AMD Ryzen 5 2600X vs Intel Core i5-8400
28 May20|Techpowerup Intel Core i5-10400F Review — Six … |
8 % | FarC5 21%, BFV 9%, Witcher3 4%, Civ6 10%, MetroEx 13%, Sekiro 25%, Wolf2 14% | SotTR 1%, Rage2 2%, ACO 9% | |||
14 Nov19|PCGamer AMD Ryzen 9 3950X review |
6 % | Hitm2 13%, FarC5 15%, TWarW2 5%, SotTR 13%, MetroEx 8%, MESoW 7% | StrangeB 1%, ACO 4%, Divis2 2% |
Memory Avg. Memory Latency |
88 Pts | Lower memory latency. +17% |
75.2 Pts | |||
1-Core Avg. Single Core Mixed Speed |
114 Pts | Slightly faster single-core speed. +8% |
106 Pts | |||
2-Core Avg. Dual Core Mixed Speed |
226 Pts | Faster dual-core speed. +10% |
205 Pts | |||
4-Core Avg. Quad Core Mixed Speed |
441 Pts | Faster quad-core speed. +16% |
380 Pts | |||
8-Core Avg. Octa Core Mixed Speed |
629 Pts | 664 Pts | Slightly faster octa-core speed. +6% |
Memory OC Memory Latency |
94. 5 Pts | Slightly lower OC memory latency. +9% |
86.4 Pts | |||
1-Core OC Single Core Mixed Speed |
120 Pts | +1% | 119 Pts | |||
2-Core OC Dual Core Mixed Speed |
238 Pts | +1% | 235 Pts | |||
4-Core OC Quad Core Mixed Speed |
467 Pts | +3% | 452 Pts | |||
8-Core OC Octa Core Mixed Speed |
687 Pts | 756 Pts | Faster OC octa-core speed. +10% |
Age Newest |
59 Months | 53 Months | More recent. +10% |
|||
TDP Thermal Design Power (TDP) |
65 Watts | Much more energy efficient. +32% |
95 Watts | |||
Cores CPU Processing Cores |
6 cores | 6 cores | ||||
Threads CPU Processing Threads |
6 threads | 12 threads | Hugely higher thread count. +100% |
|||
Lithography Manufacturing process |
14 nm | 12 nm | Newer manufacturing. +14% |
|||
Base Clock Base Clock Speed |
2.8 GHz | 3.6 GHz | Faster base frequency. +29% |
|||
Turbo Clock Turbo Clock Speed |
4 GHz | 4. 2 GHz | +5% | |||
64-Core OC Multi Core Mixed Speed |
689 Pts | 1022 Pts | Much faster OC 64-core speed. +48% |
|||
64-Core Avg. Multi Core Mixed Speed |
634 Pts | 884 Pts | Much faster 64-core speed. +39% |
Series CPU Architecture |
Coffee Lake | Zen+ | ||||
Socket Motherboard Socket |
FCLGA1151 | AM4 | ||||
Graphics Integrated Graphics |
UHD 630 | None |
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X vs Intel Core i5+8400: What is the difference?
44points
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
53points
Intel Core i5+8400
Comparison winner
vs
64 facts in comparison
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
Intel Core i5+8400
Why is AMD Ryzen 5 2600X better than Intel Core i5+8400?
- 28. 57% faster CPU speed?
6 x 3.6GHzvs6 x 2.8GHz - 267MHz higher ram speed?
2933MHzvs2666MHz - 6 more CPU threads?
12vs6 - 2nm smaller semiconductor size?
12nmvs14nm - 1.5MB bigger L2 cache?
3MBvs1.5MB - 20.56% higher PassMark result?
14087vs11685 - 0.25GHz higher turbo clock speed?
4.25GHzvs4GHz - 7MB bigger L3 cache?
16MBvs9MB
Why is Intel Core i5+8400 better than AMD Ryzen 5 2600X?
- 30W lower TDP?
65Wvs95W - Has integrated graphics?
- Has F16C?
- Has FMA3?
Which are the most popular comparisons?
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
vs
AMD Ryzen 5 5600X
Intel Core i5+8400
vs
Intel Core i3-10100
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
vs
AMD Ryzen 5 5500U
Intel Core i5+8400
vs
Intel Core i7-3770
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
vs
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
Intel Core i5+8400
vs
Intel Core i3-9100F
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
vs
AMD Ryzen 5 5600G
Intel Core i5+8400
vs
AMD Ryzen 3 3200G
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
vs
AMD Ryzen 5 2600
Intel Core i5+8400
vs
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
vs
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
Intel Core i5+8400
vs
Intel Core i5-8400T
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
vs
AMD Ryzen 5 3500X
Intel Core i5+8400
vs
Intel Core i3-8100
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
vs
AMD Ryzen 5 3400G
Intel Core i5+8400
vs
Intel Core i3-10105
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
vs
AMD Ryzen 7 5800X
Intel Core i5+8400
vs
Intel Core i7-7700
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
vs
AMD Ryzen 7 1700x
Intel Core i5+8400
vs
AMD Ryzen 5 2600
Price comparison
User reviews
Overall Rating
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
2 User reviews
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
9. 5/10
2 User reviews
Intel Core i5+8400
1 User reviews
Intel Core i5+8400
10.0/10
1 User reviews
Features
Value for money
9.5/10
2 votes
10.0/10
1 votes
Gaming
9.0/10
2 votes
10.0/10
1 votes
Performance
10.0/10
2 votes
10.0/10
1 votes
Reliability
9.5/10
2 votes
10.0/10
1 votes
Energy efficiency
10.0/10
2 votes
10.0/10
1 votes
Performance
1.CPU speed
6 x 3.6GHz
6 x 2.8GHz
The CPU speed indicates how many processing cycles per second can be executed by a CPU, considering all of its cores (processing units). It is calculated by adding the clock rates of each core or, in the case of multi-core processors employing different microarchitectures, of each group of cores.
2.CPU threads
More threads result in faster performance and better multitasking.
3.turbo clock speed
4.25GHz
When the CPU is running below its limitations, it can boost to a higher clock speed in order to give increased performance.
4.Has an unlocked multiplier
✔AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
✖Intel Core i5+8400
Some processors come with an unlocked multiplier which makes them easy to overclock, allowing you to gain increased performance in games and other apps.
5.L2 cache
A larger L2 cache results in faster CPU and system-wide performance.
6.L3 cache
A larger L3 cache results in faster CPU and system-wide performance.
7.L1 cache
A larger L1 cache results in faster CPU and system-wide performance.
8. L2 core
0.5MB/core
0.25MB/core
More data can be stored in the L2 cache for access by each core of the CPU.
9.L3 core
2.67MB/core
1.5MB/core
More data can be stored in the L3 cache for access by each core of the CPU.
Memory
1.RAM speed
2933MHz
2666MHz
It can support faster memory, which will give quicker system performance.
2.maximum memory bandwidth
43.71GB/s
41.6GB/s
This is the maximum rate that data can be read from or stored into memory.
3.DDR memory version
DDR (Double Data Rate) memory is the most common type of RAM. Newer versions of DDR memory support higher maximum speeds and are more energy-efficient.
4.memory channels
More memory channels increases the speed of data transfer between the memory and the CPU.
5.maximum memory amount
The maximum amount of memory (RAM) supported.
6.bus transfer rate
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 5 2600X)
The bus is responsible for transferring data between different components of a computer or device.
7.Supports ECC memory
✖AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
✖Intel Core i5+8400
Error-correcting code memory can detect and correct data corruption. It is used when is it essential to avoid corruption, such as scientific computing or when running a server.
8.eMMC version
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 5 2600X)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i5+8400)
A higher version of eMMC allows faster memory interfaces, having a positive effect on the performance of a device. For example, when transferring files from your computer to the internal storage over USB.
9.bus speed
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 5 2600X)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i5+8400)
The bus is responsible for transferring data between different components of a computer or device.
Benchmarks
1.PassMark result
This benchmark measures the performance of the CPU using multiple threads.
2.PassMark result (single)
This benchmark measures the performance of the CPU using a single thread.
3.Geekbench 5 result (multi)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i5+8400)
Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform benchmark that measures a processor’s multi-core performance. (Source: Primate Labs, 2022)
4.Cinebench R20 (multi) result
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i5+8400)
Cinebench R20 is a benchmark tool that measures a CPU’s multi-core performance by rendering a 3D scene.
5.Cinebench R20 (single) result
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i5+8400)
Cinebench R20 is a benchmark tool that measures a CPU’s single-core performance by rendering a 3D scene.
6.Geekbench 5 result (single)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i5+8400)
Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform benchmark that measures a processor’s single-core performance. (Source: Primate Labs, 2022)
7.Blender (bmw27) result
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 5 2600X)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i5+8400)
The Blender (bmw27) benchmark measures the performance of a processor by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render the scene in less time.
8.Blender (classroom) result
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 5 2600X)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i5+8400)
The Blender (classroom) benchmark measures the performance of a processor by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render the scene in less time.
9.performance per watt
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 5 2600X)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i5+8400)
This means the CPU is more efficient, giving a greater amount of performance for each watt of power used.
Features
1.uses multithreading
✔AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
✔Intel Core i5+8400
Multithreading technology (such as Intel’s Hyperthreading or AMD’s Simultaneous Multithreading) provides increased performance by splitting each of the processor’s physical cores into virtual cores, also known as threads. This way, each core can run two instruction streams at once.
2.Has AES
✔AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
✔Intel Core i5+8400
AES is used to speed up encryption and decryption.
3.Has AVX
✔AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
✔Intel Core i5+8400
AVX is used to help speed up calculations in multimedia, scientific and financial apps, as well as improving Linux RAID software performance.
4.SSE version
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 5 2600X)
SSE is used to speed up multimedia tasks such as editing an image or adjusting audio volume. Each new version contains new instructions and improvements.
5.Has F16C
✖AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
✔Intel Core i5+8400
F16C is used to speed up tasks such as adjusting the contrast of an image or adjusting volume.
6.bits executed at a time
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 5 2600X)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i5+8400)
NEON provides acceleration for media processing, such as listening to MP3s.
7.Has MMX
✔AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
✔Intel Core i5+8400
MMX is used to speed up tasks such as adjusting the contrast of an image or adjusting volume.
8.Has TrustZone
✖AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
✖Intel Core i5+8400
A technology integrated into the processor to secure the device for use with features such as mobile payments and streaming video using digital rights management (DRM).
9.front-end width
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 5 2600X)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i5+8400)
The CPU can decode more instructions per clock (IPC), meaning that the CPU performs better
Price comparison
Cancel
Which are the best CPUs?
Intel Core i5 8400 vs AMD Ryzen 5 2600X: performance comparison
VS
Intel Core i5 8400
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
We compared two 6-core desktop CPUs: the 2. 8 GHz Intel Core i5 8400 against the 3.6 GHz AMD Ryzen 5 2600X. On this page, you’ll find out which processor has better performance in benchmarks, games and other useful information.
- Review
- Differences
- Performance
- Specs
- Comments
Review
General overview and comparison of the processors
Single-Core Performance
Performance in single-threaded apps and benchmarks
Core i5 8400
55
Ryzen 5 2600X
56
Performance
Measure performance when all cores are involved
Core i5 8400
28
Ryzen 5 2600X
37
Power Efficiency
The efficiency score of electricity consumption
Core i5 8400
44
Ryzen 5 2600X
46
NanoReview Final Score
Generic CPU rating
Core i5 8400
42
Ryzen 5 2600X
48
Key Differences
What are the key differences between 2600X and 8400
Advantages of Intel Core i5 8400
- Supports up to 128 GB DDR4-2666 RAM
- Consumes up to 32% less energy than the Ryzen 5 2600X – 65 vs 95 Watt
- Includes an integrated GPU Intel UHD Graphics 630
Advantages of AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
- Unlocked multiplier
- Has 7 MB larger L3 cache size
- More modern manufacturing process – 12 versus 14 nanometers
- Newer — released 7-months later
- 5% higher Turbo Boost frequency (4. 2 GHz vs 4 GHz)
- Around 2.11 GB/s (5%) higher theoretical memory bandwidth
Benchmarks
Comparing the performance of CPUs in benchmarks
Cinebench R23 (Single-Core)
Core i5 8400
1023
Ryzen 5 2600X
+6%
1086
Cinebench R23 (Multi-Core)
Core i5 8400
5823
Ryzen 5 2600X
+29%
7489
Passmark CPU (Single-Core)
Core i5 8400
2392
Ryzen 5 2600X
2392
Passmark CPU (Multi-Core)
Core i5 8400
9130
Ryzen 5 2600X
+53%
13929
Geekbench 5 (Single-Core)
Core i5 8400
1026
Ryzen 5 2600X
+1%
1039
Geekbench 5 (Multi-Core)
Core i5 8400
4604
Ryzen 5 2600X
+26%
5792
▶️ Submit your Cinebench R23 result
By purchasing through links on this site, we may receive a commission from Amazon. This does not affect our assessment methodology.
