Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 19

Thread: Intel Core i5-9400

  1. #1
    HEXUS.admin
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    28,331
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    1,845 times in 628 posts

    Intel Core i5-9400

    Worth it over AMD's Ryzen? We find out.
    Read more.

  2. #2
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Portsmouth
    Posts
    25
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    1 time in 1 post
    • AlvieM's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte G.1 Sniper Z97
      • CPU:
      • i7 4790K
      • Memory:
      • 16GB HyperX Savage 2400MHz
      • Storage:
      • OCZ ARC 100 240GB + 1TB Seagate HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Intel HD Graphics (I know)
      • PSU:
      • EVGA GS650
      • Case:
      • NZXT H440 RED
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro
      • Internet:
      • Virgin Media 350

    Re: Intel Core i5-9400

    Interesting but not surprising results. If you're purely gaming then Intel is a lot better because of its single core performance is a lot stronger. But in other workloads the Ryzen either matches it or beats it.

    I'm waiting to see how Zen 2 will be able to compete with Intel in terms of single core perf but it probably still won't match it but hopefully should get a lot closer.

  3. #3
    Long Time Lurker
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Newcastle
    Posts
    367
    Thanks
    28
    Thanked
    17 times in 16 posts
    • mercyground's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte GA-MA790X-UDP4
      • CPU:
      • AMD Phenom II X4 955 (3.2ghz)
      • Memory:
      • 8GB
      • Storage:
      • 160gb intel SSD + 3TB of HDDs
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 4770 512mb
      • PSU:
      • Akaska 550w
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7
      • Monitor(s):
      • LG M1917TM
      • Internet:
      • 50mb Fibre

    Re: Intel Core i5-9400

    Part of the Spectre fixes was cutting HT as it was one of the main vectors. It will take till 2020 for all the fixes to be pushed to hardware with Intel chips. Thus why Coffee Lake and beyond will not have HT.

  4. #4
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    9,718
    Thanks
    479
    Thanked
    994 times in 846 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 2600X
      • Memory:
      • 16GB 3200MHz
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Linux, 1TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 28 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Samsung 2343BW 2048x1152
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb/20Mb VDSL

    Re: Intel Core i5-9400

    Quote Originally Posted by AlvieM View Post
    Interesting but not surprising results. If you're purely gaming then Intel is a lot better because of its single core performance is a lot stronger. But in other workloads the Ryzen either matches it or beats it.
    A lot stronger? The results show 168 vs 153 fps in F1, under 10% difference and staying well withing the comfortable range of a variable sync display. Not what I would call "A lot", and that's assuming lightly threaded games which not all of them are.

    The only big difference in there is the PiFast results which are utterly meaningless because there isn't any other workload that I have ever come across that is like it.

    Edit: I like how the first section is titled "Conclusion", good for confusing people who just skip to the end

  5. #5
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Portsmouth
    Posts
    25
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    1 time in 1 post
    • AlvieM's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte G.1 Sniper Z97
      • CPU:
      • i7 4790K
      • Memory:
      • 16GB HyperX Savage 2400MHz
      • Storage:
      • OCZ ARC 100 240GB + 1TB Seagate HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Intel HD Graphics (I know)
      • PSU:
      • EVGA GS650
      • Case:
      • NZXT H440 RED
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro
      • Internet:
      • Virgin Media 350

    Re: Intel Core i5-9400

    Quote Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix View Post
    A lot stronger? The results show 168 vs 153 fps in F1, under 10% difference and staying well withing the comfortable range of a variable sync display. Not what I would call "A lot", and that's assuming lightly threaded games which not all of them are.

    The only big difference in there is the PiFast results which are utterly meaningless because there isn't any other workload that I have ever come across that is like it.

    Edit: I like how the first section is titled "Conclusion", good for confusing people who just skip to the end
    I guess "a lot stronger" is an exaggeration but it is still significant in my opinion.

