the equivelent priced ryzen products and that goes for the 8700 against the 2700 as well.
When i was looking at purchasing a cpu it was pretty much a toss up at 8400 , 8600k and a 2700 ... i choose the 2700 despite it being the most expensive ... the 8700k was out my price range and concidering i paid exactly the same for an enthusiast grade 5820k near on 3 odd years ago i begrudge paying that for a prosumer CPU . The 8400 was more attractive oddly then the 8600k due to fairly large price differential and made the 2700 more appealing due to 2 extra cores and 4 extra threads . The i5 6500 i used previously was just pegged constantly at 100% making 64 man bf1 games horrible in terms of minimum frames and conceeded that an i5 6 core deriviant would down the line cause exactly the same issue ... cores and threads now matter more than the slight IPC advantage intels core lineup provide imo .
intels i5 is the best bargin about why do you think this was done.this forum is so pro amd it hurts reading on here sometimes.
test with the same mem and settings the i5 literally wins at every game or over 90 percent.memory in some games makes a massive difference.oh lets bench with quicker mem on the ryzen cause its slower lol.
from the closing which sums it up.
" For those gaming exclusively, the Intel Core i5-8400 is arguably the better option. It’s certainly more cost effective and requires far less messing around to achieve the performance shown in this article. "
" But when it comes to games the Core i5-8400 simply gets it done with less fuss. To replicate the performance seen in this article you merely need a basic B360 board, some low latency DDR4-2666 memory, and well... a GTX 1080 Ti, but you get the point. It’s also possible to squeeze another 5-10% out of the 8400 by using a Z370 motherboard and DDR4-3200 memory, though those gains are only realized with a high-end graphics card. "
" The stock out of the box Ryzen 5 2600 performance can be achieved for roughly the same price as the budget Core i5-8400 build, and given the Intel CPU was faster overall this makes it the better value choice for gamers.
test with the same mem and settings the i5 literally wins at every game or over 90 percent.memory in some games makes a massive difference.oh lets bench with quicker mem on the ryzen cause its slower lol.
from the closing which sums it up.
" For those gaming exclusively, the Intel Core i5-8400 is arguably the better option. It’s certainly more cost effective and requires far less messing around to achieve the performance shown in this article. "
" But when it comes to games the Core i5-8400 simply gets it done with less fuss. To replicate the performance seen in this article you merely need a basic B360 board, some low latency DDR4-2666 memory, and well... a GTX 1080 Ti, but you get the point. It’s also possible to squeeze another 5-10% out of the 8400 by using a Z370 motherboard and DDR4-3200 memory, though those gains are only realized with a high-end graphics card. "
" The stock out of the box Ryzen 5 2600 performance can be achieved for roughly the same price as the budget Core i5-8400 build, and given the Intel CPU was faster overall this makes it the better value choice for gamers.
Last edited:
In ideal circumstances - when you are alone in the game and not much going on.
The guy above you pretty well explained that the i5 starts to be a bottleneck when more action comes and one or two additional Windows or applications processes will kill the performance extremely easily.
Thank you for the feedback. Really fair.