Intel Core i5-9400F vs. AMD Ryzen 5 2600X

Intel has been having some trouble as of late which has made it fifty-fifty harder to compete with the incoming wave of Ryzen processors. That has forced the fleck maker to exist a little more creative and brand do with their current product lines. Today we have the Intel Cadre i5-9400F on hand, which in itself isn't anything new. It's basically a refreshed Core i5-8400 with a 100 MHz clock speed boost. We say basically because it'due south not a straight refresh however, there's some other change.

The Intel UHD Graphics 630 have been disabled and therefore the 9400F has no form of integrated graphics -- just like the Ryzen 5 2600X. This is meant to make the 9400F cheaper than the Cadre i5-8400, even though Intel's listing pricing doesn't make this credible, in do the Core i5-9400F can exist had for $175 while the i5-8400 is however $215, making the newer scrap about xx% cheaper. It also ways it's cheaper than the Ryzen 5 2600X which is currently retailing for $190.

So which should you purchase? Allow's get that out of the manner. Before this comparison review we updated our Best CPU feature and we said you should become with the Ryzen 5 2600X every bit it comes with a meliorate stock libation, tin can exist overclocked, and the AM4 platform offers a significantly better upgrade path.

We stand by that assessment, but that won't escape usa from running a few up to date benchmarks. We'll focus on gaming operation which should make life a little easier for Intel's CPU. For application performance yous can refer back to our day-one coverage of the Ryzen 5 2600X where the i5-8400 was included. You tin safely bet the 2.5% factory overclock isn't going to make the 9400F any more almost 1-2% faster than those figures.

We'll also take a closer await at operating temperatures of the i5-9400F using the box cooler towards the end of the article every bit somewhat of a mini-review. The main event though is an xviii game benchmark using the GeForce RTX 2080 Ti at 1080p, 1440p and 4K. The 4K results should typically simulate GPU bound gaming using a lower end GPU at a lower resolution.

There are two test configurations for each CPU. The Cadre i5-9400F was tested with the standard Intel box cooler for both configurations on the Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Main. The base configuration uses 16GB of DDR4-2666 CL15 retentiveness as this is what you'll be express to on whatsoever motherboard not using a Z370 or Z390 chipset. Then we have an overclocked DDR4-3400 configuration.

The Ryzen 5 2600X has been tested on the Gigabyte X470 Aorus Gaming 7 WiFi with the standard box libation for the base of operations exam with 16GB of DDR4-3400 CL15 memory. Then the 2nd configuration is overclocked to iv.2 GHz with tight retentiveness sub-timings and the Corsair Hydro Serial H115i. All benchmark information was gathered fresh for this review.

Benchmarks

Starting things off we take Warhammer: Vermintide 2 and hither we come across at 1080p, for maximum frame rates, the 9400F was 13% faster than the 2600X when comparison base configurations. Overclocking the 2600X pushed information technology ahead of the base 9400F for the 1% depression figure but then pairing the Intel processor with faster retentivity was enough to get it back on par and alee for the boilerplate frame rate.

Similar margins were seen at 1440p and and so quite interestingly at 4K the 2600X was a fraction faster, or quite a flake faster when overclocked with finely tuned memory timings. You'd expect the consequence hither to be identical, every bit we are, or at least should exist 100% GPU limited, but that wasn't the case.

Moving on we have Assassin'southward Creed: Odyssey. I wasn't expecting the Ryzen 5 processor to do particularly well here, so the results were surprising. The faster retention didn't help the 9400F while the overclock boosted the 2600X's average frame rate by 9%. Moving to 1440p we are GPU limited and much the aforementioned is seen at 4K.

The Core i5-9400F was a piffling more punchy in Fortnite simply overall the margins were insignificant, the fastest configurations were separated by four% at 1080p. Naturally that margin was reduced further at 1440p and then at 4K we had a stalemate.

The 9400F was too a whisker faster in Apex Legends, nix really worth getting too excited nearly though, essentially we're looking at the exact same experience using either CPU.

If y'all're for some reason seeking big frame rates in Resident Evil ii then it seems like the Ryzen 5 2600X is the CPU to get, at least over the Cadre i5-9400F. At 1080p in its base configuration the 2600X was eight% faster and so 6% faster when tweaked for maximum functioning.

That said these margins were finer eliminated at 1440p and 4K, so for the vast bulk of yous these CPUs will deliver the exact same feel in this title.

Hither is another instance where the 9400F was faster by a small margin. When testing with Only Cause four the Intel CPU was upward to 8% faster when comparing similar configurations, that said the 1% low results were much the aforementioned.

Hitman two is a horrible title for AMD and while the 1% low performance was competitive the average frame rate slipped quite a bit. This title is actually baroque when it comes to the relationship between the CPU and GPU, though I'd say we are more often than not CPU bound at 1080p and 1440p.

Project Cars 2 is another title that is non so friendly to AMD'due south hardware but overall the upshot isn't that bad for the Ryzen five 2600X. We're CPU limited at the 1080p and 1440p resolutions, while things mostly come up together at 4K.

The Core i5-9400F pulls slightly ahead at 1080p in Rainbow Vi Siege for the average frame rate, only the i% low figures are all very similar. There is very little divergence between these two CPUs at 1080p and then basically no difference at 1440p and 4K.