  6. #6
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    59
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    7 times in 6 posts

    Re: Intel Core i5-9400

    I'd love to see a Real World benchmark, with the gamer's reality: Discord open and voice chat on, 2 or 3 chrome tabs running, Steam, keyboard and mouse software loaded in the systray, and eventually streaming to Twitch.

    Its true that poorly optimised games will favour less threads, but with the Real World setup you'd be hammering the CPU with a load of different apps... its not just one game anymore.

    That would be a very interesting test to see.

  7. #7
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    9,718
    Thanks
    479
    Thanked
    994 times in 846 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 2600X
      • Memory:
      • 16GB 3200MHz
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Linux, 1TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 28 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Samsung 2343BW 2048x1152
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb/20Mb VDSL

    Re: Intel Core i5-9400

    Quote Originally Posted by AlvieM View Post
    I guess "a lot stronger" is an exaggeration but it is still significant in my opinion.
    *Shrug*, you must be way more sensitive to frame rates than I am if you can tell a 10% difference, specially with adaptive sync.

    But then I chose largely for work use where I want lots of threads, but what started my last upgrade was Elite Dangerous in VR which on the Rift seems to eat as many threads as you can throw at it.

  8. Received thanks from:

    Jonj1611 (23-04-2019)

  9. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    141
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    10 times in 7 posts

    Re: Intel Core i5-9400

    Quote Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AlvieM View Post
    I guess "a lot stronger" is an exaggeration but it is still significant in my opinion.
    *Shrug*, you must be way more sensitive to frame rates than I am if you can tell a 10% difference, specially with adaptive sync.

    But then I chose largely for work use where I want lots of threads, but what started my last upgrade was Elite Dangerous in VR which on the Rift seems to eat as many threads as you can throw at it.
    I was about to post similar, plus at higher than 1080p the CPU's are neck and neck basically. Nothing significant about that in my opinion.

  10. #9
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Portsmouth
    Posts
    25
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    1 time in 1 post
    • AlvieM's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte G.1 Sniper Z97
      • CPU:
      • i7 4790K
      • Memory:
      • 16GB HyperX Savage 2400MHz
      • Storage:
      • OCZ ARC 100 240GB + 1TB Seagate HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Intel HD Graphics (I know)
      • PSU:
      • EVGA GS650
      • Case:
      • NZXT H440 RED
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro
      • Internet:
      • Virgin Media 350

    Re: Intel Core i5-9400

    Quote Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix View Post
    *Shrug*, you must be way more sensitive to frame rates than I am if you can tell a 10% difference, specially with adaptive sync.

    But then I chose largely for work use where I want lots of threads, but what started my last upgrade was Elite Dangerous in VR which on the Rift seems to eat as many threads as you can throw at it.
    Probably not in that title and resolution but there will be others where the FPS will be lower and those the difference might be noticeable

    Obviously not every game but perhaps those optimised for Intel / single core.

  11. #10
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    94
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    3 times in 3 posts

    Re: Intel Core i5-9400

    Why no comparisons with the previous gen?

  12. #11
    Senior Member Xlucine's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,385
    Thanks
    206
    Thanked
    102 times in 87 posts
    • Xlucine's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus TUF B450M-plus
      • CPU:
      • R3 1200 @ 3.5 GHz
      • Memory:
      • 16GB @ 2.6 GHz
      • Storage:
      • Crucial MX500 1TB, Crucial MX100 512GB, 2TB hard disk
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA 980ti
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic S12G-550
      • Case:
      • Silverstone TJ08-E
      • Operating System:
      • W10 pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Viewsonic vx3211-2k-mhd, Dell P2414H
      • Internet:
      • Plusnet 70 Mb/s

    Re: Intel Core i5-9400

    It bugs me whenever people conflate 1080p results with a top-end GPU with all 1080p results. You're giving the impression that a mid-range system is better off with intel ("it's better at 1080p, and that's what I play at"), when an actual test with a mid range card won't show a difference at 1080p between AMD or intel (like the 4k results). The actual difference is high-refresh-rate gaming (where the CPU overhead is greater) - the resolution this shows up at is a function of GPU, not CPU

  13. #12
    Team HEXUS.net
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,319
    Thanks
    60
    Thanked
    336 times in 183 posts

    Re: Intel Core i5-9400

    Quote Originally Posted by Usernamist View Post
    Why no comparisons with the previous gen?
    Hi there,

    Because we chose to update the drivers and try different settings for some benchmarks. If you look under the Test Methodology page, there is a link to older editorial with a plethora of CPUs, including the near-identical Core i5-8400. This was an as-today evaluation.

