hold up....people are saying how good the 2600 is based around the ops benchmark review yet the reviewer even says the i5 is better for gaming.so its in ideal circumstances now is it ? LOL. this forums never gets old. the i5 is the better gaming cpu period.the reviewer even said so. the intel i5 is the best bargin buy.thats why amd whos main sector they go after want this kind of bs. to try and take that ground.which they cant.or can with stupid misinformation. the benchmarks are out there show the i5 ahead in literally every game.its not in a ideal circumstance.it just is the better gaming cpu !
-
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
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.
another benchmark from yesterday
https://www.techspot.com/review/1627-core-i5-8400-vs-ryzen-5-2600/
same reviews of games the result i5 is better gaming cpu.
the real funny thing is the best cpu catered for big mp game of recent times is bf1.the i5 smashes the amd chips.
https://www.techspot.com/review/1627-core-i5-8400-vs-ryzen-5-2600/
same reviews of games the result i5 is better gaming cpu.
the real funny thing is the best cpu catered for big mp game of recent times is bf1.the i5 smashes the amd chips.
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:
so why do you think i posted the quotes ? woooooshhhhh .
the quotes i posted are directly from the review which states in the conclusion the i5 is the better choice for gamers.my god its hard work here.i even quoted the conclusion for you and its me who dont read it lol.
with faster ram the i5 is even quicker.just more amd brainwash because they are slower in the budget sector they compete in with intel.
the quotes i posted are directly from the review which states in the conclusion the i5 is the better choice for gamers.my god its hard work here.i even quoted the conclusion for you and its me who dont read it lol.
with faster ram the i5 is even quicker.just more amd brainwash because they are slower in the budget sector they compete in with intel.
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....
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Aug 2017
- Posts
- 2,209
"arguably"... well i argue that its not.
all i need to quote is the conclusion part
" 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."
for those on the ryzen platform most know about this.messing about to get the performance when the intel option is just put in and fast.
as i said this is why people who are pro amd ( im not pro either ) try and rubbish intel i5s performance because its beating amd in there own sector they try and sell at.which is budget or bargin.the i5 out performs the amd chip at a lower price.without messing about.simply beaten.
" 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."
for those on the ryzen platform most know about this.messing about to get the performance when the intel option is just put in and fast.
as i said this is why people who are pro amd ( im not pro either ) try and rubbish intel i5s performance because its beating amd in there own sector they try and sell at.which is budget or bargin.the i5 out performs the amd chip at a lower price.without messing about.simply beaten.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,313
- Location
- Dormanstown.
I think the i5 8400 probably sells better overall and is better suited to the stock market (So the majority of users). But for custom PC builders, the 2600's better.
Horses for courses.
Horses for courses.
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.
Sounds more reasonable, yes. Remember there are use cases where you want SMT due to other workloads and also want to use the machine for gaming though, we're all talking here about a pure gaming machine.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.
Given all the faff I see people go through with ryzen setups, especially with regards to getting RAM stable, I will always pick intel for this reason alone, even if it was more costly.
I can't be assed with stability issues and faffing about just to get something working as it should! I already have to deal with messing around with graphic settings etc. just to get games running as they should, I don't need or want any more issues especially at the hardware level as it just puts me of PC gaming even more.
I can't be assed with stability issues and faffing about just to get something working as it should! I already have to deal with messing around with graphic settings etc. just to get games running as they should, I don't need or want any more issues especially at the hardware level as it just puts me of PC gaming even more.
+1 been there done that. Annoying.
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:
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.
Tbf 3.8ghz is hardly pushing it.
The differences between the X and B series boards mean that memory overclocking is better on the X boards.
So in the case of this video, yes a high end board is required to get 3400 memory coupled with 4.2ghz on the CPU.
In fact the VRM's are so poor on a lot of B350's I imagine they would melt getting a 2600 to 4.2ghz. I would hate to see the VRM temps of a B350 doing an 8c 16t at 4.2+ ghz.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 3,926
This is really what's putting me off jumping on a 2600X or 2700X with the funds I've put aside right now. I want a PC that's going to perform as well as possible. It seems with all the reports I've read on here with people buying and returning multiple RAM kits and other people still having general stability problems that I'd need quite high-end kit for one of these chips in terms of RAM and motherboard, which brings the cost up but with the likelihood that I'd still have hours of tweaking and testing ahead of me.
Maybe I'm over-reacting to all of the negative experiences I've seen on here.
I don't really fancy the 8700k either at this point, to be fair. Being limited to 6 cores on an EOL platform doesn't feel like something I'd want to spend the big bucks on.
Ho hum.
I don't get all this 'faff' talk really, I built my GF a Ryzen build with the cheapest B350 board that was in stock about 3 weeks after launch. Dropped in a 1600, 8GB of 2400mhz memory (Didn't even bother checking compatibility) and it's run rock solid ever since with a mild overclock on the stock heatsink. It wiped the floor with my 4670k VR rig which pushed me towards an ITX Ryzen build for myself and that, again, has had 0 problems.
My brother has a Ryzen 1700 build with a B350M Morter board from MSI, no problems at all runs fine with non optimal memory at 3000mhz and 3.8GHz on the chip. Has a 1080ti playing at 1440p and benches in line with any Intel chip on the games he plays.
People may have genuine problems, I'm willing to bet most are fixable through a fresh Windows install or BIOS update.
My brother has a Ryzen 1700 build with a B350M Morter board from MSI, no problems at all runs fine with non optimal memory at 3000mhz and 3.8GHz on the chip. Has a 1080ti playing at 1440p and benches in line with any Intel chip on the games he plays.
People may have genuine problems, I'm willing to bet most are fixable through a fresh Windows install or BIOS update.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 5,155
- Location
- South Wales
It's put me off as well, to be honest though the 6 cores on Intel mainstream are already due to be upgraded to 8 cores, and mainstream hasn't long had 6.
Best wait to see what Ice Lake or Zen next year is like. If Zen is still really picky with RAM that would be very surprising by then.
Wait for Zen 2 would be the sensible option.
Remember that overclocking is optional on not necessarily needed with the newer Ryzen chips. A lot of people are causing issues for themselves in trying to extract every bit of performance out of the cpu that the can, it's natural that issues would be found. Less likely on Intel because Intel have basically refined the same design over multiple generations.