Vayra86The graph shows that Ryzen 3600 with double thread count gets the same min FPS as a 6c6t 9400F has as average. So threads most certainly do matter, as much as, or even more than, clocks in some games. Its also funny that we read today about the 10400 as a counter to the 3600... but that CPU has been out for a while.

Here's the dots I connect:
- Ryzen CPUs you don't typically OC anymore, they're best on their own.. and yeah. RAM overclocking... so XMP is also an overclock now then :p Definition needs an update maybe.
- Intel CPUs non K cannot be overclocked, so you're talking stock vs stock anyway
- Intel K CPUs are extremely costly because to extract higher than Ryzen performance, you need to have sufficient cooling, cost can easily ramp up to 150% of a similar tier Zen CPU for the package. High power draw also affects case temps, and we're talking about significant TDP gaps here.
- Intel non K CPUs sacrifice base clocks for higher turbo's these days, they may burst a bit faster (nanoseconds of profit...) but under sustained loads, Ryzen will be faster every time.
- Ryzen SMT seems to scale better across the board

So what you have with a non-K Intel CPU, even if price is similar, is a less well rounded CPU and what you get in return is a highly situational advantage in a steadily decreasing percentage of game titles. The tables have quite definitively turned into AMDs favor, if you ask me. Comparable, yes, but certainly no longer the optimal choice. We have not even touched yet on Intel's security problems and bandaids which still, until recently include microcode updates through Windows Update, or the fact you cán indeed undervolt or OC your Ryzen CPU where the non K is unable to; or that motherboards are not dead ends.

You do realize Cinebench performance isn't gaming performance right? Intel's CPUs have the inherent advantage for gaming, however in purely multithreaded scenarios, yes Ryzen usually is better. But "situational"? As in, only gaming? As in, what these chips are targeted for? I'm not denying the fact that Ryzen can handle boosts better, but like, I still don't like having to update the BIOS every week. That I feel is a little ridiculous to HAVE to do. Though, I don't know how that new update is affecting non-K CPU undervolting (I hated it the moment I heard of it), as im on a 9750H laptop and my undervolt still works.

TaraquinTake a look at the reviews with the i7 8700 vanilla cooler, it is extremely noisy and thermalthrottles in several scenarios.https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-8700-cpu-review,5638-2.html I think most people who buys a Ryzen tune ram a bit. Why? Because they build the system themselves since very few oems ship ryzen. Anyways, you could by a cheap 3200cl16 or 3600cl18, much better performance than 2666cl16 which would be the result on most i5 10400 setups with 2666cl16.

Tuning a car is a terrible comparison as it voids warranty on most cases and requires a lot more work than using dram calc. You can OC ram and not voud your warranty unless going beyond recommended voltages.

Fun fact, overclocking also voids warranty. Anyways, people who spend the time building their first PC, they are trying to get a working system. I would like to know the percentage of people that actually WANT to have to tune their system to match the performance of another system of the same price. Maybe techpowerup should do a poll on that. And um, Intel nor AMD "recommends" any specific voltage. That is where the community of overclockers come in, however that does not mean Intel or AMD warrants tuning. Not saying that tuning your system WILL damage your components, but if something goes wrong and you mention that you tuned the system and don't provide proof how that tuning did not contribute to the faulty component(s), then yes they can void your warranty. The i7-8700 is a different chip than the i5-10400/F. Two different dies, one is U0 (6C CFL die) and the 10400/F is rather interesting, the 10400/F both have the 6C CML die and 10C CML die, 2 different SPEC codes for each. Anyways, the point of me saying that is, CML dies aren't exactly the same quality as a 6C CFL die, they are inherently a little better, with the 10C dies being used for CPUs >6 cores and the 10600K/F, and of course the lower quality 10C CML dies go into lower tier parts to help with yields. But the i7-8700 is not the same as the 10400F, as they are 2 different dies. 10400/F has a more refined core than the 8700.

Berfs1You do realize Cinebench performance isn't gaming performance right? Intel's CPUs have the inherent advantage for gaming, however in purely multithreaded scenarios, yes Ryzen usually is better. But "situational"? As in, only gaming? As in, what these chips are targeted for? I'm not denying the fact that Ryzen can handle boosts better, but like, I still don't like having to update the BIOS every week. That I feel is a little ridiculous to HAVE to do. Though, I don't know how that new update is affecting non-K CPU undervolting (I hated it the moment I heard of it), as im on a 9750H laptop and my undervolt still works.

Why are you dragging Cinebench and BIOS updates into this now all of a sudden? I never did. The penny still has not dropped for you and that was my point: EVEN in gaming, Intel's advantage is highly situational *at best*. There are already many titles where a similar tier Ryzen CPU will do better, and that flies ESPECIALLY if you put it side by side with a non-K Intel alternative that cannot sustain its turbo.

