need help dont want to buy another cpu to bios update

[G00fySmiley]

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-performance-cpus,5683.html

 

https://www.anandtech.com/show/9793/best-cpus

 

those are some of the classics. also check youtube videos like LTT, gamers nexus, jayz2cents, and a lot of others. Basically the biggest thing you can do is look up the titles you play and software you use the most. check how they perform with a given cpu and choose what is best for the money. currently unless you are going absolute high end for gaming (9900k) then AMD pretty much rules the roost. 

[TomvanWijnen]

7 minutes ago, G00fySmiley said:

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-performance-cpus,5683.html

 

https://www.anandtech.com/show/9793/best-cpus

 

those are some of the classics. also check youtube videos like LTT, gamers nexus, jayz2cents, and a lot of others. Basically the biggest thing you can do is look up the titles you play and software you use the most. check how they perform with a given cpu and choose what is best for the money. currently unless you are going absolute high end for gaming (9900k) then AMD pretty much rules the roost. 

That does not actually compare the performance of the 9400F with the other options.

 

50 minutes ago, 5x5 said:

Single-core is pretty similar mate - the 9400F is a low-clocked locked i5, not a 5GHz i9. The difference is 2-3% in single-core and 30% in multi-core which is what the OP is using for his image editing. Bloody hell.

Thanks for being so kind. Love you too. Good evening.

 

41 minutes ago, Epimetheus said:

let's just stop saying idiotic things while pretending to be smart. You're very clearly either a novice that still looks up things on userbenchmark, or an Intel fanboy. The 2600 is better in everything, especially multicore. And that's exactly what he needs for productivity. You get a slightly faster cpu in gaming and a way faster cpu in productivity. And you can still overclock it. You can't even make the point it's faster in adobe products, since the 9400f lacks any integrated gpu and thus all the related features. Please inform yourself before trying to sound smart

Please tell me what is wrong with userbenchmark, excluding the total score. In other words, what is wrong with the "single core, dual core, etc" scores? Curious to know. Even people who've been into it for a while can still learn.

And it's not like the 2600 does have an iGPU, so I don't know what you're on a bout regarding that.

I am not trying to sound smart, by the way. Thanks.

[Damnkid]

i do have a 1060 btw lol thats why i dont care about it not having graphics 

 

[G00fySmiley]

12 minutes ago, TomvanWijnen said:

That does not actually compare the performance of the 9400F with the other options.

 

Thanks for being so kind. Love you too. Good evening.

 

Please tell me what is wrong with userbenchmark, excluding the total score. In other words, what is wrong with the "single core, dual core, etc" scores? Curious to know. Even people who've been into it for a while can still learn.

And it's not like the 2600 does have an iGPU, so I don't know what you're on a bout regarding that.

I am not trying to sound smart, by the way. Thanks.

tomshardware and anandtech that is thier "best for the $ 9400f is ot on there because it does not deserve to be on either list. but if you really want to compare them just type 9400f in the search ba and they yield large results. or since the 3600 is newer the 3600 where the review includes it 

 

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-5-3600-review,6287.html

 

as for why userbenchmark is terrible. it basically just does not serve as an example of rela world computing let alone what actual gaming results will be. Recently as intel was overtaken in most independant reviews by AMD in performance. Userbenchmark instead decided it was a good idea to literally change the quite to the few things remaining where Intel was actually beating AMD. for a while there due to their playing around the i3 per themselves was the best CPU money could buy (you see where the issue is in there right?) also as a synthetic benchmark it is not reflective of real world performance of anything beyond thier synthetic load. 

 

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/userbenchmark-benchmark-change-criticism-amd-intel,40032.html

[Epimetheus]

1 hour ago, TomvanWijnen said:

Please tell me what is wrong with userbenchmark, excluding the total score. In other words, what is wrong with the "single core, dual core, etc" scores? Curious to know. Even people who've been into it for a while can still learn.

And it's not like the 2600 does have an iGPU, so I don't know what you're on a bout regarding that.

I am not trying to sound smart, by the way. Thanks.

