Ryzen 5 2600x vs i5 8400: AMD Ryzen 5 2600X vs Intel Core i5-8400 @ 2.80GHz [cpubenchmark.net] by PassMark Software

AMD Ryzen 5 2600X vs. Intel Core i3-8145UE

AMD Ryzen 5 2600X

The AMD Ryzen 5 2600X operates with 6 cores and 12 CPU threads. It run at 4.20 GHz base 4.00 GHz all cores while the TDP is set at 95 W.The processor is attached to the AM4 CPU socket. This version includes 16.00 MB of L3 cache on one chip, supports 2 memory channels to support DDR4-2933 RAM and features 3.0 PCIe Gen 20 lanes. Tjunction keeps below 95 °C degrees C. In particular, Pinnacle Ridge (Zen+) Architecture is enhanced with 12 nm technology and supports AMD-V, SVM. The product was launched on Q2/2018

Intel Core i3-8145UE

The Intel Core i3-8145UE operates with 2 cores and 12 CPU threads. It run at 3.90 GHz base No turbo all cores while the TDP is set at 15 W.The processor is attached to the BGA 1528 CPU socket. This version includes 4.00 MB of L3 cache on one chip, supports 2 memory channels to support DDR4-2400 SO-DIMM, LPDDR3-2133 RAM and features 3.0 PCIe Gen 16 lanes. Tjunction keeps below 100 °C degrees C. In particular, Whiskey Lake U Architecture is enhanced with 14 nm technology and supports VT-x, VT-x EPT, VT-d. The product was launched on Q2/2019

AMD Ryzen 5 2600X

Intel Core i3-8145UE

Compare Detail

3.60 GHz Frequency 2.20 GHz
6 Cores 2
4.20 GHz Turbo (1 Core) 3.90 GHz
4.00 GHz Turbo (All Cores) No turbo
Yes Hyperthreading Yes
Yes Overclocking No
normal Core Architecture normal
no iGPU GPU

Intel UHD Graphics 620

No turbo GPU (Turbo) 1.00 GHz
12 nm Technology 14 nm
No turbo GPU (Turbo) 1.00 GHz
DirectX Version 12
Max. displays 3
DDR4-2933 Memory DDR4-2400 SO-DIMM
LPDDR3-2133
2 Memory channels 2
Max memory
Yes ECC Yes
L2 Cache
16.00 MB L3 Cache 4.00 MB
3.0 PCIe version 3.0
20 PCIe lanes 16
12 nm Technology 14 nm
AM4 Socket BGA 1528
95 W TDP 15 W
AMD-V, SVM Virtualization VT-x, VT-x EPT, VT-d
Q2/2018 Release date Q2/2019

Show more data

Show more data

Cinebench R23 (Single-Core)

Cinebench R23 is the successor of Cinebench R20 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is a worldwide used software to create 3D forms. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn’t count.

Cinebench R23 (Multi-Core)

Cinebench R23 is the successor of Cinebench R20 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is a worldwide used software to create 3D forms. The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.

Cinebench R20 (Single-Core)

Cinebench R20 is the successor of Cinebench R15 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is a worldwide used software to create 3D forms. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn’t count.

Cinebench R20 (Multi-Core)

Cinebench R20 is the successor of Cinebench R15 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is a worldwide used software to create 3D forms. The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.

Cinebench R15 (Single-Core)

Cinebench R15 is the successor of Cinebench 11.5 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is a worldwide used software to create 3D forms. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn’t count.

Cinebench R15 (Multi-Core)

Cinebench R15 is the successor of Cinebench 11.5 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is a worldwide used software to create 3D forms. The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.

Geekbench 5, 64bit (Single-Core)

Geekbench 5 is a cross plattform benchmark that heavily uses the systems memory. A fast memory will push the result a lot. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn’t count.

Geekbench 5, 64bit (Multi-Core)

Geekbench 5 is a cross plattform benchmark that heavily uses the systems memory. A fast memory will push the result a lot. The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.

iGPU — FP32 Performance (Single-precision GFLOPS)

The theoretical computing performance of the internal graphics unit of the processor with simple accuracy (32 bit) in GFLOPS. GFLOPS indicates how many billion floating point operations the iGPU can perform per second.

Blender 2.81 (bmw27)

Blender is a free 3D graphics software for rendering (creating) 3D bodies, which can also be textured and animated in the software. The Blender benchmark creates predefined scenes and measures the time (s) required for the entire scene. The shorter the time required, the better. We selected bmw27 as the benchmark scene.

Geekbench 3, 64bit (Single-Core)

Geekbench 3 is a cross plattform benchmark that heavily uses the systems memory. A fast memory will push the result a lot. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn’t count.

Geekbench 3, 64bit (Multi-Core)

Geekbench 3 is a cross plattform benchmark that heavily uses the systems memory. A fast memory will push the result a lot. The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.

Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (Single-Core)

Cinebench 11.5 is based on the Cinema 4D Suite, a software that is popular to generate forms and other stuff in 3D. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn’t count.

Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (Multi-Core)

Cinebench 11.5 is based on the Cinema 4D Suite, a software that is popular to generate forms and other stuff in 3D. The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.

Estimated results for PassMark CPU Mark

Some of the CPUs listed below have been benchmarked by CPU-Comparison. However the majority of CPUs have not been tested and the results have been estimated by a CPU-Comparison’s secret proprietary formula. As such they do not accurately reflect the actual Passmark CPU mark values and are not endorsed by PassMark Software Pty Ltd.

Monero Hashrate kH/s

The crypto currency Monero has been using the RandomX algorithm since November 2019. This PoW (proof of work) algorithm can only efficiently be calculated using a processor (CPU) or a graphics card (GPU). The CryptoNight algorithm was used for Monero until November 2019, but it could be calculated using ASICs. RandomX benefits from a high number of CPU cores, cache and a fast connection of the memory via as many memory channels as possible

Electric Usage Estimate

Average hours of use per day

Average CPU Utilization (0-100%)

Power cost, dollar per kWh

Electric Usage Estimate

Average hours of use per day

Average CPU Utilization (0-100%)

Power cost, dollar per kWh

AMD Ryzen 5 2600X Intel Core i3-8145UE
95 W Max TDP 15 W
NA Power consumption per day (kWh) NA
NA Running cost per day NA
NA Power consumption per year (kWh) NA
NA Running cost per year NA

Popular Comparision

Comments

「Ryzen 5 2600X」はコスパ最強か:「i5 8400」と性能比較 | ちもろぐ

第2世代の「Ryzen 5」は全体的に20ドルも値下げされたので、「6コア化したCore i5」の競合として第1世代のRyzenより更に手強い相手に仕上がっている。実際にRyzen 5 2600XがどこまでCore i5と戦えるCPUなのか、ゲーミング性能 & CPU性能の両方から比較しながら確認していく。

この記事の目次

  • Ryzen 5 2600Xのスペック:i5 8400と比較
    • 仕様の変更点:Ryzen 5 1600Xから何が変わった?
  • CPU性能の比較:2600X vs 1600X / i5 8400
    • Cinebench R15
    • Blender 2. 78
    • Corona 1.3
    • PCMark 8
    • Google Octane
    • 7-Zip Benchmark
    • WinRAR
    • TrueCrypt
    • Handbrake
    • CPU性能のまとめ:Ryzen 7やi7にも迫るマルチ性能
  • ゲーミング性能:コスパ王「i5 8400」と戦えるか?
    • Ashes Escalation
    • Assassin’s Creed Origins
    • Civilization VI
    • Deus EX Mankind Divided
    • Dishonored 2
    • The Division
    • Fallout 4
    • Far Cry 5
    • Ghost Recon Wildlands
    • Grand Theft Auto V
    • Hitman 2016
    • Shadow of War
    • PlayerUnknown’s BattleGrounds
    • Rise of the Tomb Raider
    • The Witcher 3
    • 平均ゲーミング性能 / GTX 1080 Ti
  • まとめ:最適化の壁、どこに価値を見出すか?
    • Ryzen 5 2600Xの「弱み」
    • Ryzen 5 2600Xの「強み」
    • Ryzen 5 2600Xの評価は「A+ランク」
  • 参考になる記事まとめ
    • 実際に「Ryzen 7 2700X」で自作してみた
    • 「Core i5」で組んでみたいと思ったら

