Gadgetory

although am these are r7 CPUs did pretty well last year for the 1000 series it was really the r5 series that ended up taking all of our awards and critical acclaim the r5 1600 X and 1600 were some of the best CPUs put out last year I think we even called the 1600 x2 the best basically for anything in kind of a gaming build price class so we like those a lot and that's why this review the r5 2600 X and 2600 is the one that we think you should be paying attention to for a non-production focused build that might still be doing some kind of streaming with gaming alongside it before that this video is brought to you by thermal Grizzly makers of the conductor hot liquid metal that we recently used to drop 20 degrees off of our temperatures Thermal Grizzly also makes traditional thermal compounds were used on top of the IHS like cryo not and hydronaut pastes learn more at the link below there's some required watching for this one go check our our 720 700 X review before we get into this there are a lot of things that we talked about there I'm not going to go over them again go watch that one if you want it the basics here the 2600 2x is a 3.6 gigahertz to 4.2 gigahertz part the 2600 9x comes down to three point four and 3.9 gigahertz you can overclock them two equivalents and we're not going to bother overclocking both because they're the same thing so if one is at 4.2 and the other is at 4.2 their performance is equal the 1600 X in the 1600 just frame of reference maxed out at 4 gigahertz roughly and beyond that again very quick recap the biggest advantage Verizon to over isin one was not raw performance that's kind of boring if you're looking for huge gains because that more or less mirrors intel's gradual stepping over the years for raw performance but that's okay what I am the improved on was not FPS really that much they bit yes but what they really improved on was the minimum required voltage to sustain a fixed frequency ie 4 gigahertz where it's significantly lower and power consumption at that fixed voltage and frequency is significantly lower that's the improvement watch the other video for it so get it into this one then we're gonna start with streaming back marks you can check the article for additional information if you have any questions about this stuff will go into blender some games and then we should pretty much have a good idea of where the 2600 series falls we're gonna open up with streaming benchmarks for these CPUs today quick explanation again most of its in the previous video are in the article but we're taking a baseline measurement versus streaming measurements so we're looking at framerate during a stream at 10 megabits per second with faster for the h.264 preset or 12 megabits per second which is less relevant and h.264 medium for the preset which is functionally a stress test using medium is basically a synthetic test just in case we deliver 100% of frames which is our target with h.264 faster so that we can still see which CPU is better in an objective forced environment where they are demanded to push harder than they need to otherwise the goal is to deliver 100% of frames encoded successfully to the viewer while also maintaining a playable good quality framerate for the streamer so we have two charts the streamer side chart and the viewer side chart where they need to come together and meet a good medium otherwise the products no good for that particular task we are streaming pub G and dota 2 for our first round of tests we use gigabit internet we log for any kind of network or packet issues there were none and then we do all the other measurements including power and thermal measurements as we do the testing so we'll get to some of those as well for streamer side fps and pub G the if5 8600 kaise baseline stock performance permitted a 138 FPS average frame rate which butts it up against the FPS cap and the average would stretch it a bit higher without that consideration those are well times insofar as pub G anyway which has issues with spurious frame times than the 0.1% low range the r5 2600 ax stock operated a baseline performance of 127 FPS average with lows function equal or indistinguishably different from the 8600 kalos the 8600 k technically maintains a lead of 8.7 percent but again this is only half of the equation and arguably the less important half at 10 megabits per second and faster h.264 the ad 600 k only drops 10 fps and the same is true at 12 megabits per second with the much more intensive medium and code setting this would indicate that scheduling is keeping the entire gaming workload on the Intel CPU with limited resources made available for streaming we'll check back soon on that the r5 2600 X drops much harder and framerate so the loss as an offset from baseline is greater at a dip of 30% reduced from the non streams performance but we don't know what that means yet what we know for sure for now is that the player would likely be satisfied with the performance on either CPU for the most part of live streaming although Intel holds an objective streamer side frame rail advantage one left stock