The single core performance is really really unnecessary and can't tell the whole story at all. And what userbenchmark does is give a lot of importance to it and quad core performance, things that really don't matter much, and no importance at all to multithreaded performance, the one which actually matters.

And how can you be so navigated without knowing the reason why intel is so competitive in adobe applications? There's this feature called Quicksync (there's another minor feature, but i can't recall what it is). It's basically a feature that speeds up the encoding process using the integrated gpu of the chip, something that the 9400F - a chip without integrated graphics - can't do. That's what usually makes up for intel's lack of hypertreading in adobe products, and that's what kills the last point you can make about this processor being good

[TomvanWijnen]

1 hour ago, Epimetheus said:

The single core performance is really really unnecessary and can't tell the whole story at all. And what userbenchmark does is give a lot of importance to it and quad core performance, things that really don't matter much, and no importance at all to multithreaded performance, the one which actually matters.

And how can you be so navigated without knowing the reason why intel is so competitive in adobe applications? There's this feature called Quicksync (there's another minor feature, but i can't recall what it is). It's basically a feature that speeds up the encoding process using the integrated gpu of the chip, something that the 9400F - a chip without integrated graphics - can't do. That's what usually makes up for intel's lack of hypertreading in adobe products, and that's what kills the last point you can make about this processor being good

I've never used adobe applications (apart from adobe acrobat reader DC lol) so I did not know that. Interesting, though!

 

Also, I've always learned that games generally use single (or dual or quad perhaps too recentlyish) core the most. I do however agree that for a thing as photo editing multi core "should" indeed be more important.

 

Is this analysis of userbenchmark good in your opinion?

 

[TomvanWijnen]

3 hours ago, G00fySmiley said:

tomshardware and anandtech that is thier "best for the $ 9400f is ot on there because it does not deserve to be on either list. but if you really want to compare them just type 9400f in the search ba and they yield large results. or since the 3600 is newer the 3600 where the review includes it 

 

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-5-3600-review,6287.html

 

as for why userbenchmark is terrible. it basically just does not serve as an example of rela world computing let alone what actual gaming results will be. Recently as intel was overtaken in most independant reviews by AMD in performance. Userbenchmark instead decided it was a good idea to literally change the quite to the few things remaining where Intel was actually beating AMD. for a while there due to their playing around the i3 per themselves was the best CPU money could buy (you see where the issue is in there right?) also as a synthetic benchmark it is not reflective of real world performance of anything beyond thier synthetic load. 

 

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/userbenchmark-benchmark-change-criticism-amd-intel,40032.html

Ah nice, thanks. Funnily enough, when looking at the Rendering, encoding, blablabla tab, you see performance figures (I looked at multi and single core) of the 3600 and 9400(F) that are really close to what userbenchmark tells us.

[Epimetheus]

10 minutes ago, TomvanWijnen said:

Ah nice, thanks. Funnily enough, when looking at the Rendering, encoding, blablabla tab, you see performance figures (I looked at multi and single core) of the 3600 and 9400(F) that are really close to what userbenchmark tells us.

It's funny considering that actually in most of the tests the i5 9400f gets edged out by the 1600x, let alone the 3600 by a huge margin

[Mister Woof]

2600 is on sale rn like $129

[Damnkid]

@Epimetheus your saying all this stuff lets see it 

[Mister Woof]

9400f is $129

https://www.amazon.com/Intel-i5-9400F-Desktop-Processor-Graphics/dp/B07MRCGQQ4/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=9400f&qid=1568079295&s=gateway&sr=8-1

 

2600 is $129

https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Processor-Wraith-Stealth-Cooler/dp/B07B41WS48/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=2600&qid=1568079305&s=gateway&sr=8-1

 

I would choose the 2600 for both general gaming and everything else. 

 

This is coming from someone who has mostly Intel products.

[TomvanWijnen]

9 hours ago, Epimetheus said:

It's funny considering that actually in most of the tests the i5 9400f gets edged out by the 1600x, let alone the 3600 by a huge margin

Could you answer my question, please?