Sponsored Link

Ryzen 5 2600Xのスペック:i5 8400と比較

価格から見れば競合は238ドルの「i5 8600K」だが、もっぱら6コアのCore i5で最も人気でコスパ良好なのは「i5 8400」だ。

Ryzen 5 2600Xは229ドル、Ryzen 5 2600は199ドルなので、純粋に価格という面だけを見れば182ドルのi5 8400が魅力的なのは間違いない。しかしi5は6スレッドしか無く、Ryzen 5はその2倍の12スレッドを備える。

定格クロック周波数はRyzen 5 1600から全く伸びていないものの、i5 8400の2. 8Ghzより800Mhzも優秀です。ブースト時は4.0Ghzを突破するので、高負荷時の性能もi5 8400よりRyzen 5の方がよく伸びる。

しかもi5 8400はオーバークロックが許されていないモデルなので、性能はそこで確定。一方のRyzen 5 2600 ~ 2600Xは安価なB350マザーボードでもオーバークロックが可能。伸びしろは確実にRyzen 5が有利だ。

さて、i5 と Ryzen 5の違いについてはこれくらいにして、次は第1世代のRyzen 5からどう変わったのかを少し解説します。

仕様の変更点:Ryzen 5 1600Xから何が変わった?

  • 設計はほぼ同じだが、一応プロセスが微細化している(14nm → 12nm)
  • ブースト時のクロック周波数が4Ghzを超えるように
  • キャッシュレイテンシの改善で3%のIPC向上を狙う
  • 価格は更に20ドル安くなった
  • Ryzen 5 2600は199ドルで、i5 8400は182ドル

進化したポイントをまとめました。カタログスペックに載っていないが、AMD公式発表で「レイテンシが改善」も新型Ryzenに盛り込まれていることが分かっています。これでIPCは3%向上するとのこと。

IPCとは「1サイクルあたりの命令数」という意味。ものすごく話をシンプルにすると、新型Ryzenと旧型Ryzenを、同じコア数 / 同じクロック周波数にそろえて比較すると、新型の方が3%性能が上昇している…という意味です。

同じ条件で3%性能が高いのは、CPUとキャッシュの遅延(レイテンシ)が小さくなったことで、一度により多くの処理をこなせるようになったから。

イメージにするとこんな感じ。言い換えると、CPUとキャッシュ(作業机)の距離が短くなった。といったところですね。

それでも「CPU2個をまとめて、1個のCPUに仕立て上げる」という物理的設計は同じなので、Infinity Fabricというインターコネクトを経由する都合上、レイテンシは依然としてハンデを抱えている状態ではある。

新機能「XFR 2」と「Precision Boost 2」の解説は端折ります。小難しいことより、大事なのは「性能」なので…。

CPU性能の比較:2600X vs 1600X / i5 8400

Ryzen 5 2600XのCPU性能がどれくらい進化したのかを、レンダリング・エンコード・オフィスワークなどの各種ベンチマークで確認していく。参照するベンチマークは米ANAND TECHより。

The AMD 2nd Gen Ryzen Deep Dive: The 2700X, 2700, 2600X, and 2600 Tested

テスト環境
CPU Ryzen 5 2600X Ryzen 5 1600X Core i5 8400
M/B ASUS Crosshair VII HERO ASUS Crosshair VI HERO Gigabyte AORUS Gaming 7
RAM G. Skill SniperX DDR4-2933 8GB x2 G.Skill RipjawsX DDR4-2666 8GB x2 Crucial Ballistix DDR4-2666 8GB x4
SSD Crucial MX200 1TB
冷却 AMD Wraith Prism Noctua U12S SliverStone AR10-115XS
電源 Corsair AX760i (760W 80+ PLATINUM)
OS Win 10 Enterprise RS3 Win 10 Pro RS2 Win 10 Pro 64bit

以下ベンチマーク続きます。

Cinebench R15

Cinebench R15はCPUにレンダリングをさせて、完了までに掛かった時間をスコア化するベンチマークソフト。シングル性能とマルチ性能の両方を出せるベンチなので、国際的にはもちろん国内でも人気の高いベンチソフト。

Cinebench R15 – シングルスレッド性能

  • Ryzen 5 2600X
    173
  • Ryzen 5 2600
    162
  • Ryzen 5 1600X
    163
  • Ryzen 5 1600
    149
  • Core i5 8400
    167

Zen+ZenCoffee Lake

シングルスレッド性能(1コアあたりに性能)は第1世代と比較して確実に向上した。1600Xから約6%、1600から約16%の性能アップです。i5 8400よりシングル性能が高いのは驚き。

Cinebench R15 – マルチスレッド性能

  • Ryzen 5 2600X
    1377
  • Ryzen 5 2600
    1244
  • Ryzen 5 1600X
    1232
  • Ryzen 5 1600
    1138
  • Core i5 8400
    924

Zen+ZenCoffee Lake

次にマルチスレッド性能。こちらは12スレッドを備えるRyzen 5勢が圧倒的に有利な結果に。i5 8400は半分の6スレッドしか無いので、レンダリングのような物量戦では不利になる。

そしてシングルスレッド性能が向上したことで、Ryzen 5 2600Xが1400点に迫るスコアを記録しているのは見逃せない。なぜならRyzen 7 1700に匹敵するスコアだからだ。

Ryzen 5 2600Xはマルチスレッド性能という観点から見ると、ほぼ半額に近い価格でRyzen 7 1700並の性能を実現してしまっている。第2世代は順当な進化を遂げたと言えます。

Blender 2.

78

Blenderはフリーの3DCG / レンダリングソフト。オープンソースソフトウェアのなので、インテルとAMDの両方に最適化が施されているのが特徴。そのためCPU本来の性能を、正確に計測できるベンチマークの一つとなっている。

Blender 2.78 – 処理に掛かった時間

  • Ryzen 5 2600X
    352
  • Ryzen 5 2600
    390
  • Ryzen 5 1600X
    391
  • Ryzen 5 1600
    422
  • Core i5 8400
    485

おおむねCinebench R15のマルチスコアと同様の傾向になりました。i5 8400だと485秒(約8分)掛かるレンダリングが、2600Xは352秒(約6分)程度で終わらせてしまう。2600Xはi5 8400より約38%も高速です。

Corona 1.3

Coronaはレンダリングベンチマークの1つ。CPUにレンダリングを実行させて、1秒間あたりにどれだけの処理を実行できたかでCPUの性能を判断できる。

Corona 1.3 – 1秒間あたりの処理量

  • Ryzen 5 2600X
    3158086
  • Ryzen 5 2600
    2901981
  • Ryzen 5 1600X
    2767179
  • Ryzen 5 1600
    2593564
  • Core i5 8400
    1920785

Ryzen 5が圧倒しています。2600Xはi5 8400より軽く50%以上も高速で、第1世代の1600Xより15%は高速だ。レイテンシの縮小によるIPCの改善と、クロック周波数の向上は確実に第2世代Ryzen 5の性能を高めている。

PCMark 8

PCMark 8は3DMarkのCPU版にあたるベンチマーク。パソコンの一般的な処理性能をスコア化してくれる。なお、CPU本来の性能だけを計測するため、グラボの影響を受けるOpenCL系のテストを無効にしています。

PCMark 8 – Creative(OpenCLテスト無し)

  • Ryzen 5 2600X
    4491
  • Ryzen 5 2600
    4369
  • Ryzen 5 1600X
    4606
  • Ryzen 5 1600
    4423
  • Core i5 8400
    4626

「Ryzen 7 2700X」の時と同様、Creativeモードはなぜか第1世代に第2世代が僅差で追い抜かれる展開。そしてシングル性能が互角なはずのi5 8400がなぜかRyzen 5より高いスコアを記録している。

その差はわずか100点程度なので体感は不可能の次元だが、まだまだRyzenは最適化に難がある部分が残ることを示しています。まぁ…Ryzenは実質NUMA※とも言える構造なので、最適化はそこそこ難しいのかもしれません。

