Ryzen 5 2600 vs. Core i5-8400, 36 Game Benchmark Battle

Indus

Diamond Member
May 11, 2002
5,841
1,278
136
#1

2:20 ARK Survival Evolved
2:55 ARMA 3
3:44 Ashes of the Singularity (DX12)
4:34 Ass Creed: Origins
5:18 Battlefield 1 (DX11)
6:07 Star Wars Battlefront II
7:02 Counter-Strike Global Offensive
7:33 Deus Ex: Mankind Dividied (DX11)
8:11 Dirt 4
8:32 F1 2017
8:55 Far Cry 5
9:13 Far Cry Primal
9:35 For Honor
10:13 Fortnite
10:25 Frost Punk
10:55 Grand Theft Auto V
11:25 Hitman (DX11)
11:42 Just Cause 3
12:08 Kingdom Come Deliverance
12:30 Mass Effect Andromeda
12:52 Overwatch
13:10 Prey
13:37 Project Cars 2
14:04 PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds
14:46 Quake Champions
15:28 Middle-Earth Shadow of War
15:43 Sniper Elite 4 (DX12)
16:13 Starcraft II
16:58 Tom Clancy's The Division (DX11)
17:14 The Witcher 3 Wild Hunt
18:00 Titanfall 2
18:18 Warhammer Vermintide 2 (DX11)
18:36 Total War Warhammer 2 (DX11)
19:04 Watch Dogs 2
19:39 Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Wildlands
19:57 World of Tanks

I'm quite impressed with how close they are except in a few games. You can't really go wrong with either at this point!
 
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
516
126
#2

2:20 ARK Survival Evolved
2:55 ARMA 3
3:44 Ashes of the Singularity (DX12)
4:34 Ass Creed: Origins
5:18 Battlefield 1 (DX11)
6:07 Star Wars Battlefront II
7:02 Counter-Strike Global Offensive
7:33 Deus Ex: Mankind Dividied (DX11)
8:11 Dirt 4
8:32 F1 2017
8:55 Far Cry 5
9:13 Far Cry Primal
9:35 For Honor
10:13 Fortnite
10:25 Frost Punk
10:55 Grand Theft Auto V
11:25 Hitman (DX11)
11:42 Just Cause 3
12:08 Kingdom Come Deliverance
12:30 Mass Effect Andromeda
12:52 Overwatch
13:10 Prey
13:37 Project Cars 2
14:04 PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds
14:46 Quake Champions
15:28 Middle-Earth Shadow of War
15:43 Sniper Elite 4 (DX12)
16:13 Starcraft II
16:58 Tom Clancy's The Division (DX11)
17:14 The Witcher 3 Wild Hunt
18:00 Titanfall 2
18:18 Warhammer Vermintide 2 (DX11)
18:36 Total War Warhammer 2 (DX11)
19:04 Watch Dogs 2
19:39 Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Wildlands
19:57 World of Tanks

I'm quite impressed with how close they are except in a few games. You can't really go wrong with either at this point!
Youtube is blocked at work, but if those are all of your own benchmarks, good on ya man. That is a lot of work and helps us out quite a bit.
 

Indus

Diamond Member
May 11, 2002
5,841
1,278
136
#3
Nope, they're not by me.
 

Triloby

Senior member
Mar 18, 2016
569
59
86
#4
Replace the GTX 1080 Ti with either a GTX 1060 or a RX 580 and the differences in CPU performance would probably become nonexistent, with maybe a couple of titles as an exception.
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
18,178
2,133
136
#5
It sure looks like AMD is not pretty much caught up on gaming, at least in the "value" segment (or whatever a $200 CPU is )

But at the top end, the 8700k may be hard to beat, especially OC'ed.
 

