Intel Core i5-10400 Pictured and Detailed, New Mid-range Gaming Champion in the Making?

[dirtyferret]

I did multiple ryzen 1600 builds for people in 2017 and they've almost all moved to 3600/3700X the same jump in performance on Intel would have required a whole platform change for example.

I don't understand. The same people screaming about future proofing their PCs and preventing microstutter by buying a Ryzen 1600 six core CPU "upgraded" to another six core CPU in the Ryzen 3600 in under three years? Next you will be filling us with lies that someone high IPC and high frequency plays a vital role in web surfing, gaming, and MS office!

It is actually useful. Cinebench puts the CPU to good use, it will give you a good idea of how many instructions a CPU can push. That's why the link I posted with several benches, paints roughly the same picture.
Sure, you can play with IPC by playing tricks with the cache or running heavily branching code, but for typical usage, Cinebench is enough to get an idea.

Do you typically run it a full ghz under what your CPU operates at?

 

[bug]

Do you typically run it a full ghz under what your CPU operates at?

Run what? What frequency have to do with IPC?

 

[dirtyferret]

Run what? What frequency have to do with IPC?

run the test as in the chart

 

[bug]

run the test as in the chart

Well, yes. If you want to determine IPC, that's what you do: you underclock to run everything at the same frequency. Whoever wins does the most work per clock.

 

[dirtyferret]

Well, yes. If you want to determine IPC, that's what you do: you underclock to run everything at the same frequency. Whoever wins does the most work per clock.

I know how it works and what it does, my sole question was "do you run it like that"?

 

[bug]

I know how it works and what it does, my sole question was "do you run it like that"?

No. But how is that relevant in the context?
10400 is supposed to run at about the same frequency as 3600. Given similar IPC, it will behave about the same.

 

[dirtyferret]

No.

End of discussion

But how is that relevant in the context?

Question was asked, answer given. See statement above

10400 is supposed to run at about the same frequency as 3600. Given similar IPC, it will behave about the same.

Wonderful (and I agree) but that was never brought up by me. If you want to go at it with someone else over that topic, have at it.

 

[bug]

End of discussion

I still don't understand what you were talking about, but ok.

 

[Chrispy_]

This still isn't going to do much to stop people buying R5 3600 chips instead:

With a 3600 you're getting

• similar performance at a much better power efficiency
• $20 in your pocket because the Ryzen is cheaper
• an unlocked chip that'll routinely do 4.3-4.4GHz all core, all day (no boost limits)
• No silly requirement for a Z-series motherboard. Several budget B450 boards can handle a 3600 4.4GHz with ease.
• Included cooler. Maybe not for overclocking but at stock it'll match the (clock-locked) Intel without costing you a dime.
• Way more cache. I'm convinced the huge cache is one of the biggest reasons Zen2 stomps all over Intel and Zen1/Zen+

I mean, taking all of that into account, the i5-10400 really needs to be $150 to compete.

 

[dirtyferret]

I still don't understand what you were talking about, but ok.

Vayra stated the following;

IPC varies per application. Raw IPC cannot always be utilized and that specifically goes for gaming. That is why clocks still matter. More clock = more instructions *per second*

But you're right, Zen has a lead now and can do more with lower clock in many instances.

A chart was posted in reply to his post showing various CPUs at 3500mhz running cinebench and many being in the same IPC ballpark unfortunately none of those CPUs are run at 3500mhz stock making the test academic in nature but not for the real world (unless of course you do run your charted CPU @3500)

 

[bug]

Vayra stated the following;


A chart was posted in reply to his post showing various CPUs at 3500mhz running cinebench and many being in the same IPC ballpark unfortunately none of those CPUs are run at 3500mhz stock making the test academic in nature but not for the real world (unless of course you do run your charted CPU @3500)

Well, yeah. And I posted another link showing that image extrapolates nicely to gaming, that's how "academic" that test is. After that he went on to tell me a sub 10% difference is not "in the same ballpark". So I really don't know what everybody is trying to say anymore.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

I don't understand. The same people screaming about future proofing their PCs and preventing microstutter by buying a Ryzen 1600 six core CPU "upgraded" to another six core CPU in the Ryzen 3600 in under three years? Next you will be filling us with lies that someone high IPC and high frequency plays a vital role in web surfing, gaming, and MS office!


Do you typically run it a full ghz under what your CPU operates at?

A lot of people I've done builds for are coming from console gaming so their initial investment is $800-1000 max including monitor etc. They mostly play multiplayer games like gears 5, call of duty, fortnite, and BFV and in less than 2 years switch to 144hz or 165hz panels with a 2080 super or 2080 ti and as good as the 1600 is doesn't hold up for that sort of usage especially if you want to maintain 144hz at all times.

I typically let them do a gaming session on my systems for a couple hours prior to them doing their builds. That's part of the reason I needed a ryzen system last year hard to recommend something I didn't own.... Graphs only show so much ya know.


Even my 9900k @ 5ghz can be CPU limited in BFV (multiplayer) at 1440p/ultra with a 2080 ti... By around 5-8% but still.

Some have stuck with their 1600/1700 and are super happy with their 1080 class GPU and lower. Also none of the 2600/2700 system I've done have made the switch.

 

[R0H1T]

There is no such thing as "Gaming IPC" anyone trying to extrapolate CPU gaming performance ala IPC should just look at that LTT video with 3990x running Crysis, I mean how the heck do you measure that with GPU acceleration

Hint ~ you don't! Also IPC isn't just application dependent, it's also code (path) dependent

 

[Vayra86]

Well, yeah. And I posted another link showing that image extrapolates nicely to gaming, that's how "academic" that test is. After that he went on to tell me a sub 10% difference is not "in the same ballpark". So I really don't know what everybody is trying to say anymore.

Me neither let's drop it