without priority or affinity tuning moving on to the viewer side chart here is where those numbers manifest Andy is 30% drop for streamer side performance proves a worthwhile sacrifice because it's able to successfully encode 100% of frames for the stream the 8600 K which maintained a much better framework for the streamer completely crumbles went under the load of even faster settings for encoding which is not that intensive you can get this to work but it required dropping the encoding quality further and tuning some affinities and priorities for example you'd come down to ultra fast lose some quality speed up the encoding and then maybe play around with the bitrate just in case at our reasonable realistic quality of faster at 10 megabits per second baby 600 K struggles to keep up one left stock and untuned and just to be clear affinities and priorities help as well for media we're looking at a synthetic tests as we noted to illustrate outside of margins at which CPU is clearly superior if that hadn't already been made clear MD claims the flag for this test managing to deliver 26 percent of its frames under the strain of a medium and coding speed while Intel gets clobbered down to a handful of frames delivered it's not even a slideshow it's just a picture now as for how useful this is that depends what you're seeing on the screen right now is a video playback of both streams at 10 megabits per second this is about the quality we stream to YouTube when we're being conservative with our own live streams and the six core 8600 K has a hard time managing both the stream and the game simultaneously again capping the game and prioritizing resources would certainly help but the 2600 X doesn't require any of that treatment it's just good to go out of the box the 2600 exa has substantially more headroom to sustain a higher quality stream with pub G both are capable of streaming it just depends on how much quality you want and how much you want to be under the hood to work on the 80 600 K it's a bit of a project car in that regard which is ironic for reasons we'll discuss momentarily power consumption while streaming pub G especially is also interesting clamps at the EPS 12-volt rails the Intel i5 8600 K only ever draws between 37 watts for baseline non streaming performance and 65 watts for streams output there are five 2600 exit baselines at 62 watts with streaming at 111 to 114 watts that's a significant increase over the Intel CPU but it's also accomplishing the tasks that we asked it to do and that's fair the i7 8700 K drives about 48 watts baseline or 98 to 105 when streaming the r7 2,700 X poles between 68 watts baseline 135 for a heavy stream this is also why AMD is TDP rating will confuse people it's not the same number as straight up power consumption as we explained in the 2,700 X review from yesterday for dota 2 streamer side framerate positions the r5 2600 X baseline at 141 FPS average led by the 80 600 K at 182 FPS average this isn't uncommon for dota which tends to favor frequency at least somewhat or on the face of it intel has a substantial lead but again we have to defer to the viewer experience chart for more streaming on the 80 600 K doesn't hurt our framerate too much beam us down to 20 FPS average to 161 FPS average total as for the viewer experience here's what it looks like when left completely untuned by the player it's not so good for the ad 600 K as illustrated plainly here even though these streamer is getting over 160 FPS average during this time period the viewer gets one frame every now and then one FP and 80 as we affectionally college it's our new metric one thin at it's equal to one frame every now and then the upshot is that when it does eventually come up a frame it's 58% while you need to be within 16 window in milliseconds its delivery window not very good actually the r5 2600 X at 10 megabits per second faster doesn't have these problems and delivers hundred percent of his frames it may sustain a lower streamer side framerate but the stream itself is perfectly delivered outside of a ten percent variance frame delivery timing and these frequency deficit contributes to the lowering of its heart FPS but its threat advantage is what grants at the outright lead in streaming while gaming specifically those two things at once for what is worth we did try setting OBS the high priority on the a 600 K that helped but you're entering into territory where the player has to do more hands-on tweaking before something to work it's a bit ironic really since this is the situation AMD was in just one year ago with rise ins messy lineup of launch biases and motherboards now a.m. these platforms relatively mature and stable but Intel's i5s requires some help to pass the test moving on from streaming to production blender is one of rise ins at strong points like we showed in the 2700 X video the in-house 3d rendering scenes that we used for blender starting with the jeon monkeyhead show that the 2600 and 2600 x do quite well they are 6 cores 12 threads and blender really cares first and foremost about threads and then a little bit about frequency