Specifications
Full technical specification of Intel Core i5 8400 and AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
General
Vendor | Intel | AMD |
Released | October 5, 2017 | April 19, 2018 |
Type | Desktop | Desktop |
instruction set | x86-64 | x86-64 |
Codename | Coffee Lake | Zen+ |
Model number | i5-8400 | — |
Socket | LGA-1151 | AM4 |
Integrated GPU | UHD Graphics 630 | No |
Performance
Cores | 6 | 6 |
Threads | 6 | 12 |
Base Frequency | 2. 8 GHz | 3.6 GHz |
Turbo Boost Frequency | 4 GHz | 4.2 GHz |
Bus frequency | 100 MHz | 100 MHz |
Multiplier | 28x | 36x |
Bus Bandwidth | 8 GT/s | — |
L1 Cache | 64K (per core) | 96K (per core) |
L2 Cache | 256K (per core) | 512K (per core) |
L3 Cache | 9MB (shared) | 16MB (shared) |
Unlocked Multiplier | No | Yes |
Transistors | — | 4.8 billions |
Fabrication process | 14 nm | 12 nm |
TDP | 65 W | 95 W |
Max. temperature | 100°C | 95°C |
Integrated Graphics | Intel UHD Graphics 630 | — |
GPU Base Clock | 350 MHz | — |
GPU Boost Clock | 1050 MHz | — |
Shading Units | 192 | — |
TMUs | 24 | — |
ROPs | 3 | — |
Execution Units | 24 | — |
TGP | 15 W | — |
Max. Resolution | 4096×2304 — 60 Hz | — |
iGPU FLOPS
Core i5 8400
0.38 TFLOPS
Ryzen 5 2600X
n/a
Memory support
Memory types | DDR4-2666 | DDR4-2933 |
Memory Size | 128 GB | 64 GB |
Max. Memory Channels | 2 | 2 |
Max. Memory Bandwidth | 41.6 GB/s | 43.71 GB/s |
ECC Support | No | Yes |
Official site | Intel Core i5 8400 official page | AMD Ryzen 5 2600X official page |
PCI Express Version | 3.0 | 3.0 |
PCI Express Lanes | 16 | 20 |
Extended instructions | SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX-2 | — |
Cast your vote
Choose between two processors
Core i5 8400
4 (44.4%)
Ryzen 5 2600X
5 (55.6%)
Total votes: 9
ompetitors
1.
Intel Core i5 8400 and Intel Core i5 12400
2.
Intel Core i5 8400 and Intel Core i5 12400F
3.
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X and AMD Ryzen 5 5600X
So which CPU will you choose: AMD Ryzen 5 2600X or Intel Core i5 8400?
Name
Message
Promotion
Core i5-8400 vs Ryzen 5 2600X
Availability
Intel Core i5-8400 Desktop Processor 6 Cores up to 4.0 GHz LGA 1151 300 Series 65W
Buy on Amazon
$185
In Stock
Updated 49 minutes ago
Availability
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X Processor with Wraith Spire Cooler — YD260XBCAFBOX
Buy on Amazon
$240
In Stock
Updated 49 minutes ago
Key Differences
In short — Ryzen 5 2600X outperforms the cheaper Core i5-8400 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing Core i5-8400 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Ryzen 5 2600X is 196 days newer than the cheaper Core i5-8400.
Advantages of Intel Core i5-8400
-
Up to 23% cheaper than Ryzen 5 2600X — $185.0 vs $240.0
-
Up to 22% better value when playing VALORANT than Ryzen 5 2600X — $0.43 vs $0.55 per FPS
-
Consumes up to 32% less energy than AMD Ryzen 5 2600X — 65 vs 95 Watts
Advantages of AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
VALORANT
Resolution
1920×1080
Game Graphics
High
Core i5-8400
Desktop • Oct 5th, 2017
FPS
433
99%
Value, $/FPS
$0.43/FPS
100%
Price, $
$185
100%
Value Winner
Intel Core i5-8400 Desktop Processor 6 Cores up to 4.0 GHz LGA 1151 300 Series 65W
Buy for $185 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 49 minutes ago
Ryzen 5 2600X
Desktop • Apr 19th, 2018
FPS
439
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0. 55/FPS
78%
Price, $
$240
77%
FPS Winner
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X Processor with Wraith Spire Cooler — YD260XBCAFBOX
Buy for $240 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 49 minutes ago
Resolution
1920×1080
Game Graphics
High
Core i5-8400
Desktop • Oct 5th, 2017
Ryzen 5 2600X
Desktop • Apr 19th, 2018
433
FPS
439
FPS
VALORANT
995
FPS
1009
FPS
League of Legends
248
FPS
251
FPS
Grand Theft Auto V
270
FPS
274
FPS
Apex Legends
268
FPS
272
FPS
Fortnite
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Core i5-8400
Desktop • Oct 5th, 2017
Single-Core
1035
100%
Multi-Core
4520
81%
Ryzen 5 2600X
Desktop • Apr 19th, 2018
Single-Core
1034
100%
Multi-Core
5610
100%
Intel Core i5-8400 |
vs |
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X |
---|---|---|
Oct 5th, 2017 | Release Date |
Apr 19th, 2018 |
Core i5 | Collection | Ryzen 5 |
Coffee Lake | Codename | Pinnacle Ridge |
Intel Socket 1151 | Socket | AMD Socket AM4 |
Desktop |
Segment |
Desktop |
6 | Cores | 6 |
6 | Threads |
12 |
2. 8 GHz | Base Clock Speed |
3.6 GHz |
4.0 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed |
4.2 GHz |
65 W |
TDP | 95 W |
14 nm | Process Size |
12 nm |
28.0x | Multiplier |
36.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable |
Yes |
Builds Using Core i5-8400 or Ryzen 5 2600X
VALORANT, 1080p, High
Lenovo Ideacentre 510A-15Icb 90HV001VUS Desktop PC
69 FPS
$10.13/FPS
UHD Graphics 630
Core i5-8400
8 GB, 128 GB SSD
Buy on Amazon
$699
In Stock
Updated 34 minutes ago
Skytech Archangel Gaming Computer PC
192 FPS
$10.41/FPS
GeForce GTX 1660
Ryzen 5 2600X
16 GB, 500 GB SSD
Buy on Amazon
$1,999
In Stock
Updated 42 minutes ago
Acer Nitro 50 Gaming Desktop PC
152 FPS
$11. 84/FPS
Radeon RX 580
Core i5-8400
16 GB, 256 GB SSD
Buy on Amazon
$1,799
In Stock
Updated 38 minutes ago
Acer Nitro 50 Gaming Desktop PC
152 FPS
$12.49/FPS
Radeon RX 580
Core i5-8400
24 GB, 256 GB SSD
Buy on Amazon
$1,899
In Stock
Updated 38 minutes ago
Acer Nitro 50 Gaming Desktop PC
152 FPS
$14.47/FPS
Radeon RX 580
Core i5-8400
32 GB, 1 TB SSD
Buy on Amazon
$2,199
In Stock
Updated 38 minutes ago
Alienware — Aurora R7 Desktop PC
228 FPS
$17.54/FPS
GeForce GTX 1070 Ti
Core i5-8400
8 GB, 1 TB HDD
Buy on Amazon
$4,000
In Stock
Updated 42 minutes ago
Acer Nitro 50 Gaming Desktop PC
152 FPS
$17.76/FPS
Radeon RX 580
Core i5-8400
64 GB, 512 GB SSD
Buy on Amazon
$2,699
In Stock
Updated 38 minutes ago
Select from the most popular similar processor comparisons. Most compared processor combinations, including the currently selected ones, are at the top.
Ryzen 5 2600X
Pentium E2220
N/A Stock
Core i5-8400
Phenom X4 9550
$189.95
Ryzen 5 2600X
Core i5-450M
N/A Stock
Ryzen 5 2600X
Phenom II X4 920
N/A Stock
Ryzen 5 2600X
R-Series RX-427BB
N/A Stock
Ryzen 5 2600X
Celeron 540
N/A Stock
Ryzen 5 2600X
Xeon E5405
N/A Stock
Ryzen 5 2600X
PRO A6-9500B
N/A Stock
Ryzen 5 2600X
Sempron 145
i5-8400 vs Ryzen 5 3500 — Just Cause 4 with GTX 1660 Benchmarks 1080p, 1440p, Ultrawide, 4K Comparison
GTX 1660 with
Intel Core i5-8400 @ 2.80GHz
Just Cause 4
GTX 1660 with
AMD Ryzen 5 3500
i5-8400
Ryzen 5 3500
Multi-Thread Performance
11694 Pts
1655 Pts
Single-Thread Performance
2334 Pts
2820 Pts
Just Cause 4
i5-8400 vs Ryzen 5 3500 in Just Cause 4 using GTX 1660 — CPU Performance comparison at Ultra, High, Medium, and Low Quality Settings with 1080p, 1440p, Ultrawide, 4K resolutions
i5-8400
Ryzen 5 3500
Ultra Quality
Resolution | Frames Per Second |
---|---|
1080p |
62. 2 FPS |
1080p |
65.2 FPS |
1440p |
46.0 FPS |
1440p |
48.2 FPS |
2160p |
23.9 FPS |
2160p |
25.1 FPS |
w1440p |
37.4 FPS |
w1440p |
39.2 FPS |
High Quality
Resolution | Frames Per Second |
---|---|
1080p |
105.4 FPS |
1080p |
109.7 FPS |
1440p |
81.4 FPS |
1440p |
84.7 FPS |
2160p |
46.2 FPS |
2160p |
48.2 FPS |
w1440p |
68.1 FPS |
w1440p |
70.9 FPS |
Medium Quality
Resolution | Frames Per Second |
---|---|
1080p |
148. 6 FPS |
1080p |
154.2 FPS |
1440p |
116.8 FPS |
1440p |
121.3 FPS |
2160p |
68.5 FPS |
2160p |
71.3 FPS |
w1440p |
98.8 FPS |
w1440p |
102.7 FPS |
Low Quality
Resolution | Frames Per Second |
---|---|
1080p |
235.0 FPS |
1080p |
243.2 FPS |
1440p |
187.6 FPS |
1440p |
194.4 FPS |
2160p |
113.1 FPS |
2160p |
117.6 FPS |
w1440p |
160.3 FPS |
w1440p |
166.2 FPS |
i5-8400
- The i5-8400 has higher Level 2 Cache. Data/instructions which have to be processed can be loaded from the fast L2 and the CPU does not have to wait for the very slow DDR RAM
- The i5-8400 has higher Level 3 Cache. This is useful when you have substantial multiprocessing workloads, many computationally intense simultaneous processes. More likely on a server, less on a personally used computer for interactive desktop workloads.
- The i5-8400 has more cores. The benefit of having more cores is that the system can handle more threads. Each core can handle a separate stream of data. This architecture greatly increases the performance of a system that is running concurrent applications.
- The i5-8400 has more threads. Larger programs are divided into threads (small sections) so that the processor can execute them simultaneously to get faster execution.
- For some games, a cpu with a higher clock speed, or in a technical name IPC (Instructions per clock), has better results than other CPU’s with higher core count and lower core speed.
- The i5-8400 has a higher turbo clock boost. Turbo Boost is a CPU feature that will run CPU clock speed faster than its base clock, if certain conditions are present. It will enable older software that runs on fewer cores, to perform better on newer hardware. Since games are software too, it is also applicable to them.
Ryzen 5 3500
- The Ryzen 5 3500 is more power efficient and generates less heat.
- The Ryzen 5 3500 has a smaller process size. The faster a transistor can toggle on and off, the faster it can do work. And transistors that turn on and off with less energy are more efficient, reducing the operating power, or “dynamic power consumption,” required by a processor.