Indus

Diamond Member
May 11, 2002
5,841
1,278
136
#6
It sure looks like AMD is not pretty much caught up on gaming, at least in the "value" segment (or whatever a $200 CPU is )

But at the top end, the 8700k may be hard to beat, especially OC'ed.
It'll be interesting how much of a frequency boost and performance boost they get with 3rd gen ryzen and 7nm. If its over 5ghz.. Ryzen might be a no brainer at that point.
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,457
67
126
#8
For those that dont want to sit through a you tube video, Techspot has an article with nice graphs. link . Stock, at 1080p the 8400 is about 10% ahead in the 36 game average. Overclocked to 4.2 ghz with fast ram, the 2600 is about 3% ahead, but that requires a better motherboard, cooler, and expensive ram, diluting the value proposition.
 

Shmee

Memory and Storage, Graphics Cards
Super Moderator
Sep 13, 2008
3,873
66
126
#9
SC2 only uses 1 core lol? I did not know that, that is so dumb. Also, would like to see BF4 results as well.
 

Ancalagon44

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2010
3,275
0
106
#10
AMD is still a little behind, but at least they are in the same ballpark. In the Bulldozer days, they weren't even playing the same game as Intel.

At least now there are valid reasons to select AMD, such as overclockability or the better multithreaded performance due to the 6 extra threads.
 

Shmee

Memory and Storage, Graphics Cards
Super Moderator
Sep 13, 2008
3,873
66
126
#12
Hmm, ok that is not what was said in the video. Either way, low core count for such a CPU intensive game.
 

Insomniator

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2002
6,260
11
106
#13
At 1440p it literally doesn't matter - which is why I was fine going with a 2700X instead of a 8700k given the same price. Even Starcraft 2 which is my main game doesn't matter because 1v1 doesn't tax anything.

I guess if I were trying to be a pro gamer playing Overwatch 1080p at 144hz I'd be concerned, but I highly doubt the majority of people complaining are doing that.

I'm never, ever going back to 1080p. Its... a child's resolution to me nowadays. I may go to 3440 or 4k... I will always be GPU bound. Will happily take the extra 2 cores on Ryzen (for now).
 
Feb 2, 2009
12,997
283
126
#14
Well according to their own readings at 1080p with a GTX1080Ti,

Core i5 8400 is just 9,02% faster on average frame rate against the default R5 2600 and only 5.37% faster at 1% min/fps.
R5 2600 OC to 4.2GHz is just 3,44% faster against the default Core i5 8400 and 7,14% faster at 1% min/fps

 
Last edited:

epsilon84

Senior member
Aug 29, 2010
978
158
136
#15
At 1440p it literally doesn't matter - which is why I was fine going with a 2700X instead of a 8700k given the same price. Even Starcraft 2 which is my main game doesn't matter because 1v1 doesn't tax anything.

I guess if I were trying to be a pro gamer playing Overwatch 1080p at 144hz I'd be concerned, but I highly doubt the majority of people complaining are doing that.

I'm never, ever going back to 1080p. Its... a child's resolution to me nowadays. I may go to 3440 or 4k... I will always be GPU bound. Will happily take the extra 2 cores on Ryzen (for now).
There are 144Hz 1440P monitors too, and from what I've seen an overclocked 8700K is still the best option if you're pairing it with something like a 1080 Ti. The only truly GPU bound resolution where CPU really doesn't matter would be 4K. 1440P is obviously less CPU bound than 1080P, but still shows scaling from faster CPUs with something like a 1080 Ti: https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwrevie...w-game-streaming-cpu-benchmarks-memory/page-3

Its not that a 2700X (or a 8400 or 2600 even, as shown by the benchmarks from HWUB/Techspot) won't run games well when paired with a 1080 Ti, but if you can afford a 1440P 144Hz gaming monitor and a 1080 Ti, both of which don't come cheap, then my question is why wouldn't you pair it with the fastest gaming CPU available, especially if you also overclock to maximise performance.

