Thoughts on the 2600 vs. 8600k and possibly 9600K

[AtenRa]

Todays prices from newegg,

Ryzen R5 2600 (including heat-sink) = $165
Core i5 8600K (no heat-sink) = $270

If you will also include a heat-sink for the i5 8600K the price difference will be closer to $140-150.

Personally today I would go for the Ryzen R5 2600X at $220 (including Heat-Sink) that has a single core boost at 4.2GHz out of the box and a nice heat-sink to keep it cool and quiet.

 

[epsilon84]

How does an 8C/8T AMD FX-9590 (5GHz,200watts) perform in those heavily threaded modern titles? I best MUCH worse than that i5-6600K.

8600K will beat the 2600 at gaming as long as anyone would use either CPU.

Zen isn't Bulldozer. The IPC disparity isn't nearly as great. In fact the clockspeed difference is what really gives the 8600K the main edge on 2600 in games, but that gap is going to shrink as more games become able to take better advantage of more threads.

A better example would be to use, say, a 4770K (a CPU with similar IPC to Zen) and compare it to a 6600K/7600K in modern titles. I would be confident to say that, even if you left the 4770K at 4GHz and overclocked the 6600K/7600K to 5GHz, the 4770K would come out on top in many of today's games.

 

[PeterScott]

Bulldozer architecture isn't comparable to Zen or Intel Core architecture to talk about cores/threads on a comparative basis. If you're arguing that a higher single-thread performance CPU with 6 cores will always be faster in gaming than a slower single-thread performance CPU with 6 cores and SMT, then you're wrong. Just look at Hardware Unboxed Ryzen 5 2600 Vs i7 7800X comparison which refutes your point.

No it's not a generic argument of any CPU with HT/SMT.

I am arguing specifically that 8600K will always beat the 2600 because of superior clock speed, superior IPC and superior cache performance. I didn't bring up the cache before, because I assumed it was understood, but when you try to counter with an example with mesh cache, that doesn't do as well gaming.

7800X has the same thread count as 2600, so doesn't exactly make your case for the importance of thread count. Further you can see their older 7800x vs 1600 comparison that includes 4C/8T 7700K, where the 4C/8T part dominates both 6c/12t parts. So really this highlights how Cache performance is very important

The superior ring bus cache performance completes the package on 8600K, the 2600 won't catch it in gaming. Ever.

 

[AtenRa]

The superior ring bus cache performance completes the package on 8600K, the 2600 won't catch it in gaming. Ever.

Never say never, the majority of the games in that review were released before the Ryzen launch.
Even if a 4.2GHz R5 2600X will not reach the same or higher performance than 5GHz 8600K, the performance difference in new games will be extremely small.

Edit. Just take a look at Core i3 8100 3.6GHz 4C 4T against R5 2400G 4C 8T. This could be a start of things to come.

Edit 2 : Also take a look at Ryzen 5 1400 4C 8T with 3.4GHz turbo and only 65W TDP how close it is to a Core i5 7600K 4C 4T at 4.2GHz turbo, 0.8GHz lower clocks but because the game surely can use more than 4 Threads the 8Thread CPUs are performing way better than the 4Thread CPUs.

https://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/shadow-of-the-tomb-raider-test-gpu-cpu

 

[tamz_msc]

No it's not a generic argument of any CPU with HT/SMT.

I am arguing specifically that 8600K will always beat the 2600 because of superior clock speed, superior IPC and superior cache performance. I didn't bring up the cache before, because I assumed it was understood, but when you try to counter with an example with mesh cache, that doesn't do as well gaming.

7800X has the same thread count as 2600, so doesn't exactly make your case for the importance of thread count. Further you can see their older 7800x vs 1600 comparison that includes 4C/8T 7700K, where the 4C/8T part dominates both 6c/12t parts. So really this highlights how Cache performance is very important

The superior ring bus cache performance completes the package on 8600K, the 2600 won't catch it in gaming. Ever.

It is not always the case that this statement holds true for every game. My inclusion of the 7800X was a minor brain fart, but the point is that a CPU with an architecture that has slower IPC can overtake a CPU with an architecture having faster IPC with the help of SMT in gaming, as evidenced here and here as well as the above example, especially when it comes to min. frame rates, when comparing the 7600K with the 4770K or sometimes even the 2600K.

