Welcome to Keen Software House Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the KSH community.
  1. You are currently browsing our forum as a guest. Create your own forum account to access all forum functionality.

CPU choice i5 9400F or Ryzen 2600 ?

Discussion in 'General' started by mleise, Apr 16, 2019.

Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.
  1. mleise Trainee Engineer

    i5 9400F:
    + can boost clock of an individual core very high
    + offers good performance without overclocking
    - no hyperthreading
    - upgrade probably requires new RAM and mainboard

    Ryzen 5 2600:
    + compatible with next gen of AMD CPUs (upgradable)
    + good workstation performance
    o after market cooler, overclocking and 3200 Mhz DDR4 makes it competitive
    - sup par single-core game performance

    So basically as long as a game used one thread at 100% and some more CPU cores at low utilization, the Intel will be perfect. On the other hand, if the game uses more than 6 threads with a high utilization the AMD will catch up and overtake. As some pointed out, simulating one large ship may favor high single-core performance, while simulating lots of small ships may favor high-thread-count CPUs. Has any of the players or devs done testing with both options? Is there any definite answer?

    Maybe I should formulate it differently: When the FPS drop, and the CPU is the bottleneck, how many CPU cores are actually highly loaded?
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2019
  2. Roxette Senior Engineer

  3. Ronin1973 Master Engineer

    The Ryzen has a larger cache and is unlocked. It also supports hyperthreading.

    Space Engineers uses more than one core but the majority of the action happens on one primary core.

    I think the stock i5 is slightly better in testing than the AMD in gaming. But that margin closes on higher settings where the i5 seems to bottleneck. What I don't see testing for would be games with heavy physics engine usage (like SE). That's where a larger cache will be most helpful as any information that is cached on the chip instead of held in RAM will execute faster.
  4. mleise Trainee Engineer

    Thanks, didn't know about the TechSpot review. Though even without extra OC cooler you'd currently pay 150€ extra for the 2600X setup in the test. (CL15 3400 Mhz DDR4 is quite expensive.) Could bring it down to 40€ extra with CL16 3333 Mhz if I find a mainboard that supports HX433C16PB3K2/16.
  5. mojomann71 Senior Engineer

    Either one you choose, do not be dishearted if SE still does not render to your liking. A couple of years back I did the same wanting to get the best that I could so I could see SE in "all its Glory" and there was not much of a difference. :) Other games I had greatly improved though!
  6. mleise Trainee Engineer

    That was probably before 2017's multi-threaded Havok update. And yeah you really need a recent gfx card for SE before all. The recommended minimum was tested by w4stedspace back then, lol:
  7. mleise Trainee Engineer

    So I'm using that i5 9400F + SAPPHIRE Pulse Vega 56 now and it runs super smooth in 1440p @ 60 FPS with everything on high, except for the shadow maps (performance killer).
    Last edited: May 15, 2019
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.