Something like a 2700X is virtually factory 'overclocked' (or boosted, if you will) to close to its limits already with XFR and PB2, whereas a 8700K can be overclocked a good ~20% (5.1GHz vs 4.3GHz)

For the average gamer running mainstream GPUs like a GTX 1060 or RX 580, all the above makes virtually no difference, but at the upper echelon of gaming, with high end GPUs like a 1080 Ti or the upcoming 1180 and high refresh rate gaming monitors it's hard to argue AMD is the better buy... for gaming, that is.
 
Last edited:

epsilon84

Senior member
Aug 29, 2010
978
158
136
#16
Well according to their own readings at 1080p with a GTX1080Ti,

Core i5 8400 is just 8,3% faster on average frame rate against the default R5 2600 and only 5.1% faster at 1% min/fps.
R5 2600 OC to 4.2GHz is just 3,33% faster against the default Core i5 8400 and 6,67% faster at 1% min/fps

Or, in other words, the 8400/2666 practically splits the difference between a stock 2600/2933 and a 2600 OC/3400.

From a value perspective this still puts the 8400 well ahead, as its still a bit cheaper than a stock 2600 platform yet a bit faster. With the extra expense you need to put into a 2600 in order to overtake the 8400, like a decent HSF, overclocking motherboard with good VRMs, 3200/3466 CL14 'B Die' memory, you're pretty much entering 8600K pricing and I already know which will come out ahead for gaming in that comparison.

In reality, a better use of that budget to improve gaming performance would be to allocate that money towards a faster GPU, rather than investing in better cooling and expensive memory. HWUB stated at the end of the video the overclocked 2600 system ends up costing about $80 more than the 8400 system, which is enough to upgrade from a GTX 1070 to a 1080, for example. That is an $80 upgrade that provides ~20% better gaming performance, compared to a $80 upgrade that provides ~5% better gaming performance.

Or, in other words, on the same budget you can either get:
1. 8400 / B360 / DDR4 2666 + GTX 1080
OR
2. 2600+HSF / B350 / DDR4 3200/3466 + GTX 1070

Of course the GPU choice in interchangeable, but the point remains that $80 is almost always money better spent on a better GPU rather than upgrading CPU cooling and memory.
 
Last edited:

scannall

Golden Member
Jan 1, 2012
1,418
263
136
#17
Or, in other words, the 8400/2666 practically splits the difference between a stock 2600/2933 and a 2600 OC/3400.

From a value perspective this still puts the 8400 well ahead, as its still a bit cheaper than a stock 2600 platform yet a bit faster. With the extra expense you need to put into a 2600 in order to overtake the 8400, like a decent HSF, overclocking motherboard with good VRMs, 3200/3466 CL14 'B Die' memory, you're pretty much entering 8600K pricing and I already know which will come out ahead for gaming in that comparison.

In reality, a better use of that budget to improve gaming performance would be to allocate that money towards a faster GPU, rather than investing in better cooling and expensive memory. HWUB stated at the end of the video the overclocked 2600 system ends up costing about $80 more than the 8400 system, which is enough to upgrade from a GTX 1070 to a 1080, for example. That is an $80 upgrade that provides ~20% better gaming performance, compared to a $80 upgrade that provides ~5% better gaming performance.
The 2600X is only $20 more, and has a much better cooler and better clocks. No real need to overclock it. Motherboards is mostly a wash, though a bit more until the B450 boards are out. The ram is a little more though. I'm just not seeing a good reason to pick the 2600 over the 2600x.
 

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
3,359
887
136
#18
you're pretty much entering 8600K pricing and I already know which will come out ahead for gaming in that comparison.
When you talk of 8600K pricing are you referring to a 8600K + H chipset combo?
 

epsilon84

Senior member
Aug 29, 2010
978
158
136
#19
The 2600X is only $20 more, and has a much better cooler and better clocks. No real need to overclock it. Motherboards is mostly a wash, though a bit more until the B450 boards are out. The ram is a little more though. I'm just not seeing a good reason to pick the 2600 over the 2600x.
A 2600 + Hyper 212 ends up costing $5 more than a 2600X using Newegg prices. The 2600 + Hyper 212 would have a better chance of overclocking to 4.2GHz like in the video compared to a 2600X using the boxed Wraith Spire cooler.