after that the monkeyhead render finished in about 28 to 29 minutes on both the 2600 and 2600 2 minutes behind the r7 1700 x stock CPU this is serious performance considering the 1700 X runs two additional cores and that's significant in the world of perfectly scaling at render software overclocking is again completely pointless here XF r2 does the job mostly for us and we had no Headroom to get a 4.3 gigahertz on our CPU for comparison the 8600 K at 5 gigahertz it barely manages to finish it surrender in 33 minutes granting the 2600 x8 13% time reduction not bad at all perhaps more impressively our gianna logo render applies a different type of load and stress to the CPUs going to gaming next Assassin's Creed origin starts us off at 1080p for this one the r5 2600 x stock CPU plays is at 102 FPS average with low is at 77 fps and 66 fps these numbers are all reasonable and scale from the stock 1600 X placing at 94 FPS average by about 8.6 percent from last year's model that's with both stock overclocked 2,600 X at 4.2 gigahertz pulls a lot more power and gains negligibly in the FPS Department at 103 FPS average a 1.5 percent increase and just outside of our error margins for this game the overclocked to 1600 ex lands at 95 FPS average are also gaining negligibly the r5 2600 9x CPU which operates a frequency of three point four to three point nine runs the test at 97 FPS with it low is about the same as every other rise in five CPU on the chart compared to the r7 2700 X stock CPU operating at 107 FPS average performance uplift versus the stock 2600 X is about 5.7 percent of course at 1440p all of that equalizes like we demonstrated in our 2700 X review the difference is primarily thin down to just Intel and AMD where we see about a 10% gap between them maximally other than that once we're intra architecture there is functionally zero difference in a GPU bound benchmark moving on to watch dogs - we measured the r5 2600 x stock CPU using X 470 as performing that 1 to 3 FPS average with gns found in 1% and 0.1% low is at 80 fps and 62 FPS respectively overclocking gets us an increase of 1.6% and is entirely not worth it a result of X of our two functionally being as good as a manual overclocked when pushed against the limits of ambient cooling the 2600 operates a couple percent behind the 2600 X as expected the stock 1600 X runs at around 93 FPS average allowing the stock 2600 ax an 11 percent lead before overclocking but again they can overclock to the same frequency basically the competing i-580 600k outperforms the 2600 X by about 3.1 percent on both our stock overclocking gets the 80 600 K up to 116 FPS average a lead of 10.7% over the overclocked to 2600 X at 4.2 gigahertz while also retaining higher 1% in 0.1% low frame time performance as expected 1440p for watchdogs to equalizes this to some extent just like in our 2700 X review that you should definitely watch the Intel processors retain a bit of a lead but all the intra arc CPUs that remain close in performance that's Intel and AMD project cars - at 1080p plants the 80 600 K 5 gigahertz overclocked right alongside the 5 gigahertz 8700 K illustrating that project cars favorites clockspeed over nearly all else this is further demonstrated when overclock scaling the 2600 X doc CPU operates at 110 FPS average with an overclocked granting all of one FPS within test variants and function equal in performance the 2600 operates at 106 FPS average granting the 2600 X doc CPU elite at 4% this vanishes when overclocked in the 2600 which is trivial compared to the 1600 X stock CPU the 2600 X stock operates at one time fps to ninety seven point eight FPS average or a twelve point seven percent lead generationally between them each 2700 X doesn't offer much of an improvement in this department with its efforts more noticeable under blender or streaming applications project cars at 1440p mostly just shows more of the same scaling primarily vanishes between the same arc CPUs with Intel holding a bit of a lead both our GPU bottlenecks so we're basically reviewing a GPU at this point more than anything conversely to project cars ashes of the singularity can actually leverage additional cores although it does like frequency to some extent for this one the i7 8700 ka 5 gigahertz leads the charge at 56 FPS average followed by the overclocked r7 2700 except 4.8 gigahertz with 51 FPS average the overclocked 1700 isn't far behind let's trade in why we'd suggest sticking with Rison 1 if you already have it and the I 580 600 K at 5 gigahertz runs at 47 FPS average about equal to the stock r7 2700 and with frame times also equivalent the 2600 ex stock Seaview pushes 43.9 FPS average with an overclock providing not ena value the 2600 is a single digit behind and can be overclocked to make up that ground finally further down the 80 600 k stock CPU operates at 41 FPS average similar scaling is what we've seen elsewhere we test turn times for civilization 6 but the game recently got a huge update that completely upended our previous testing and we had three tests as a result of that the 2700 AK stock CPU finishes each