Compare i5-8400 vs Ryzen 5 3500 specifications
i5-8400 vs Ryzen 5 3500 Architecture
i5-8400 | Ryzen 5 3500 | |
---|---|---|
Codename | Coffee Lake | Zen 2 |
Generation | Core i5 (Coffee Lake) |
Ryzen 5 (Zen 2) |
Market | Desktop | Desktop |
Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR4 |
Part# | SLAPL | unknown |
Production Status | Active | Active |
Released | Oct 2017 | Jul 2019 |
i5-8400 vs Ryzen 5 3500 Cache
i5-8400 | Ryzen 5 3500 | |
---|---|---|
Cache L1 | 64K (per core) | 96K (per core) |
Cache L2 | 256K (per core) | 512K (per core) |
Cache L3 | 9MB (shared) | 32MB (shared) |
i5-8400 vs Ryzen 5 3500 Cores
i5-8400 | Ryzen 5 3500 | |
---|---|---|
# of Cores | 6 | 6 |
# of Threads | 6 | 12 |
Integrated Graphics | N/A | N/A |
SMP # CPUs | 1 | 1 |
i5-8400 vs Ryzen 5 3500 Features
i5-8400 | Ryzen 5 3500 |
---|
i5-8400 vs Ryzen 5 3500 Performance
i5-8400 | Ryzen 5 3500 | |
---|---|---|
Base Clock | 100 MHz | 100 MHz |
Frequency | 2. 8 GHz | 3.6 GHz |
Multiplier | 28.0x | 36.0x |
Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |
TDP | 65 W | 65 W |
Turbo Clock | up to 4 GHz | up to 4.2 GHz |
Voltage | variable | variable |
i5-8400 vs Ryzen 5 3500 Physical
i5-8400 | Ryzen 5 3500 | |
---|---|---|
Die Size | unknown | unknown |
Foundry | Intel | TSMC |
Package | FC-LGA1151 | |
Process Size | 14 nm | 7 nm |
Socket | Intel Socket 1151 | AMD Socket AM4 |
Transistors | unknown | 4,800 million |
tCaseMax | 72°C | unknown |
Share Your Comments 90
Compare i5-8400 vs Ryzen 5 3500 in more games
Elden Ring
2022
God of War
2022
Overwatch 2
2022
Forza Horizon 5
2021
Halo Infinite
2021
Battlefield 2042
2021
Assassin’s Creed Valhalla
2020
Microsoft Flight Simulator
2020
Valorant
2020
Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War
2020
Death Stranding
2020
Marvel’s Avengers
2020
Godfall
2020
Cyberpunk 2077
2020
Apex Legends
2019
Anthem
2019
Far Cry New Dawn
2019
Resident Evil 2
2019
Metro Exodus
2019
World War Z
2019
Gears of War 5
2019
F1 2019
2019
GreedFall
2019
Borderlands 3
2019
Call of Duty Modern Warfare
2019
Red Dead Redemption 2
2019
Need For Speed: Heat
2019
Assassin’s Creed Odyssey
2018
Battlefield V
2018
Call of Duty: Black Ops 4
2018
Final Fantasy XV
2018
Shadow of the Tomb Raider
2018
Forza Horizon 4
2018
Fallout 76
2018
Hitman 2
2018
Just Cause 4
2018
Monster Hunter: World
2018
Strange Brigade
2018
Assassin’s Creed Origins
2017
Dawn of War III
2017
Ghost Recon Wildlands
2017
Destiny 2
2017
PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds
2017
Fortnite Battle Royale
2017
Need For Speed: Payback
2017
For Honor
2017
Project CARS 2
2017
Forza Motorsport 7
2017
Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation
2016
Battlefield 1
2016
Deus Ex: Mankind Divided
2016
Doom
2016
F1 2016
2016
Total War: Warhammer
2016
Overwatch
2016
Dishonored 2
2016
Grand Theft Auto V
2015
Rocket League
2015
Need For Speed
2015
Project CARS
2015
Rainbow Six Siege
2015
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive
2012
League of Legends
2009
Minecraft
2009
Intel Core i5-8400 review: Still a great Ryzen 5 killer
When I first reviewed AMD’s Ryzen 5 2600 and 2600X CPUs, I called them the Intel Core i5 Coffee Lake killers. Specifically, I said they were Intel Core i5-8600K killers — and to some extent that’s still true. While not as fast as the Core i5-8600K when it comes to overall gaming performance, their lower price, bundled cooler and generally superior multi-tasking performance in everyday desktop tasks make them a compelling alternative for mid-range PC builders. But how do they stand up against Intel’s entry-level Core i5 CPU, the i5-8400? Priced much more closely to AMD’s rival pair of CPUs, this £185 / $212 processor might just be a potential Ryzen 5 killer. How about that for a twist in our best gaming CPU rankings, eh?
On paper, the i5-8400 looks like a pretty bad deal compared to AMD’s 2nd Gen Ryzen 5s. Not only does it have a lower base clock speed of 2.8GHz compared to the 2600’s 3.4GHz and the 2600X’s 3.6GHz, but its maximum Turbo Boost only stretches to 4.0GHz. That’s just ahead of the 2600’s top speed of 3.9GHz, but it’s still a relative chunk behind the 2600X’s max boost clock of 4. 2GHz.
Plus, despite having six cores like its AMD rivals, it still only has six threads due to its lack of Hyper Threading support. AMD’s Ryzen processors, on the other hand, have 12 apiece. And if all that weren’t enough, it’s more expensive, too, costing £60 / $60 more than the £125 / $150 2600 and around £15 / $20 more than the £185 / $230 2600X. It does, at least, have the good fortune to come with a bundled cooler, so you don’t have to factor in any additional costs here if you don’t fancy shelling out on something more substantial, but needless to say, it’s going to have to work pretty darn hard to earn its keep.
The RPS Test PC:
Motherboard: Asus Prime Z370-P (Intel), Asus Prime X370-Pro (AMD)
Cooler: BeQuiet BK009 Pure Rock (Intel), AMD Wraith Prism (AMD)
RAM: 16GB Corsair Vengeance 2133MHz
GPU: Nvidia GeForce RTX 2080 Ti FE
PSU: OCZ ZX850W
Thankfully, it does that in spades — at least when it comes to gaming performance. I have to admit, testing any CPU’s gaming performance is still a bit of a difficult undertaking. As our friends at Digital Foundry have explained in the past, a lot of benchmarks either don’t test your CPU properly, or simply aren’t very accurate in the first place. Fortunately, a handful of gaming benchmarks have got a lot better at this recently, with the likes of Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Forza Horizon 4, Assassin’s Creed Odyssey and more all providing an in-depth look at your CPU’s performance as well as what your graphics card’s doing.
That said, there are also several other factors that can impact gaming performance, such as your graphics card, the type of RAM you’ve got, and even what type of storage you’ve installed the game on. As a result, getting a truly accurate picture of a CPU’s gaming performance is tricky, but I’ve done the best I can with the equipment available to me.
I’ve also focused a lot more on gaming performance in this review than I have on, say, application performance or media creation bits and bobs because, well, I’m not really interested in that. I’ve included some cursory Cinebench scores as a basic indicator of what each CPU will be like for general desktop tasks, but really, my main goal here is to work out what CPU is the best for gaming and gaming alone.
And boy howdy does the Core i5-8400 deliver. At 1080p, it had a clear lead over AMD’s Ryzen 5 2600 and 2600X in everything except Assassin’s Creed Odyssey, and even then we’re only talking an average gap of 4fps with the 2600, and 7fps with the 2600X. At 1440p, the Core i5-8400 either closed the gap entirely, or blazed ahead again, so much so that it even gives Intel’s Core i5-8600K a run for its money as well. Of course, it’s difficult to say whether you’ll see exactly the same kind of performance jump on the kind of mid-range graphics cards you’re more likely to be pairing with a CPU like this, but in my eyes, it’s pretty clear which CPU is killing which here.
Or at least it is for those buying their gaming CPU in the UK. In the US, the non-X Ryzen 5 2600 is quite a chunk of change cheaper than the Core i5-8400, making it a much more tempting proposition for mid-range builders on a budget. Indeed, at £120 / $150, the Ryzen 5 2600 definitely still has an air of a Coffee Lake killer about it — particularly when you take into account its superior multi-tasking performance as well.
Cast an eye over its Cinebench scores, for instance, and while it’s only a smidge behind the Core i5-8400 on single core performance, it’s positively light years ahead when it comes to multicore performance. It’s so nippy, in fact, that it even beats Intel’s considerably more expensive Core i7-8700 CPU as well. This makes it much better equipped to deal with creative applications and the like if you’re into your photo or video editing, and is probably a better all-round CPU than its Intel rival as a result.
As such, I’d probably seriously consider getting the Ryzen 5 2600 if I was after a cheap do-it-all CPU that still had a decent amount of gaming oomph — but only if it remains at its current price of £125 / $150. Any higher, and you may as well just spend the extra on the Core i5-8400, especially if you’re not planning on using your PC for anything other than gaming and light desktop tasks such as web surfing and typing up the odd document.
Of course, if you’re willing to spend a bit more to get the Core i5-8400, the question then becomes, ‘Is it worth spending another teensy bit extra and getting the even quicker and brand spanking new Intel Core i5-9600K instead?’ Priced at £220 / $230, it’s currently a much better buy than its 8th Gen predecessor, the i5-8600K, and delivers even better gaming performance for just another £20 / $20 on top of the i5-8400. It doesn’t come with a cooler, mind, which will add even more onto its overall cost depending on what model you go for, but for the best gaming CPU money can buy around the £200 / $200-ish sort of mark, there’s no denying it’s a seriously tempting bit of kit.
Personally, I’d say it’s almost certainly worth stretching to the Core i5-9600K if you’ve got the cash and you don’t mind taking the extra cooler costs into account, but for those of you who’d rather keep things a bit simpler, the Core i5-8400 is still a fine choice for a mid-range gaming CPU. The Ryzen 5 2600 is also worth looking at if you can find it on the cheap, but if gaming is your number one concern, Intel’s Core i5s are still a pretty tough act to beat.
Intel Core i5 8400 vs AMD Ryzen 5 2600X:
performance comparison
VS
Intel Core i5 8400
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
Which is better: Intel Core i5 8400 at 2.8 GHz (with Turbo Boost up to 4.0) or AMD Ryzen 5 2600X at 3.6 GHz (with Turbo Core up to 4.2)? To find out, read our comparative testing of these 6-core desktop processors in popular benchmarks, games and heavy applications.
- Overview
- Differences
- Performance
- Features
- Comments
Overview
Overview and comparison of the main metrics from NanoReview
Single -flow performance
Rating in tests using one nucleus
Core i5 8400
55
Ryzen 5 2600x
56
Multi -flow performance
Tests in benchmarks where all nuclei 9 are involved0003
Core i5 8400
28
RYZEN 5 2600X
37
Energy efficiency
EXPRESSITY ACTURISE CHIP
Core i5 8400
Ryzen 5 2600x
46
0002 0002 0002 000 0002 Rerel
Core i5 8400
42
Ryzen 5 2600X
48
Key differences
What are the main differences between 2600X and 8400
Reasons to choose Intel Core i5 8400
- Supports up to 128 GB DDR4-2666
- 32% lower than Ryzen 5 2600X peak power consumption — 65 vs 95 watts
- Has integrated graphics accelerator Intel0 UHD 9012
Reasons to choose AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
- Unlocked multiplier
- Has 7 MB more L3 cache
- More modern process technology — 12 vs 14 nanometers
- Arrived 7 months later than rival
- 5% higher Turbo Boost frequency (4. 2 GHz vs 4 GHz)
- 2.11 GB/s (5%) higher maximum memory bandwidth
Benchmark tests
Compare the results of processor tests in benchmarks
Cinebench R23 (single core)
Core i5 8400
1023
Ryzen 5 2600X
+6%
1086
Cinebench R23 (multi-core)
Core i5 8400
5823
Ryzen 5 2600X
+29%
7489
Passmark CPU (single -core)
Core i5 8400
2392
Ryzen 5 2600x
2392
Passmark CPU (multi -core)
9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000.000 RE
+53%
13929
Geekbench 5 (single core)
Core i5 8400
1026
Ryzen 5 2600X
+1%
1039
Geekbench 5 (multi-core)
Core i5 8400
4604
Ryzen 5 2600X
+26%
5792
▶️ Add your score to Cinebench R23
Specifications
List of full specifications for Intel Core i5 8400 and AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
General information
Manufacturer | Intel | AMD |
Release date | October 5, 2017 | April 19, 2018 |
Type | Desktop | Desktop |
Instruction set architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 |
Codename | Coffee Lake | Zen+ |
Model number | i5-8400 | — |
Socket | LGA-1151 | AM4 |
Integrated graphics | UHD Graphics 630 | No |
Performance
Cores | 6 | 6 |
Number of threads | 6 | 12 |
Frequency | 2. 8 GHz | 3.6 GHz |
Max. frequency in Turbo Boost | 4 GHz | 4.2 GHz |
Bus frequency | 100 MHz | 100 MHz |
Multiplier | 28x | 36x |
Tire speed | 8 GT/s | — |
Level 1 cache | 64KB (per core) | 96KB (per core) |
Level 2 cache | 256KB (per core) | 512KB (per core) |
Level 3 cache | 9MB (shared) | 16MB (shared) |
Unlocked multiplier | No | Yes |
Power consumption
Number of transistors | — | 4.8 billion |
Process | 14 nanometers | 12 nanometers |
Power consumption (TDP) | 65 W | 95 W |
Critical temperature | 100°C | 95°C |
Integrated graphics | Intel UHD Graphics 630 | — |
GPU frequency | 350 MHz | — |
Boost GPU frequency | 1050 MHz | — |
Shader blocks | 192 | — |
TMUs | 24 | — |
ROPs | 3 | — |
Computer units | 24 | — |
TGP | 15W | — |
Max. resolution | 4096×2304 — 60Hz | — |
Igpu Flops
Core i5 8400
0.38 Teraflops
Ryzen 5 2600x
N/D
Memory Support
Memory type | DDR4-2666 | DDR4-2933 |
Max. size | 128 GB | 64 GB |
Number of channels | 2 | 2 |
Max. bandwidth | 41.6 GB/s | 43.71 GB/s |
ECC support | No | Yes |
Other
Official site | Site Intel Core i5 8400 | AMD Ryzen 5 2600X |
PCI Express version | 3.0 | 3.0 |
Max. PCI Express lanes | 16 | 20 |
Extended instructions | SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX-2 | — |
Poll
What processor do you think is the best?
Core i5 8400
4 (44. 4%)
Ryzen 5 2600X
5 (55.6%)
Total votes: 9
Competitors
1.
Intel Core i5 8400 and Intel Core i5 12400
2.
Intel Core i5 8400 and Intel Core i5 12400F
3.
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X and AMD Ryzen 5 5600X
What will you choose: AMD Ryzen 5 2600X or Intel Core i5 8400?
Name
Message
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X vs Intel Core i5-8400T: What is the difference?
44 BALLLA
AMD Ryzen 5 2600x
50 Ballla
Intel Core i5-8400t
Winner when comparing
VS
64 Facts compared to
AMD RYZEN 5 2600X
Intel Core INTEL CORE INTEL CORE INTEL CORE INTEL Is Ryzen 5 2600X better than Intel Core i5-8400T?