Of course, if you don't overclock and are happy to let XFR and PB2 do its thing, I think the 2600X is the better buy compared to the 2600.
 

epsilon84

Senior member
Aug 29, 2010
978
158
136
#20
When you talk of 8600K pricing are you referring to a 8600K + H chipset combo?
No, the whole point of a 8600K (or any K CPU) would be to overclock it right? Otherwise you may as well save some money and get the non K SKUs.

So that would mean a 8600K + Z370 motherboard. The 8600K platform would end up costing a bit more than the 2600 platform, but I'm pretty sure a 8600K OC would show a bigger delta in gaming compared to a 2600 OC, compared to a 2600 OC vs 8400, in fact there are already benchmarks done showing exactly this scenario:

https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwrevie...eview-stream-benchmarks-gaming-blender/page-3

Edit - Using GN's testing points to a ~20% performance advantage at 1080P when comparing a 8600K @ 5.0GHz vs 2600X @ 4.2GHz

The value analysis can be a bit complicated as there are numerous different motherboard and RAM configurations available for both platforms, and certain choices can be more beneficial for one platform compared to another. For example, B Die memory, while costly, would benefit AMD a lot more than Intel. There is also the fact that B350 motherboards are available at a cheaper cost than Z370, though I suspect many people would prefer the X470 (or B450 when available) based motherboards.
 
Last edited:

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
3,359
887
136
#21
No, the whole point of a 8600K (or any K CPU) would be to overclock it right?
Sure it would, but in that case we're no longer talking about comparable pricing. If you want to overclock 8600K at 4.8Ghz+ then we're talking premium cooler, premium board, and likely premium RAM to match. The price disparity might be more surprising than you think.

Keep in mind 2600X is $30 more expensive than 2600 and will essentially behave as an 4.1Ghz 2600, while working on budget friendly B350 & B450 boards. I find it a bit surprising you're even entertaining the idea of 2600 + X470.

For example, B Die memory, while costly, would benefit AMD a lot more than Intel.
Are you sure about than? Take a look here.

Tests were done with 7700K @ 5Ghz with B die chips running in 2 configs: one with 3466 CL 16 and stock sub-timings, the other at the same frequency but using tuned timings. Difference was massive when it came to min framerates.
 

IEC

Super Moderator
Super Moderator
Jun 10, 2004
13,737
871
136
#22
Assuming you do more than just gaming the 6c/12t of a 2600/X is always a consideration when it comes to value, both present and future. The i5 is limited to 6c/6t and requires overclocking (read: expensive motherboard, aftermarket cooling, etc) to pull ahead significantly at 1080p. AM4 is the better platform overall as far as features go.

If you want the best gaming CPU then no question an OC'd i7-8700K or OC'd i5-8600K will give you that last few % (read: diminishing returns). But for many users, the 2600/X is the better long-term value. I've seen 3200 CL16 and 3000 CL15 RAM at fairly reasonable prices on sale recently so going for the full 3600+ B-die isn't necessary if budgetary constraints exist. And a B350 board is quite capable of running a stock 2600X, making the value proposition even better on a budget (no need for X470). B450 is coming soon as well, which should support all 2000-series out of the box without a bootkit (unlike B350).

As for the benchmarks from the GamersNexus article, almost all of the handful of games they picked were previous Ryzen 1000-series "worst case" scenarios (do people even play most of those games anymore?), so it's not surprising to see max OC Intel winning there, even if the gap has closed considerably.

Given how a minorly refreshed 2000-series is doing quite well versus Intel's best in Hardware Unboxed's testing, I fully expect that gap to disappear with the tock that is Zen 2 coming in 2019. Exciting times ahead. Can't wait to ditch 14nm(++++++).
 
Mar 10, 2004
28,523
238
126
#23
Intel is doing amazingly well with the 3 year old 14nm node against brand new chips, I think.
If we get an 8 core Coffee lake chip, Intel will possibly be the clear leader of the pack with a 3 year old node.