 

[PeterScott]

It is not always the case that this statement holds true for every game. My inclusion of the 7800X was a minor brain fart, but the point is that a CPU with an architecture that has slower IPC can overtake a CPU with an architecture having faster IPC with the help of SMT in gaming, as evidenced here and here as well as the above example, especially when it comes to min. frame rates, when comparing the 7600K with the 4770K or sometimes even the 2600K.

Exactly what "evidence" is that russian(?) page supposed to show? It's not obvious.

In theory SMT can improve things, but in this case the gap is larger than SMT will overcome. The faster cache/IPC/Clockspeed won't be overcome in gaming for 2600 vs 8600K in gaming.

 

[Asterox]

Todays prices from newegg,

Ryzen R5 2600 (including heat-sink) = $165
Core i5 8600K (no heat-sink) = $270

If you will also include a heat-sink for the i5 8600K the price difference will be closer to $140-150.

Personally today I would go for the Ryzen R5 2600X at $220 (including Heat-Sink) that has a single core boost at 4.2GHz out of the box and a nice heat-sink to keep it cool and quiet.

Meny times in similar comparisons, "people hm seem to deliberately neglect this simple fact".

"Hey but this price diference is not to bad". For only 150$ you can buy R5 1600 with even beeter stock CPU cooler.😀

https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Processor-Wraith-Cooler-YD1600BBAEBOX/dp/B06XNRQHG4

 

[tamz_msc]

Exactly what "evidence" is that russian(?) page supposed to show? It's not obvious.

In theory SMT can improve things, but in this case the gap is larger than SMT will overcome. The faster cache/IPC/Clockspeed won't be overcome in gaming for 2600 vs 8600K in gaming.

Don't be lazy. Scroll down and see the CPU scaling benchmarks with a 1080 Ti.

 

[PeterScott]

Don't be lazy. Scroll down and see the CPU scaling benchmarks with a 1080 Ti.

Not lazy. I scrolled down. But the Russian made no sense. If there is a specific image that makes your case link it and explain it.

Here is one that shows even a low clocked 8400 beats an OC 2600X at gaming.

Let that sink in: Even at a clock speed deficit the 8400 (3.8Ghz all core) beats an overclocked 2600X. 2600x has no chance against an 8600K overclocked 1GHz higher than that.

 

[epsilon84]

Again, we're talking about current (and older) games compared to future games that will be able to better make use of additional threads.

There is no denying that in today's titles, a 8600K would beat a 2600, with both overclocked.

What I'm saying is that eventually games will catch up and a 8600K will end up in the same position as a 6600K/7600K today - a high IPC/clocked chip that bottlenecks highly threaded game engines due to a lack of threads.

It's one of the reasons why I paid extra for the 8700K over the 8600K - the 2600 is a much cheaper compromise on the 8700K. You get the threads but not the 5GHz clocks and IPC.

 

[PeterScott]

Again, we're talking about current (and older) games compared to future games that will be able to better make use of additional threads.

There is no denying that in today's titles, a 8600K would beat a 2600, with both overclocked.

What I'm saying is that eventually games will catch up and a 8600K will find end up in the same position as a 6600K/7600K today - a high IPC/clocked chip that bottlenecks highly threaded game engines due to a lack of threads.

I know what you are saying. But it doesn't hold water.

A 3.8GHz 8400 has a significant advantage today. Someday a 2600 might erase that gap, but an 8600K will overclock ~30% faster than that.

People have made similar proclamations about old AMD 8 core CPUs:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-2730080/amd-cpus-gaming-intel-direct-x12.html
"With direct x12 coming games will be able to use more cpu cores and amd has cheaper 8 core processors (amd fx 8350) , do you think those cpus will become better for gaming than intels 4 core cpus for the same price (i4 4690,i5 4460...)"

How has that worked out?

The 8600K will be at deficit 8700K, but not the Ryzen 2600 in gaming.

Gaming will never work like a Cinebench benchmark. That is just a faulty assumption.

 

[tamz_msc]

Not lazy. I scrolled down. But the Russian made no sense. If there is a specific image that makes your case link it and explain it.

Here is one that shows even a low clocked 8400 beats an OC 2600X at gaming.