※カンタンに言ってしまえば、デュアルソケット対応のマザーボードを使って、2つのCPUを機能させること。XeonやEPYCなどサーバー向けCPUで利用可能な技術です。

PCMark 8 – Home(OpenCLテスト無し)

  • Ryzen 5 2600X
    4599
  • Ryzen 5 2600
    4412
  • Ryzen 5 1600X
    4329
  • Ryzen 5 1600
    3731
  • Core i5 8400
    4555

ごくごく普通のワークで構成されるHomeモードでは、第1世代からの進化がしっかりと感じられる結果に。Ryzen 5 1600から2600Xで、23%も性能アップしている。i5 8400とも互角なので、レスポンスは相当に軽快になったはずだ。

PCMark 8 – Work(OpenCLテスト無し)

  • Ryzen 5 2600X
    3786
  • Ryzen 5 2600
    3687
  • Ryzen 5 1600X
    3656
  • Ryzen 5 1600
    3544
  • Core i5 8400
    3787

Workモードでも、同じ傾向。第1世代から着実にスコアを伸ばして、i5 8400と完全に互角のスコアになりました。パソコンとしての機能を果たせるかどうかという視点では、Ryzen 5もCore i5も差は無い次元に到達。

Google Octane

ブラウザ上で動作する、Javascript系のベンチマーク。処理にかかった時間からスコアを算出してくれるので、CPUの性能がどれくらい単純作業に強いのかどうかが直感的に分かりやすい。

Google Octane 2. 0

  • Ryzen 5 2600X
    40101
  • Ryzen 5 2600
    36435
  • Ryzen 5 1600X
    36459
  • Ryzen 5 1600
    33213
  • Core i5 8400
    38422

というわけで、単純作業は構造がシンプルでレイテンシも短いインテルCPUが得意とする内容だが、ようやくRyzen 5がCore i5に追いついてきた。第1世代とRyzen 5 2600はi5 8400より低いが、Ryzen 5 2600Xは突破しています。

…1000~2000点の差はほとんど体感できないですが。

7-Zip Benchmark

7-Zipは無料の解凍ソフト。付属のベンチマークツールで、圧縮と解凍の速度(単位はMIPS)を計測可能。

7-Zip / 圧縮(MIPS)

  • Ryzen 5 2600X
    32580
  • Ryzen 5 2600
    30502
  • Ryzen 5 1600X
    27433
  • Ryzen 5 1600
    25916
  • Core i5 8400
    24877

利用頻度があまり多くない圧縮。6スレッドのi5 8400が、12スレッドのRyzen 5 1600と同スコアを叩き出しているのが興味深いが、第2世代のRyzen 5は明確にi5 8400以上のパフォーマンスを発揮している。

7-Zip / 解凍(MIPS)

  • Ryzen 5 2600X
    41719
  • Ryzen 5 2600
    37589
  • Ryzen 5 1600X
    37368
  • Ryzen 5 1600
    34856
  • Core i5 8400
    24229

一方、解凍ではRyzenが猛威を振るう。マルチスレッド性能以上のパフォーマンスを発揮しており、Ryzen 5 2600Xはi5 8400より72%も高速という圧巻の結果を見せつけている。2600でも55%高速です。

解凍が速いのは良いこと

基本的に、無料の画像素材や、何らかのアプリケーションをダウンロードした時。多くの場合はZipやRarといった形式で圧縮されている。これを解凍しないと中身を出せないため、利用頻度は解凍の方が多いと思っている。

7-Zip / 平均(MIPS)

  • Ryzen 5 2600X
    37150
  • Ryzen 5 2600
    34046
  • Ryzen 5 1600X
    32401
  • Ryzen 5 1600
    30386
  • Core i5 8400
    24553

圧縮と解凍の平均。総合的なパフォーマンスを見ての通り、12スレッドを備えるRyzen 5はやはりマルチスレッドの効く物量戦が得意ですね。

WinRAR

WinRARはシェアウェアの解凍ソフト(実質フリーソフトですが)。このWinRARを用いてZip形式の圧縮を実行し、完了するのに掛かった時間でCPU性能を評価する。

WinRAR / 圧縮に掛かった時間

  • Ryzen 5 2600X
    52. 96
  • Ryzen 5 2600
    55.29
  • Ryzen 5 1600X
    62.15
  • Ryzen 5 1600
    64.06
  • Core i5 8400
    64.63

7-Zip Benchmark(圧縮)で示されていたとおり、WinRARでも同様の結果になりました。i5 8400が約65秒掛かる圧縮を、Ryzen 5 2600Xは約53秒で終えた。23%ほど高速です。

TrueCrypt

暗号化ディスクを生成するフリーソフト。1秒間あたりどれくらいの暗号化(=エンコード)を実行できるかでCPU性能を評価できる。

TrueCrypt / AESエンコード(GB/s)

  • Ryzen 5 2600X
    8.2
  • Ryzen 5 2600
    7.4
  • Ryzen 5 1600X
    7.6
  • Ryzen 5 1600
    6.9
  • Core i5 8400
    5.0

i5 8400は1秒あたり5GBしか処理できないが、Ryzen 5 2600Xは60%多い8.2GBも処理する。変換処理は得意のようだ。

Handbrake

動画エンコードソフトで非常に有名なのが、無料ソフトのHandbrakeだろう。このソフトでいくつかのプリセットを使って動画エンコを実行し、1秒間あたり処理フレーム数(fps)で性能を評価する。

Handbrake h364 / 640×266 低品質(fps)

  • Ryzen 5 2600X
    1380
  • Ryzen 5 2600
    1194
  • Ryzen 5 1600X
    1241
  • Ryzen 5 1600
    1155
  • Core i5 8400
    1333

解像度の小さい動画ファイルを低品質設定でh364エンコードしたところ。これが中々意外な結果で、i5 8400がRyzen 5 2600Xに迫る処理速度を出しているんですよね。

Handbrakeは10コア以上のCPUに最適化をあまりしていないということで知られているので、最適化に何か問題を抱えている可能性は無視できない。

最適化で不利という状況にもかかわらず、Core i5以上のパフォーマンスまで進化させたことは素直に評価できるが、ユーザーとしては残念な結果…。なぜか持ち前のマルチスレッド性能が活かしきれてない。

Handbrake h364 / 3840×4320 高品質(fps)

  • Ryzen 5 2600X
    37. 7
  • Ryzen 5 2600
    35.7
  • Ryzen 5 1600X
    32.5
  • Ryzen 5 1600
    31.5
  • Core i5 8400
    35.6

高解像度の動画を高品質設定でh364エンコード。結果はあまり変わらないが、若干Ryzen 5の方が有利になっている。とはいえ差は6%くらいなので、微妙ですね。

Handbrake HEVC / 3840×4320 高品質(fps)

  • Ryzen 5 2600X
    25.5
  • Ryzen 5 2600
    23.3
  • Ryzen 5 1600X
    22.5
  • Ryzen 5 1600
    21.2
  • Core i5 8400
    26.1

同じ動画をHEVCエンコード。うーん、複雑な内容のHEVCにすると逆にi5 8400の方が速いという結果。

マルチスレッド性能で圧倒的に強いはずのRyzen 5 2600Xが、なぜCore i5 8400に追いつかれるのか。Handbrakeがあまり最適化がこなれていないのが理由の一つですが、AVX-256の実装方法が若干違うのも原因です。

CPU性能のまとめ:Ryzen 7やi7にも迫るマルチ性能

ここまでRyzen 5 2600 / 2600XのCPU性能について見てきました。概ね正統進化ですし、シングル性能向上によって底上げされたマルチスレッド性能はRyzenらしい驚異的な水準に達しているのは間違いない。

Cinebench R15 – マルチスレッド性能

  • Ryzen 7 1700
    1422
  • Core i7 8700K
    1395
  • Ryzen 5 2600X
    1377
  • Ryzen 5 2600
    1244
  • Ryzen 5 1600X
    1232
  • Ryzen 5 1600
    1138
  • Core i5 8400
    924

i5 8400を圧倒しているのはもちろんのこと、第1世代のRyzen 5やRyzen 7…そしてi7 8700Kにすら迫るマルチスレッド性能は素直にスゴイと思います。

コストパフォーマンスの比較(CR15 / MSRP)

  • Ryzen 7 1700
    4. 32
  • Core i7 8700K
    3.89
  • Ryzen 5 2600X
    6.01
  • Ryzen 5 2600
    6.25
  • Ryzen 5 1600X
    4.95
  • Ryzen 5 1600
    5.20
  • Core i5 8400
    5.08

コストパフォーマンスを比較してみると、Ryzen 5 2600 / 2600Xは非常に優秀。

課題は「最適化」。Ryzenが市場で広まり、AMDユーザーが増えるにつれて少しずつソフトメーカー側も最適化を進めています。実例として「Call of Duty : WW2」があるので、最適化をすること自体は可能です。

最適化は不可能ではないことを示す実例の一つ

ゲーミング性能:コスパ王「i5 8400」と戦えるか?