And really, this is still Skylake, so it's a 3 three year old micro-architecture as well.

Intel has gotten very good mileage out of 14nm.
 

epsilon84

Senior member
Aug 29, 2010
978
158
136
#24
Sure it would, but in that case we're no longer talking about comparable pricing. If you want to overclock 8600K at 4.8Ghz+ then we're talking premium cooler, premium board, and likely premium RAM to match. The price disparity might be more surprising than you think.

Keep in mind 2600X is $30 more expensive than 2600 and will essentially behave as an 4.1Ghz 2600, while working on budget friendly B350 & B450 boards. I find it a bit surprising you're even entertaining the idea of 2600 + X470.


Are you sure about than? Take a look here.

Tests were done with 7700K @ 5Ghz with B die chips running in 2 configs: one with 3466 CL 16 and stock sub-timings, the other at the same frequency but using tuned timings. Difference was massive when it came to min framerates.
Is that really so? My own experiences point to the contrary. I have my 8700K @ 5.0GHz using a Hyper 212 (carried over from my 6700K build) and gaming temps are in the 60s, using a 'non premium' Z370 motherboard. I also reused old DDR4-2666 memory from my previous 6700K build, though I did overclock the memory to 3200 speeds. I gained more going from 2666 to 3200, than using low latency at 3200. The actual difference between CL14 and CL16 3200 is about 2 - 3% on average, based on my own testing. Not really worth it to be honest, and I actually just run at CL15 on a daily basis as the gains are negligible and I don't need to overvolt the RAM as much to keep things stable compared to CL14. Based on that I probably wouldn't spend the extra $30 - $40 on B Die memory for an Intel platform if buying new, unless you are chasing benchmark glory, of course.

On Ryzen? B Die is most definitely worth it, for gaming at least: https://www.computerbase.de/2018-04/amd-ryzen-2000-test/7/

With DDR4-3466 and tuned low latency timings a stock 2700X can get within 5% of a stock 8700K.

I already said a 8600K platform would end up costing more than a 2600 platform, though I think you are exaggerating the cost differential a bit here, considering you can get a 8600K/Z370 bundle for $315 http://www.microcenter.com/product/...0K,_Gigabyte_Z370_HD3,_CPU-Motherboard_Bundle

As I said earlier, I would definitely choose B-Die if I were building for Ryzen. For Intel, I would probably just save some money and get the cheaper Hynix based kits.
 
Last edited:

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
18,178
2,133
136
#25
Is that really so? My own experiences point to the contrary. I have my 8700K @ 5.0GHz using a Hyper 212 (carried over from my 6700K build) and gaming temps are in the 60s, using a 'non premium' Z370 motherboard. I also reused old DDR4-2666 memory from my previous 6700K build, though I did overclock the memory to 3200 speeds. I gained more going from 2666 to 3200, than using low latency at 3200. The actual difference between CL14 and CL16 3200 is about 2 - 3% on average, based on my own testing. Not really worth it to be honest, and I actually just run at CL15 on a daily basis as the gains are negligible and I don't need to overvolt the RAM as much to keep things stable compared to CL14. Based on that I probably wouldn't spend the extra $30 - $40 on B Die memory for an Intel platform if buying new, unless you are chasing benchmark glory, of course.

On Ryzen? B Die is most definitely worth it, for gaming at least: https://www.computerbase.de/2018-04/amd-ryzen-2000-test/7/

With DDR4-3466 and tuned low latency timings a stock 2700X can get within 5% of a stock 8700K.

I already said a 8600K platform would end up costing more than a 2600 platform, though I think you are exaggerating the cost differential a bit here, considering you can get a 8600K/Z370 bundle for $315 http://www.microcenter.com/product/...0K,_Gigabyte_Z370_HD3,_CPU-Motherboard_Bundle
Only one problem with that. world-wide, very few people have access to a microcenter, me included.
 


ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS