9400f vs 2600

[fluxdeity]

Honestly what was Intel thinking? This chip barely outperforms the 2600 in gaming while the 2600 destroys the 9400f in multi-core uses. They're both roughly the same price. So I guess the next question would be, is Intel in trouble?

 

I feel as if AMD will be the big dog in the industry within the next 2-3 years tops. If not in both CPUs and GPUs, at least CPUs. Nvidia has been ahead of ATI/Radeon for a while now but that's expected with a company three to four times the market share. Recently with the Vega architecture though things are starting to look a little spicy. Not to mention Nvidia releasing the troll 1650 card for no reason other than to get rid of some old stock. I like the route AMD is going with 16gb of HBM2 instead of 11gb of GDDR6 like the 2080ti which is almost double the price of the Radeon VII.

 

What are your guy's and gal's thoughts on the matter?

[Constantin]

minimal differences between those two  

[Sorenson]

I think it’s a good value chip. Most people don’t use multi core applications and it beats the 2600 out in almost every game by a significant margin. 

 

Honestly though I think it’s more of an OEM chip that they can throw in affordable desktops. I think the average consumer will still recognize intel as high performance than they do AMD. 

[XR6]

2600 is better imo, mainly because a decent B450 motherboard is a bit cheaper than a decent B360/B365 motherboard.

Performance-wise though, they're about the same.

My advice for anyone deciding between the two CPUs: Just buy whichever will cost you less (including the price of the motherboard).

[SenioRR]

Intel is still using 14nm for their CPUs with no 10nm in sight. IIRC their 7nm node also was recently rumoured to be released in 2021! It's good to see Intel getting their ass kicked. Hopefully with Ryzen 3000 series Intel will finally lose its tiny IPC advantage which seems to be Intel's last remaining advantage overall.

Even though it is insignifcant, the sheep will still buy Intel because they cannot live with losing 7 FPS since some people only seem to care about that.

 

I hope Navi will do well too considering it will have GDDR6 thanks to the recent PCB leak, putting it in the affordable range where Polaris used to be.

Hopefully they will also release a competetive high-end card along with that.

[LukeSavenije]

i vote for the 1600/2600 and a b450/x370/x470 board

 

why? double the threads, better upgrade path and it can overclock

 

buy a good mobo and you'll get a nice return

[JoostinOnline]

Until AMD has a CPU that firmly beats Intel in gaming and content creation (at a given price point obviously), they won't be in trouble.  Intel has over a decade of brand loyalty to stand on, while AMD is fighting an uphilll battle.  People don't like complicated answers on what's "best".  With 10 years of people saying Intel is best, the average consumer isn't going to switch over because "AMD beats Intel in some situations".

[LukeSavenije]

12 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

the average consumer 

yeah, but we normally don't handle that here

 

i mean, chipwise on the same level, but some things simply aren't

[fluxdeity]

1 hour ago, Sorenson said:

I think it’s a good value chip. Most people don’t use multi core applications and it beats the 2600 out in almost every game by a significant margin. 

 

Honestly though I think it’s more of an OEM chip that they can throw in affordable desktops. I think the average consumer will still recognize intel as high performance than they do AMD. 

I wouldn't call it significant if I could have 2 identical as possible systems, one 9400f and one 2600, and you would not be able to tell me which was which by playing a list of 5-10 games. You don't notice 5-15 FPS differences at 85-100fps. You can notice 60 vs 144, but not 85 vs 100.

[Den15]

I think the whole idea behind these "F" chips is for intel to make its way with GPUs, so , maybe performance wasn't their main goal when launching the 9400F, I see it more as a test.

 

2600 tho is AMD's way to tackle the i5 in a meaningful way, considering the huge performance gap back in the FX series.

 

So AMD is aiming at intel and high performance, while intel is sliding out refreshes while they develop their GPU.

 

I find it hard to see AMD as the top dog in a near future scenario, as much as I'd want to... and I don't have all that hope that Navi will put them up against nvidia's monster cards...

 

I love AMD, been using intel for a long time but just because I'm saving up for that R7 in the near future (bought my old pc in 2013 [i3 3240 which is still ok at the tasks I do{ones that are not playin recent games} with a r7 370)]

[Sorenson]

6 hours ago, fluxdeity said:

I wouldn't call it significant if I could have 2 identical as possible systems, one 9400f and one 2600, and you would not be able to tell me which was which by playing a list of 5-10 games. You don't notice 5-15 FPS differences at 85-100fps. You can notice 60 vs 144, but not 85 vs 100.

I agree people won’t notice it, but 85 vs 100 FPS is a 17% increase. Granted that’s in the higher difference cases, but in gpu terms that’s about the difference between a 2060 and 2070. If you’re gaming, and watching Netflix the bottom line is the i5 is faster than the 2600. Also the B360 motherboards and B450 motherboards are pretty much the same price.

 

 

[Rigg]

I don't think it really matters right now. We're so close to Ryzen 3000 launch its not really even worth discussing. With the 1600 already dirt cheap and the 2600 about to be heavily discounted this question is only relevant in the very short term. It's questionable for the vast majority of people even at current pricing to consider Intel.  The actual performance difference is completely dependent on the rest of the hardware in the build. You'd need a pretty decent GPU to even realize the performance advantage. Anybody who is GPU bound won't see a gaming performance advantage at all. Most people shopping in this price range are likely to be GPU bound or close enough to it that it just doesn't matter. The Ryzen is likely the better long term decision regardless. 

 

This is an absolutely terrible time to be CPU shopping with few exceptions. Between the new 9th gen Intel chips they just announced and the looming Zen 2 launch nobody who's livelihood doesn't depend on it should be buying a CPU right now. $80 R5 1600 with an eye to upgrade to zen 2 down the road might be the one other exception.