Again, it is time to readjust your view on this, half of what you're saying is yesterdays news.

Vayra86Why are you dragging Cinebench and BIOS updates into this now all of a sudden? I never did. The penny still has not dropped for you and that was my point: EVEN in gaming, Intel's advantage is highly situational *at best*. There are already many titles where a similar tier Ryzen CPU will do better, and that flies ESPECIALLY if you put it side by side with a non-K Intel alternative that cannot sustain its turbo.

Again, it is time to readjust your view on this, half of what you're saying is yesterdays news.

Then why did you mention the i7-8700 review? Whatever, I guess y'all love to spend your time tuning only to have to update the BIOS again... Just curious, have you thought about going Ryzen?
Ill leave this here, this is comparable to the 10400/F but I guess otherwise i'm wrong for gaming performance

Berfs1Then why did you mention the i7-8700 review? Whatever, I guess y'all love to spend your time tuning only to have to update the BIOS again... Just curious, have you thought about going Ryzen?

Because you mentioned how non-K Intel was somehow a fantastic gamer's choice when in reality, it is really not as is shown by the non-K example there, not coincidentally the CPU that is being replaced by the one in this article.

Tuning, BIOS, all your words...not mine. All escapes to deny the obvious truths laid out before you in terms of good or bad purchases.

Vayra86Why are you dragging Cinebench and BIOS updates into this now all of a sudden? I never did. The penny still has not dropped for you and that was my point: EVEN in gaming, Intel's advantage is highly situational *at best*. There are already many titles where a similar tier Ryzen CPU will do better, and that flies ESPECIALLY if you put it side by side with a non-K Intel alternative that cannot sustain its turbo.

Again, it is time to readjust your view on this, half of what you're saying is yesterdays news.

You were right to point out overclocking Intels needs beefy cooling. But you left out that you need aftermarket cooling for AMD as well. And faster/more expensive RAM for Zen2.

Vayra86EVEN in gaming, Intel's advantage is highly situational *at best*. There are already many titles where a similar tier Ryzen CPU will do better, and that flies ESPECIALLY if you put it side by side with a non-K Intel alternative that cannot sustain its turbo.

Remains to be seen. I was planning to replace the i5-8400 in my computer with R5-3600X. After running a bunch of tests in games, decided to keep the 8400 for a while longer. 3600X consumed ever so slightly more power and failed to be faster (RTX2080 at 1080p with Ultra settings, maybe its GPU-limited). I should probably check if I still have the notes with numbers from testing - I was surprised at the result because I expected Ryzen to do better.

Keep in mind that the games tested by sites are usually the well-threaded ones - Assassin's Creed Odyssey, Battlefield V, Division 2, Total War etc. This is not the case with majority of games. The new gen will remove the current Ryzen advantages based on more threads.

Berfs1You do realize Cinebench performance isn't gaming performance right? Intel's CPUs have the inherent advantage for gaming, however in purely multithreaded scenarios, yes Ryzen usually is better. But "situational"? As in, only gaming? As in, what these chips are targeted for? I'm not denying the fact that Ryzen can handle boosts better, but like, I still don't like having to update the BIOS every week. That I feel is a little ridiculous to HAVE to do. Though, I don't know how that new update is affecting non-K CPU undervolting (I hated it the moment I heard of it), as im on a 9750H laptop and my undervolt still works.


Fun fact, overclocking also voids warranty. Anyways, people who spend the time building their first PC, they are trying to get a working system. I would like to know the percentage of people that actually WANT to have to tune their system to match the performance of another system of the same price. Maybe techpowerup should do a poll on that. And um, Intel nor AMD "recommends" any specific voltage. That is where the community of overclockers come in, however that does not mean Intel or AMD warrants tuning. Not saying that tuning your system WILL damage your components, but if something goes wrong and you mention that you tuned the system and don't provide proof how that tuning did not contribute to the faulty component(s), then yes they can void your warranty. The i7-8700 is a different chip than the i5-10400/F. Two different dies, one is U0 (6C CFL die) and the 10400/F is rather interesting, the 10400/F both have the 6C CML die and 10C CML die, 2 different SPEC codes for each. Anyways, the point of me saying that is, CML dies aren't exactly the same quality as a 6C CFL die, they are inherently a little better, with the 10C dies being used for CPUs >6 cores and the 10600K/F, and of course the lower quality 10C CML dies go into lower tier parts to help with yields. But the i7-8700 is not the same as the 10400F, as they are 2 different dies. 10400/F has a more refined core than the 8700.

Depends on where you live in the world. Where I live seller have to prove that my OC caused the problem. Tuning of cars is a different matter. As for voltages AMD specified max safe voltage for some of their ryzen series. If you buy a cheap 3600-kit and turn on dcop etc I can't see how that would void warranty in other contries, but the performance leap from a similar priced Intel system running 2666 is quite impressive. AMD even says running ram at 3600/1800 IF is a sweet spot achieveable for most.

I don't really get your point on how the 10400 having a more refined core magically lowers temps so much that their stock cooler will sufice?

Point is:
If 10400F is going to be faster than a 3600 you must use a Z-MB and better cooling, but then price is higher.
If 10400F is going to be cheaper or same price performance will be worse due to cooler and ram. If you buy 3000 or slower ram and do no tuning on 3600 then 10400F will probably win most times.

bugYou were right to point out overclocking Intels needs beefy cooling. But you left out that you need aftermarket cooling for AMD as well. And faster/more expensive RAM for Zen2.

No, buy cheap Crucial with Micron E-die, they easily do 3733cl15 on ryzen 3k. 80usd. B-die is sligjtly faster, but much more expensive.

bugYou were right to point out overclocking Intels needs beefy cooling. But you left out that you need aftermarket cooling for AMD as well. And faster/more expensive RAM for Zen2.

Beefy versus perhaps buying single stack tower of 25 bucks, because that is what you need to extract most of the performance, especially on a hexacore, right? And expensive RAM... we're talking the exact same sticks as we'd put in our Intel CPU, some order of 3000-3200mhz.

As for the mentioned thread count @londiste , yes absolutely. But we're also seeing examples where Zen runs better than the Intel alternative and let's be very honest, how many games today are still single thread limited on recent CPUs? And what actual limit are you talking about; a few max. FPS or a consistently lower average...

londisteRemains to be seen. I was planning to replace the i5-8400 in my computer with R5-3600X. After running a bunch of tests in games, decided to keep the 8400 for a while longer. 3600X consumed ever so slightly more power and failed to be faster (RTX2080 at 1080p with Ultra settings, maybe its GPU-limited). I should probably check if I still have the notes with numbers from testing - I was surprised at the result because I expected Ryzen to do better.

Keep in mind that the games tested by sites are usually the well-threaded ones - Assassin's Creed Odyssey, Battlefield V, Division 2, Total War etc. This is not the case with majority of games. The new gen will remove the current Ryzen advantages based on more threads.

I have a i5 8400/2666cl13 and ryzen 3600cl15, the 3600 beats my 8400 in everything I have tested, sometimes by a large margin. When I ran my ram at 3000cl16 the 8400 was quite similar and sometimes a bit faster.

TaraquinI have a i5 8400/2666cl13 and ryzen 3600cl15, the 3600 beats my 8400 in everything I have tested, sometimes by a large margin. When I ran my ram at 3000cl16 the 8400 was quite similar and sometimes a bit faster.

There are games that rely on faster memory and games that do not. The Ryzen IF speed difference is not that big but the difference in a memory-bandwidth dependent game will be big with much faster memory. Out of often-tested games, Battlefield V and Division 2 are pretty hungry for more bandwidth if I remember correctly.

I was testing with a pretty average 3200CL16 kit.

Vayra86But we're also seeing examples where Zen runs better than the Intel alternative and let's be very honest, how many games today are still single thread limited on recent CPUs? And what actual limit are you talking about; a few max. FPS or a consistently lower average...

Are we seeing examples where Zen runs better on technically equal alternative not cost or market placement alternative? If Zen has more threads there are obvious benefits for certain games. Even in gaming tests run at the same frequency Zen2 is barely catching up to Skylake-ish.

Common testing is with average. 0.1% or 1% is hell to test at home except for ingame benchmarks that return these values.

Edit:
3300X is probably where Zen2 can shine over 7700K but this is also a pretty rare case where Zen2 has a frequency advantage :)

Vayra86Beefy versus perhaps buying single stack tower of 25 bucks, because that is what you need to extract most of the performance, especially on a hexacore, right?

Yes, that sounds about right (add VAT/sales tax). But $25 for a $150 CPU still adds one sixth to the cost.

Vayra86And expensive RAM... we're talking the exact same sticks as we'd put in our Intel CPU, some order of 3000-3200mhz.

Intel is fine with 3000-3200, Zen2 has a 3600 sweet spot ;)

Anyway, I was just saying you gotta spend extra $$$ to extract the maximum of either platform. Mind you, it's not the same as spending the extra $$$ to buy a Turing card. For a mid-range CPU, you get _a lot_ of value in return. Plus if you get a 6c/12t CPU today, it will last you 5 years easily.

londisteAre we seeing examples where Zen runs better on technically equal alternative not cost or market placement alternative? If Zen has more threads there are obvious benefits for certain games. Even in gaming tests run at the same frequency Zen2 is barely catching up to Skylake-ish.

Common testing is with average. 0.1% or 1% is hell to test at home except for ingame benchmarks that return these values.