AMD公式サイトにて、第2世代のゲーミング性能を売りにしている

CPU性能の次に確認するのが「ゲーミング性能」。ゲームの世界では、グラフィックボードの性能が優れていればいるほど、Ryzen 5よりCore i5の方が高いフレームレートを叩き出すという「ボトルネック」が存在している。

原因はシングルスレッド性能の低さであったり、記事の最初で少し解説した「Ryzenの特殊な設計や、インターコネクト経由時のレイテンシ」に由来する最適化の難しさなど。

AMDもこの問題は把握しているし、シェアを得るためにゲーマー層を含めた幅広いユーザーから支持を得ることは不可欠である。だから第2世代のRyzenは、レイテンシ縮小とクロックアップでこの問題を解決しようとした。

というわけで、Ryzen 5 2600XはゲーミングCPUとして最高のコスパを持つ「Core i5 8400」にどこまで迫るのか。ゲーミング性能の差が顕在化しやすい最速のGPU「GTX 1080 Ti」を用いたベンチマークで確認していく。

AMD RYZEN 7 2700X IS BETTER THAN ITS PREDECESSORS IN EVERY WAY

Ashes Escalation

Ashes Escalation / DX12 1080p 最高設定

  • Ryzen 5 2600X
    98. 9
  • Ryzen 5 1600X
    93.4
  • Ryzen 7 1700
    95.4
  • Core i5 8400
    100.0
  • Core i7 4770K
    81.2

Zen+ZenCoffee Lake

ゲーミング性能はやや向上し、Ashes Escalationにおいてはi5 8400と互角のレベルに到達。

Assassin’s Creed Origins

Assassin’s Creed Origins / DX11 1080p 最高設定

  • Ryzen 5 2600X
    82.0
  • Ryzen 5 1600X
    77.2
  • Ryzen 7 1700
    79.8
  • Core i5 8400
    91.9
  • Core i7 4770K
    70.7

アサシンクリード最新作「オリジンズ」では、i5 8400に約10fpsも出し抜かれる形に。最適化問題は根深そうだ。

Civilization VI

Civilization VI / DX12 1080p 最高設定

  • Ryzen 5 2600X
    95.2
  • Ryzen 5 1600X
    85.8
  • Ryzen 7 1700
    83.6
  • Core i5 8400
    105.9
  • Core i7 4770K
    85. 5

Civ 6ではi5 8400に約12%ほど抜かされている。ただ、第1世代と比較すると大幅に伸びているので、レイテンシの短縮は一定の効果を示しているかと。

Deus EX Mankind Divided

Deus EX Mankind Divided / DX12 1080p 最高設定

  • Ryzen 5 2600X
    93.8
  • Ryzen 5 1600X
    89.4
  • Ryzen 7 1700
    83.0
  • Core i5 8400
    103.3
  • Core i7 4770K
    95.3

DXMDでは10fpsほど。マルチ性能・シングル性能ともに低いi7 4770Kにすら追いつかれているので、性能だけでは説明できない「最適化不足」が顕在化された感。

Dishonored 2

Dishonored 2 / DX11 1080p 最高設定

  • Ryzen 5 2600X
    107.7
  • Ryzen 5 1600X
    98.9
  • Ryzen 7 1700
    98.8
  • Core i5 8400
    126.0
  • Core i7 4770K
    87.3

第1世代から10fpsほど伸ばしたが、i5 8400は驚くことに20fpsも上を行っている。性能的には余裕でRyzen 5が勝っていますけど…9年の歴史を持ち、その間に最適化がし尽くされたCore i5の優位性はそうそう簡単には揺るがせない。

ということか。

The Division

The Division / DX12 1080p 最高設定

  • Ryzen 5 2600X
    96. 8
  • Ryzen 5 1600X
    98.1
  • Ryzen 7 1700
    96.6
  • Core i5 8400
    107.9
  • Core i7 4770K
    104.3

DivisonはRyzenかインテルかで、ハッキリと性能差が出ていて興味深い。性能ではなく、Ryzenというだけでゲーミング性能が上手く発揮できないのです。これが最適化の壁です。

Fallout 4

Fallout 4 / DX12 1080p 最高設定

  • Ryzen 5 2600X
    102.2
  • Ryzen 5 1600X
    92.3
  • Ryzen 7 1700
    87.2
  • Core i5 8400
    117.9
  • Core i7 4770K
    92.4

Fallout 4ではかなり性能を伸ばしたものの、i5 8400はもっと優秀。厳しい戦い。

Far Cry 5

Far Cry 5 / DX11 1080p 最高設定

  • Ryzen 5 2600X
    117.9
  • Ryzen 5 1600X
    109.0
  • Ryzen 7 1700
    102.0
  • Core i5 8400
    135.9
  • Core i7 4770K
    98. 6

AMDが全面的に開発協力し、2018年4月にリリースされた新しいゲーム「Far Cry 5」ですが。なぜかi5 8400が圧倒的に強い。AMDが開発協力してもコレなので、Ryzenの最適化は相当に難しいのか。と勘ぐってしまうレベル。

Ghost Recon Wildlands

Ghost Recon Wildlands / DX11 1080p 最高設定

  • Ryzen 5 2600X
    67.1
  • Ryzen 5 1600X
    66.6
  • Ryzen 7 1700
    67.1
  • Core i5 8400
    76.5
  • Core i7 4770K
    69.9

世代更新しても全く性能が伸びてない例。

Grand Theft Auto V

Grand Theft Auto V / 1080p 最高設定

  • Ryzen 5 2600X
    118.7
  • Ryzen 5 1600X
    113.1
  • Ryzen 7 1700
    111.6
  • Core i5 8400
    132.3
  • Core i7 4770K
    111.0

GTA Vではややフレームレートが改善したものの、やっぱりi5 8400はもっと上を行っているんですね。

Hitman 2016

Hitman 2016 / DX12 1080p 最高設定

  • Ryzen 5 2600X
    87. 3
  • Ryzen 5 1600X
    85.7
  • Ryzen 7 1700
    83.4
  • Core i5 8400
    87.8
  • Core i7 4770K
    84.9

Hitman 2016ではだいたい同じ結果に。

Shadow of War

Shadow of War / DX11 1080p 最高設定

  • Ryzen 5 2600X
    106.6
  • Ryzen 5 1600X
    103.2
  • Ryzen 7 1700
    100.2
  • Core i5 8400
    120.3
  • Core i7 4770K
    106.0

「シャドウオブウォー」はかなり新しいゲームだが、最適化はインテルに有利。Ryzen 5 2600Xとi7 4770Kがほぼ同じパフォーマンスを示すとは…、酷いですね。

PlayerUnknown’s BattleGrounds

PlayerUnknown’s BattleGrounds / DX11 1080p ウルトラ設定

  • Ryzen 5 2600X
    128.9
  • Ryzen 5 1600X
    115.5
  • Ryzen 7 1700
    108.7
  • Core i5 8400
    137.2
  • Core i7 4770K
    117. 0

超人気ゲーム「PUBG」では、第1世代からかなり性能を伸ばしました。i5 8400に対してあと9fpsと、かなり迫っている。しかしシングル性能は両者ともに互角なので、最適化の影響は無視できない結果です。

