i5 8400 outperforms Ryzen 2600 in gaming?

killerabdb · Apr 20, 2018

Was this expected? I thought that Ryzen 2 would have equal if not better 1080p gaming performance compared to the i5 8400.....I just want to ask, does the i5 8400/ i5 8500 still outperform Ryzen 2 in 1080 gaming? I don't trust the comparisons on YouTube.

coozie7 · Apr 20, 2018

Yes, but the margins have narrowed.
The margin obviously also greatly depends on the game in question, older titles benefit greatly from the higher IPC and base frequency of the Intel parts, less well threaded current games likewise, but in many cases the difference is <>15FPS, which can sound a lot until you realise both parts are running at well over 80FPS, and in many cases, with a suitable GPU, over 100.
Upshot: If you're an FPS junkie on a fast 1080 display you should still go Intel.

feelinfroggy777 · Apr 20, 2018

It is very close. Here is the review from techpowerup and the cumulative score for games at 1080p shows the 2600x behind the 8400 by 5%. That is pretty close to the margin of error. So it is almost close enough some may consider a tie.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_2600X/13.html

toshibitsu · Apr 20, 2018

I was also surprised when I saw that the i7-8700k was out performing the 2700x. So seems with gaming, Intel's still the way to go. If you plan on doing heavy multi-tasking though that's when I'd suggest going with Ryzen.

InvalidError · Apr 20, 2018

If you throw in any degree of non-trivial multi-tasking for gaming, then the 2600(X) should take the lead. There is also the prospect of future games making use of more background threads which should naturally favor the 2600+ and CPUs with SMT in general.

While progress in multi-threaded PC game development is very slow, it is still a trend as more game engines get tweaked to delegate more background tasks to worker threads and it isn't going to reverse.

killerabdb · Apr 20, 2018

feelinfroggy777 :

Yes, but did you watch the benchmark comparison video Hardware Unboxed posted? Skylake and Coffee Lake gaming performance is still a lot better overall, though on some games the gap is small.

killerabdb · Apr 20, 2018

toshibitsu :

Forget about the i7-8700k, even the mediocre i5 8400 beats the 2700X in 1080p gaming.

killerabdb · Apr 20, 2018

InvalidError :

Only time will tell.

spdragoo · Apr 20, 2018

killerabdb :

Might be an outlier. Even Techspot's review showed both Zen+ CPUs' gaming performance at < 5% below the i5-8440 (https://www.techspot.com/review/1613-amd-ryzen-2700x-2600x/page6.html)...& that pretty much disappeared once they did a light OC (stock cooler, BTW, on the R5), something you can't do with the i5-8400.

killerabdb · Apr 20, 2018

spdragoo :

You can't call it an 'outlier'.....are you saying that those benchmarks happened by chance? I do not think so, especially considering that it was Hardware Unboxed who did it. However, I do think that if the GPU is something like a 1060 then the gap would be even smaller. Hardware Unboxed used a 1080ti.

vapour · Apr 20, 2018

It looks like OP is not looking for answers but trying to bash Ryzen. Case closed. I will wait for legit website to post reliable benchmarks. If you compare everything running stock, then yes, 8400 will win. However, all chips can be overclocked is one of the selling points for Ryzen.

killerabdb · Apr 20, 2018

vapour :

Lol, I don't hate Ryzen. I love the multi-threaded domination of the Ryzen chips. I'm just pissed off that AMD didn't do what people expected when it comes to gaming. I just hope Zen 2 beats Intel in gaming. :heink:

feelinfroggy777 · Apr 20, 2018

killerabdb :

Are asking about the 8400 and the 2600 because you want help deciding which to purchase or are you trying to start a AMD vs Intel debate?

When he says an outlier, it is not saying by chance. There is a lot more that goes into it than that. First, there are millions of different combinations of parts that can be used. Differences in RAM speeds, overclock, SSD/HDD can all impact performance.

Second, for gaming, you have to look at what you are benchmarking. Unfortunately most games don't have a built in benchmark. So what one reviewer has for BF1 may be very different from what another reviewer has of BF1 because they are reviewing different parts of the game.

Third, CPUs and GPUs are not all created equal. Even the same models. This is called the silicone lottery. This is why some CPUs will clock higher at lower temps. And look at Nvidia's turbo 3.0, it really varies from chip to chip as the clockspeed is always much higher than what is advertised. That is because the GPU automatically boost itself if conditions are supportive.

Comparing review to review is a pointless exercise because none of these test are done in a vacuum. Your best option is read several reviews and make an educated decision.

Here is another review from PC Gamer, a reputable review site.

https://www.pcgamer.com/amd-ryzen-7-2700x-is-better-than-its-predecessors-in-every-way/

It shows the 8400 is about 10% higher fps than the 2600x. Most of the reviews I have seen have shown about a 5-10% gap in performance. In the real world, no one will see a difference in 5-10% in a game unless you are running a benchmark.

InvalidError · Apr 20, 2018

killerabdb :

Only time will tell.[/quotemsg]
It isn't a matter of "time will tell", it has been a slow trend over the past many years: 15 years ago, single core was good enough. 10 years ago, dual cores became a necessity. Three years ago, dual cores with HT (or quad-core AMD) became the bare minimum for decent gaming with some games outright refusing to load with anything less. This year, quad cores are shifting into the minimum requirement category for a fair number of current titles, with a growing number benefiting from hex cores or quad-HT.