- 2.12x higher CPU speed?
6 x 3. 6GHz vs 6 x 1.7GHz - 267MHz higher RAM speed?
2933MHz vs 2666MHz - 6 more CPU threads?
12 vs 6 - Are the semiconductors smaller than 2nm?
12nm vs 14nm - 1.5MB more L2 cache?
3MB vs 1.5MB - 1.9x higher PassMark score?
14087 vs 7415 - 0.95GHz higher turbo clock speed?
4.25GHz vs 3.3GHz - 7MB more L3 cache?
16MB vs 9MB
- 60W below TDP?
35W vs 95W - Does it have integrated graphics?
- Has F16C?
- Has FMA3?
What are the most popular comparisons?
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
vs
AMD Ryzen 5 5600X
Intel Core i5-8400t
VS
Intel Core i5+8400
AMD Ryzen 5 2600x
VS
AMD Ryzen 5 5500u
Intel Core i5-8400t
VS
VS
REMENT
AMD RYZEN 5 2600X
VS
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
Intel Core i5-8400t
VS
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
AMD Ryzen 5 2600x
9000 ATEL
AMD Ryzen 5 5600 AMD Ryzen 5 5600 AMD Ryzen 5 -8400T
VS
Intel Core i5-8600t
AMD Ryzen 5 2600x
VS
AMD Ryzen 5 2600
Intel Core i5-8400t
VS
Intel Core I5-
AMD Ry vs
AMD Ryzen 5 1600x
Intel Core i5-8400t
VS
Intel Core i5-9400t
AMD Ryzen 5 2600x
AMD Ryzen 5 3500X
Intel Core INTEL Core INTEL Core INTEL Core INTEL Core INTEL Core INTEL
Intel Core i5-7400
AMD RYZEN 5 2600X
VS
AMD Ryzen 5 3400G
Intel Core i5-8400t
VS
Intel I7-7820EQ
AMD Ryzen 5 226002 AMD Ryzen 5 226002 AMD Ryzen 5 2222 AM Ryzen 7 5800x
Intel Core i5-8400t
VS
AMD RYZEN 5 3400G
AMD Ryzen 5 2600x
VS
AMD Ryzen 7,1700x
Intel Core
9000 VS 9000 VS 9000 AMD 9000 AMD AMD
Comparison prices
Users reviews
General rating
AMD Ryzen 5 2600x
2 Reviews of Users
AMD Ryzen 5 2600x
/10
9000 0 User reviews
Intel Core i5-8400T
0. 0 /10
0 User reviews
Features
Value for money
9.5 /10
2 Votes
Reviews yet not
Games
/10
2 Votes
Reviews still not
9000 9000 10.0 /10 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9 2 votes
No reviews yet
Reliability
9.5 /10
2 votes
No reviews yet
Energy efficiency0003
10.0 /10
2 Votes
Reviews yet there is no
performance
1. Ski -resistance of the central processor
6 x 3.6GHZ
6 X 1.7GHZ
9000 second can be performed by the processor, given all its cores (processors). It is calculated by adding the clock speeds of each core or, in the case of multi-core processors, each group of cores.
2nd processor thread
More threads result in better performance and better multitasking.
3.speed turbo clock
4.25GHz
3.3GHz
When the processor is running below its limits, it can jump to a higher clock speed to increase performance.
4. Has unlocked multiplier
✔AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
✖Intel Core i5-8400T
Some processors come with an unlocked multiplier and are easier to overclock, allowing for better performance in games and other applications.
5.L2 Cache
More L2 scratchpad memory results in faster results in CPU and system performance tuning.
6.L3 cache
More L3 scratchpad memory results in faster results in CPU and system performance tuning.
7.L1 cache
More L1 scratchpad results in faster results in CPU and system performance tuning.
8.core L2
0.5MB/core
0.25MB/core
More data can be stored in the L2 scratchpad for access by each processor core.
9.core L3
2.67MB/core
1.5MB/core
More data can be stored in L3 scratchpad memory to access each processor core.
Memory
1.RAM speed
2933MHz
2666MHz
Can support faster memory which speeds up system performance.
2.max memory bandwidth
43.71GB/s
41.6GB/s
This is the maximum rate at which data can be read from or stored in memory.
3.DDR version
DDR (Dynamic Random Access Memory, Double Data Rate) is the most common type of RAM. New versions of DDR memory support higher maximum speeds and are more energy efficient.
4 memory channels
More memory channels increase the speed of data transfer between memory and processor.
5.Maximum memory
Maximum memory (RAM).
6.bus baud rate
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Ryzen 5 2600X)
The bus is responsible for transferring data between various components of a computer or device.
7.Supports memory troubleshooting code
✖AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
✖Intel Core i5-8400T
The memory error recovery code can detect and repair data corruption. It is used when necessary to avoid distortion, such as in scientific computing or when starting a server.
8.eMMC version
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Ryzen 5 2600X)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i5-8400T)
The newer version of eMMC — built-in flash memory card — speeds up the memory interface, has a positive effect on device performance, for example, when transferring files from a computer to internal memory via USB.
9.bus frequency
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Ryzen 5 2600X)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i5-8400T)
The bus is responsible for transferring data between various components of a computer or device
Geotagging
1. PassMark result
This test measures processor performance using multi-threading.
2. PassMark result (single)
This test measures processor performance using a thread of execution.
3.Geekbench 5 result (multi-core)
Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform benchmark that measures the performance of a multi-core processor. (Source: Primate Labs,2022)
4. Cinebench R20 result (multi-core)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i5-8400T)
Cinebench R20 is a test that measures the performance of a multi-core processor by rendering a 3D scene.
5.Cinebench R20 result (single core)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i5-8400T)
Cinebench R20 is a test to evaluate the performance of a single core processor when rendering a 3D scene.
6.Geekbench 5 result (single core)
Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform test that measures the single core performance of a processor. (Source: Primate Labs, 2022)
7. Blender test result (bmw27)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Ryzen 5 2600X)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i5-8400T)
The Blender benchmark (bmw27) measures CPU performance by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render a scene in a shorter time.
8.Blender result (classroom)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Ryzen 5 2600X)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i5-8400T)
The Blender (classroom) benchmark measures CPU performance by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render a scene in a shorter time.
9.performance per watt
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Ryzen 5 2600X)
This means the processor is more efficient, giving more performance per watt of power used.
Functions
1.uses multithreading
✔AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
✔Intel Core i5-8400T
processor cores into logical cores, also known as threads. Thus, each core can run two instruction streams at the same time.
2. Has AES
✔AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
✔Intel Core i5-8400T
AES is used to speed up encryption and decryption.
3. Has AVX
✔AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
✔Intel Core i5-8400T
AVX is used to help speed up calculations in multimedia, scientific and financial applications, and to improve the performance of the Linux RAID program.
SSE 4th version
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Ryzen 5 2600X)
SSE is used to speed up multimedia tasks such as editing images or adjusting audio volume. Each new version contains new instructions and improvements.
5.Has F16C
✖AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
✔Intel Core i5-8400T
F16C is used to speed up tasks such as image contrast adjustment or volume control.
6 bits transmitted at the same time
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Ryzen 5 2600X)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i5-8400T)
NEON provides faster media processing such as MP3 listening.
7. Has MMX
✔AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
✔Intel Core i5-8400T
MMX is used to speed up tasks such as adjusting image contrast or adjusting volume.
8. Has TrustZone
✖AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
✖Intel Core i5-8400T
The technology is integrated into the processor to ensure device security when using features such as mobile payments and digital rights management (DRM) video streaming.
9.interface width
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Ryzen 5 2600X)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i5-8400T)
The processor can decode more instructions per clock (IPC), which means that the processor performs better
Price comparison
Cancel
Which CPU is better?
Ryzen 5 2600X vs Core i5-8400T
Ryzen 5 2600X vs Core i5-8400T — Th200
Contents
- Introduction
- Features
- Tests
- Key differences
- Conclusion
- Comments
Processor
Processor
Introduction
We compared two processors: AMD Ryzen 5 2600X vs. Intel Core i5-8400T. On this page, you will learn about the key differences between them, as well as which one is the best in terms of features and performance.
The AMD Ryzen 5 2600X is a Ryzen 5 (Zen+ (Pinnacle Ridge)) generation desktop processor released on Apr 19th, 2018. Features 6 cores and 12 threads. Operates at a frequency of 3600 MHz and consumes up to 95 watts.
The Intel Core i5-8400T is a Core i5 (Coffee Lake) generation desktop processor released on Apr 2nd, 2018. It has 6 cores and 6 threads. Operates at a frequency of 1700 MHz and consumes up to 35 watts.
Characteristics
Generation
Ryzen 5 (Zen+ (Pinnacle Ridge))
Core i5 (Coffee Lake)
Date Release
APR 19TH, 2018
APR 2ND, 2018
Heat 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 2 35 W
Frequency
ECC Memory
None
None
PCI-Express
Gen 3, 16 Lanes(CPU only)
Instructions
EVP, AMD-V, AMD64, AVMIC, BMIC6, AVX , FMA3, MMX, Precision Boost 2, SHA, SMAP, SMEP, SMT, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, SSE4A, SSSE3, XFR 2
AES-NI, AVX, AVX2, BMI1, BMI2 , Boost 2. 0, CLMUL, EIST, F16C, FMA3, Intel 64, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4.2, SSSE3, TSX, TXT, VT-d, VT-x, XD bit
Benchmarks
3DMark Physics
3DMark is a benchmarking tool designed and developed by UL to measure the performance of computer hardware. Upon completion, the program gives a score, where a higher value indicates better performance.
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
Intel Core i5-8400T
Blender bmw27
Blender is the most popular 3D content creation software. It has its own test, which is widely used to determine the rendering speed of processors and video cards. We chose the bmw27 scene. The result of the test is the time taken to render the given scene.
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
Intel Core i5-8400T
Geekbench 5 Multi-thread
GeekBench is a cross-platform performance benchmark that runs a series of benchmarks that simulate real-life tasks. There are two versions of the program. This is a multi-threaded version, i.e. all cores are used, making it suitable for evaluating server performance.
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
+60%
Intel Core i5-8400T
Geekbench 5 Single-thread
GeekBench is a cross-platform benchmarking utility that runs a series of benchmarks that simulate real-life tasks. There are two versions of the program. This is a single threaded version. Most applications (MS Word, web browsers, games) rarely use more than one thread at a time, making it suitable for performance evaluation in everyday tasks.
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
+26%
Intel Core i5-8400T
Key differences
Why is AMD Ryzen 5 2600X better than Intel Core i5-8400T?
Newer — 17 days late release
More modern manufacturing process — 12 nm vs. 14 nm
Has 112% higher frequency — 3600 MHz vs. 1700 MHz 3300 MHz
Has 6 more threads — 12 vs 6
Why is Intel Core i5-8400T better than AMD Ryzen 5 2600X?
Consumes 64% less power — 35 W vs. 95 W
Conclusion
The Ryzen 5 2600X delivers 34% better performance, uses up to 172% more energy and has 1900 MHz higher frequency. According to our research, the Ryzen 5 2600X 3990X is more powerful than the Core i5-8400T. While the Ryzen 5 2600X is the winner in this comparison, the Ryzen 5 2600X vs Ryzen Threadripper 3990X comparison is worth paying attention to. The Ryzen Threadripper 3990X is the fastest processor on the desktop market. 9Ol000
Ryzen 5 2600X, Ryzen 5 2600, Core i5-8400 and Core i3-8350K processor benchmarks in games
Contents
- Introduction
- Test results: performance comparison
- Assassin’s Creed Origins
- Crysis 3
- Destiny 2
- Far Cry 5
- Hitman (2016)
- Outlast 2
- Subnautica
- The Evil Within 2
- Total War: Warhammer
- Watch Dogs 2
- Geometric mean results of processors in ten games
- Conclusion
- Test configuration
- Instrumentation and Test Method
Introduction
This review will examine the performance of AMD’s new Pinnacle Ridge family processors — Ryzen 5 2600X and Ryzen 5 2600. Opponents for them are:
- Core i5-8600K;
- Core i5-8400;
- Core i3-8350K;
- Core i7-7700K;
- Core i5-7600K;
- Core i3-7350K;
- Ryzen 7 2700;
- Ryzen 7 1700;
- Ryzen 5 1600X;
- Ryzen 5 1600;
- Ryzen 5 1500X.
Let us remind you that you can get acquainted with the work of test benches, methodology and processing of test results by clicking on this link.
recommendations
Test results: performance comparison
Assassin’s Creed Origins
- Version 1.4.2.
- DirectX 11.
- Viewing angle — 100.
- Dynamic resolution — disabled.
- Smoothing — high.
- The quality of the shadows is the highest.
- The quality of the environment is the highest.
- Texture detail — high.
- Tessellation — very high.
- The quality of the relief is high.
- The density of small objects is very high.
- Fog quality — very high.
- Water quality is very high.
- The quality of full-screen reflections is very high.
- Volume clouds — enabled.
- The quality of the characters is the highest.
- Volumetric illumination — very high.
- Depth of field — enabled.