Rise of the Tomb Raider

Rise of the Tomb Raider / DX12 1080p 最高設定

  • Ryzen 5 2600X
    120.2
  • Ryzen 5 1600X
    122.2
  • Ryzen 7 1700
    120.9
  • Core i5 8400
    135.3
  • Core i7 4770K
    122.7

第2世代になっても全く性能が変化していません。i7 4770Kにすら負けている。

The Witcher 3

The Witcher 3 / 1080p 最高設定+HBAO

  • Ryzen 5 2600X
    89.4
  • Ryzen 5 1600X
    88.5
  • Ryzen 7 1700
    87.7
  • Core i5 8400
    97.6
  • Core i7 4770K
    95.1

Witcher 3は差が出にくいゲームだが、「Ryzenかインテルか。」でしっかりと性能が顕在化している。

平均ゲーミング性能 / GTX 1080 Ti

平均ゲーミング性能 / GTX 1080 Ti

  • Ryzen 5 2600X
    100. 8
  • Ryzen 5 1600X
    95.9
  • Ryzen 7 1700
    93.7
  • Core i5 8400
    111.7
  • Core i7 4770K
    94.8

平均パフォーマンスを見てみます。Ryzen 5 2600Xは1600Xから5%、Ryzen 7 1700と比較して7.6%ゲーミング性能を改善させた。レイテンシの縮小とクロック周波数の向上が一定の効果をもたらしたのは間違いない。

しかし、依然としてライバルのi5 8400とは10%強の性能差が。あらためて、Ryzenの設計にゲーミング性能を発揮しにくい根本的な原因があり、ソフト側の最適化が追いついていないことを示したということになる。

Ryzen 5 2600Xとi5 8400は、シングル性能が互角で、マルチ性能は圧倒している。にも関わらずここまで差が出てしまう。Core i5は誕生から9年強、一方のRyzen 5はまだ1年弱。

新参にしては非常によく戦っているとは思いますが、まだまだi5 8400はRyzen 5に対する強力なライバルであり続ける路線です。大幅な設計の改善は「Zen 2」(7nmプロセス)に持ち越されるらしいので、i5を圧倒するのはその時までお預けですかね。

Sponsored Link

まとめ:最適化の壁、どこに価値を見出すか?

Ryzen 5 2600Xの「弱み」

「2個のCPUを1個のCPUとして仕立て上げる。」というインテルとは違う設計によって、Ryzenは恐ろしい安さで6コア~8コアCPUを市場に供給することを可能にしました。

しかし、この特殊な設計が仇となって、理論上の性能と実際のパフォーマンスが今ひとつ一致せず乖離してしまっている…という「最適化問題」を引き起こしている。

オープンソースソフトウェアであるBlenderなどでは、理論通りの性能をしっかりと発揮するが、Adobe PremiereやHandbrakeを用いたH. 264エンコードでスレッド数が半分のi5に追いつかれるなど。かなり厳しい戦いを強いられています。

  • ゲーミング性能はi5 8400に10%ほどリードされる
  • 最適化不足がかなり足を引っ張る現実がある
  • H.264エンコードの速度がi5 8400と互角…

「弱み」をまとめました。

Ryzen 5 2600Xの「強み」

やはりi5 8400を30%以上も上回るマルチスレッド性能が「強み」だ。3DCG / レンダリングといったクリエイティブな用途において、Ryzen 5のマルチスレッド性能は非常に魅力的です。

第1世代で課題だったシングルスレッド性能の低さも、Ryzen 5 2600Xはしっかりと払拭しているので、一般的な使い方や単純処理もかなり改善されている点も大きなメリット。

ゲーミング性能の低さはi5 8400に対して10%でしたが、これは最速のGPUである「GTX 1080 Ti」を使った場合の話。それより性能の低いGTX 1070や1060、RX 580レベルになると、ボトルネックは5%前後にまで縮小されます。

5%ということは、60fps出るゲームが63fpsくらいになるだけのこと。多くのユーザーは平均60fpsを実現できれば問題ないため、ミドルクラスのGPUを使う場合はRyzen 5のゲーミング性能を気に留める必要はまったくない。

あくまでも、ゲーミングモニターを使って可能な限りフレームレートを叩き出したいというコアゲーマーにとって問題なだけで、普通のモニター(60Hz駆動)を使っている大半のユーザーには無縁のデメリットということ。

最後に忘れてはいけないのが、Ryzen 5は「12スレッド」ですが、Core i5は「6スレッド」しかない点。もし、多くのアプリを同時に使う「マルチタスク」を重視しているなら、12スレッド備えるRyzen 5に軍配が上がる点は見逃せない大きな強みだ。

  • ミドルクラスGPUにおいて、ゲーミング性能はほとんど問題ない
  • マルチスレッド性能はCore i5を30上回る
  • Core i5の2倍にあたる12スレッドを備える
  • シングルスレッド性能はCore i5と互角の水準

それにオーバークロックを使えるので、i5 8400から更に性能差をつけることが可能。

Ryzen 5 2600Xの評価は「A+ランク」

  • 第1世代から正統進化した、新型Ryzen
  • MSRP(希望小売価格)のさらなる値下げ
  • ミドルクラスGPUでは問題にならないゲーミング性能
  • 200ドル前後では最強のマルチスレッド性能
  • Core i5の2倍にあたる「12スレッド」搭載
  • ゲーミング性能はハイエンドGPUだとi5 8400に10%のリードを許す
  • エンコード性能はi5 8400の方がコスパに優れる

しっかり正統進化していて、だいたいは満足な性能です。ただし、競合のCore i5 8400を「圧倒しているかどうか?」と言われると、明確に首を縦に振ることが出来ないため評価は「A+」としました。

グラフィックボードにミドルクラスを使い、安価にi7 8700K並のマルチタスク性能を求めるなら最適なCPUです。現状229ドルという安さで、Cinebenchが約1400点に迫るCPUは他に存在しない。

Ryzen 5 2600X with Wraith Spire

Core i5の競合としてかなり強力な選択肢。i5 8400を圧倒しているわけではないが、双方にメリット・デメリットがあるので自作派としては「どっちにするか非常に悩む…」といった感じです。

生まれてから1年弱で、「Core i5かRyzen 5か。」と悩ませるレベルまで来ているんですから、インテルにとって依然脅威だし、ユーザーとしてもとても歓迎できます。

というわけで、以上「Ryzen 5 2600Xはコスパ最強か:i5 8400と性能比較」でした。

参考になる記事まとめ

実際に「Ryzen 7 2700X」で自作してみた

実際にRyzen 7 2700Xを使って、ゲーミングマシンを自作PCを組んでみました。「Ryzenで組んでみたいかも。」と考えている人は、ぜひ参考にしてみてください。一通り解説してます。

「Core i5」で組んでみたいと思ったら

「自分はマルチタスク性能そこまで求めてないし、安いi5 8400」にしようかな。と考えた人は、実際にCore i5(8600K)で自作した記事があるので参考にどうぞ。

Sponsored Link

AMD Ryzen 5 2600X review

Our Verdict

Ryzen 5 2600X is the mainstream darling of AMD CPUs. Two fewer cores and a lower price make it an excellent alternative to the Ryzen 7.

For
  • Good multi-threaded performance
  • Higher clocks plus unlocked for overclocking
  • Attractively priced with cooler
Against
  • Slower at games than i5-8400 (with a fast GPU)
  • Limited overclocking, especially with Wraith Spire

What’s the best CPU? Opinions will vary, from those that want maximum multi-threaded performance, to maximum single-threaded performance, to best overall value. AMD’s Ryzen 5 2600X throws its hat into the latter category. [Note: I had to go back and retest a bunch of processors after the 2700X launch review, so these are all updated scores. My apologies for the delays.]

The Ryzen 5 2600X isn’t the fastest processor, even from AMD—that would be the Ryzen 7 2700X, or for multi-threaded workloads the Threadripper 1950X. It’s also not faster than the Core i7-8700K, and for games it can’t even beat the slightly less expensive Core i5-8400. But if you’re not going all-in on a top-of-the-line graphics card, that gaming potential is more theoretical than practical—and when you’re building on a budget, getting more features and performance for less money is great.