  14. Received thanks from:

    Pleiades (24-04-2019)

  15. #13
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    9,718
    Thanks
    479
    Thanked
    994 times in 846 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 2600X
      • Memory:
      • 16GB 3200MHz
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Linux, 1TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 28 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Samsung 2343BW 2048x1152
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb/20Mb VDSL

    Re: Intel Core i5-9400

    Quote Originally Posted by AlvieM View Post
    Probably not in that title and resolution but there will be others where the FPS will be lower and those the difference might be noticeable

    Obviously not every game but perhaps those optimised for Intel / single core.
    I have yet to see any results which look like gameplay will be impacted by having a Ryzen CPU. There are more comparisons here:

    https://www.techspot.com/review/1829...ryzen-5-2600x/

    I'm ignoring the overclock results as you can't rely on those, I think they make the 2600X look artificially too good and personally I don't overclock.

    Far Cry looks pretty bad for AMD there, until you see that the 2600X is getting minimums of 73fps at 1080p, and if you are on 1080p that is either maxing out your 60Hz monitor or in this house comfortably handled by FreeSync. But some interesting comments in that review:

    Battlefield V:
    The experience with the 9400F for the most part was very good, but whereas the 2600X was silky smooth at all times, the 6-core Intel CPU suffered odd frame stuttering here and there.
    Using DDR4-2666 memory the 9400F was a little jittery in Monster Hunter: World
    So with the Intel chip you have to overclock memory to get smooth gameplay?

  16. #14
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    29
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts

    Re: Intel Core i5-9400

    Intel still hanging tough on 14nm+++++++++ ?
    Get the #uck outa here. Mean while AMD is at
    7nm moving towards 5nm, not that, that's
    important thing to mention here...........

  17. #15
    Long member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,133
    Thanks
    47
    Thanked
    202 times in 150 posts
    • philehidiot's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Father's bored
      • CPU:
      • Cockroach brain V0.1
      • Memory:
      • Innebriated, unwritten
      • Storage:
      • Big Yellow Self Storage
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Semi chewed Crayola Mega Pack
      • PSU:
      • 20KW single phase direct grid supply
      • Case:
      • Closed, Open, Cold
      • Operating System:
      • Cockroach
      • Monitor(s):
      • The mental health nurses
      • Internet:
      • Please.

    Re: Intel Core i5-9400

    The obvious thing to point out here is that frame rates in games are fairly useless in that normally, investment in the GPU is the plan of choice rather than upgrading a CPU for FPS. 1080 is chosen here as most of the time these workloads are GPU bound and so you'd not spend more on a CPU for frame rates except in very specific games.

  18. #16
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Portsmouth
    Posts
    25
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    1 time in 1 post
    • AlvieM's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte G.1 Sniper Z97
      • CPU:
      • i7 4790K
      • Memory:
      • 16GB HyperX Savage 2400MHz
      • Storage:
      • OCZ ARC 100 240GB + 1TB Seagate HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Intel HD Graphics (I know)
      • PSU:
      • EVGA GS650
      • Case:
      • NZXT H440 RED
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro
      • Internet:
      • Virgin Media 350

    Re: Intel Core i5-9400

    Quote Originally Posted by albert89 View Post
    Intel still hanging tough on 14nm+++++++++ ?
    Get the #uck outa here. Mean while AMD is at
    7nm moving towards 5nm, not that, that's
    important thing to mention here...........
    Yeah, Intel still seems to be having a lot of problems with the 10nm and 7nm manufacturing process

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •