2600X vs 8600k @ 1440p

[ZenMonkey]

Almost all of the FPS benchmarks I find are done at 720p or 1080p to illustrate the most exaggerated difference between these CPUs, but I game at 1440p/165Hz for competitive gaming, and for other games I like to run the highest settings that provide an acceptable experience. I know running at 1440p on higher settings narrows the difference dramatically as it puts more load on the GPU, but I'm having trouble finding benchmark results. Does anyone have good sites? I would prefer webpages with text/pictures over videos so I can research while at work. Or if you just have stats, if you'd like to share those, that would be good as well. Thanks in advance.

[Guest]

You lose a few fps with i5 compared with i7, and lose a few fps with ryzen compared to i5.

For competitive get the intel .

[Imglidinhere]

7 minutes ago, ZenMonkey said:

Almost all of the FPS benchmarks I find are done at 720p or 1080p to illustrate the most exaggerated difference between these CPUs, but I game at 1440p/165Hz for competitive gaming, and for other games I like to run the highest settings that provide an acceptable experience. I know running at 1440p on higher settings narrows the difference dramatically as it puts more load on the GPU, but I'm having trouble finding benchmark results. Does anyone have good sites? I would prefer webpages with text/pictures over videos so I can research while at work. Or if you just have stats, if you'd like to share those, that would be good as well. Thanks in advance.

Youtube? Any of the major techtubers on there are great sources of information. HardwareUnboxed is a great one if you don't want a huge amount of technical stuff.

[App4that]

I run at 1440, a 8700k is the fastest. For gaming the 8700k takes it.

[Dissitesuxba11s]

For a written review and comparison:

https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/Ryzen-7-2700X-and-Ryzen-5-2600X-Review-Zen-Matures/1440p-and-4K-Gaming

 

Note that it is not the 2600X but the 2700X.

[ZenMonkey]

36 minutes ago, Some Random Member said:

You lose a few fps with i5 compared with i7, and lose a few fps with ryzen compared to i5.

For competitive get the intel .

Thank you for your insight, but that's not what I asked. I already knew Intel came out on top. What I want to know is by how much.

[ZenMonkey]

31 minutes ago, App4that said:

I run at 1440, a 8700k is the fastest. For gaming the 8700k takes it.

Thank you for your insight, but that's not what I asked. I already knew Intel came out on top. What I want to know is by how much.

[ZenMonkey]

33 minutes ago, Imglidinhere said:

Youtube? Any of the major techtubers on there are great sources of information. HardwareUnboxed is a great one if you don't want a huge amount of technical stuff.

 

Video isn't an option at work. Do you know if HardwareUnboxed publishes its data anywhere like GamersNexus?

[App4that]

5 minutes ago, ZenMonkey said:

Thank you for your insight, but that's not what I asked. I already knew Intel came out on top. What I want to know is by how much.

I run a 1700X and 8700k. In benchmarks you're likely to find in an article or Youtube video I see what is seen in those comparisons. The real difference comes in when looking at titles from small developers that are not covered in those comparisons. That's when the 8700k shines and Ryzen has anything from minor to major issues. 

[ZenMonkey]

8 minutes ago, App4that said:

The real difference comes in when looking at titles from small developers that are not covered in those comparisons. That's when the 8700k shines and Ryzen has anything from minor to major issues. 

 

That's an interesting point. I hadn't considered that. I suppose it makes sense that indie developers would develop for the most popular architecture, but didn't think it would be that big of an issue. Thanks for pointing that out.

[just_dave]

14 minutes ago, ZenMonkey said:

 

Video isn't an option at work. Do you know if HardwareUnboxed publishes its data anywhere like GamersNexus?

techspot.com

[Imglidinhere]

21 minutes ago, ZenMonkey said:

 

Video isn't an option at work. Do you know if HardwareUnboxed publishes its data anywhere like GamersNexus?

Wait until you're at home then? Use your phone?

[Emberstone]

32 minutes ago, ZenMonkey said:

 

That's an interesting point. I hadn't considered that. I suppose it makes sense that indie developers would develop for the most popular architecture, but didn't think it would be that big of an issue. Thanks for pointing that out.

Older games can also be a pretty big issue for Ryzen, and ultimately why I switched.

 

Heroes of the Storm uses the very-dated Starcraft 2 engine (released in 2010), and the 8700K gets around double the performance I had on my 4.0 GHz R5-1600X. I never dip below 144 fps on the 8700K, but I could see as low as 60 on the Ryzen 5. I say "low" because I use a 144 Hz monitor and I can see when the framerate dips.

 

Guild Wars 2 is another game I play a lot (released in 2012). I upgraded my CPU, an i7-980X at 4.0 GHz, because I was tired of getting around 20 FPS in world events like Claw of Jormag and Tequatl, only to find that the Ryzen was pretty much in the same ballpark. Around 20 FPS or so. My 8700K? 40 FPS on a full map (~150 people), and over 60 fps otherwise. Elsewhere in the world is 144+ easily.

 

Newer games, especially AAA titles, play just fine with Ryzen+ (Ryzen+'s latency improvements can help a lot in games that were initially hit heavy by them, like PUBG), but optimization across indie games and older titles can be annoying. I have no doubt it'll be better in a few years, but I or anyone else can't say when.

 

I make it sound like doom and gloom, but Ryzen+ really did improve upon things for gaming. It just isn't highlighted as much in the AAA games everyone benchmarks since they all mostly play fine with Ryzen anyway these days.

[DarkSmith2]

I dont really get the point of this post. CPU Benchmarks arent done on lower than 1440p to exaggerate anything.

 

You are litterally GPU bottlenecked on 1440p in every reliably testable scenario (whithout having the CPU being bottlenecked by the game itself) and both CPU's will just show the same numbers within margin of error, thats why you cant find such "reviews" online, well atleast until you hit the spot where any of the CPUs would bottleneck the graphicscard that is used for testing.

 

Just like how it is in this video:

 

You can compare GPUs this way, but this isnt telling you anything about the performance of the CPU's, a 4790k might get the very same results or even a much more lowerend CPU, im not going as far as saying a Pentium G, that would be exaggerating. But what you are searching for doesnt really excist. Only thing we can tell is that there is a difference in 1440p between the 2700x and the 8700k with lower results on the 2700x when using a GTX1080Ti which means that the 2700x is bottlenecking a 1080Ti. When faster graphics cards are getting released we probably can tell "by how much" (while using 1440p).

[Biggerboot]

1 hour ago, ZenMonkey said:

What I want to know is by how much.

Without citing any particular site or benchmark that largely depends on the game, and somewhat on the resolution.  Sometimes no difference, sometimes 20 fps.

[epsilon84]

Here are a few from Gamers Nexus, tested with a GTX 1080 Ti so still some scaling from faster CPUs: https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3288-amd-r5-2600-2600x-review-stream-benchmarks-gaming-blender/page-3

 

Techpowerup with a GTX 1080, notice how much closer and bunched up the CPUs are now, classic GPU limitations that you mentioned earlier: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_2600X/14.html

 

Overall the 8600K is still a bit faster even at 1440P, especially with a 1080 Ti and both overclocked to their limits, as GN's results show. If you are a competitive gamer, I would personally just get the 8700K if you can afford it, otherwise the 8600K would be a solid 2nd choice. An overclocked 2600X is no slouch, but doesn't quite catch the Intel chips in outright gaming performance, even at 1440P.