[Epimetheus]

6 hours ago, Damnkid said:

@Epimetheus your saying all this stuff lets see it 

i don't know if you even bother reading the other comments, since they already linked the evidence 

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-5-3600-review,6287.html

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/userbenchmark-benchmark-change-criticism-amd-intel,40032.html

[Epimetheus]

9 hours ago, TomvanWijnen said:

I've never used adobe applications (apart from adobe acrobat reader DC lol) so I did not know that. Interesting, though!

 

Also, I've always learned that games generally use single (or dual or quad perhaps too recentlyish) core the most. I do however agree that for a thing as photo editing multi core "should" indeed be more important.

 

Is this analysis of userbenchmark good in your opinion?

 

more like:

The first image shows the i5 is faster by an 8% margin overall

While the second image shows that the Ryzen 5 is overall faster by a 5% margin

How do you explain that? How can you still take this site seriously in any way?

[Epimetheus]

Can i ask you to go see what my processor is and then say if i'm talking as an amd fanboy or as someone who knows what he's talking about?

[TomvanWijnen]

4 hours ago, Epimetheus said:

more like:

The first image shows the i5 is faster by an 8% margin overall

 

While the second image shows that the Ryzen 5 is overall faster by a 5% margin

 

How do you explain that? How can you still take this site seriously in any way?

Yes, I know that the total score is pointless. I don't even look at that so I didn't even know that they put the i5 so far above the Ryzen. That's stupid indeed lol. I only look at the individual single, dual, quad, multi, etc core ratings. They give values that were very similar to what the link you or someone else posted contained.

 

4 hours ago, Epimetheus said:

Can i ask you to go see what my processor is and then say if i'm talking as an amd fanboy or as someone who knows what he's talking about?

That did surprise me! Now, I never called anyone a fanboy (or accused anyone of anything), but the way you and some others spoke was a bit too "direct" in my opinion. To illustrate what I mean, instead of saying something like "only novices use userbenchmark", instead say "the xxx score of userbenchmark is heavily inflated and wrong(, instead look at X to find better values)".

 

[Epimetheus]

1 minute ago, TomvanWijnen said:

Yes, I know that the total score is pointless. I don't even look at that so I didn't even know that they put the i5 so far above the Ryzen. That's stupid indeed lol. I only look at the individual single, dual, quad, multi, etc core ratings. They give values that were very similar to what the link you or someone else posted contained.

 

That did surprise me! Now, I never called anyone a fanboy (or accused anyone of anything), but the way you and some others spoke was a bit too "direct" in my opinion. To illustrate what I mean, instead of saying something like "only novices use userbenchmark", instead say "the xxx score of userbenchmark is heavily inflated and wrong(, instead look at X to find better values)".

 

 

i'm sorry if you took that as an insult, but it's usually a mistake you do when you start getting into pc building. I used to trust userbenchmark too, when it was still somewhat usable. The results stated after are more realistic (and they in fact show that the ryzen 2600 has a bit of advantage), but the overall results you get when you open the site are taken 40% from single core performance, 58% from quad core performance, and only 2% from multicore performance. That's why it's so unrealistic

[TomvanWijnen]

51 minutes ago, Epimetheus said:

i'm sorry if you took that as an insult, but it's usually a mistake you do when you start getting into pc building. I used to trust userbenchmark too, when it was still somewhat usable. The results stated after are more realistic (and they in fact show that the ryzen 2600 has a bit of advantage), but the overall results you get when you open the site are taken 40% from single core performance, 58% from quad core performance, and only 2% from multicore performance. That's why it's so unrealistic

Yes indeed that total sore is utterly worthless.

[ryzen4lifehom3z]

the i5 9400f is a very bad cpu my daddy bought me a ryzen 7 2700 and a gtx 2080 my bench marks are 24000 with a 20% more single life speed for only 500$ more you can just get the i9 9900 ive seen every linus video so trust me i know what im talking about good luck :) @Damnkid @Epimetheus @5x5 @Stormseeker9