Solution T T TJ Hooker Jul 18, 2018 At stock frequencies the 2600 is a little worse, overclocked it's a little better. https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-5-2600,5625-9.html @prince_xaine the 8400 has 6 cores just like the 2600. And you can't directly compare clock speeds between CPUs with different architectures.
At stock frequencies the 2600 is a little worse, overclocked it's a little better. https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-5-2600,5625-9.html @prince_xaine the 8400 has 6 cores just like the 2600. And you can't directly compare clock speeds between CPUs with different architectures.
prince_xaine Honorable Feb 3, 2018 1,025 31 11,890 Jul 18, 2018 #2 I'd say the i5-8400 would be better for most games. The r5-2600 has two more cores and a higher base clock, but the turbo clock on the i5-8400 is higher. Unless you plan on overclocking the r5-2600, I'd get the i5-8400. Upvote 0 Downvote
I'd say the i5-8400 would be better for most games. The r5-2600 has two more cores and a higher base clock, but the turbo clock on the i5-8400 is higher. Unless you plan on overclocking the r5-2600, I'd get the i5-8400.
T TJ Hooker Titan Ambassador Apr 15, 2014 11,632 1,771 72,390 Jul 18, 2018 Solution #3 At stock frequencies the 2600 is a little worse, overclocked it's a little better. https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-5-2600,5625-9.html @prince_xaine the 8400 has 6 cores just like the 2600. And you can't directly compare clock speeds between CPUs with different architectures. Upvote 0 Downvote Solution
At stock frequencies the 2600 is a little worse, overclocked it's a little better. https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-5-2600,5625-9.html @prince_xaine the 8400 has 6 cores just like the 2600. And you can't directly compare clock speeds between CPUs with different architectures.