How well would this work?

Off-Topic Games, Gaming and Hardware
41

that just stock for stock? or when OC’d too?

I’d imagine the 2600x with an overclock would be pretty close.

42

That’d be interesting to see, I’ve only seen it compared to the 2600 really, which it beats easily even when the 2600 is oc’d

43

I watched one comparison from Science Studio, where he said the 9400f performed better than the 2600

But it was weird that his 2600 was clocked at 4ghz and scored worse CB R20 than my 3.8ghz 1600

44

Yea, that video was a little wonky… weren’t they the ones that gave the 2600 the 1660ti and the 9400f the RTX 2060 as well?

45

I think they both used the 1660 ti.

He also overclocked the Ryzen 2600 to 4ghz on all 6 cores, and it only got 2736 on cinebench r20…meanwhile my 1st gen Ryzen 5 1600…at 3.8ghz…does 2861.

what? 4.6% faster, but 200mhz less and worse IPC?

I think he just isn’t as scientific as he thinks he is.

46

either I misheard it when I first watched that one or it was a different video I was watching lol, but yea, that is wonky on the cinebench scores.

47

yeah, puts the whole test in doubt that something’s not right with his 2600.

I commented on the video but nobody cared. All they wanted to do was sackride him.

48

I have seen elsewhere though that it’s still beating the 2600

It does level out when you can get a 4.2ghz OC out of your 2600, but 4 is much more reasonable, atleast under stock cooling, 4.2 pushed our temperatures too high.

49

here’s another 9400f vs 2600x

more in line with what i’d expect

50

Pretty good value though if you think about it, specially since for a low end user who would be looking at this you’re getting all that without having to mess with clocks and you save a lot on the motherboard too. We’re talking 50-70 dollar motherboards instead of 100+ for a decent one.

51

Maybe. I’d still take the 2600.

Can’t recommend locked intel chips anymore at all.

1 Like
52

I’m assuming you meant locked :stuck_out_tongue:

We’ve had issues getting my wife’s 2600 to even 4ghz, so sometimes they can be a headache, think we need a better board.

Though… the fact that intel even sells locked chips still is silly… like come on guys.

1 Like
53

yep, whoops.

maybe they should unlock all of them, and make the nonk versions no HT and the K version have HT

54

If the recent next gen ryzen rumors are true, Intel will either have to unlock their entire sku line up again or increase the stock/boost clocks on their entire lineup.

55

IIRC we know we will get a 10 core, but windows task scheduler sucks at managing very high core counts.

Beyond that, more than 8 cores is generally meaningless performance for 99% of consumers.

Unless Zen 2 lives up to its frequency/IPC promises, the amount of cores past 9900k level won’t matter much if at all to 99% of consumers.

1 Like
56

The thing is though, when reviewers run benchmarks they do so with nothing else in the background. So while you may not really benefit from higher core counts from a reviewers point of perspective, you definitely will when you have 10~12 programs running like the normal person.

Intel is bringing out a 10 core cpu, there’s lots of rumors about AMD bringing more with the 3000 series.

57

I’d say 6/12 is the current sweet spot atm for consumer grade, really wish my 9600k had HT. Like I’ve thought about selling it to fund a 8700k partially.

1 Like
58

8/16 is MORE than enough for 99% of users

I’m on 6/12 and i’m not even close to maxing out

I’ve got Youtube, Chrome x 4 tabs, wallpaper engine, steam, uplay, bnet, etc. etc. and i’m at like 40% cpu usage while gaming on something like ACOD

59

I am on 4/8 right now but it’s becoming really apparent games are starting to use higher core counts. 6/12 is fine right now, it’s not a bad thread count right now.

But think about it Salgeron, whenever DX12 or DX13 actually start using higher core counts, don’t you think they’ll utilize 16 threads?

60

Eh DX12 can go DIAF lol, it always seems to make games worse…

Vulkan is where it’s at.

1 Like