1920×1080
Rating (HT — on, SMT — on)
Please enable JavaScript to see graphs
Overclocking (HT — off, SMT — on)
Please enable JavaScript to see graphs
Minimum and average FPS
In Assassin’s Creed Origins, both new AMD products proved to be the best. In the nominal mode of operation, they are slightly ahead of their predecessors and were able to compete with such a rival as the Core i7-7700K. After overclocking, they fell slightly behind the Ryzen 7 1700, but showed equal results with the Core i7-7700K, Core i3-8350K and Core i5-7600K processors.
Crysis 3
- Version 1.3.
- DirectX 11.
- Full screen anti-aliasing (MSAA) — 4.
- Anisotropic filtering (AF) — 16.
- Texture resolution — maximum.
- Effects quality — maximum.
- Quality of objects — maximum.
- Particle quality — maximum.
- Post-processing quality — maximum.
- Shading quality — maximum.
- Shadow quality — maximum.
- Water quality — maximum.
- The degree of blurring is high.
- Glare — enabled.
1920×1080
Rating (HT — on, SMT — on)
Please enable JavaScript to see graphs
Overclocking (HT — off, SMT — off)
Please enable JavaScript to see graphs
Minimum and average FPS
In the famous Crysis 3, AMD processors showed perhaps the highest results in all tests. Both new products have seriously competed with such a powerful Intel representative as the Core i5-8600K.
Destiny 2
- Version 1.1.2.
- DirectX 11.
- Field of view — 90.
- Antialiasing — FXAA.
- Complex shading — HDAO.
- Anisotropic texture filtering — x16.
- Texture quality — ultra high.
- Shadow quality is high.
- Depth of field quality is high.
- Environment detail range — high.
- The character detail range is high.
- Foliage detail range — high.
- Foliage shadow display range — ultra high.
- The quality of the light rays is high.
- Motion blur — enabled.
- Gusts of wind — included.
- Display resolution — 100%.
- Chromatic aberration — enabled.
- Film grain effect — enabled.
1920×1080
Rating (HT — on, SMT — on)
Please enable JavaScript to see graphs
Overclocking (HT — off, SMT — off)
Please enable JavaScript to see graphs
Minimum and average FPS
The Ryzen 5 2600X and Ryzen 5 2600 processors sit in the middle of the standings in the fantasy shooter Destiny 2. The undoubted achievement for them was that they were able to compete with the «people’s» representative of Intel — Core i5-8400.
Far Cry 5
- Version 1.4.0.
- DirectX 11.
- Texture filtering quality — maximum.
- Shadow quality — maximum.
- The quality of the geometry of the world and vegetation is the maximum.
- The quality of the environment is maximum.
- Water quality is high.
- Landscape quality is high.
- The quality of the volumetric fog is high.
- Antialiasing — SMAA.
- Motion blur — enabled.
- Field of view scale — 90.
- Resolution scale — 1.0.
1920×1080
Rating (HT — on, SMT — on)
Please enable JavaScript to see graphs
Overclocking (HT — off, SMT — off)
Please enable JavaScript to see graphs
Minimum and average FPS
In Far Cry 5, AMD processors were generally slower than Intel products. As a result, the novelties competed only with the junior representative of the competing line — Core i3-7350K.
Hitman (2016)
- Version 1.13.2.
- DirectX 11.
- Anti-Aliasing Post-Effect — FXAA.
- Anisotropic filtering — x16.
- The level of detail is ultra high.
- Texture quality is high.
- Complex shading (SSAO) — enabled.
- The quality of the shadows is ultra high.
- Resolution quality — high.
1920×1080
Rating (HT — on, SMT — on)
Please enable JavaScript to see graphs
Overclocking (HT — on, SMT — off)
Please enable JavaScript to see graphs
Minimum and average FPS
In the game Hitman (2016), AMD representatives again achieved an impressive result, beating their rivals. As a result, the Ryzen 5 2600X and Ryzen 5 2600 put an equal fight on the Core i5-8600K.
Outlast 2
- Version 1.0.17518.0.
- DirectX 11.
- Texture quality is very high.
- Texture filtering — 16x.
- Shadow quality is high.
- The quality of the relief is high.
- Fog quality — high.
- The quality of the effects is high.
- Antialiasing — FXAA.
1920×1080
Rating (HT — on, SMT — on)
Please enable JavaScript to see graphs
Overclocking (HT — off, SMT — off)
Please enable JavaScript to see graphs
Minimum and average FPS
In the horror movie Outlast 2, a situation similar to the alignment of forces in the game Far Cry 5 has developed.
Continuation of material
Subscribe to our channel in Yandex.Zen or telegram channel @overclockers_news — these are convenient ways to follow new materials on the site. With pictures, extended descriptions and no ads.
Testing Ryzen 5 1600/2600/2600X and Ryzen 7 2700/2700X vs New AMD and Intel
Test 2600 to
Testing the new processors of the Ryzen 3 line in May, we mentioned that the expansion of new generation processors began a year ago actually outside the mainstream segment — the youngest was Ryzen 5 3600 with a recommended price of $ 199, i.e. on the verge of familiar framework. And in many respects this was done in order not to interfere with the sale of stocks of processors of previous generations. And the Ryzen 5 2600 continued to ship at all until the end of 2019 — and was in considerable demand. As well as its cheaper «colleagues», the good idea to purchase as many as eight (albeit old) cores for the price of only six (albeit new ones) found many adherents. The six-core «old» models were out of competition.
They are still on sale. Are they worth attention? The question is subjective. We can also test these models according to the current testing methodology — and compare with the new products not only from AMD, but also from Intel. You never know — suddenly the old horse not only does not spoil the furrow, but also plows deep.
Testers
Summit Ridge | Pinnacle Ridge | Pinnacle Ridge | Pinnacle Ridge | Pinnacle Ridge |
14 nm | 12 nm | 12 nm | 12 nm | 12 nm |
3.2/3.6 | 3.4/3.9 | 3.6/4.2 | 3.2/4.1 | 3.7/4.3 |
6/12 | 6/12 | 6/12 | 8/16 | 8/16 |
384/192 | 384/192 | 384/192 | 512/256 | 512/256 |
6×512 | 6×512 | 6×512 | 8×512 | 8×512 |
16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 |
2×DDR4-2666 | 2×DDR4-2933 | 2×DDR4-2933 | 2×DDR4-2933 | 2×DDR4-2933 |
65 | 65 | 95 | 65 | 105 |
20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
No | No | No | No | No |
The main characters are the four 2000 series, to which we have added the slowest six-core first generation. In combination, it is the slowest Ryzen 5 with six cores at all — while the 2600X is the fastest until last year. And the two Ryzen 7s don’t need any special introduction either.
Matisse | Matisse | Matisse | Matisse |
7/12 nm | 7/12 nm | 7/12 nm | 7/12 nm |
3.6/3.9 | 3.6/4.1 | 3.6/4.2 | 3.9/4.5 |
4/8 | 6/6 | 6/12 | 8/16 |
128/128 | 192/192 | 192/192 | 256/256 |
4×512 | 6×512 | 6×512 | 8×512 |
16 | 16 | 32 | 32 |
2×DDR4-3200 | 2×DDR4-3200 | 2×DDR4-3200 | 2×DDR4-3200 |
65 | 65 | 65 | 105 |
20 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
No | No | No | No |
The main «opponents» of this five will be the four of their successors. We need the Ryzen 7 3800X to evaluate the «clean» progress — eight versus eight. Moreover, during this time a change appeared for him, but we did not test the 3800XT on the board with the X470 chipset (for a similar reason, the popular Ryzen 7 3700X also “disappears”), but all the rest — yes. So a perfect equal comparison.
As for the rest of the trio, these are the junior models in their lines. Ryzen 3 3100 and Ryzen 5 3500 do not have the lowest cost among the new products, as they are able to utilize any marriage. And the Ryzen 5 3600 is the current bestseller, able to compete on equal terms with the entire Ryzen 2000 family. What we already know — but it’s worth checking the situation after the software update.
Comet Lake | Comet Lake | Comet Lake |
14 nm | 14 nm | 14 nm |
2. 9/4.3 | 4.1/4.8 | 3.8/5.1 |
6/12 | 6/12 | 8/16 |
192/192 | 192/192 | 256/256 |
6×256 | 6×256 | 8×256 |
12 | 12 | 16 |
2×DDR4-2666 | 2×DDR4-2933 | 2×DDR4-2933 |
65 | 125 | 125 |
16 | 16 | 16 |
UHD Graphics 630 | UHD Graphics 630 | UHD Graphics 630 |
The three modern Intel models do not match AMD’s solutions too much in terms of prices, but there are six and eight cores — approximately corresponding to the same Ryzen 5 3600 and Ryzen 7 3800X in terms of performance. And also the new-old Core i5-10400: the youngest in the line for the LGA1200 and using only the old six-core crystals, similar to Coffee Lake in 2017. The main thing from a consumer point of view, however, is not this — but prices: 10400 and its brother with a blocked GPU 10400F are actually the cheapest six-core processors for the new platform. Recommended prices are generally in the region of $150-$180, real retail prices are currently noticeably higher — but much lower than those of the 10600K and are already comparable to the Ryzen 5 3600 and Ryzen 7 2700X. As the process ends, the «cream skimming» should drop closer to the recommended ones, but we can prepare for this now.
Coffee Lake | Coffee Lake Refresh | Coffee Lake Refresh |
14 nm | 14 nm | 14 nm |
3.0/4.1 | 3.7/4.6 | 3.6/4.9 |
6/6 | 6/6 | 8/8 |
192/192 | 192/192 | 256/256 |
6×256 | 6×256 | 8×256 |
9 | 9 | 12 |
2×DDR4-2666 | 2×DDR4-2666 | 2×DDR4-2666 |
65 | 95 | 95 |
16 | 16 | 16 |
UHD Graphics 630 | UHD Graphics 630 | UHD Graphics 630 |
But most of the time, the first and second Ryzen had to compete with the processors for the LGA1151 «second version», so let’s add such a trio. Let’s take the Core i5-8500 as the lower limit — it’s a little slower than the 9400, but it appeared back in the days of the Ryzen 5 1600. In general, it’s also useful.
Testing methodology
Testing methodology is described in detail in a separate article, and the results of all tests are available in a separate table in Microsoft Excel format. Directly in the articles, we use the processed results: normalized with respect to the reference system (Intel Core i5-9600K with 16 GB of memory, AMD Radeon Vega 56 video card and SATA SSD — this article is also directly involved in today’s article) and grouped by areas of application of the computer. Accordingly, all diagrams related to applications have dimensionless scores — so more is always better. And starting from this year, we are finally transferring game tests to an optional status (the reasons for which are discussed in detail in the description of the test methodology), so that only specialized materials will be available for them. In the main lineup there are only a couple of «processor-dependent» games in low resolution and medium quality — synthetic, of course, but conditions close to reality for testing processors are not suitable, since nothing depends on them in such conditions.
IXBT Application Benchmark 2020
A group of applications with good multithreading utilization — but, nevertheless, Ryzen 5 1600 (6C / 12T) turned out to be almost equal not only to Core i5-8500 (6C / 6T), but also to Ryzen 3 3100 (4C/8T) and the 2600 is a bit behind the 3500! What has been said more than once — in the overall result, not only the quantity, but also the quality of the cores plays. In the case of Ryzen, it is the last parameter that primarily distinguishes the 3000 family from the previous ones. In turn, the «previous» practically do not differ — within the limits of quantitative differences. Well, then — everything is simple: the once top-end Ryzen 7 2700X in terms of performance corresponds only to the Ryzen 5 3600 — or Core i5-10600K. The competition with Intel, however, is normal — after all, here AMD has always been ahead of the curve, so the same 1600 for the first time «butted» with the Core i5 for the «first version» LGA1151 — just quad-core without Hyper-Threading. Now everything seems to be worse — so the old processors have fallen in price considerably, and the new Intel solutions are still sold at inflated (even compared to the recommended) prices. But the progress in the «own» family is indicative — to compete with the «new» processors, the «old» ones need an extra pair of cores. Otherwise, nothing will work. It is clear that this is not a reason to change the Ryzen 7 of the old series to the new Ryzen 5 — but if it’s too tight, then you can already ask the price of the new Ryzen 7. Or even Ryzen 9without changing the motherboard.
What’s funny, in this group of applications, the «oldies» look more cheerful. So far, in any case, and nothing fundamentally changes: just the top Ryzen 7 somehow managed to break away from the new Core i5 and Ryzen 5, and the slowest of the modern processors we took could not keep up with the Ryzen 5 1600. But it’s clear why — here the physical cores are more weighty than in the previous group. And «quality» is more difficult to kill quantity. Although, we won’t be surprised if this happens over time — it’s enough to improve the optimization for new processors and instructions like AVX2. In the meantime, these programs are more conservative — «very old», but multi-core server processors are also actively used for 3D rendering, so programmers have no incentive to lean too heavily on new technologies.
Back to square one, first. Secondly, in these programs, optimization for the new Ryzen still leaves much to be desired. But again, only the older Ryzen 7 2700X can show something worthwhile — it is at least faster than the Ryzen 5 3600 and Core i5-10400. At what cost this is achieved — we will see in the next part. As for slower models. it is easy to see that the number of cores is not so important here — as their quality. And intensive, and even extensive — such as clock frequencies.
The case when single-threaded performance generally “steers”. And the revolution that happened a year ago is clearly visible — the first Ryzen always acted as whipping boys for Core (even having a head start in the number of cores / computation threads), and the 3000 family took the lead. The roles have changed radically. Moreover, which is also important, you do not need an overly expensive processor to work with photos. But Ryzen of the first two lines is not needed almost regardless of price.
Simple integer code that spreads nicely across independent threads. And once again it is clear that even in such cases, the quality of the nuclei is no less important than their number. The new six from AMD and Intel turn out to be no worse than the eight — «old» AMD or «cut down» (by truncating Hyper-Threading) Intel.
Another similar case, but with its own nuances. Many copies have been broken on the topic that the chiplet design of the new AMD processors is harmful in tasks of this kind, since the memory controller becomes external to the cores — however, this is true only when compared with Core. And even then — at the time of release it did not interfere, because there were enough stocks of other dope to compete with the «ninth» generation. And most importantly, the old Ryzen are even worse in this regard. Therefore, we again see how the budget 3100 directly fights the six-core Ryzen 5, and the “full-fledged” 3600 smashes the entire old line to smithereens and halves.
Again, the situation when optimization for new microarchitectures leaves (so far) much to be desired, and physical cores are very weighty. But once again, this allows old solutions to look good only considering the prices. They have fulfilled their task of «holding out» until the 3000th family — and they can leave.
The general verdict is natural — the old eight-cores are at best equivalent to the new six-cores. So even at the same price, they look like a dubious choice — as software optimization improves, their situation will only get worse. But the six-core Ryzen 5 is interesting to some extent — they are cheap and cover a hole in the wallpaper. more precisely, the gap between Ryzen 5 3600 and the new Ryzen 3. What is important enough — since, as we can see, Intel targeted this weak spot: the Core i5-10400 (and especially the 10400F without a video core) fill it perfectly both in price and performance. The Ryzen 5 3500/3500X held back the old Core i5s well, but they can’t match the new ones. Therefore, the company will have to solve this problem. Which is technically easy — you just need to slightly drop the prices for the same Ryzen 5 3600. Fortunately, this process has begun slowly: the 3600X has been replaced by 3600XT, which means that the 3600X can drop to $ 200, and the usual 3600 — and lower. After that, everyone will be able to completely forget about the old processors, except for those who already have them.
Power Consumption and Energy Efficiency
We have seen above how the 2700X was far ahead of its “no suffix” counterpart – and now it becomes clear why. Indeed, AMD tried so hard to add speed to the top processor in the line that they even had to increase the TDP a little from 95 to 105 watts. As a result, of the test participants, it corresponds only to the Core i7-10700K — much faster. And the Ryzen 7 3700X/3800X/3800XT is both faster and more economical — the new process technology allows the company to achieve this at the same time. Intel is faced with a choice — you can make a fast processor, economical — too (which the i5-10400 perfectly shows), but you have to choose. In general, it is clearly seen that the power consumption of the processors of both companies is increasing with each round of competition. But this is not news — and earlier in history it has always been like this: as soon as the struggle begins, productivity immediately increases — and power consumption too.
But if the process goes “right”, then productivity increases faster – so energy efficiency also increases. At the current stage, AMD’s success in this regard is more impressive. Although, to be honest, the Core i5-10400 surprised us a bit. Considering that this is actually still a clean Coffee Lake sample of 2017, the question arises — was it impossible right away like this? ?
As already mentioned in the description of the methodology, it makes no sense to keep the «classic approach» to testing gaming performance — since video cards have long been determining not only it, but also significantly affect the cost of the system, you need to «dance» exclusively from them. And from the games themselves — too: in modern conditions, fixing a game set for a long time does not make sense, since literally everything can change with the next update. But we will carry out a brief test in (albeit) relatively synthetic conditions — using a couple of games in the «processor-dependent» mode.
Nothing new though. You can continue to argue about whether Ryzen is “pulled” in games against Core or not — but this only applies to “third” Ryzen and “eighth-tenth” Core. Zen and Zen + … Everything is clear: even the modest Ryzen 3 3100 is the fastest. Even in Formula One, greedy for computational flows, where the new four cores are inferior to the new six or eight, the old ones cannot take the same amount here.
Of course, this does not mean that Ryzen first and second generations are unsuitable for games — in fact, in real conditions, everything always rests on the video card. It’s just that if you seriously focus on gaming applications, assembling an inexpensive computer, then it’s better that way. And so that there are no compromises — reach out to 3600. It’s not worth hoping that six or eight cores of the previous generation will be «stretched» in quantity.
Total
In general, the Moor has done his job — the Moor can leave. The first generation of Ryzen revived AMD — not without bumps, but competition has returned to the market not only in the budget segment. The second turned out to be transitional — gaining time to fine-tune Zen2. And after devices based on the new microarchitecture began to be delivered to the market in mass quantities, it became possible to release the “oldies” into retirement. Especially after the release of the new Ryzen 3 this year, which shook up the budget segment perfectly. True, the «gap» between the lines is too large — and the «semi-legal» Ryzen 5 3500/3500X no longer rectify the situation, so you just need to lower prices. Moreover, we repeat, Intel also found the weaknesses of a competitor — launching several processors of the Core i3 and i5 lines into this gap at once. The younger Core i5, which debuted today in our tests, is also certainly good. Especially when paired with an inexpensive board — the benefit of overclocking it will not work even if desired. But, we repeat, technically now the fight on equal terms is impossible — after all, AMD already has a new technical process, and Intel continues to “squeeze” the last juices out of 14 nm for more than five years. These juices turned out to be much more than expected, but it would be time to show something new.
Testing methodology
Testing methodology is described in detail in a separate article, and the results of all tests are available in a separate table in Microsoft Excel format. Directly in the articles, we use the processed results: normalized with respect to the reference system (Intel Core i5-9600K with 16 GB of memory, AMD Radeon Vega 56 video card and SATA SSD — this article is also directly involved in today’s article) and grouped by areas of application of the computer. Accordingly, all diagrams related to applications have dimensionless scores — so more is always better. And starting from this year, we are finally transferring game tests to an optional status (the reasons for which are discussed in detail in the description of the test methodology), so that only specialized materials will be available for them. In the main lineup there are only a couple of «processor-dependent» games in low resolution and medium quality — synthetic, of course, but conditions close to reality for testing processors are not suitable, since nothing depends on them in such conditions.
A group of applications with good multithreading utilization — but, nevertheless, Ryzen 5 1600 (6C / 12T) turned out to be almost equal not only to Core i5-8500 (6C / 6T), but also to Ryzen 3 3100 (4C / 8T) , and the 2600 is a little behind the 3500! What has been said more than once — in the overall result, not only the quantity, but also the quality of the cores plays. In the case of Ryzen, it is the last parameter that primarily distinguishes the 3000 family from the previous ones. In turn, the «previous» practically do not differ — within the limits of quantitative differences. Well, then — everything is simple: the once top-end Ryzen 7 2700X in terms of performance corresponds only to the Ryzen 5 3600 — or Core i5-10600K. The competition with Intel, however, is normal — after all, here AMD has always been ahead of the curve, so the same 1600 for the first time «butted» with the Core i5 for the «first version» LGA1151 — just quad-core without Hyper-Threading. Now everything seems to be worse — so the old processors have fallen in price considerably, and the new Intel solutions are still sold at inflated (even compared to the recommended) prices. But the progress in the «own» family is indicative — to compete with the «new» processors, the «old» ones need an extra pair of cores. Otherwise, nothing will work. It is clear that this is not a reason to change the Ryzen 7 of the old series to the new Ryzen 5 — but if it’s too tight, then you can already ask the price of the new Ryzen 7. Or even Ryzen 9without changing the motherboard.
What’s funny, in this group of applications, the «oldies» look more cheerful. So far, in any case, and nothing fundamentally changes: just the top Ryzen 7 somehow managed to break away from the new Core i5 and Ryzen 5, and the slowest of the modern processors we took could not keep up with the Ryzen 5 1600. But it’s clear why — here the physical cores are more weighty than in the previous group. And «quality» is more difficult to kill quantity. Although, we won’t be surprised if this happens over time — it’s enough to improve the optimization for new processors and instructions like AVX2. In the meantime, these programs are more conservative — «very old», but multi-core server processors are also actively used for 3D rendering, so programmers have no incentive to lean too heavily on new technologies.
Back to square one, first. Secondly, in these programs, optimization for the new Ryzen still leaves much to be desired. But again, only the older Ryzen 7 2700X can show something worthwhile — it is at least faster than the Ryzen 5 3600 and Core i5-10400. At what cost this is achieved — we will see in the next part. As for slower models. it is easy to see that the number of cores is not so important here — as their quality. And intensive, and even extensive — such as clock frequencies.
The case when single-threaded performance generally “steers”. And the revolution that happened a year ago is clearly visible — the first Ryzen always acted as whipping boys for Core (even having a head start in the number of cores / computation threads), and the 3000 family took the lead. The roles have changed radically. Moreover, which is also important, you do not need an overly expensive processor to work with photos. But Ryzen of the first two lines is not needed almost regardless of price.
Simple integer code that spreads nicely across independent threads. And once again it is clear that even in such cases, the quality of the nuclei is no less important than their number. The new six from AMD and Intel turn out to be no worse than the eight — «old» AMD or «cut down» (by truncating Hyper-Threading) Intel.
Another similar case, but with its own nuances. Many copies have been broken on the topic that the chiplet design of the new AMD processors is harmful in tasks of this kind, since the memory controller becomes external to the cores — however, this is true only when compared with Core. And even then — at the time of release it did not interfere, because there were enough stocks of other dope to compete with the «ninth» generation. And most importantly, the old Ryzen are even worse in this regard. Therefore, we again see how the budget 3100 directly fights the six-core Ryzen 5, and the “full-fledged” 3600 smashes the entire old line to smithereens and halves.
Again, the situation when optimization for new microarchitectures leaves (so far) much to be desired, and physical cores are very weighty. But once again, this allows old solutions to look good only considering the prices. They have fulfilled their task of «holding out» until the 3000th family — and they can leave.
The general verdict is natural — the old eight-cores are at best equivalent to the new six-cores. So even at the same price, they look like a dubious choice — as software optimization improves, their situation will only get worse. But the six-core Ryzen 5 is interesting to some extent — they are cheap and cover a hole in the wallpaper. more precisely, the gap between Ryzen 5 3600 and the new Ryzen 3. What is important enough — since, as we can see, Intel targeted this weak spot: the Core i5-10400 (and especially the 10400F without a video core) fill it perfectly both in price and performance. The Ryzen 5 3500/3500X held back the old Core i5s well, but they can’t match the new ones. Therefore, the company will have to solve this problem. Which is technically easy — you just need to slightly drop the prices for the same Ryzen 5 3600. Fortunately, this process has begun slowly: the 3600X has been replaced by 3600XT, which means that the 3600X can drop to $ 200, and the usual 3600 — and lower. After that, everyone will be able to completely forget about the old processors, except for those who already have them.
IXBT Application Benchmark 2020
The second turned out to be transitional, gaining time to fine-tune Zen2.
www. ixbt. com
05/07/2019 18:50:32
2019-05-07 18:50:32
Sources:
Https://www. ixbt. com/platform/amd-ryzen-5-1600-2600-2600x-ryzen-7-2700-2700x-intel-core-i5-10400-test. html
AMD Ryzen 5 1600, Ryzen 5 2600, Ryzen 5 3600 and Ryzen 5 5600X benchmark — i2HARD » /> » /> .keyword { color: red; }
Test 2600 k
It’s time to follow the progress of the most popular and balanced Ryzen 600 series processors. Today, let’s look at how they behave in the stock state, in overclocking, and even indulge in a comparison at equal frequencies.
As many as 4 generations fit in one socket, and that’s not counting the APU!
- Graphics Card #1: INNO3D GeForce RTX 3080 ICHILL X3 Processor #1: AMD Ryzen 7 1700 Processor #2: AMD Ryzen 5 2600 Processor #3: AMD Ryzen 5 3600 Processor #4: AMD Ryzen 5 5600X Motherboard #1 : MSI B450-A PRO Motherboard #2: ASRock B550 Taichi Razer Edition RAM #1: Crucial Ballistix 2×8 (BLS8G4D30AESCK) RAM #2: G. Skill TRIDENT Z RGB [F4-3600C16D-16GTZR] 2×8 GB Cooling System: Gamer Storm CASTLE 360RGB v2 Storage: SATA Samsung 860 EVO 500 GB x2 Case: Open Stand Power Supply: DEEPCOOL DQ850-M-V2L
Unfortunately, most motherboards with the 300th series of chipsets did not receive support for the 5000 series, which is why not everyone got the opportunity to upgrade. More precisely, not only everyone, few people can do it.
And since we are talking about motherboards, we will start our acquaintance with the test bench with them. ASRock B550 Taichi Razer Edition, although it has all the necessary features to configure any Ryzen processor, was deprived of support — the first two generations were not familiar to her, so the MSI B450-A PRO MAX was useful for them. Now about processors.
Having mentioned the comparison of all the 600 line ryzens, we did not leave the opportunity to surprise you with the list of contestants, however, it is worth clarifying a couple of points.
Ryzen 1600 was imitated from the 1700th by disabling a pair of cores, since this has no negative consequences, since the volume of their caches is the same, and the boost per one core worked very badly for the first ryzens, its absence due to with simulation will not affect the result.
That is, in all cases, we will have the usual versions of the processors. 1600 AE, not AF, 2600 also without huge potential, like 3600, which, alas, does not take the cherished 4.5 GHz.
We will start from the stock, and for processors of the zen and zen+ microarchitecture, the XMP frequency of 3600 MHz of our RAM modules on SAMSUNG B-die chips is too high, so we will also postpone them until overclocking, and use the XMP of ordinary ballistics that do not need in the view. All processors will be cooled by CBO Gamer Storm Castle 360RGB v2, RTX 3080 INNO3D ICHILL X3 was used as a graphics accelerator. The whole thing will be powered by a DeepCool DQ850-M-V2L power supply.
Progress with each new generation is not as simple as intel. The Ryzens did not add cores or hyper-threading while maintaining the same microarchitecture. No. Let’s make a small table for convenience.
Wiping a mean tear, we turn to synthetics.
In the R23 bluebench, the Ryzen 5 3600 made the largest performance jump in a generation. It outperformed the 2600 by 25% in single thread and by 33% in multithread. 2600, in turn, showed the least progress.
Geekbench has narrowed the gap between processors a lot. If in the bluebench the 1600 and 5600X differed by more than 70%, now this number has decreased by more than 3 times for the multithreaded test.
CPU-Z falls somewhere in between in terms of sensitivity to changes in core performance.
At the same time, in the koro benchmark blender test, the jump in Zen 2 performance is amazing. The ryzen 3600 finished rendering the scene 72% faster than the 2600. And this is with the same number of cores and threads!
As for the memory test and caches of Aida, there were ups and downs. For example, 1600 and 2600 practically do not differ either in cache speed or in memory speed, however, delays on all fronts are much lower in 2600. At 3600, the memory latency increased again, but the speed of the first level cache, and the rest, too. There were also features with the speed of writing to memory, which passed to the 5600X. On the other hand, the latency has fallen again, but this indicator from Aida is clearly overestimated and has only a relative dependence with real performance.
Let’s move on to games. war zone. eSports settings, recording was done with a capture card by a third-party computer. As mentioned, you should not rely on the indicators of Aida, because reducing the memory latency by 10 ns should have given a much larger increase in the 2600th, if you subtract the part that the high frequency gave from the 6% advantage, almost nothing remains. The 5600X made a huge jump in performance, beating the 3600 by 33% while being a quarter faster than the 2600. In all cases, we get decent and stable FPS. But for monitors with a high refresh rate, the left processors in the drain will still not be enough.
Cyberpunk, ray tracing ultra preset, DLSS — ultra performance, max crowd density. And at these settings, the processors on the left side of the screen have difficulty and are barely distinguishable in essence. The 3600 gives a different experience, almost pulling out 60 frames, but given that even the 5600X dropped to 57 fps at some points, the crowd density should be reduced. As for the performance gap between the processors, after the warzone it decreased, especially for the 5600X. It’s now as fast as the 3600 as it outperforms the 2600. 24% on average FPS
Next Lara. The preset is the highest. 600r, measurement was made only in the third scene. Here again, the 5600X shows a significant lead over the 3600 around 35%, but this was due to the beginning of the scene, at the moment the gap has narrowed to about 25%. 1600 and 2600 differ by a couple of FPS, but here you can pay attention to temperatures. Although energy consumption sensors raise questions, temperatures will not let you lie. 7 nm did their job, greatly complicating heat removal due to the small size of the crystal. That is, even under the water cooling system, the 3600 and 5600 are more than 10 degrees hotter.
Watch Dogs Legion, ultra preset, performance dlss. We get FPS like in cyberpunk. Only here the beams were not turned on, and the density of the crowd cannot be reduced. For comfortable gameplay on the first two processors, you need either overclocking or a strong decrease in settings, and it’s not a fact that even at the minimum settings there will always be stable 60 frames. In this game, the 3600 showed the biggest jump in performance, beating the 2600 by 29% in average FPS. 5600X is now only 19 ahead%, which is still a great increase in just one generation, which cannot be said about its increased cost.
Starcraft 2, all settings to maximum. When the game is only using 2 cores, the question of their performance becomes more relevant than ever, and the 2600 finally shows a good 14% lead over the 1600 in average frames. The 3600 outperformed it by 31%, while the 5600X leads by a whopping 42% ahead of second place, making the 5600X more than double the 1600 in the end.
Total War Troy, graphics preset ultra, unit size and grass detail — extreme, resolution modifier — 50%. And now the results are exactly the opposite. That is, in Troy, the difference between processors is minimal. 1600 and 2600 differ by 3% in average fps, 5600X and 3600 by 18%, and only 3600 retained its usual 25% advantage over 2600. But in one of the indicators it is right in the lead. core temperature. By as much as 20 C, it is hotter than the opponents on the left, and even the 5600X nervously smokes on the sidelines. Fortunately, his tensions are in much calmer limits.
CS:GO. Settings to minimum, anti-aliasing to maximum. As in StarCraft, the 5600X again took off with might and main, surpassing its father by almost 40% and its great-grandfather by 120%. 2600 this time went 20% ahead of 1600, hinting at the usefulness of the additional payment for oneself. In previous tests, these processors were so similar that at one time an additional fee of a thousand or two did not seem justified.
On average in the ward, we have fairly even results in the sense that as the average FPS grew, the smaller 1 and 0.1% grew approximately the same. And thanks to low-flow starcraft with counter 2600, on average, it is 8% faster than 1600, without them 4-5% would have come out.
Overclocking tests
Now overclocking. We replace ballistics with bidai, and here everything is according to the usual scheme. 5600X overclocked via Curve Optimizer with removal of all limits along the way, memory is also according to the standard for 3800 MHz bi-dais with the first timing of 14.3866 MHz and higher are unstable, they have already been checked on 4 boards, system errors pop up everywhere.
The ryzen 3600 cores are fixed at 4375 MHz, and the memory is configured exactly the same as on the 5600X.
Our 2600 stars from the sky are not enough. 4100 MHz came out by cores, and the best memory setting option is 3333 MHz with the first timing of 12. CL13 is not set, since our modules are unstable with Gear Down Mode disabled, and 3533 MHz CL14 is obviously worse. 3600 MHz and above are not stable on this motherboard.
For 1600, the memory overclocking is the same, but the cores were taken 200 MHz lower at the same voltage. That is, in general, there is an increase in the potential for overclocking memory and cores. Somehow I even forgot how problematic the memory setup was on the first two generations.
Globally, nothing has changed in Hades, the ratios of delays, speeds, and the like have remained within the same limits. Except that the L3 speed of the 5600X has grown a lot, which raises questions rather to hell. Well, again we see a much lower latency in 2600 compared to 1600, but from the games we already realized that we need to be careful about this indicator.
Ryzen 1600 has narrowed the gap in bluebench. It is not surprising — he increased his frequency the most with overclocking.
Geekbench and CPU-Z are similar, as well as in the blender subtest — koro. The gap has only slightly narrowed. With each new generation, progress is being made in squeezing all the juice out of the processor. Even the ghostly 3300X out of the box had almost maximum frequencies, and now we are comparing overclocking options for 5000th ryzens, although we ourselves understand that we are only squeezing out an additional 200 MHz for show. The main performance boost comes with memory tuning, increasing the frequency of infinity factories and removing limits from the processor.
We return to the warzone and see an excellent FPS. And so, it would seem that the 5600X has no core overclocking at all, and a large cache should have reduced the gain from memory overclocking, but the difference with the gain for other processors is not so great. Compared to stock, 5600X accelerated by 22%, and 1600 by 24%, but this is a warzone where the error is quite high, we will continue to monitor.
In cyberpunk, overclocking gave much more. And the increase is almost equal. The average FPS has increased by a third in all cases, making the gameplay much more enjoyable. 1600 in stock and overclocked are completely different processors. In fact, on it we got the same fps that the 3600 had in stock. The overclocked 3600 is a little faster than the stock 5600X, which means that with a little effort, you can get a more expensive processor. Well, you already know this, initially this was the meaning of domestic overclocking.
Differences have appeared in the chest. 2600 increased all indicators again by a third, but other processors are lagging behind. In 1600 and 3600, the increase from overclocking varies in the region of 27-28%, while in 5600X it is the least — 25%. But even so, the differences in sensations between the processors have not changed. Between 1600 and 2600, although the difference has grown, it is still incredibly difficult to distinguish them without monitoring, and 3600 and 5600X are still far ahead.
In dogs the situation is similar. 2600 began to prepare a third more frames per second, and for the rest of the ryzens this figure increased by a little more than a quarter, but even so, the gameplay on the 1600th, like in cyberpunk, became much more comfortable.
But in StarCraft, the balance of power has leveled off a bit. 1600 received the largest increase among all participants. Its FPS increased by 27% compared to stock, in 2600 — by 24%, 3600 — only by 20%, and 5600X accelerated by only 15%. That is, the voluminous integral 32-megabyte L3 cache could just have an effect here, and the frequency of its cores has grown nothing at all.
In Troy, the results are similar to Lares and dogs. 2600 increased its fps by 30%, and the rest by a quarter. Temperatures have also risen markedly. Previously, in 1600 and 2600 they were in the region of 40C, and now they are about 60. This is far from the limit, which allows you to easily use ordinary four-pipe towers for cooling, as long as the case is ventilated. 3600 and 5600X are 10C hotter, and something simpler than the aforementioned coolers will not be enough for them, or you will have to change overclocking to a less aggressive one.
The most interesting event happened in the counter. The 5600X did not benefit from memory overclocking. His fps increased a little thanks to the whore settings, but no more. That is, we can assume that the misses in its large cache have come to naught. However, judging by the fact that in multi-threaded games overclocking gave about the same numbers as 1600 ryzen, the amount of cache for modern massive games is so small for modern massive games that misses happen all the time. Here, as in Starcraft, 1600 received an increase from overclocking as 2600 and 3600 combined — 25%. Their FPS increased by 12 and 13% respectively, which again reduced the difference between 1600 and 2600 to a minimum.
We go back to the ward with average values and see that nothing has changed much. Yes, now the 5600X is on average not 79% faster, but 69% faster, but this is still a huge difference, and the first two generations still differ by less than 10%, except that now their gap has become more even from game to game, and in overclocking it is almost impossible to distinguish them even in Starcraft and Counter.
Tests with emphasis on the GPU
These were tests without emphasis on the video card. In such conditions, the 3600 and 5600X are head and shoulders above their ancestors, however, in many story single games, the emphasis is on the video card, whatever it is. And adjusting the FPS to the value of “at least 60”, only the resolution and preset settings change. What are the differences in this case?
After all, starting from the 3000 series, resizable bar and PCI Express 4 versions became available. Let’s quickly run through three games, leaving the RTX 3080 in the booth and the processors overclocked.
In cyberpunk, we change the resolution to 4k, the settings preset to the penultimate one and the dlss to performance. We will also change the scene to the night one, it has higher requirements for the video card and less for the processor part. Here the Resizable Bar gives a boost, which is seen between the risers in the center.
DOOM Eternal, graphics preset — ultra nightmare, 4K. All the same. The Resizable Bar gives the minimum difference in average FPS, but in addition there are differences in the amount of stutters during automatic saves, which is why the smaller 0.1% differs. Is this a reason for an upgrade? Of course not.
Resident Evil 8, the maximum graphics preset will be seasoned with an average RTX level, the resolution is still Ultra HD. Here, the Resizable Bar does not give an increase, which reduces the already intangible difference to nothing. That is, for those players who are content with 60 fps in single games, whether it be 1060 in Full HD or 3080 in 4K, there is not much difference. It will appear only in very demanding games up to the processor, in the stock state, or if you want to achieve more than 60 fps. As for the lack of Resizable Bar and the obsolete PCI version, today the loss is small. And the desire to unscrew the settings to the maximum is sometimes absurd.
Look, one half has a trace, but the other doesn’t. Try to guess in the comments where it is and why you think so. And we’re moving on to the last part.
Let’s compare processors at equal frequencies and voltages. This is not an IPC comparison, but mostly overindulgence, but it’s interesting how much performance has increased, all other things being equal, and what’s with the temperatures.
For example, in the bluebench, the ryzen 2600 still scored more points than 1600, and the most curious thing is that in multithreading, all processors have a greater lead, as if the work of SMT also improved with each generation, but we do not dare to pass off our fictions as truth. There are dozens of reasons for this behavior.
In geekbench, on the contrary, in multithreading, the difference is less, but here it is easily explained by slow memory and scoring algorithms of the test itself.
CPU-Z turned out to be the most amorphous, here 1600 and 5600X differ in multithreading by only 16%,
But in the Core subtest of the benchmark, blender 3600 still demonstrates a huge gap from its ancestors.
In Aida, memory latency remains unchanged, but the equal frequency made it clear that the cache speeds are the same for both zen with zen +, and zen 2 with zen 3.
Let’s also take a look at the top three games to see how they were affected by microarchitectural improvements without taking into account the change in frequency.
For example, in watchdogs, the stock 5600X outperformed the 1600 by 57% on average FPS, and now it is only 45%. And what’s funny, reducing the frequency of the cores by about 800 MHz led to the loss of only three frames on average, that is, a 4% drop in FPS, which is generally ridiculous.
But in Starcraft, instead of 78 fps, we got 62 on 5600X. Which corresponds to a 20% drop in core frequency. Well, the 5600X now exceeds the 1600 by no more than 2 times, but only 1.5 times, which is also very commendable.
