Ryzen 2600 vs i5 8400, intresting reults

[Doobedoo]

Based on stock performance. I knew it could be overclocked but of course I didn't just assume 5ghz was a given.

Pretty much the same as everyone else then I guess. Nothing new to see here .

 

[humbug]

the video shows for just gaming alone like all the other benchmarks even ones you put up that the 8400 is ahead level or way ahead in gaming only.so for gaming only and you can get this cpu for £150. its a steal. the intel i5 8400 is the best bang for buck high performance gaming chip about. the video is called the best 200 dollar cpu but his gaming benchmarks show the 2600 below even overclocked against the 8400 in literally every big game and game in the test.

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.

 

[humbug]

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.

 

[chroniclard]

Can we just conclude both teams have decent CPU's now.

 

[humbug]

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.

 

[DragonQ]

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.

Eh, I'm a tweaker and would be trying a Linux/Windows hybrid so there'll be issues either way. Ryzen sounds more fun.

 

[Chrisc]

Can we just conclude both teams have decent CPU's now.

You expect people to agree over the internets???

 

[MasterOC]

So from a limited perspective just to add two cents into the ryzen, argument of ease of setup . Spent approx 5 mins tweaking on bios . LLC . Voltage and multiplier . After one unstable test at 4.1 1.3v it inevatably failed . And then once again at 4.0 all core @ 1.3v passed with flying colors . Spent an hour just brining the voltage down gradually to the point of failure again and then settled on at 1.268v .. memory is a no go above my kits 2666mhz had it at 2933 on other setups but i suspect this is a cheap x470 board issue ( asus tuf ) ... timingz have been tighted immensly though from cas 17 to 14 on primary and another couple of hours work on stability (old cheap ddr4 kit ) . Ryzen does take work, is my rig 100% stable , nope... do I know exactly what it takes to push it over and where ? yes... im sure with a few more nights in the bios and testing I can get it at 4.1 and within my voltage tolerances for thermals and stable. because I suspect a contributing factor to memory overclocking is my IMC which should be rated for 2933 and my board , without an expensive lay out again on either board or ram , ill never truelly see what my processor is capable of. all in all , ryzen works great out the box for everyday jo doing everyday jo tasks, and great for high threaded work loads and again great for those that game and hit thread count walls for ''certain tittles'' …. cost to own is cheap , cost to own it right , not as cheap. prepare to tinker.

When are the next lot of cpus due?

Same time as the next round of arguments

 

[Potty27]

@Potty27its a very bad recommendation for anything above the GTX 1050TI.

A Coffee Lake Quad at 5ghz is bad for anything above a 1050ti?

 

[humbug]

A Coffee Lake Quad at 5ghz is bad for anything above a 1050ti?

Correct.

 

[Hotwired]

You expect people to agree over the internets???

But people on the internet are wrong!

They NEED to be told.

 

[koooowweeee]

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.

I think what your are showing us here is that a stock 8400 with slower ram is the same as a really high overclocked with faster ram 2600

Am I missing something? So pound per pound the Intel is far better, no?

 

[jaffveyda]

I think what your are showing us here is that a stock 8400 with slower ram is the same as a really high overclocked with faster ram 2600

Am I missing something? So pound per pound the Intel is far better, no?

And the truth came out unexpectedly.

 

[strumpusplunket]

I think what your are showing us here is that a stock 8400 with slower ram is the same as a really high overclocked with faster ram 2600

Am I missing something? So pound per pound the Intel is far better, no?

I did wonder about this too, but then do we know what impact faster RAM has on the 8400?

Ideally, the comparisions would include what they've shown, plus 2600 at stock with DDR4-3400 and 8400 with DDR-3400. If using faster with the 8400 means it overhauls the lead the overclocked 2600 has with the same RAM then it does change things a bit. Is there any data on this? I'm kind of half-planning an upgrade, but finding it quite hard to know what's the best bet out of the current gen (which in itself is something, because for the past six or seven years at least it was a fairly easy choice).

 

[sideways14a]

Like i said the 8400 has too many drawbacks for me to recommend against the 2600, yeah it might be faster in some games right now by default but so what... i bet it will become obsolete sooner.

 

[orbitalwalsh]

[QUOTE="humbug, post: 31819489, member: 130082"

[/QUOTE]


finally, we get choice !!!!

8400 goes do nicely with lower FPS with 3600hz ram

nice looking at both Min frame rates and glad to see top excluded

 

[gavinh87]

I think what your are showing us here is that a stock 8400 with slower ram is the same as a really high overclocked with faster ram 2600

Am I missing something? So pound per pound the Intel is far better, no?

No because cinebench scores higher on the 2600.

 

[humbug]

I think what your are showing us here is that a stock 8400 with slower ram is the same as a really high overclocked with faster ram 2600

Am I missing something? So pound per pound the Intel is far better, no?

Yes, you are, At 4.2Ghz the 2600 is 9% faster in this game than the 8400 which is locked to 3.8Ghz

 

[Martini1991]

Yes, you are, At 4.2Ghz the 2600 is 9% faster in this game than the 8400 which is locked to 3.8Ghz

I'm happy to say the 2600 is the better CPU and has more in the tank etc. However at 1080p they're basically the same in performance in this game (Again, I'd take the 2600). This is the same type of scenario where you'd previously argue the other way when the CPU vendors were flipped. I'm consistent in my view, but IMO yours has changed.

 

[humbug]

I'm happy to say the 2600 is the better CPU and has more in the tank etc. However at 1080p they're basically the same in performance in this game (Again, I'd take the 2600). This is the same type of scenario where you'd previously argue the other way when the CPU vendors were flipped. I'm consistent in my view, but IMO yours has changed.

where you'd previously argue the other way

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.