Although requirements are still trailing behind the state-of-the-art in terms of mainstream CPUs, the trend has accelerated significantly in recent years.

JaSoN_cRuZe · Apr 25, 2018

Intel i5 8400 will be the best budget CPU for gaming and Ryzen Zen+ still trail behind them.
When games will start using multiple threads then only Ryzen will shine as it overpowers Intel in all CPU intensive tasks.
I heard people saying overclocking Ryzen will match the performance of Intel that's true but at what cost consider the power draw and temperature spike from the CPU not worth the risk i would say.
Anyways if your intentions is primarily for gaming get Intel or else get Ryzen.

killerabdb · Apr 25, 2018

JaSoN_cRuZe :

I totally agree with you. However it will be a long time before games 'will start using multiple threads' and by the time games do start using multiple threads, intel will come out with a new series of processors that will have much higher IPC than Ryzen.

jr9 · Apr 25, 2018

They are pretty close for strictly gaming. If I had to choose between the two I'd opt for the Ryzen 5 2600 personally. More threads for future proofing and very high overclocking potential vs none on the 8400. Notably stronger if you wanted to do content creation or stream on the side. I would not consider either of them budget processors though but more closer to midrange. The Ryzen 3 and Core i3 would be budget.

TerryLaze · Apr 26, 2018

feelinfroggy777 :

It also shows the r7-2700x being just 2% faster then the i3-8100,which isn't even the fastest i3...so much dejavu,i3 was beating every FX in gaming and it still does it to all the ryzen chips,even if it is now a full quad.
So if you just want to match r7-2700x speeds the 8400 can have 2 completely idle cores,enough for a lot of multitasking,all the multitasking a normal human would want to do.

killerabdb · Apr 26, 2018

TerryLaze :

feelinfroggy777 :

It also shows the r7-2700x being just 2% faster then the i3-8100,which isn't even the fastest i3...so much dejavu,i3 was beating every FX in gaming and it still does it to all the ryzen chips,even if it is now a full quad.
So if you just want to match r7-2700x speeds the 8400 can have 2 completely idle cores,enough for a lot of multitasking,all the multitasking a normal human would want to do.

Intel's higher IPC FTW!

zbrownjohn · Apr 26, 2018

It depends which Ryzen 2 processor you are running.

The "U" (ultra-low power) processors perform much, much worse than the other next-generation Ryzen processors.
The Ryzen 5 2600 series CPU's perform from nothing - 5% worse in non-AMD games, however with AMD titled games, they perform around 5% better.
The Ryzen 7 2700 series CPU's perform from 5 - 10% better in non-AMD games, however with AMD titled games, they perform around 10% - 13% better.

But, the Ryzen 2 series chips perform from nothing - 25% better with more common or heavy everyday tasks.

So yes & no.

But pretty much no-one will notice such a difference while gaming.

thequn · Apr 26, 2018

Didn't that's test run with out the specter and meltdown fix?

feelinfroggy777 · Apr 26, 2018

TerryLaze :

Yeah, the 8100 is a good CPU and I would recommend it for any budget build. It can handle any modern game that is not CPU heavy. So what is your point? Are you saying that the number threads does not matter for gaming? That is not really news. Most games on use a few cores. Just look at the gaming benchmarks between the 7700k and the 8700k. The extra threads makes little to no difference.

I think that I have said that the 8400 performs about 5-10% better than the 2600 in gaming. The 8400 is a great mid range CPU. With that being said, so is the 2600. This is not a AMD vs Intel argument. I own a 1950x and a 8700k. So I think I am somewhat qualified to speak about both companies offerings based on my personal experience. I would not fault anyone that chooses the 8400 over the 2600 or the 8400 over the 2600. They are so close in gaming performance it is almost the margin of error.

I would not recommend the 1st generation Ryzen over the current Intel lineup for gaming. In many cases the double digit percentage difference is FPS is just too great. But the 2nd generation has really closed the gap to single digits. Maybe I am old and don't see as well as I used too, but I cant tell much of a difference between single digit fps. So implying there is a massive difference between the two chips in gaming performance is just ignorant.

You can compare the 2700x gaming performance till the cows come home, but anyone that is buying a 2700x for just a gaming rig is kinda foolish. There is a 2% difference in gaming from the 2700x and the 2600x but the 8 core chip cost 30% more. The 2700x is a workstation CPU. The average consumer has zero need for a 8 core/16 thread CPU. Those extra cores will just sit idle doing nothing 99% of the time.

feelinfroggy777 · Apr 26, 2018

Intel's higher IPC FTW

Intel does have a higher IPC, but not that much higher. Their IPC has not increased since 2015 with Skylake. What this really shows is that for modern PC gaming, 4 cores is plenty to get the job done.

killerabdb · Apr 26, 2018

feelinfroggy777 :

Will Zen 2 get a significant increase in IPC? I hope it does.

feelinfroggy777 · Apr 26, 2018

killerabdb :

Who knows. I hope the next generation for both Intel and AMD see IPC increases. Now that there is competition by AMD, Intel is going to have to respond.

i5 8400 outperforms Ryzen 2600 in gaming?

Proper

Champion

Glorious

Distinguished

Titan

Proper

Proper

Proper

Splendid

Proper

Champion

Proper

Glorious

Titan

Honorable

Proper

Estimable

Polypheme

Proper

Distinguished

Glorious

Glorious

Proper

Glorious

Share this page