The Battlefield V results are interesting... For repeatability and accuracy we are using the single player campaign. Nosotros've washed multiplayer testing in the past but information technology's a piffling difficult to gather accurate data. It's also been several patches since our testing and many have addressed functioning. The single player portion of the game mimics the slight issue we saw with the 9400F in multiplayer...

The experience with the 9400F for the most part was very good, but whereas the 2600X was silky shine at all times, the 6-core Intel CPU suffered odd frame stuttering here and there. At 4K the 9400F with DDR4-2666 memory suffered large drops in performance though this was somewhat corrected with faster memory.

World of Tanks has been updated to back up Ryzen CPUs optimally and we see the 2600X doing quite well. With over 100 fps at all times performance was very good and shut to that mark fifty-fifty at 4K.

Performance in Metro Exodus was competitive and there was no distinguishing betwixt the 2 processors. This isn't the most CPU enervating game out there but information technology was expert to run into the 2600X matching the 9400F in this modern title.

Far Cry New Dawn is quite sensitive to memory latency and turning upwardly the Ryzen processor really helped hither. The base configuration wasn't terrible but we did run into up to a 15% functioning heave from tweaking the memory and overclocking the cores. Even at 4K the 2600X struggled to go the near out of the RTX 2080 Ti without those tweaks.

Both CPUs delivered similar functioning in Shadow of the Tomb Raider and with DDR4-3400 both were able to max out the RTX 2080 Ti at 1440p. Then at 4K nosotros were entirely GPU spring.

Using DDR4-2666 retentiveness the 9400F was a little jittery in Monster Hunter: World, though that was solved with the faster DDR4-3400 memory. The 2600X had no such issue, though information technology was but tested with 3400 memory as this CPU has no memory limitations on any of the mainstream B and X series chipsets. Once nosotros increased the resolution to 1440p the RTX 2080 Ti became the bottleneck.

Strange Brigade isn't CPU intensive at all simply it is very well optimized and allows us to exam using the Vulkan API. Overall both CPUs performed well getting the most out of the RTX 2080 Ti at each resolution.

Despite putting on a skillful show in Battleground V, the Ryzen five 2600X isn't as nimble in Star Wars Battlefront 2 despite both games using the Frostbite game engine. The 2600X trails the 9400F even at 1440p, though one time tuned upward the margins are minimal.

Final up we have The Partition 2 and these are some very interesting results to cease on. Using DDR4-2666 retention the Core i5-9400F maxed out at 120 fps on average with a 1% low of 86 fps. So the faster DDR4-3400 memory boosted the average frame charge per unit by about 20% which is quite significantly.

This title appears to be very memory sensitive and we saw no bug with the 2600X which was only tested with faster memory. By the time we hit 1440p we are GPU express with the RTX 2080 Ti and the same is also seen at 4K.

Closing Remarks

When information technology comes to gaming information technology's fair to say there'southward no incorrect choice here and the Ryzen v 2600X and Core i5-9400F are evenly matched. The 9400F is at times faster thanks to better game support and lower latencies, but the 2600X is ofttimes able to ensure smoother frame rates thanks to its support for twice as many threads.

With the reward of faster DDR4-3400 retentiveness, remember the 2600X isn't artificially limited, it was able to lucifer the Core i5-9400F using DDR4-2666 memory, a memory speed the Intel CPU is limited to on all but the Z-series motherboards.

Unleashing the 9400F with DDR4-3400 memory did offer a five% performance bump on average while the i% low was improved by six%. The 2600X basically saw the aforementioned gains when overclocked. Those margins are reduced for both processors at 1440p, and then at 4K we're GPU limited to the point where yous don't encounter more than a frame or two difference.

For general computing the Ryzen 5 2600X tin take advantage of multi-threading capabilities and will be considerably faster than the 9400F on heavy application workloads. Recollect the 9400F is only marginally faster than the 8400, so yous tin can safely use the older model as a measuring stick. For rendering and encoding workloads the 2600X is anywhere from 30 to 50% faster.

For those wondering about operating temperatures, using the box coolers both CPUs run at a niggling over seventy degrees with an ambient room temperature of 21 degrees. However where AMD's Wraith Spire is whisper tranquillity in our Blender stress examination, the Intel box cooler sounds like a jet engine when paired with the 9400F. Therefore, y'all'll want to spend at least another $25 on a decent cooler to brand the thing bearable.

If you're mostly playing games on your PC, you will exist happy buying either processor. Both proved to exist solid options and are evenly matched with a slight advantage to the Intel chip if yous don't tune up the Ryzen processor. The base operation we showed for the i5-9400F tin exist accomplished with $90 retentiveness, while the 2600X will crave $110 - $120 memory in order to enable the frame rates shown here. Information technology's not a big toll departure and correct now with anything less than an RTX 2070 or Vega 64 you'll more likely become GPU limited.

Looking at those ane% low results, the 2600X was arguably more consistent, just for the most part yous wouldn't know which processor yous were using. There can exist exceptions to this such as older games. StarCraft 2, for example, plays much better on Intel processors.

Moving beyond games, it's an like shooting fish in a barrel win for the 2600X. The Ryzen upgrade path on B350, B450, X370 and X470 motherboards, all support upcoming Zen 2 processors. So if you lot purchase a dainty B450 board at present with the 2600X, you'll be able to slap a Ryzen 3000 processor on there subsequently in the year, or whenever you deem information technology necessary.

On that notation, at this point we suggest holding off on whatever CPU purchase until the Ryzen 3000 series arrives, it's simply around the corner.