Let that sink in: Even at a clock speed deficit the 8400 (3.8Ghz all core) beats an overclocked 2600X. 2600x has no chance against an 8600K overclocked 1GHz higher than that.

You mean you scrolled down but did not see the CPU scaling charts? Ok, then look at AtenRa's post above mine and tell me where does the 4770K place in relation to the 7600K. It's the opposite of the PC gamer graph you're showing which is totally devoid of context as to what games were tested.

 

[PeterScott]

You mean you scrolled down but did not see the CPU scaling charts? Ok, then look at AtenRa's post above mine and tell me where does the 4770K place in relation to the 7600K. It's the opposite of the PC gamer graph you're showing which is totally devoid of context as to what games were tested.

I mean I scrolled down an there is no such chart. Possibly they are generated, and aren't working on my script protected web browser, which I am not opening up on some Russian site. Do you guys really need to hunt for obscure Russian pages to find something that makes your point.

For instance one of your links seemed to be about Battlefield V. Hardware unboxed does CPU benches with BFV:
https://youtu.be/cAsyo8gIyys?t=6m18s

Though I expect it also shows the opposite of what you are trying to prove with obscure Russian links.

For instance 4c/4t i3 8350k easily beats 4C/8T 2400G and in fact nearly matches the 6C/12T 2600X.

 

[UsandThem]

How does an 8C/8T AMD FX-9590 (5GHz,200watts) perform in those heavily threaded modern titles? I best MUCH worse than that i5-6600K.

8600K will beat the 2600 at gaming as long as anyone would use either CPU.

You'd think with all the arguing going on in this thread, people would be claiming this whole debate is AMD Bulldozer vs. Intel 8th generation. 😉

I'm not sure why you think that current Intel CPUs handily beat Ryzen 2 CPUs in all cases? Outside of 1080p gaming, it's usually only a few FPS in most games. The Ryzen 2600X is a great CPU, just as there are several Intel CPUs that are outstanding as well. It seems odd, at least to me, to dismiss a CPU that most reviewers all think is a solid buy. A person's decision really comes down to:

A. The prices of a build (on sale).
B. What the primary purpose of the PC will be (gaming, professional, editing, etc.)

 

[scannall]

I think some may have drifted a bit off track with their favorite 1080p benchmarks. The OP will be gaming at 4k on a 1080ti. All of these CPU's in his list will perform within a percent or two of each other, being GPU bound.

 

[Markfw]

I know what you are saying. But it doesn't hold water.

A 3.8GHz 8400 has a significant advantage today. Someday a 2600 might erase that gap, but an 8600K will overclock ~30% faster than that.

People have made similar proclamations about old AMD 8 core CPUs:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-2730080/amd-cpus-gaming-intel-direct-x12.html
"With direct x12 coming games will be able to use more cpu cores and amd has cheaper 8 core processors (amd fx 8350) , do you think those cpus will become better for gaming than intels 4 core cpus for the same price (i4 4690,i5 4460...)"

How has that worked out?

The 8600K will be at deficit 8700K, but not the Ryzen 2600 in gaming.

Gaming will never work like a Cinebench benchmark. That is just a faulty assumption.

The AMD FX 8350 is such a piece of crap, you should not even bring it into the same conversation as Ryzen

 

[PeterScott]

I'm not sure why you think that current Intel CPUs handily beat Ryzen 2 CPUs in all cases?

Not sure what gives you that Idea. I am only arguing that 8600K will remain in the lead for gaming.

If you do a lot of 3d rendering, certainly Ryzen would be a better choice.

 

[UsandThem]

Not sure what gives you that Idea. I am only arguing that 8600K will remain in the lead for gaming.

If you do a lot of 3d rendering, certainly Ryzen would be a better choice.

I'd say outside of 1080p gaming (or lower), the 2600X and the Intel 8600k (and non-k) are so close in gaming performance in the majority of titles, it really wouldn't matter that much outside of people who benchmark instead of those actually play games.

It would depend on the price of the CPUs to decide which one offered the best $ / performance at the time.

 

[PeterScott]

I'd say outside of 1080p gaming (or lower), the 2600X and the Intel 8600k (and non-k) are so close in gaming performance in the majority of titles, it really wouldn't matter that much outside of people who benchmark instead of those actually play games.

1080p is used almost universally for CPU gaming tests, because the point is to NOT CPU tests while GPU limited.

