Ryzen 2600 vs i5 8400, intresting reults

Martini1991 · 18 May 2018 at 12:36

humbug said:
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.

I thought what I said was obvious.
When this was previous AMD versus Intel, given the same types of figures, you'd argue for the AMD (Which in this case is the 8400). You'd argue against people who would take the Intel for the reasons you've given here (In this case the 2600).

I find it amusing.

humbug · 18 May 2018 at 12:39

Martini1991 said:
I thought what I said was obvious.
When this was previous AMD versus Intel, given the same types of figures, you'd argue for the AMD (Which in this case is the 8400). You'd argue against people who would take the Intel for the reasons you've given here (In this case the 2600).

I find it amusing.

Because of the 1080P results?

humbug · 18 May 2018 at 12:52

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.

koooowweeee · 18 May 2018 at 20:13

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

Ok so after all the pages of debate you are now agreeing that a older and cheaper CPU (and setup) is better?

So what's the point in all this? AMD is better if you throw a load of money at it?

gavinh87 · 18 May 2018 at 20:41

koooowweeee said:
Ok so after all the pages of debate you are now agreeing that a older and cheaper CPU (and setup) is better?

So what's the point in all this? AMD is better if you throw a load of money at it?

Cos AyyyMD

*Ryzen does kick its ass in productivity but thats not what this thread is about*

humbug · 18 May 2018 at 20:59

Erm? no, that's not what i said.

Don't go all Cathy Newman on me...

koooowweeee · 18 May 2018 at 21:15

humbug said:
Erm? no, that's not what i said.

Don't go all Cathy Newman on me...

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

Troezar · 18 May 2018 at 21:16

Basically there is no one size fits all. Ideally we'd all have two or more systems. As an all rounder Ryzen will be fine for me. If I was a hardcore twitch gamer I'd go 8700k. Video creator or multi tasker I'd choose Threadripper or money no object an i9.

If you have more than one of those workloads it's time to compromise.

koooowweeee · 18 May 2018 at 21:24

humbug said:
At 4.2Ghz the 2600 is 9% faster in this game than the 8400 which is locked to 3.8Ghz

I read that as....

A cheap non overclockable CPU from Intel (6 months older) isn't as good as a highly clocked Ryzen CPU with better memory?

So if we want to get everything right let's compare costs Vs performance????

humbug · 19 May 2018 at 01:47

koooowweeee said:
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 :rolleyes:

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.

koooowweeee · 19 May 2018 at 06:56

humbug said:
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.

Why come out with this childish crap whenever your wrong? You do it in every thread you make.

gavinh87 · 19 May 2018 at 07:37

koooowweeee said:
Why come out with this childish crap whenever your wrong? You do it in every thread you make.

He makes a personal comment.
You reply with a personal comment.
He reports you.
You get banned or a warning
Win. Rinse and repeat spreading the good word of AMD.

Potty27 · 19 May 2018 at 15:50

gavinh87 said:
Rinse and repeat spreading the good word of AMD.

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

humbug · 19 May 2018 at 15:52

Potty27 said:
Let all stop arguing and relax to some beats along with humbug.

Way too much cringe :O

Potty27 · 19 May 2018 at 15:54

Indeed

humbug · 21 May 2018 at 11:48

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

prjwebb · 21 May 2018 at 12:03

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.
And I know from experience Overwatch loves memory speed.

SiDeards73 · 21 May 2018 at 12:10

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.

humbug · 21 May 2018 at 12:18

prjwebb said:
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?

gavinh87 · 21 May 2018 at 12:27

Only wins when overclocked*
And with much faster ram on a more expensive board using a more expensive cooler.