AMD’s second generation of Ryzen processors, built on the ‘Zen+’ architecture, are mostly the same as the previous generation, but with some optimizations to improve performance and clockspeeds. The new 12nm LP process from GlobalFoundries provides for potentially smaller features, but AMD appears to be content to keep the same die size and transistor count—meaning the features might be smaller, but instead of shrinking the chip or adding more transistors, AMD gives the functional elements on the CPU a bit more padding. That can help with thermals, which in turn helps with clockspeeds.

It’s not just higher maximum and base clocks, however. AMD’s Precision Boost 2 helps to improve per-core clockspeeds at intermediate workloads. So as an example, the Ryzen 5 1600X can hit a maximum of 4. 0GHz, but with three or more threads running, it clocks at 3.7GHz. Ryzen 5 2600X meanwhile has a maximum clockspeed of 4.2GHz and a base clock of 3.6GHz, but it typically runs at 3.95GHz or higher, and close to 4.1GHz under moderate loads. With all-core overclocks of only 4.1~4.2GHz, most users won’t even need to worry about the last few percent.

There’s more going on than a shrinking of features and higher clockspeeds. AMD has reduced cache and memory latencies quite a bit compared to the first generation of Ryzen parts. That’s not through any massive reworking of the chip architecture, but through small tweaks to hit the desired targets. Threadripper and the Ryzen APUs already included some of these tweaks, and second generation Ryzen includes a few more. L2 cache in particular sees a big improvement from around 17 cycles in the original Ryzen CPUs to 11 cycles this time. The above slide shows the total improvements, though the net gain in IPC (instructions per clock) is listed at a modest three percent.

The combination of higher clockspeeds and lower latencies allows the new Ryzen 5 2600X to outperform the previous generation 1600X by around 10 percent on average, which is pretty good as far as generational improvements go. AMD plans to have a more significant ‘Zen 2’ architectural update next year, but the improvements in Zen+ are welcome.

The real question is how Ryzen 5 2600X does when going up against Intel’s Core i5-8400. Both processors come with a cooler, with Intel’s i5-8400 selling for around $180 , down from its launch price of $200. If you’re hoping for an outright win from AMD’s new contender, spoiler alert: it’s not always faster, and it’s almost always slower in gaming performance. But if you’re using a more modest graphics card, it’s not going to make much of a difference which CPU you use, and for some tasks like video encoding the 2600X can be significantly faster.

Test System Hardware

AMD AM4 Testbed
Gigabyte Aorus X470 Gaming 7 WiFi
16GB G. Skill Trident Z DDR4-3200 CL14
Samsung 960 Evo 500GB
Corsair Carbide 600C
Corsair HX750i 750W
AMD Wraith Prism/Spire
Enermax Liqmax II 240

Intel LGA1151 Testbed
Gigabyte Aorus Z370 Gaming 7
16GB G.Skill Trident Z DDR4-3200 CL14
Samsung 960 Evo 500GB
Corsair Carbide Air 740
Corsair HX750i 750W
Corsair h215i

I’ve already discussed the platform changes and maturity level in the Ryzen 7 2700X review, so I won’t delay any longer. The basic summary is that the AM4 ecosystem is far more mature and ready for use than it was last year, and the X470 chipset improves stability and compatibility while bringing extra features like StoreMI.

For this review, I’ve tested the Ryzen 5 2600X and all the other Ryzen processors using Gigabyte’s Aorus X470 Gaming 7 WiFi board. I have X470 boards from Asus and MSI as well, which perform similarly. I also took time to check Ryzen performance with several memory kits, and eventually decided to retest all the Ryzen CPUs with the same G. Skill Trident Z DDR4-3200 CL14 memory that I use in the Z370 platform. (It’s not a massive change in performance compared to DDR4-3400 CL16, but it’s good for an extra 0-2 percent).

With the Meltdown and Spectre exploits and patches causing a potential change in performance, I’ve also retested every processor. All the testing for this article was done in April/May of 2018, using the latest Windows 10 Pro release (prior to the April 2018 Update) and running the most recent motherboard firmware. I’ve included a few older CPUs as well, and I’m working on testing more of these, but for now I’m focusing on the current and previous generation of mainstream hardware (with the i9-7900X included as an extreme performance reference point).

All systems are equipped with M.2 NVMe SSD storage for the OS and applications, and games are stored on a Samsung 850 Pro 2TB SATA SSD as a secondary drive. Older systems may use DDR4-2666 (X99) and DDR3-2133/1600 as appropriate, along with SATA SSDs for the OS. For the graphics card, I use a GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Founders Edition running stock clocks.

The selected GPU provides the maximum difference in CPU performance you’re likely to see when playing games (at reasonable settings). Slower GPUs like a GTX 1070/Vega 56 or GTX 1060/RX 580 (and below) will substantially narrow the gap. I’m planning to investigate CPU performance in more detail with a slower GPU, but for these initial results I’m sticking to the 1080 Ti.

Ryzen 5 2600X gaming performance

Image 1 of 21

Image 1 of 21

Considering the difference between benchmark runs is typically around 1-2 percent, there’s generally no difference between the 2600X and the 2700X—it’s basically noise between benchmark runs. Core i5-8400 ends up being measurably faster, with a 10 percent lead in average fps and an 11 percent lead in minimum (97 percentile frametime average) fps, but it’s not an insurmountable lead.

Move to 1440p, or drop to a GTX 1070 or 1080, and the gap will typically fall below the threshold of what you’d actually notice, short of running benchmarks—even 10 percent is already borderline. Note that I’ve retested some of the games since the 2700X review (specifically, KCD, Civ6, and Hitman, due to updates and other factors invalidating the earlier results).

There’s also a question of how other background tasks can impact performance. What happens if you’re livestreaming, or viewing a YouTube or Twitch video on a secondary display? These are good questions, and something else I plan to investigate further, but for now we have the current results with Intel holding a slight lead. Considering the i5-8400 also costs less, it remains an easy pick for mainstream gaming builds.

Outside of games, the differences often come down to the applications you use. I’ve updated my testing procedures since the 2700X review here as well, specifically moving to a newer version of 7-zip, with a different test data set that scales better with multi-core CPUs. I’ve also added VeraCrypt’s AES benchmark result, since that’s more commonly used than some of the other cryptography algorithms (and modern CPUs have AES instructions to improve its performance).

Ryzen 5 2600X application performance

Image 1 of 14

There are plenty of CPU intensive workloads that can be used for testing. The most popular and most likely to be used by ‘normal’ people are video editing and encoding, and I’ve used Handbrake 1.1.0 64-bit with H.264 and H.265 encoding to represent that task. H.265 ends up favoring Intel CPUs, since it makes effective use of AVX (and even AVX512, if your CPU supports it) instructions, while H.264 greatly favors the Ryzen 5 2600X. H.264 is currently the more common codec, but H.265 is something we’ll likely see more of in the future.

Cinebench nT is another workload where AMD’s chips perform extremely well, with the 2600X beating the i5-8400 by 40 percent. If you do a lot of 3D rendering, that’s going to be important. Personally… well, I’m not a 3D artist and have never actually created any 3D raytracing content outside of benchmarks. On the other hand, I regularly use 7-zip to create archives for uploading and sharing, and I’ve noticed that the 7-zip built-in benchmark doesn’t really reflect real-world compression and decompression rates. Rather than only reporting theoretical numbers, I’ve compressed 5GB of content (the exact folders compressed include the contents of the Program Files folder for AIDA64, AMD, Cinebench 15, Google Chrome, Microsoft Office, Nvidia, and a few other items like CPU-Z and y-cruncher). I time how long it takes to compress and extract all the files, and convert that result to MB/s.

What I’m trying to say is that you can easily cherry pick results from a variety of applications to make AMD look better, or to make Intel look better. It’s why I include multiple tests and give each one equal weight in the overall score. I’ve also created two aggregate charts showing combined performance. The first is the multi-threaded CPU scaling, which combines the results of the 7-zip (my test for compressing, the built-in benchmark for decompressing), Cinebench nT, H.264, H.265, VeraCrypt, and y-cruncher scores. This is a reasonable estimate of how CPU-intensive applications that scale with lots of threads will perform (though the AVX aspect of some tests still muddies the waters).

