• Find an incredible deal for Black Friday or Cyber Monday? Share those epic bargains with the community by posting them in this forum thread!

Question Core i5 6400 vs i7 4th gen vs ryzen 2200g

Feb 21, 2019
9
0
10
0
Hi! I am starting from scratch...i don't have a pc....i am planning to build one....i am planning to use vega 56 or rx 590 in the build.... So which cpu is best that won't bottleneck the vega 56 specifically cuz it's the more powerful if the 2.... The options i have are 4th gen i5 and i7....ryzen 3 2200g which by the way is a bit expensive for me since i would have to go for the expensive mobo and ram.....and i5 6400 which i am getting in a prebuild system with 12 gigs of ram.
 

Karadjgne

Titan
Herald
Impossible to answer. Because it's not a valid question.

The cpu pre-renders the frames. As many as it can in a certain time period, call it a second if you will. That's it's job. Those pre-renders get sent to the gpu which finishes the renders according to resolution and detail settings.

At no time does the cpu 'hold back' the gpu. There's going to be game code so intensive the cpu can only deliver 30 pre-rendered frames in a second. There's also going to be game code that's simplistic enough the cpu can deliver 300 pre-rendered frames in a second. And in neither case needs to be 100% usage.

And what if the Vega 56 or Rx580 is only capable of finishing 200frames at 1080p, ultra settings. That's not on the cpu, that's on the resolution and detail settings. Wouldn't matter if it was 60 fps or 600fps. It'll be on the game intensity itself, level of extras like physX and tessellation etc.

The i5 6400 was a 3-legged dog of a cpu, never should have been released. It was stomped on by the i3-6100 in everything except heavy production apps pushing over 80% usage. Same IPC, much faster clocks. The i5-6500 was a much better cpu across the board, but still barely edged out the i3. All 3 are quad thread capable cpus, as is the 2200G.

That's going to put a serious damper on any newer titles and even some older ones, everything from Skyrim to mmorpg to GtaV. The Xeon e3-1246v3 might be older by a generation, with a small % loss in IPC, but the 8 possible threads cannot be ignored.

You are looking at gpus that can maximize the cpu output and maybe a little more, but that does not mean it's being held back, just means you can crank the details settings as high as you wish and still get playable fps. I'd much rather be in that situation, than have an uber strong cpu, and a gpu that can't get past low settings and get playable fps.

The games themselves will set the limits of what both the cpu and gpu can do, not the other way around.
 
Feb 21, 2019
9
0
10
0
I need something that can handle a vega 56....
If it bottlenecks a little bit than its ok such as a few frames here and there but if i holds it back significantly then its a problem for me...
 
Vega 56 will need a better psu, have you factored that cost in? Never cheap out on psu in a gaming pc.

While a xeon e3 1246 v3 is a better cpu for gaming it uses obsolete motherboard and RAM and is not a great choice. It is very likely you will find yourself wanting to upgrade in the near future which will also need a new motherboard and RAM. I would go for the 2200g as this would give you some great upgrade choices in the future without needing to upgrade motherboard and RAM.
 
Feb 21, 2019
9
0
10
0
Impossible to answer. Because it's not a valid question.

The cpu pre-renders the frames. As many as it can in a certain time period, call it a second if you will. That's it's job. Those pre-renders get sent to the gpu which finishes the renders according to resolution and detail settings.

At no time does the cpu 'hold back' the gpu. There's going to be game code so intensive the cpu can only deliver 30 pre-rendered frames in a second. There's also going to be game code that's simplistic enough the cpu can deliver 300 pre-rendered frames in a second. And in neither case needs to be 100% usage.

And what if the Vega 56 or Rx580 is only capable of finishing 200frames at 1080p, ultra settings. That's not on the cpu, that's on the resolution and detail settings. Wouldn't matter if it was 60 fps or 600fps. It'll be on the game intensity itself, level of extras like physX and tessellation etc.

The i5 6400 was a 3-legged dog of a cpu, never should have been released. It was stomped on by the i3-6100 in everything except heavy production apps pushing over 80% usage. Same IPC, much faster clocks. The i5-6500 was a much better cpu across the board, but still barely edged out the i3. All 3 are quad thread capable cpus, as is the 2200G.