Well, look at the comparison with a 8700K, both 6c12t and yet min FPS (not 0,1% or 1%) is in favor of Ryzen 3600 - with a frequency gap. The 8700K would be running 4.3 Ghz all core at stock. The 3600 runs at 4.2. In other workloads that same trend pops up, where Zen is capable of matching Intel performance at a lower clockspeed. Games are not exempt from this and certainly won't be going forward.

The point initially I was going to make is not by any means that one should NEVER ever buy Intel again in this direct comparison of i5 versus Ryzen 5; but the argument 'Intel is still better for gaming' is becoming a smaller niche by the day, and it is good to realize that. Overall, these CPUs perform pretty much the same, really, and victories go both ways, instead of exclusively towards Intel.

TaraquinDepends on where you live in the world. Where I live seller have to prove that my OC caused the problem. Tuning of cars is a different matter. As for voltages AMD specified max safe voltage for some of their ryzen series. If you buy a cheap 3600-kit and turn on dcop etc I can't see how that would void warranty in other contries, but the performance leap from a similar priced Intel system running 2666 is quite impressive. AMD even says running ram at 3600/1800 IF is a sweet spot achieveable for most.

I don't really get your point on how the 10400 having a more refined core magically lowers temps so much that their stock cooler will sufice?

Point is:
If 10400F is going to be faster than a 3600 you must use a Z-MB and better cooling, but then price is higher.
If 10400F is going to be cheaper or same price performance will be worse due to cooler and ram. If you buy 3000 or slower ram and do no tuning on 3600 then 10400F will probably win most times.

I took a look at some benchmarks, and I was wrong. At this point, I would not recommend i5 over Ryzen. I would still recommend i7K/i9K just because of the higher frequencies, but Ryzen overall is better than i5 for gaming. I apologize for my earlier attitude.

Vayra86We have not even touched yet on Intel's security problems and bandaids which still, until recently include microcode updates through Windows Update, or the fact you cán indeed undervolt or OC your Ryzen CPU where the non K is unable to; or that motherboards are not dead ends.

I just came back to let you know about the undervolting thing, I looked into it, it has to do with SGX, so if you have it disabled, you don't need the microcode update. But yes Ryzen is more secure than Intel CPUs, but I am wrong about the performance levels, my apologies.

Berfs1: If you get a Z490 MB with the 10400F and good ram which you OC to 3600+ it will beat the 3600 in most scenarios even if you also OC the 3600s ram likewise, but the price will also be higher. I never disagreed about 10400 having better performance in certain scenarios, but taking price into account with expenses to cooler and Z490 the price would end up quite a bit higher :)

AMD: More bang for bucks.
Intel: More performance for more bucks.

Eagerly awaiting the ryzen 4000-series which judging from the 3300X looks real promising :)

3600 inbox cooler is not what you want to use. Neither is 3600Xs. Both can let the respective CPUs throttle at high loads. Not even mentioning reaching quite the speeds they should. You will want to buy a cooler with these as well.

londiste3600 inbox cooler is not what you want to use. Neither is 3600Xs. Both can let the respective CPUs throttle at high loads. Not even mentioning reaching quite the speeds they should. You will want to buy a cooler with these as well.

Generally they are able to run both CPUs above 4GHz, aftermarket cooler improves performance 50-100MHz due to the weird way ryzen boosts according to temp. The stock Intel cooler is much worse and throttling in gaming may occour. With my i5 8400 and goid venting it reaches high 80s after a few cinebench runs (ambient temp is 18-20C). In gaming it reaches about 80C. The 10400 will probably run a bit hotter so throttling is guarantied.

TaraquinGenerally they are able to run both CPUs above 4GHz, aftermarket cooler improves performance 50-100MHz due to the weird way ryzen boosts according to temp. The stock Intel cooler is much worse and throttling in gaming may occour. With my i5 8400 and goid venting it reaches high 80s after a few cinebench runs (ambient temp is 18-20C). In gaming it reaches about 80C. The 10400 will probably run a bit hotter so throttling is guarantied.

10400 will probably use a different cooler?

bug10400 will probably use a different cooler?

Intel has shipped the same cooler for 4 generations so I would not get my hopes up :/

TaraquinIntel has shipped the same cooler for 4 generations so I would not get my hopes up :/

Well, it's still a 65W part, but it adds HT. It might need a new cooler (or at least a cooler that was higher up the stack).

For 65W it's fine, but the max output of the cooler is 70-75W. My i5 8400 uses around 80W during stresstest/rendering etc which overwhelms the cooler. With undervolt and Kryonaut paste it is able to cope. The i7 8700 65W shipped with same cooler uses well over 100W during load. Specwise the 10400 is very similar to i7 8700 vanilla. Best option pricewise would be a Snowman-cooler from aliexpress for 20usd, that would be enough, hope they make the fit for 1200-socket soon.