The second chart is the high-level look at the full spectrum of CPU performance, and it includes all twelve CPU tests, average gaming performance, and minimum average gaming performance. If you want to try and point to a single numerical result as being representative of a CPU’s performance, this is the one I’d use.

What you’ll find is that overall, Ryzen 5 2600X and Core i5-8400 are basically tied. Some applications will favor AMD, others will favor Intel, but across a large suite of software you’ll end up with a similar experience. If you tend to put more emphasis on multi-threaded applications, the 2600X leads by around six percent, but again that depends on what specific multi-threaded applications you run. One category of software I didn’t test is compiling code. Other sites show that Ryzen again scales very well and beats Intel, which makes sense as code compilation tends to be more integer intensive—AVX isn’t going to help.

Ryzen 5 2600X overclocking

One of the selling points of AMD’s Ryzen processors is that, much like the previous generation FX-series, all the chips are multiplier unlocked. That means if you want to try and improve performance via overclocking, you can do so. There’s one problem, at least with the 2600X: it really doesn’t need or benefit much from overclocking, and it requires better cooling to get there.

On Intel’s processors, you can set overclocks based on the number of CPU cores that are actively being used. This is how modern processors from both AMD and Intel work at stock, with Precision Boost or Turbo Boost opportunistically running cores at higher clockspeeds. Unfortunately, with AMD’s current Ryzen chips, you’re far more limited with overclocks as you set the clockspeed for all cores, all the time. Well, almost.

In several of the motherboards I’ve looked at, BIOS overclocking remains the same—all core clockspeeds are set the same. With the latest version of the Ryzen Master utility, however, you can now independently set the clockspeeds for the two CCX (Core Complexes), and you can also see a ‘favored’ core that is generally capable of the highest stable clockspeeds. This is a bit better, but it’s still more fuss than I like to deal with, and on the 2600X it’s mostly in pursuit of the final 1-2 percent of performance.

Compared to stock, where you might have six cores running at 3.8-3.9GHz, or two cores at up to 4.25GHz, or somewhere in between, as soon as you start manually setting multipliers you’re moving all-in. For heavier workloads, you might gain 300MHz by running at 4.2GHz, while lighter workloads may not benefit at all. And in the meantime, you’ll see higher power use and temperatures.

Using the stock Wraith Spire cooler, the best overclock I could get out of my particular 2600X was 4.075GHz, with 1.4V and maximum temperatures above 85C—not where I’d like to run, generally speaking. I then moved to liquid cooling with the Enermax Liqmax II 240, which dropped maximum CPU temperatures by 10C and also allowed me to squeeze out 4.15GHz, stable across all tests. (4.2GHz was stable in most games, but y-cruncher and Handbrake consistently caused the system to lock up. ) Not surprisingly, the overclock basically doesn’t get you much on this chip—overclocked the 2600X is 3-4 percent faster overall than at stock.

An alternative way of looking at things is that AMD has taken most of the effort and time out of overclocking with the Ryzen 5 2600X. You can overclock if you want to, but most of you will never need to worry about it. Either way, the limit with the included Wraith Spire cooler is likely to be in the 4.0-4.1GHz range on all cores, while a good liquid cooling setup might do 4.2 (or perhaps 4.3GHz if you get a better sample—the CPU lottery is in full effect, as usual, and your results may vary by 100MHz from mine.)

Ryzen 5 2600X vs. Core i5-8400: a matter of priorities

The good news is that not only is AMD much more competitive than it was with pre-Ryzen processors, but it also provides plenty of choice. Platform stability and compatibility issues that were present in the early days of socket AM4 are gone, in my experience. The MSI, Asus, and Gigabyte X470 boards all work well, and they work with DDR4-3400 memory, DDR4-3200 CL14 memory, and all the slower DDR4 kits I’ve had a chance to try. I can’t guarantee 100 percent compatibility, but that goes for any motherboard. If you’re worried, check out the compatibility matrix for whatever motherboard you’re planning to buy.

Should you upgrade to a Ryzen 5 2600X? That mostly comes down to what processor you’re currently using. Someone with a Core i5-5930K would want something faster to really see an appreciable difference, and first generation Ryzen owners should be fine for now. Older PCs with something like a Core i7-4770K could see a more significant 25-50 percent boost in performance—and of course you would be in a better position for things like the Meltdown and Spectre exploits and patches.

Which processor is the best $200 part right now, give or take? The primary choices consist of the Intel Core i5-8400 and the Ryzen 5 2600X. We can toss in slightly faster and more expensive i5-8500 and i5-8600 CPUs, and the slightly slower and less expensive Ryzen 5 2600 , but the story doesn’t change much. Overclockers should gravitate to the 2600, just because it has lower starting clocks and will hit close to the same maximum overclocks, but you’ll want something better than the Wraith Stealth if you’re going to shoot for stable 4.1GHz or higher overclocks.

Depending on how you plan to use your PC, either the i5-8400 or the Ryzen 5 2600X is better—yes, a boring tie in most respects. If it comes to gaming, Core i5-8400 wins, and it costs less. If you’re more interested in video editing or streaming, I’d lean toward the Ryzen 5. The final score reflects this, giving Intel a slight edge, but either processor is a worthy choice for a good mainstream PC—gaming or otherwise.

Read our review policy

Ryzen 5 2600X

Ryzen 5 2600X is the mainstream darling of AMD CPUs. Two fewer cores and a lower price make it an excellent alternative to the Ryzen 7.

Jarred’s love of computers dates back to the dark ages when his dad brought home a DOS 2. 3 PC and he left his C-64 behind. He eventually built his first custom PC in 1990 with a 286 12MHz, only to discover it was already woefully outdated when Wing Commander was released a few months later. He holds a BS in Computer Science from Brigham Young University and has been working as a tech journalist since 2004, writing for AnandTech, Maximum PC, and PC Gamer. From the first S3 Virge ‘3D decelerators’ to today’s GPUs, Jarred keeps up with all the latest graphics trends and is the one to ask about game performance. 

AMD Ryzen 5 2600 / 2600X review: The Intel Core-i5 killers

The Ryzen 5 2600 and 2600X are AMD’s new mid-range desktop CPUs, and they’re primed and ready to take on Intel’s 8th Gen Core i5 Coffee Lake processors. With six cores and 12 threads apiece, plus respective base clock speeds of 3.4GHz and 3.6GHz, they may not look like huge improvements over their 1600 and 1600X Ryzen predecessors on paper, but this time it’s what’s inside that counts, as both chips now have a faster, more efficient architecture behind them and better tech to help them reach their improved max boost clock speeds of 3. 9GHz and 4.2GHz more regularly.

Today, I’ll be looking at both the Ryzen 5 2600 and its X-rated sibling together in one big mid-range face off, pitching them against each other and seeing how they compare to help you decide which one is the best gaming CPU.

The good news first. If you’re an existing Ryzen owner, or own an AM4 motherboard, then you won’t need to get a new one to start using the Ryzen 5 2600 or 2600X. You’ll probably need to perform a BIOS update to ensure your board is definitely compatible and has the right support, but fundamentally they’ll work with every AM4 socket board that’s currently available — a much more enticing and wallet-friendly prospect than upgrading to Coffee Lake and having to get a whole new motherboard in the process.

You also get a cooler for each processor in the box, which is another nice thing that helps save you a bit of money when you come to upgrade. In the case of the Ryzen 5 2600, you get an AMD Wraith Stealth cooler, while the Ryzen 5 2600X gets an AMD Wraith Spire.

You can read more about all the new features that come with these new 2nd Gen Ryzen chips in our big AMD Ryzen+ article, but the biggest improvements all revolve around getting the best out of your processor’s clock speed, letting each chip run faster for longer without having to worry about the faff of overclocking. This is largely down to AMD’s improved Precision Boost 2 tech, which will now run each CPU core as fast as it can (where temperatures allow) whenever needed, bringing improved performance to multitasking situations where the CPU isn’t completely overloaded, such as playing and streaming games simultaneously.

