Ryzen 5 2600 or i5 8400? Mainly for gaming & future proof

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
J

janneauclaude

Commendable
Feb 4, 2017
75
0
1,630
Hello guys i was wondering which would be suit me more? I'm gonna pair it with a gtx 1070. I mainly play 60 fps. I don't have much money and i was wondering which would be more future proof and suitable for gaming only. I saw that ryzen 5 2600x has better single core in cinebench than i5 8400 but i5 8400 still has more fps in gaming, Why is this?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Some CPU designs are more efficient in certain ways than others, this is why one CPU might be a better choice for you than another. Generally, for gaming, Intel performs better than the equivalent AMD CPU. AMD offers a lot where multiple threads are concerned, but this is not what you need for just gaming.

Use non game benchmarks as a guide, not the final word. The final word is in real world use either in the games you play or the applications you run, that's what's most important.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Future proof is a funky subject for debate. Just a few years ago, everyone was saying oh just get the i5, it's good enough for gaming, and you'll save $100 over getting the i7. 3 years later and everybody has reversed this, now any pre-coffeelake i5 is taboo except in the most extreme budget pc's. This was where Ryzen exploded. 6c/12t for @ the same price as 4c/4t and games like BF4, BF1, GTA:V, any mmorpg like WoW really had use of 4t+ and fps jumped, the older i5's struggled.

Future proof? Ryzen+ has anything beat according to history, it gets equitable fps in almost every game to Intel, is supported in socket to at least 2020 with AM4, (no telling how long lga1151 v2 will last), has double the threads of anything but the i7, and for production stuff as simple as Win Zip, the older R7 1700 doubles the speed of an i7-8700k.

Does it really matter if Intel gets a few more fps on the top end, where fps is useless since it's beyond the monitors refresh? Most monitors are 60Hz, so it wouldn't make any difference if Intel got 1000fps and Ryzen got 250fps. You get 60.

The only thing future proof about Intel is its tick-tock jumps, meaning my old i7-3770K really isn't far behind current cpus and will still hold its own.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
As of now, intel has better ipc in games. Many reviews has shown that intel cpu do better in games, and coffeelake is a very mature architecture. However, amd cpu r5 is very strong at multi tasking compare to i5, I often run lots of random things like YouTube or other games. I finds intel cpu tends to be very choppy when I do that.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Here's a 9 game average. As you see, a stock 1600x is only 10fps behind the 8400. And that's before any OC and a possible 20% increase on IPC as a result. Even taking the difference between a 1500x and 1600x for roughly a 1600 at stock, the additional OC would put it roughly at the same level as the 8400, possibly higher. Intel might be king, but that's only in the upper echelons, in the midrange area, it's all up for grabs.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I definitely think the 2600x is the better choice. Games close enough now....can run background apps better while gaming. AM4 will let you upgrade to 3700x or 4700x eventually...though the 2600x already has more power for future apps than the 8400.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
For pure single core, still there 8400. But as games start using not multithreaded workloads, the ryzen will age better. Look at battlefield 1 for example that for a little while had issues on some quad chips even. Especially with PS4 and Xbox one being 8 cores, you can imagine as developers create games, they will go that way to make use of the processing power.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Battelfield 1 i5 8400 vs ryzen 2600
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Those results are squed. The ram on the Ryzen is 5200MHz? Cpu is only running 3.6GHz vrs 3.8GHz on 8400. So that's a stock 8400 vrs stock 2600. Who does that? And what is with the ram? That's not 3000/3200 with a 4.0-4.2GHz OC.

As per usual, YouTube only shows what's possible, not what's probable.

Try these, again YouTube, and take note of min fps as those are what'll be affected by monitor resolution the most.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3Dcs1kMZRhKdk&ved=0ahUKEwjN86jKiqTcAhXElVQKHTDmBcMQtwIIJzAD&usg=AOvVaw2Au9ZY01mxdututUyR6ET1
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The 8400 is using 2666MHz ram because that's the limit of one of 2 things. On a non-Z rated board, the maximum recognized speed of CoffeeLake cpus is 2666MHz. If that 8400 was planted on a Z370 it could possibly use higher speed ram, but all ram over 2666MHz is listed as (OC), meaning to get stability it's probably going to require a small OC on the cpu since that's where the memory controller is located. Can't really OC a locked cpu like the i5-8400, so that's out too. Meaning the maximum viable speed ram for an 8400 will be 2666MHz.

If the game only uses 4 threads, a Ryzen having 12 thread capability is as useless as boobs on a bull. It'll use 4 threads and thats it. Which gives the advantage to the higher IPC on the Intel. If a game uses 8 threads, you'll get some prioritazation of threads in the 6 thread i5, slowing it down a hair, giving the advantage to the Ryzen which can donate enough bandwidth for all 8 threads simultaneously. The higher Intel IPC can make up that slack somewhat so there's really not much discrepancy, but with longer multiple code strings and higher cpu usage, the Ryzens simultaneous threads will end up less choppy as there's no backlog.

It's a tradeoff. In some games Intel will be better suited, in some the Ryzen, and thats just with the game. If you start multitasking on top of that, the Ryzen stands a better chance of more seemless work than the Intel.

Games for the most part are going to only get more complicated, gamers demands for intense graphics, high detail lifelikeness etc will make that happen. For the middling pc's, this is where Ryzens adaptability will be king, even if Intel still gets a few more fps. It's only in the high end builds using the i7-8700k and its capabilities that Ryzen suffers, simply can't touch the IPC with the full 12 available threads in games that only really make use of @8.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
That's just you. That's not everybody else. Also most motherboards will default to max supported speed in ddr4, depending on cpu. For skylake it's 2133, for kabylake its 2400, for CoffeeLake its 2666. There's absolutely no guarantee that any speed listed as (OC) will be stable, only rated speeds according to cpu. You might think it works, and for the most part you'd be right, but games in general do not saturate ddr4 bandwidth. So run all the games you want to, you aren't using much capacity as is. But thats not using the full potential of the ram. Getting closer to saturation could very well show multiple anomalies and crash hard. You don't know. You'd have to run memtest86 or asus RealBench or Blender or other high bandwidth saturation torture test to get a clue.

Generally, higher spec'd ram has a greater chance of stability beyond cpu limits, the uber value lines (the OEM or ones with no heatsinking etc) generally won't. So it might be as simple as you got lucky and hit the right combination of cpu, mobo and ram to get 3200 at 3200.

And that's assuming that you are in fact running your 3200 at 3200 and it's not running at default.

When looking at motherboard supported ram speeds, any ram speed listed as (OC) could need some cpu OC, there's no saying it will need some OC. But the further away from default you go, the higher the chances are that you will.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom