add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

i3 9100F vs Ryzen 5 2600 for gaming

ncro
  • 4 months ago

Hey guys, just wondering which cpu is better for gaming, the i3 9100F, or the Ryzen 5 2600? Thanks.

Comments

  • 4 months ago
  • 4 points

Get the Ryzen 5 2600. The difference in gaming is rather small for a lot of titles but looking at requirements for PC gaming escalating up the core counts I would say nowadays it makes little sense getting a 4 core CPU. It is probable that the i3-9100F yields higher frame rates for majority of titles but this changes once you start gaming on a title that will eat 6 cores for breakfast. It is looking likely we will require a 6-8 core CPU for reasonably low stutter gaming.

  • 4 months ago
  • 3 points

Considering the 2600 is a hyper threaded 6 core processor, it would be way more future proof than a 4 core non hyper threaded processor.

And with a fast GPU it would be even faster on some games vs the i3-9100F.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSfURH7w7Yw

  • 4 months ago
  • 1 point

And with a fast GPU it would be even faster on some games vs the i3-9100F.

Reverse is also true though if the title cannot make use of the cores the 9100F can be faster then the 2600.

  • 4 months ago
  • 2 points

Yes also true.

But i still believe that a 4 core processor would struggle to some extent, as more game seems ot use a 6 core with or w/o hyper threading as a norm.

Of course it's up to the user to decide, with which processor he wants to go. ¯\(ツ)

  • 4 months ago
  • 0 points

Time will tell if the larger AAA studios can manage to get out of the rut their in and move forward with the heavy multi-threading or if they will continue to close doors leaving the smaller less inclined to put the work into multi-threading studios raking in all the cash.

  • 4 months ago
  • 1 point

Well, that's the thing, for most games in 2019, which is better?

  • 4 months ago
  • 0 points

AAA big budget titles the 2600 arguably.

Anything else 9100F arguably.

Depends more on what your looking to run but anything that runs poorly on the 9100F these days will also do the same on the 2600.

So although your splitting hairs on performance your possibly spending more for what may be no gain giving what runs poor on one runs badly on both, and what runs well on one does so on both.

Edit: Now arguably is because the difference in cost can be enough at this budget to make a difference.

For example a 9100F+1660 Super verses a 2600+580 isn't exactly a fair fight since you have similar CPU performance but a large graphics difference.

But if you're looking more at say 570 vs 580 difference then it isn't much at all.

  • 4 months ago
  • 1 point

So in the long run, the 2600 is better?

  • 4 months ago
  • 2 points

Either. People have been saying games will start to use more than 2 cores for about 10 years and it just came true in the last few years. How games use cores depends on the game engine used.

For the future nobody has a crystal ball. I do know it would be bad for business to make a game that truly required a bunch of cores making people upgrade to be able to play the game.

The last game that comes to mind is Watch Dogs was recommending a i7 and the game came out and a fast 2 core runs it the same.

  • 4 months ago
  • 1 point

A 2600 will last much longer, with ryzen making high core cpus mainstream more and more games will support also the 2600 is better for essentially any work load

  • 4 months ago
  • 1 point

In the long run i would opt for an 2600.

And even if the i3-9100F seems to have some fire power, those 4 cores only may just not be enough for the newer games.

And sometimes a high fps count is not everything, if the processor in question can't hold that number high for a good amount of time.

It's better to play a game at 50fps or near to that consistently (if the game allows it), than playing with an fps count between 35 and 65 back and forth.

  • 4 months ago
  • 2 points

9100F by a small margin.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-5-3600/15.html

Four "Lake" cores that will run at 4ghz across the board still push decent frame rates.

You can at least in theory push the 2600 faster with aftermarket cooling+high speed low latency RAM+decent overclocking motherboard but at that point it's probably just easier to get a 2600X/9400F and not do all the work/time stress testing when you could be gaming.

[comment deleted]

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube