I5 8400 vs ryzen 5 2600x: AMD Ryzen 5 2600X vs Intel Core i5-8400

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

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.

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.

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

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:

1.