Naturally if you run GPU limited the delta between CPUs shrink.

 

[tamz_msc]

I mean I scrolled down an there is no such chart. Possibly they are generated, and aren't working on my script protected web browser, which I am not opening up on some Russian site. Do you guys really need to hunt for obscure Russian pages to find something that makes your point.

For instance one of your links seemed to be about Battlefield V. Hardware unboxed does CPU benches with BFV:
https://youtu.be/cAsyo8gIyys?t=6m18s

Though I expect it also shows the opposite of what you are trying to prove with obscure Russian links.

For instance 4c/4t i3 8350k easily beats 4C/8T 2400G and in fact nearly matches the 6C/12T 2600X.

LOL at some obscure Russian site - they are the only ones who do a comprehensive CPU scaling comparison whenever new games are launched. Here, since you're so paranoid, I've pulled the charts for you to consider:

A 4770K with lower IPC, lower clocks handily beating a 7600K, simply because it has HT while the 7600K doesn't. Look at the minimum frame-rates, the 4770K is 27% faster.

Again the 4770K with HT is much faster than the 7600K without HT in minimum frame-rates, 29% to be more precise.

Therefore, my point is that with HT, even an older CPU with lower IPC and frequency can either match or overtake a CPU with the same core count but without HT, and can provide significantly better min. frame rates in well-threaded games. This is especially true for quad-cores from the above two graphs. Now six-core mainstream CPUs are still relatively new and games don't saturate all six cores yet, but when they will undoubtedly do it in the future, especially with new graphics technologies like raytracing (DICE have stated that RTX will demand more from the CPU), HT will make a difference.

 

[PeterScott]

LOL at some obscure Russian site - they are the only ones who do a comprehensive CPU scaling comparison whenever new games are launched. Here, since you're so paranoid, I've pulled the charts for you to consider:

And they are showing scores the opposite of HW unboxed. I trust HW unboxed more.

 

[tamz_msc]

And they are showing scores the opposite of HW unboxed. I trust HW unboxed more.

Why would you trust HW Unboxed more given that GameGPU also provides a Youtube link for their benchmark run?

 

[PeterScott]

Why would you trust HW Unboxed more given that GameGPU also provides a Youtube link for their benchmark run?

Gamers Nexus and HW Unboxed are my two main YT tech review channels I have subscribed and watched long term. I have seen them both in action/speaking over a long term and in my judgement they are trustworthy. If anything, HWUB tends to wear a bit of AMD fan on his sleeve, but I don't think it influences results.

Now you suggest just anybody with a YT page is equally as trustworthy? Sorry but these Russians were unknown till you referenced them. Not to mention the obvious language barriers, so I am really unlikely to follow them, and I am not going to trust the uknown to the same level as a longtime source.

 

[Gideon]

@PeterScott it seems you missed this point:

Now six-core mainstream CPUs are still relatively new and games don't saturate all six cores yet, but when they will undoubtedly do it in the future, especially with new graphics technologies like raytracing (DICE have stated that RTX will demand more from the CPU), HT will make a difference.

If raytracing takes off, more threads will most assuredly be used. I agree that a 8600K overclocked to 5Ghz will still be ahead of any 12 thread Ryzen (since the 25% clock bump will negate the SMT difference), but without overclocking in consideration these 2600X might very-well lead in some games (as CoD shows).

Case in point: A friend of mine just assembled a gaming rig. Initially i was leaning towards Intel, cause all he does is gaming, but as Intel prices have skyrocketed to insanity here in Estonia, due to 14nm shortage, he finally settled on a 2600x.

2600X is 234€. A 8600K costs 325€, the 8700K is 449€! (over a 100€ price increase vs a few months back) and both need an additional cooler which costs at least about 25€.

It'll be quite stupid to pay 120€ more for a 4% extra perf:

EDIT: And the diff between 8700K and 2600X is 2/3 of the cost difference between a 1070 Ti and 1080 Ti, which is a lot more meaningful upgrade for him, especially if gaming in 2.5K (36% uplift) or 4K (41% uplift) resolutions:

So overall, I'd say that Ryzen made total sense for him at those prices.

 

[PeterScott]

@PeterScott
It'll be quite stupid to pay 120€ more for a 4% extra perf:

An 8400 still beats 2600 if you are price sensitive.