turn at 11 point oh five seconds with all five turns taken about 55 seconds for this particular round overclocking reduces the time requirement to ten point eight eight seconds for a 1.5% time reduction the 8700 K stock CPU our rates at ten point seven five seconds not a huge change with the overclocked variant at ten point one seven seconds and neither is really particularly game-changing here civilizations update has tightened term times to a point of limited usefulness in benchmarking at least with these kinds of parts although it's still highly consistent and a unique benchmark for the CPU so we kept it the 2600 x performs similarly to the 80 600 k and everything else really there's not a lot of difference in these tests GTA 5 is our last one at 1080p GTA 5 post the 86 hundred K stock CPU at 136 FPS average with a significant performance uplift of 11% whatever clock to 5 gigahertz the 2600 X at 116 FPS average operates about 4.7 percent ahead of the 2600 9x and about 11.5% ahead of the original 1600 X and it's 104 FPS average granted overclocked into for 0.05 nearly ties that matchup 1440p for GTA 5 demonstrates again that we hit a GPU bottleneck at 130 FPS average with the overclocked 8600 kt 700k both within margin of error of one another the 2600 X runs close to where it did at 1080p around 115 FPS erage which is what you'd expect for power consumption we plotted the r5 2600 9x at 81 watts at the EPS 12-volt rails for Cinebench multi-threaded landing it between the 1600 x stock and 1700 stock from the first generation the 2600 x draws about 113 watts at the rails and our tests with the 2600 x overclocked at 130 watts a completely unworthy Linde ever given X afar to it'd be more worth it for the non X CPU to overclock for frame of reference the 2700 x stocks if you measured 1 45 watts or 192 and overclocked this is largely because AMD its board partners are blasting the 2700 x the more voltage is unnecessary when stock as you can see in our first video the 2700 x review again then we're getting to a point where rise ins generational improvements in terms of raw numbers for framerate other metrics of performance time are not necessarily all that impressive that's because the reference point we have is going from FX to Rison so of course that was gigantic FX was not very good not at these kinds of workloads that we're testing that's an objective fact so to move from FX Rison obviously it's gonna be a huge jump performance for everything IPC multi-threaded performance the architecture is completely overhauled so you're not gonna get that again for a very long time and that's okay stability is good anyway so the games are not impressive enough that if you have Rison one you should feel bad about buying it if it was recent or verizon - there's you should do neither of those things if you have verizon one unless you're on like an r3 and you want to go to an R 7 then do it I guess but if you don't presently have a rise in CPU or a current Intel CPU these are worth considering the r5 2600 much like the r5 1600 falls in basically the same place as the 1600 did for us which is it's one of the best CPUs strictly in terms of the value $200 plus or minus a bit if you go the extra out and that's good price it does reasonably in games it's not the outright best all the time but it doesn't need to be and it's very competitive in multi-threaded benchmarks that are more production focused so if you do any amount of that stuff blender or perhaps streaming as we showed earlier in the video then the 2600 is a very good consideration we would recommend you buy the non X version that we just showed you and then overclock it and it will basically become an X maybe you you are a hundred megahertz lower not a big deal you still get most the performance so that's throughout we'd recommend taking if you're just building a straight gaming PC Intel still has value in that department Intel's high fives have weakened a lot in the last year or so and they got helped a bit with the six core version of the i5 but AMD does have a bit of an advantage in the I 5 r5 equivalent Department it's not until you go up to the 8700 K that Intel's basically the very clear and obvious winner we'll call it in most of the game benchmarks but that doesn't mean it's the best for everyone so watch the 27 rx review if you're considering the 87 hard K pick between them based on that and the r5 2000 series is every bit as good as r5 1000 with a couple of improvements that are significant primarily in the minimum voltage required to run a fixed frequency department that we talked about in the first video but otherwise not that exciting in terms of raw percentage increase for frame rate so if that's what you're looking for you didn't get it but there are plenty of other cool things that we got out of this so thank you for watching subscribe for more we have a lot more of these videos coming up very soon lots of them go to patreon.com/scishow given axis house up directly so the story I came is excess net to pick up one of our mod mats like this one they're on backorder now and I will see you all next time