To compete against the Ryzen 5 2600X which is currently selling for $180, Intel released the slightly refreshed i5-9400F which also retails at $180. As far as the specifications on paper go, the Ryzen offers 6 cores and 12 threads at a top of 4.2GHz while Intel's offering has 6 cores and 6 threads with a top frequency of 4.1GHz; the AMD chip also comes with the Wraith Spire cooler while Intel's supports Optane.
The real question is how they perform when you use them and to discover the answer you should check out TechSpot's latest CPU review.
"Intel's been having some trouble competing with the wave of Ryzen processors, forcing the chip maker to be a little more creative. Today we have the Intel Core i5-9400F on hand, which is basically a refreshed i5-8400 with a 100 MHz clock speed boost, no integrated graphics and a lower price point."
Here are some more Processor articles from around the web:
- Intel Xeon Cascade Lake Running Even Faster With Clear Linux – Six Linux Operating Systems Benchmarked @ Phoronix
- Ryzen 5 2600X vs. Ryzen 7 1700 @ TechSpot
- Intel Xeon Scalable "Cascade Lake" Processors Launch – Initial Xeon Platinum 8280 Linux Benchmarks @ Phoronix
- The Best CPUs 2019 @ Techspot
Well the Ryzen 5 2600X is an
Well the Ryzen 5 2600X is an unlocked part and it supports faster memory 2933 MHz compared to the Core i5-9400F’s 2666 MHz. And the 2600X has Total L1 Cache: 576KB, Total L2 Cache: 3MB, and Total L3 Cache: 16MB cpmpared to the 9400F’s 9 MB of “SmartCache” that’s sharing L2 and L3 among the cores. But the Ryzen 5 2600X has more cache and Intel does not list the L1 and L2 cache sizes on its Ark listing for the 9400F and TachPowerUp’s database says:
“Cache L1: 64K (per core), L2: 256K (per core) L3:
So the Ryzen part gets a nice boxed cooler and the Intel Part supports some Optane mode that Ryzen can not. But if the Optane comes in a standard SSD well that’s going to be usable by whatever CPU what with the SSD’s controller doing the managing on that sort of device.
Oh yes the F part from Intel has disabled graphics so that’s Intel making the best of the yields because it’s 14nm production is prioritised towards server/high margin SKUs.
Funny the Ryzen 7 2700 is $199.99 at Microcenter currently and that’s $19 more for 2 more cores and 4 more threads and would be fun to overclock for some possible silicon lottery that may get things closer to the 2700X in performance. Lower base clocks are somewhat meaningless when with proper cooling higher all core clocks are what matters along with the maixmum boost clocks attainable.
Also I can see some sweet sweat deals on 2nd generation Ryzen 2000 series parts just starting the closer it gets to the Ryzen 3000 Zen-2 parts being released. Now is the time to be surfing for deals that over the next few months will see the Ryzen 2000 series parts going even lower.
I’d rather see more Price Per Core metrics rather than only total pricing. I’d probably go with the Ryzen 7 2700 and tweak that for al it’s worth and that’s going to be the per core pricing winner on sale 8 cores/16 threads @ $199.99.
Well the Intel needs a cooler
Well the Intel needs a cooler so that would make it over budget.
So to equal out you would have to add $25-30 to the AMD build for whatever.
If you are strictly gaming and are not interested in future proofing for hardware or software take the Intel as it will give higher fps in most every game.
Every other scenario go with the AMD and save $25(put it towards good RAM).