I've been looking at reviews between the 2600x and the 9400F for a friend and wanted to suggest the 9400F as it is probably a gaming only PC and the 9400F seems to be just a hair faster for gaming and a bit cheaper as well.
Here's where I struggle to suggest ditching multi-threading though, as I don't know exactly how PC's process everything or exactly the difference between threads and raw cores...
Pretty much everyone benchmarks a CPU's gaming performance by shutting down every task possible on a fresh install of windows and only running the gaming benchmark. While I understand the importance of this for benchmarking sake, doesn't that mean we get skewed real-world results? I can't imagine that most people only play games with nothing running in the background.
For example:
web browser with a bunch of tabs open,
voice chat software,
lurking twitch streamers while gaming,
music streaming,
game hubs like steam, blizzard, origin, epic games,
in-game overlays such as steam, and discord,
peripheral software,
all the random background processes that are accumulated on real world pc's instead of a fresh install,
background updates,
maybe even game downloading while you're playing something else...
Don't any (if not all) of these things bog down single core performance and would therefore benefit real world gaming performance by adding multi-threading?
Correct me if I'm wrong but I would assume that even though the 9400F can pull ahead in gaming benchmarks it probably gets bogged down with real-world stuff that the 2600x could handle without a sweat?
Some extra questions: If true, how big of a margin are we talking? would a couple extra raw cores instead of multi-threading be better for such real-world gaming? Does same-pc streaming on twitch handle better with more raw cores or with multi-threading?
I'm really hoping for the super detailed nerdy in-depth responses with examples but everyone is appreciated thanks in advance for replies
Here's where I struggle to suggest ditching multi-threading though, as I don't know exactly how PC's process everything or exactly the difference between threads and raw cores...
Pretty much everyone benchmarks a CPU's gaming performance by shutting down every task possible on a fresh install of windows and only running the gaming benchmark. While I understand the importance of this for benchmarking sake, doesn't that mean we get skewed real-world results? I can't imagine that most people only play games with nothing running in the background.
For example:
web browser with a bunch of tabs open,
voice chat software,
lurking twitch streamers while gaming,
music streaming,
game hubs like steam, blizzard, origin, epic games,
in-game overlays such as steam, and discord,
peripheral software,
all the random background processes that are accumulated on real world pc's instead of a fresh install,
background updates,
maybe even game downloading while you're playing something else...
Don't any (if not all) of these things bog down single core performance and would therefore benefit real world gaming performance by adding multi-threading?
Correct me if I'm wrong but I would assume that even though the 9400F can pull ahead in gaming benchmarks it probably gets bogged down with real-world stuff that the 2600x could handle without a sweat?
Some extra questions: If true, how big of a margin are we talking? would a couple extra raw cores instead of multi-threading be better for such real-world gaming? Does same-pc streaming on twitch handle better with more raw cores or with multi-threading?
I'm really hoping for the super detailed nerdy in-depth responses with examples but everyone is appreciated thanks in advance for replies