Three times 1600 and 2600 caught up in average FPS, but in rare and very rare events, the refresh is ahead, and 3600 and 5600X identically stepped in performance. At equal voltages, power consumption sensors show some rubbish that is not amenable to analytics, but by temperatures it is quite possible to judge that the right processors are similar to each other in terms of core temperature at equal voltage, just like the left ones are identical to each other, but the transition to 7 nm is a priori significantly complicates the removal of heat from the crystal.
Conclusion
This is how the Ryzens progressed. The 2000s were only a small improvement over the 1st generation, and the 3000s made a huge breakthrough, a breakthrough. On the other hand, Zen 3, remaining on the same process technology and socket, also made an excellent performance leap, especially in terms of gaming, sometimes identical to that of the 3600.
: there is someone among you who planned to upgrade, but after this video he changed his mind, and vice versa. Very curious to see your thoughts. Well, about the tracing in the resident, also try to guess.
But for monitors with a high refresh rate, the left processors in the drain will still not be enough.
I2hard. en
10/13/2018 19:13:45
2018-10-13 19:13:45
Sources:
Https://i2hard. ru/publications/27575/
Ryzen 5 2600X, Ryzen 5 2600, Core i5-8400 and Core i3-8350K processor tests in games » /> » /> .keyword { color: red; }
Test 2600 k
Testing AMD Ryzen 5 2600X and Ryzen 5 2600 processors plus eleven other CPU models (including Core i5-8600K, Core i5-8400, Core i3-8350K, Core i7-7700K and Ryzen 7 2700, Ryzen 7 1700 and Ryzen 5 1600X) in ten games, 19 resolution20 x 1080 and two modes of operation.
Pages of material
Introduction, test results in Assassin’s Creed Origins, Crysis 3, Destiny 2, Far Cry 5, Hitman (2016), Outlast 2
Contents
Introduction
Advertising AMD processors of the Pinnacle Ridge family — Ryzen 5 2600X and Ryzen 5 2600. Opponents for them were:
- Core i5-8600K; Core i5-8400; Core i3-8350K; Core i7-7700K; Core i5-7600K; Core i3-7350K;
Ryzen 7 2700; Ryzen 7 1700; Ryzen 5 1600X; Ryzen 5 1600; Ryzen 5 1500X.
Recall that you can get acquainted with the work of test benches, methodology and processing of test results by clicking on this link.
Test results: performance comparison
Assassin’s Creed Origins
- Version 1.4.2. DirectX 11.
- Viewing angle — 100. Dynamic resolution — disabled. Smoothing is high. Shadow quality is the highest. The quality of the environment is the highest. Texture detail is high. Tessellation is very high. The quality of the relief is high. The density of small objects is very high. The fog quality is very high. Water quality is very high. The quality of full-screen reflections is very high. Volumetric clouds — enabled. The quality of the characters is the highest. Volumetric lighting is very high. Depth of field — enabled.
Advertising
1920×1080
Rating (HT — on, SMT — on)
Please enable JavaScript to see graphs
Overclocking (HT — off, SMT — on)
In the game Assassin’s Creed Origins, both AMD novelties proved to be the best. In the nominal mode of operation, they are slightly ahead of their predecessors and were able to compete with such a rival as the Core i7-7700K. After overclocking, they fell slightly behind the Ryzen 7 1700, but showed equal results with the Core i7-7700K, Core i3-8350K and Core i5-7600K processors.
Crysis 3
- Version 1.3. DirectX 11.
- Full screen anti-aliasing (MSAA) — 4. Anisotropic filtering (AF) — 16. Texture resolution — maximum. The quality of the effects is the maximum. The quality of the objects is the highest. The quality of the particles is the maximum. The quality of post-processing is the maximum. The quality of shading is maximum. The quality of the shadows is the maximum. Water quality is top notch. Blur level is high. Glare — enabled.
1920×1080
Rating (HT — on, SMT — on)
Please enable JavaScript to see graphs
Overclocking (HT — off, SMT — off)
In the famous Crysis 3 AMD processors showed perhaps the highest results in all testing. Both new products have seriously competed with such a powerful Intel representative as the Core i5-8600K.
Advertising
Destiny 2
- Version 1.1.2. DirectX 11.
- Field of view — 90. Anti-aliasing — FXAA. Complex shading — HDAO. Anisotropic texture filtering — x16. Texture quality is ultra high. Shadow quality is high. The quality of the depth of field is high. The range of environmental detail is high. Character detail range is high. Foliage detail range is high. Foliage shadows display range is ultra high. The quality of the light rays is high. Motion blur — enabled. Wind gusts — enabled. The display resolution is 100%. Chromatic aberration — enabled. Film grain effect — enabled.
1920×1080
Rating (HT — on, SMT — on)
Please enable JavaScript to see graphs
Overclocking (HT — off, SMT — off)
In the fantastic shooter Destiny 2, the Ryzen 5 2600X and Ryzen 5 2600 processors are located in the middle of the standings. The undoubted achievement for them was that they were able to compete with the «people’s» representative of Intel — Core i5-8400.
Far Cry 5
- Version 1.4.0. DirectX 11.
- Texture filtering quality — maximum. The quality of the shadows is the maximum. The quality of the geometry of the world and vegetation is the maximum. The quality of the environment is the highest. Water quality is high. Landscape quality is high. The quality of the volumetric fog is high. Smoothing — SMAA. Motion blur — enabled. Field of view scale — 90. Resolution scale — 1.0.
1920×1080
Rating (HT — on, SMT — on)
Please enable JavaScript to see graphs
Overclocking (HT — off, SMT — off)
In Far Cry 5, AMD processors were generally slower than Intel products. As a result, the novelties competed only with the junior representative of the competing line — Core i3-7350K.
Hitman (2016)
- Version 1.13.2. DirectX 11.
- Anti-Aliasing Post-Effect — FXAA. Anisotropic filtering — x16. The level of detail is ultra high. Texture quality is high. Complex shading (SSAO) — enabled. Shadow quality is ultra high. Resolution quality is high.
1920×1080
Rating (HT — on, SMT — on)
Please enable JavaScript to see graphs
Overclocking (HT — on, SMT — off)
In the game Hitman (2016), AMD representatives again achieved an impressive result, beating their rivals. As a result, the Ryzen 5 2600X and Ryzen 5 2600 put an equal fight on the Core i5-8600K.
Outlast 2
- Version 1.0.17518.0. DirectX 11.
- Texture quality is very high. Texture filtering — 16x. Shadow quality is high. The quality of the relief is high. Fog quality is high. The quality of the effects is high. Antialiasing — FXAA.
1920×1080
Rating (HT — on, SMT — on)
Please enable JavaScript to see graphs
Overclocking (HT — off, SMT — off)
In the «horror» Outlast 2, a situation similar to the alignment of forces in the game Far Cry 5 has developed.
Continuation of material
Subscribe to our channel in Yandex. Zen or telegram-channel @overclockers_news are convenient ways to follow new materials on the site. With pictures, extended descriptions and no ads.
Advertising
Material pages
Introduction, test scores in Assassin’s Creed Origins, Crysis 3, Destiny 2, Far Cry 5, Hitman (2016), Outlast 2
Section Material Tape
Interesting stuff
You might be interested in
Compliance with Conference Rules is strictly required!
Flood, flame and offtopic are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law!
Comments containing insults, obscene language (including disguised obscenities), extremist statements, advertising and spam, Are deleted regardless of the content , and their authors may be subject to measures up to Prohibition writing comments and, in case of writing a comment through social networks, Complaints to the administration of this network.
Contents
Advertising
This review will examine the performance of AMD’s new Pinnacle Ridge family processors — Ryzen 5 2600X and Ryzen 5 2600. Opponents for them are:
- Core i5-8600K; Core i5-8400; Core i3-8350K; Core i7-7700K; Core i5-7600K; Core i3-7350K;
Ryzen 7 2700; Ryzen 7 1700; Ryzen 5 1600X; Ryzen 5 1600; Ryzen 5 1500X.
Let us remind you that you can get acquainted with the work of test benches, methodology and processing of test results by clicking on this link.
Advertising
Recall that you can get acquainted with the work of test benches, methodology and processing of test results by clicking on this link.
Overclockers. en
07/28/2017 21:02:43
2017-07-28 21:02:43
Sources:
Https://overclockers. ru/lab/show/
/testy-processors-ryzen-5-2600x-ryzen-5-2600-core-i5-8400-i-core-i3-8350k-v-igrah
everyone’s favorite version 2.
0 of GECID.com. Page 1
::>Processors
>2018
> AMD Ryzen 5 2600
04-08-2018
Page 1
Page 2
One page
Processor AMD Ryzen 5 2600 is the successor to the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 model. by 300. But these are nominal figures: in practice, in games, the difference reaches 400 MHz.
To avoid competition with the AMD Ryzen 5 2600X, the developers raised not only the clock speeds, but also the thermal package from 65 to 95 W, so that during dynamic overclocking with a good cooling system, it shows even better results.
What is happening on the market in this segment? The average cost of the AMD Ryzen 5 2600 is about $210, which is only slightly higher than the recommended $199 at the start of sales, that is, there is nowhere to fall. But the cost of its predecessor has dropped markedly since the beginning of the year, and now you can get it for $190. In turn, the Ryzen 5 2600X will cost you an average of $235. These are the three most obvious internal competitors.
External opponents are 6-core 6-thread Intel Core i5-8400 and i5-8500. For the first one, on average, they ask for $190, and for the second — $220. We decided to go with the Core i5-8400 to see if we should pay more for 12-thread Ryzen.
Specification
Model |
AMD Ryzen 5 2600 |
Marking |
YD2600BBAFBOX |
Processor socket |
Socket AM4 |
Base frequency / dynamic frequency, GHz |
3.4 / 3.9 |
Multiplier |
34 / 39 |
System bus base frequency, MHz |
100 |
Number of cores / threads |
6 / 12 |
L1 cache size, KB |
6 x 32 (data memory) |
L2 cache size, KB |
6 x 512 |
L3 cache size, MB |
2 x 8 |
Microarchitecture |
AMD Zen+ |
Rated design power (TDP), W |
65 |
Maximum temperature, ° |
95 |
Technical process, nm |
12 |
Instruction and technology support |
MMX (+), SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4. 1, SSE4.2, SSE4A, x86-64, AMD-V, AES, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, SHA, AMD SenseMI, AMD XFR 2, AMD Precision Boost 2 |
Built-in memory controller |
|
Memory type |
DDR4 |
Supported frequency, MHz |
2933 |
Number of channels |
2 |
Manufacturer website |
AMD |
Model page |
AMD Ryzen 5 2600 |
Packaging, delivery set and appearance
The processor comes in a familiar cardboard box with unified content. He himself is placed in an additional blister pack and a cardboard box. You might think that AMD marketers were inspired by the fairy tale about Koschey the Immortal, but in fact, this is how they care about the safe transportation of the product.
Package includes user manual, sticker and AMD Wraith Stealth CPU cooler.
The cooling system uses a very simple design: a low rounded aluminum heatsink and a five-blade axial fan that can be PWM controlled using a 4-pin connector. Thermal paste is already applied to the base, which simplifies the installation process. The cooler is fixed with four spring-loaded screws.
Attentive users have probably already noticed that the code on the front side of the processor indicates the date of its production (the fifth week of 2018), the place where the silicon wafer with the chip was manufactured (factory in Saratoga, USA) and the place of final assembly (factory in Suzhou, China). On the reverse side there are more than 1300 thin pins for Socket AM4, which require very careful handling.
Recall that AMD Ryzen 2000 series processors work without problems with motherboards based on AMD 300 and 400 series chipsets. But in the first case, you will need to update the BIOS first. At the same time, the platform itself will be updated until 2020, so in the future you can easily upgrade by replacing the processor.
Performance analysis
CBO be quiet! Silent Loop 240mm, so when running the stress test, the core frequency almost reached 3900 MHz with dynamic overclocking. There were no problems with overheating or throttling.
Cache allocation unchanged:
- 32 KB L1 cache per core with 8 associativity allocated for data;
- 64 KB L1 cache per core with 4 associativity channels used for instructions;
- 512 KB L2 cache per core with 8 associativity channels;
- 8 MB shared L3 cache per 4-processor CCX module with 16 channels of associativity.
The RAM controller is guaranteed to support DDR4-2933 modules. If you wish, you can overclock them, and the Ryzen DRAM Calculator utility will help with the selection of timings. But overclocking is always a lottery, so the result is not guaranteed, but you can check the degree of your luck.
Testing
The following benches were used to test the AMD Ryzen 5 2600 processor, as well as its internal and external competitors:
Processor |
AMD Ryzen 5 2600 / Ryzen 5 1600 / Ryzen 5 2600 |
Intel Core i5-8400 |
Motherboard |
MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC |
ASUS ROG STRIX Z370-F GAMING |
Cooler |
be quiet! Silent Loop 240mm |
be quiet! Dark Rock 4 |
RAM |
2 x 8 GB DDR4-3400 G.SKILL Sniper X |
|
Video card |
Inno3D iChill GeForce GTX 1080 X3 |
|
Disk Subsystem |
GOODRAM Iridium PRO 240 GB | 960 GB |
|
Power supply |
Seasonic PRIME 850W Titanium |
|
Housing |
Thermaltake Core P5 TGE |
|
Monitor |
AOC U2879VF |
1.