AMD’s XFR 2, or Extended Frequency Range 2, tech also comes into play with Ryzen+, helping to improve each processor’s multi-thread performance when CPUs have good cooling. You’ll probably need a better cooler than the stock model that comes in the box to really take advantage of this, all told, but it essentially allows a processor to keep boosting up to 100MHz over its max limit where conditions allow — which is handy for anyone into water-cooling or you have a bit of money to spare on a beefier CPU fan and want to eek out the best possible performance from your respective chip.

Let’s see what that all means in practice. To test the Ryzen 5 2600 and 2600X, I stuck both of them into the following system: an Asus ROG Strix X470-F Gaming motherboard, 16GB of G.Skill Sniper X RAM, an Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070Ti graphics card, and a Samsung 850 Evo SSD.

Starting with Cinebench R15, which uses Maxon’s real-world Cinema 4D engine to render a complex, photo-realistic 3D scene of orbs and baubles (whatever floats your boat, I guess), the 2600 is more or less on par with last year’s Ryzen 5 1600X, which is pretty good going considering its lower clock speeds and more energy-efficient 65W thermal design power (TDP) compared to the 1600X’s 95W TDP.

That’s still not a massive increase over the regular 1600, mind, but you can still expect around a 5% increase in single core tasks and a boost of roughly 8% when it comes to more demanding multicore scenarios.

The 2600X, meanwhile, was around 5% faster than the 2600 in both of Cinebench’s single and multicore tests, and by extension the same gap applies to the 1600X. That doesn’t sound like a lot, but compared to the competition over at Intel, it’s surprisingly significant — at least when it comes to multicore performance.

When I put my six-core 3.6GHz Intel Core i5-8600K through Cinebench as well, for instance, its single core score came in 15% faster than the 2600 and 11% faster than the 2600X, but in the multicore test, the 2600 came in 16% faster and the 2600X was 20% faster.

I saw similar results in Geekbench 4 as well. Once again, the Ryzen 2600 either matched or surpassed the 1600X in single core and multicore performance, while the Ryzen 5 2600X was about 5% in front on both counts. Here, the multicore gap between new Ryzen 5s and my Core i5-8600K was less pronounced, but the Intel chip could still only match the Ryzen 2600X rather than surpass it — which, considering the difference in price (around £25 and $15 more over the £194 / $230 Ryzen 5 2600X, and the fact you get a cooler with AMD), is fairly significant.

That’s all well and good for general computing tasks, but the impact on playing games is much, much smaller. Of course, a lot of your gaming performance is going to be dependent on what type of graphics card you have rather than your CPU, but your processor is still responsible for certain tasks such as physics bits and pieces and all that streaming jazz you may or may not occasionally partake in.

At higher resolutions, you can expect to see naff-all difference between having a Ryzen 5 2600 and 2600X, as they both produced an overall average of around 40fps in Rise of the Tomb Raider (40.4fps and 40.7fps if you really want to get specific) when I ran its internal benchmark at 2560×1440 on Very High graphics settings. For comparison’s sake, my Core i5-8600K managed a whole extra frame (41.2fps), but that’s a small enough difference to basically call it a draw.

Things got more interesting at 1080p, but only slightly. While the Ryzen 5s produced respective overall averages of 62. 8fps and 63.7fps, the Core i5-8500K positively leapt ahead with… 66.5fps. So still not much of a difference, but it would seem that the age-old wisdom of Intel being better than AMD for gaming still holds true, if only just.

Still, one thing is absolutely clear. If you’re contemplating upgrading to a 2nd Gen Ryzen 5 CPU, then you’re probably better off going with the regular £169 / $200 Ryzen 5 2600 unless you’re the photo and video-editing type who regularly uses their PC for lots of demanding creative stuff as well as playing games. Otherwise, you’re just wasting money, as gaming-wise you’re not really getting any real, tangible benefit by opting for the 2600X whatsoever.

Then, of course, there’s the battle between the Ryzen 5 2600 and Intel’s suite of 8th Gen Core i5 chips. The Core i5-8400 is closest to the Ryzen 5 2600 in price (coming in at £170 / $205), but has a slower base clock speed of 3.0GHz and can’t be overclocked, so you’re really looking at comparing it with the £210 / $260 Core i5-8600K if you want a fairer bit of competition.

And really, if it were me building a new PC from scratch today, I think I’d be seriously tempted to go with the Ryzen, as I not only get to save a significant chunk of change (£50 / $60) compared to the 8600K, but I’m also getting better multicore performance, nigh on identical gaming chops and I don’t have to worry about spending even more of my hard-earned cash on a cooler, either, making it even better value for money.

There’s still that pesky Spectre security flaw to put up with, of course, but at least going with Ryzen means you’re also saved the hassle of dealing with the Intel-only Meltdown problem at the same time. AMD may have spent years walking in Intel’s shadow, but with the Ryzen 5 2600 at their disposal, their mid-range game is definitely back in business.

AMD Ryzen 5 2600X vs Intel Core i7-8700K

Summary

  • AMD Ryzen 5 2600X

    100%

  • Intel Core i7-8700K

    107%

Relative performance

  • AMD Ryzen 5 2600X

    100%

  • Intel Core i7-8700K

    114%

Relative performance

  • AMD Ryzen 5 2600X

    100%

  • Intel Core i7-8700K

    100%

Relative performance

Reasons to consider AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
None
Reasons to consider Intel Core i7-8700K
14% higher single threaded performance.
Has an integrated GPU, which allows to run the system without a dedicated graphics card, unlike the AMD Ryzen 5 2600X.
Around 7% higher average synthetic performance.

Gaming

HWBench recommends Intel Core i7-8700K

Based on game and synthetic benchmarks, and theoretical specifications.


Productivity

No clear winner declared

Features
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X Intel Core i7-8700K
MMX
3DNow!
SSE
SSE2
SSE3
SSE4A
AMD64
CnQ
NX bit
AMD-V
SMT
XFR
SSSE3
SSE4. 2
AVX
AVX2
EIST
Intel 64
XD bit
VT-x
VT-d
HTT
AES-NI
TSX
TXT
CLMUL
FMA3
F16C
BMI1
BMI2
Boost 2.0

Architecture
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X Intel Core i7-8700K
Architecture AMD Zen+ vs Intel_Coffelake
Market Desktop vs Desktop
Memory Support DDR4 vs DDR4
Codename Zen vs Coffee Lake
Release Date Mar 2018 vs Oct 2017

Cores
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X Intel Core i7-8700K
Cores 6 vs 6
Threads 12 vs 12
SMPs 1 vs 1
Integrated Graphics No vs Intel UHD 630

Cache
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X Intel Core i7-8700K
L1 Cache 96 KB (per core) vs 64 KB (per core)
L2 Cache 512 KB (per core) vs 256 KB (per core)
L3 Cache 16384 KB (shared) vs 12288 KB (shared)

Physical
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X Intel Core i7-8700K
Socket AMD Socket AM4 vs Intel Socket 1151
Max Case Temp unknown vs 72°C
Package uPGA vs FC-LGA1151
Die Size 192mm² vs 151mm²
Process 14 nm vs 14 nm

Performance
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X Intel Core i7-8700K
Cpu Frequency 3600 MHz vs 3700 MHz
Turbo Clock 4250 MHz vs 4700 MHz
Base Clock 100 MHz vs 100 MHz
Voltage unknown vs unknown
TDP 95 W vs 95 W
  • AMD Ryzen 5 2600X

    4675 points

  • Intel Core i7-8700K

    5640 points

Points — higher is better

  • AMD Ryzen 5 2600X

    28987 points

  • Intel Core i7-8700K

    31968 points

Points — higher is better

  • AMD Ryzen 5 2600X

    1403

  • Intel Core i7-8700K

    1412

points — higher is better

  • AMD Ryzen 5 2600X

    176

  • Intel Core i7-8700K

    202

points — higher is better

Ryzen 5 2600X vs.

Core i5-8400

Badmobil
Hectopat