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

[epsilon84]

Sure but there are people on this forum who want/wanted a 7820X simply because it is 8 core vs the 6 core 8700k.

Did those people want it for gaming? Because I sure hope people here pointed them in the right direction...

 

[SPBHM]

Intel "HEDT" was always difficult to justify for gaming, now that mainstream CPUs have 6 cores and games don't really use more than that, AMD offers good CPUs and Intel made the HEDT CPUs worse for gaming with the Mesh interconnect (and the l3?) it's basically impossible.

at the same time the test doesn't really show a big disadvantage for the 7800x, so if you are buying it because of something else (like the PCIE!?) it's at least OK, yet, it's clearly overpriced.

 

[wahdangun]

Intel "HEDT" was always difficult to justify for gaming, now that mainstream CPUs have 6 cores and games don't really use more than that, AMD offers good CPUs and Intel made the HEDT CPUs worse for gaming with the Mesh interconnect (and the l3?) it's basically impossible.

at the same time the test doesn't really show a big disadvantage for the 7800x, so if you are buying it because of something else (like the PCIE!?) it's at least OK, yet, it's clearly overpriced.

Yeah, but with TR2, it will make it obsolete for anything, since it will have higher clock, maybe even better latency.

 

[Markfw]

Yeah, but with TR2, it will make it obsolete for anything, since it will have higher clock, maybe even better latency.

TR2 = twin highly binned 2700x, so we know it will have higher clocks, and better latency, its a fact....

 

[frozentundra123456]

Odd choice of comparison since they aren't really comparable CPUs pricing wise, though it does illustrate how much the higher latency mesh bus suffers compared to the ring bus on CFL - it takes 4.6GHz from SKL-X to match 4.2GHz Ryzen 2 for gaming.

In a nutshell, don't get SKL-X for gaming (or pretty much anything, really, since TR is much better value, unless you need high thread AVX workloads perhaps?)

Yea, nobody in their right mind would buy 7800x for gaming. Actually Coffee Lake has pretty much made 7800x pointless, except as you said for AVX, workloads. But of course, we get the usual, "Just as fast at half the price" Ryzen comparisons, but those posters also forget to mention that the 8400 *also* is just as fast at half the price.

 

[Markfw]

Yea, nobody in their right mind would buy 7800x for gaming. Actually Coffee Lake has pretty much made 7800x pointless, except as you said for AVX, workloads. But of course, we get the usual, "Just as fast at half the price" Ryzen comparisons, but those posters also forget to mention that the 8400 *also* is just as fast at half the price.

No. we have been over this already, different CPU's, different benchmarks. But yes, the 8400 would be way more cost effective for gaming than the 7800x. But it does not mean that the 2600 is worse than the 8400, not to rehash....

 

[coercitiv]

Yea, nobody in their right mind would buy 7800x for gaming. Actually Coffee Lake has pretty much made 7800x pointless, except as you said for AVX, workloads. But of course, we get the usual, "Just as fast at half the price" Ryzen comparisons, but those posters also forget to mention that the 8400 *also* is just as fast at half the price.

The fact that 8400 with fast RAM would match 7800X IS the point of that review, especially in the context of this thread. It shows the awkward state HEDT is in right now, with only niche usage cases to justify the budget. Don't forget their enthusiast platform is marketed as the pinnacle of consumer computing, with gaming front and center.

I won't insist on HEDT further, since this thread is about the mainstream 8400 and 2600, but I thought Steve's idea of rehashing gaming tests on 7800X was a useful reminder. If we can focus on anything else but brand wars, that is.

 

[Triloby]

He said the same happens to Intel

I guess I must've misheard.

 

[frozentundra123456]

The fact that 8400 with fast RAM would match 7800X IS the point of that review, especially in the context of this thread. It shows the awkward state HEDT is in right now, with only niche usage cases to justify the budget. Don't forget their enthusiast platform is marketed as the pinnacle of consumer computing, with gaming front and center.

I won't insist on HEDT further, since this thread is about the mainstream 8400 and 2600, but I thought Steve's idea of rehashing gaming tests on 7800X was a useful reminder. If we can focus on anything else but brand wars, that is.

Agreed, it was a useful reminder. Just seemed like a lot of effort to prove what pretty much what was known already. If he was going to repeat so many tests, I would have preferred to see a comparison of the 8400 and 2600 to a fast quad core like the 7700k, to see how it still holds up. I dont see any reason to buy that chip now that hex cores are so cheap, but it would have been a useful test to see if users who own a SL or KL quad would benefit from moving to Ryzen or Coffee Lake.

 

[IRobot23]

I think he didn't point something out. You are never going to get that clocks on stock cooler. Grabbing R5 2600 with good llc ram should be faster at stock than i5 8400.

Embarrassing DX12 performance, why did DICE went with DX12? VULKAN is way to go.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I think he didn't point something out. You are never going to get that clocks on stock cooler. Grabbing R5 2600 with good llc ram should be faster at stock than i5 8400.

Embarrassing DX12 performance, why did DICE went with DX12? VULKAN is way to go.

According to the Techspot article, the 2600 with fast ram *and* overclocked 7.5% (max turbo 3.9 to 4.2) is only 7% faster in minumum and 3% faster in ave fps, so unless you have other data, you cant justifiably say stock for stock with faster ram the 2600 would be faster.