That's going to put a serious damper on any newer titles and even some older ones, everything from Skyrim to mmorpg to GtaV. The Xeon e3-1246v3 might be older by a generation, with a small % loss in IPC, but the 8 possible threads cannot be ignored.

You are looking at gpus that can maximize the cpu output and maybe a little more, but that does not mean it's being held back, just means you can crank the details settings as high as you wish and still get playable fps. I'd much rather be in that situation, than have an uber strong cpu, and a gpu that can't get past low settings and get playable fps.

The games themselves will set the limits of what both the cpu and gpu can do, not the other way around.


What u said was actually very high level for me to digest.......
I am now considering a ryzen 1600 at 4ghz with a b450 asus prime motherboard and 8 gigs of ddr 4 ram
Is it going to fit my needs with the vega 56 and i plan to game at ultra 1080 and 1440p resolutions.....
I also want something that will last for a while as i am not going to be able to upgrade in the near future....
Further more if for the upcoming titles i have to lower some settings i wouldn't mind that either
 

rodrigoxm49

Great
Oct 13, 2019
119
8
95
2
Hi! I am starting from scratch...i don't have a pc....i am planning to build one....i am planning to use vega 56 or rx 590 in the build.... So which cpu is best that won't bottleneck the vega 56 specifically cuz it's the more powerful if the 2.... The options i have are 4th gen i5 and i7....ryzen 3 2200g which by the way is a bit expensive for me since i would have to go for the expensive mobo and ram.....and i5 6400 which i am getting in a prebuild system with 12 gigs of ram.
First of all, sadly both will bottleneck hard, really hard, any GPU above RX570 (depending on which games we're talking, even GTX960 or R9 380).

But i5 6400 is faster than 2200G. Even older Core i5 like 2500 or 3570 are faster or very similar to 2200G.

You should try to balance better this PC. Try at least a Ryzen 1600 + RX570/RX580/1060 6GB/1660 6GB. Probably will cost the same thing and you will have MUCH higher framerates in general.
 
Reactions: Abdul wahab 786

Karadjgne

Titan
Herald
Ok Abdul, I'll try to explain it easier, so that even others can understand better. 😊

You games are made up of lines of code called strings. When you click on the game button those strings go through the cpu 1 string per thread at a time. The cpu basically pre-renders every frame by taking that string and saying 'this is a blade of grass, this is how big it is and it goes over here'. And it'll do so for every single object, whether it's a 1000 blades of grass, a tree, your character, sky etc.
It'll pre-render every single frame as fast as it can. If that's 40 in a second or 140 in a second, that's all you get. Cpu then sends that single frame to the gpu as fast as it can.

The gpu finish rendering that frame, adding the colors, placing the blade of grass, taking the 1000 others and applying all the detail settings and does so at the set resolution before giving it to the monitor.

This is where ppl perceive a bottleneck. The cpu is working its pants off trying to send 40 frames a second, the gpu is easily putting all 40 on screen, but has the capacity to do more. Ppl call that a bottleneck, it really isn't, it's just that in that game the gpu is stronger than the cpu. Change games, where the cpu is able to shove 300 frames a second at the gpu, and the detail/resolution is so high the gpu can only put 200 frames on screen every second means the cpu is stronger than the gpu. That doesn't make it a bottleneck.

You'll find that in some games, you can play at ultra settings, high settings, medium settings and fps didn't change much. That's a game where the gpu is stronger than the cpu and capable of more fps output, but is limited by the cpu's ability to give more frames. In some games, the reverse is true, at ultra fps is low, at high fps gets higher, at medium fps gets really high. That's because the cpu is giving far more than the gpu can put on screen, so lowering detail settings allows the gpu to shove the frame out faster.

The 6400 is sad. It's a very weak cpu. It's limited to just 4c/4t so many games are going to struggle with high fps, because the cpu can't pre-render very many strings at one time, and does so slowly.

Because of its limitations, the 2200G isn't much better. The bottleneck ppl claim is because with a decent gpu, it's not going to work hard at all with either of those cpus, they can't make it sweat, not enough fps output.

A decent Ryzen 5, like the 2600 is 6c/12t, that's 3 times the possible threads, considerably faster pre-renders of the strings, far more strings, far greater frames shoved at that same decent gpu. Now it'll sweat. Now it'll have to really work.
 
Reactions: Abdul wahab 786

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS