How much of an upgrade is a r5 5500 to the i5 8600k?

[stoneyoda]

i'v been wanting to upgrade my CPU for a while now but im not sure how much of an upgrade this would be. the 5600 and i5 12400f are also on the table, but i do not have enough to go for AM5 atm because of motherboard and ram prices out here in canada also i'm not really interested in the Ultra series.

how much faster are these CPU's to my current i5 8600k in games?

[_I_]

https://technical.city/en/cpu/Core-i5-8600K-vs-Ryzen-5-5500

r5 5500 is much better cpu
it adds smt and much better core performance with similar clocks

if not gpu or display limited, you will get almost 2x fps in games


r5 5500 and 12400/f are pretty close

[stoneyoda]

Originally posted by _I_:

https://technical.city/en/cpu/Core-i5-8600K-vs-Ryzen-5-5500

r5 5500 is much better cpu
it adds smt and much better core performance with similar clocks

if not gpu or display limited, you will get almost 2x fps in games


r5 5500 and 12400/f are pretty close

one thing that is confusing to me then is why my i5 8600k score so close to the 12400f and beating the 5600 in CPU-Z benchmark, i am aware this is at 5ghz on the i5 8600k but you are claiming nearly 2x performance on the 5500/5600 and i5 12400f. https://valid.x86.fr/3xdcr1

[_I_]

could be comparing peak overclock scores
using ln2 or whatever on top binned silicon

[The Great Stalker-attracter™]

Originally posted by _I_:

https://technical.city/en/cpu/Core-i5-8600K-vs-Ryzen-5-5500

r5 5500 is much better cpu
it adds smt and much better core performance with similar clocks

if not gpu or display limited, you will get almost 2x fps in games


r5 5500 and 12400/f are pretty close

Bull crap.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i8cs74UC_4

[stoneyoda]

Originally posted by _I_:

could be comparing peak overclock scores
using ln2 or whatever on top binned silicon

that's my i5 8600k though. it's just air cooled.
this isn't even that impressive of an OC, 5ghz was achievable on the majority of i5 8600k cpu's with a after market air cooler.

there aren't videos of the i5 8600k vs ether then 5500/5600 or the 12400f.
there's a few on the 5600 vs the 12400f which the 12400f is faster by 5%~

i'm just unsure if this is a worth wild upgrade or not.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by stoneyoda:

Originally posted by _I_:

could be comparing peak overclock scores
using ln2 or whatever on top binned silicon

that's my i5 8600k though. it's just air cooled.
this isn't even that impressive of an OC, 5ghz was achievable on the majority of i5 8600k cpu's with a after market air cooler.

there aren't videos of the i5 8600k vs ether then 5500/5600 or the 12400f.
there's a few on the 5600 vs the 12400f which the 12400f is faster by 5%~

i'm just unsure if this is a worth wild upgrade or not.

R5 5500 is a 5600G -200MHz.

The 5600G is not much faster than 9400F, 5600X is around 16% faster.
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-5-5600g/16.html

9400F vs 12400F
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i5-12400f/16.html

[Illusion of Progress]

It's better, but not substantially.

The 5500 is marginally faster than the 3600X, and the 3600X is typically similar to a 8700K (and 10400F).

So I'm not sure if that's faster than your 8600K by enough to warrant "move from one to the other", but this always comes down to pricing.

Originally posted by stoneyoda:

one thing that is confusing to me then is why my i5 8600k score so close to the 12400f and beating the 5600 in CPU-Z benchmark, i am aware this is at 5ghz on the i5 8600k but you are claiming nearly 2x performance on the 5500/5600 and i5 12400f. https://valid.x86.fr/3xdcr1

This is why you need to be aware of the limitations of single core synthetics.

Many synthetic tests throw a workload at the core "trying" to simulate an averaged representative workload, all in an attempt to put a single number measurement on something that isn't constant and instead varies. It's more likely these sorts of tests have the core constantly fed (because they're trying to measure core performance, so they isolate other variables). The caveat to this is that in reality, CPU cores won't always be able to constantly work like that because they will often be needing to wait on data from RAM, meaning that higher "theoretical" performance isn't fully realized because many of those cycles are spent doing nothing (instead of computing) as it waits on RAM.

When it comes to synthetic scores, it's important the remember it won't take cache into account much, if at all. So CPUs with extra cache will often appear to perform worse than they do, and CPUs that lack cache will seem better than they are.

And to make it worse, if you're going to use single core metrics at all, CPU-Z's is notoriously bad and here's why.

https://chipsandcheese.com/p/cpu-zs-inadequate-benchmark

[stoneyoda]

Originally posted by Ralf:

Originally posted by stoneyoda:

that's my i5 8600k though. it's just air cooled.
this isn't even that impressive of an OC, 5ghz was achievable on the majority of i5 8600k cpu's with a after market air cooler.

there aren't videos of the i5 8600k vs ether then 5500/5600 or the 12400f.
there's a few on the 5600 vs the 12400f which the 12400f is faster by 5%~

i'm just unsure if this is a worth wild upgrade or not.

R5 5500 is a 5600G -200MHz.

The 5600G is not much faster than 9400F, 5600X is around 16% faster.
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-5-5600g/16.html

9400F vs 12400F
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i5-12400f/16.html

so at the price range i'm willing to go with the 12400f is the better choice
since it's faster and cheaper then the 5600 where i'm at.

i was also looking at the 14400f but it's 180$ cad vs 140$ cad for the 12400f and doesn't really seem to offer much of a difference in performance

[stoneyoda]

Originally posted by Illusion of Progress:

It's better, but not substantially.

The 5500 is marginally faster than the 3600X, and the 3600X is typically similar to a 8700K (and 10400F).

So I'm not sure if that's faster than your 8600K by enough to warrant "move from one to the other", but this always comes down to pricing.

Originally posted by stoneyoda:

one thing that is confusing to me then is why my i5 8600k score so close to the 12400f and beating the 5600 in CPU-Z benchmark, i am aware this is at 5ghz on the i5 8600k but you are claiming nearly 2x performance on the 5500/5600 and i5 12400f. https://valid.x86.fr/3xdcr1

This is why you need to be aware of the limitations of single core synthetics.

Many synthetic tests throw a workload at the core "trying" to simulate an averaged representative workload, all in an attempt to put a single number measurement on something that isn't constant and instead varies. It's more likely these sorts of tests have the core constantly fed (because they're trying to measure core performance, so they isolate other variables). The caveat to this is that in reality, CPU cores won't always be able to constantly work like that because they will often be needing to wait on data from RAM, meaning that higher "theoretical" performance isn't fully realized because many of those cycles are spent doing nothing (instead of computing) as it waits on RAM.

When it comes to synthetic scores, it's important the remember it won't take cache into account much, if at all. So CPUs with extra cache will often appear to perform worse than they do, and CPUs that lack cache will seem better than they are.

And to make it worse, if you're going to use single core metrics at all, CPU-Z's is notoriously bad and here's why.

https://chipsandcheese.com/p/cpu-zs-inadequate-benchmark

do you think the 12400f would be a decent upgrade from the i5 8600k?
i'v looked more into it and its 140$ cad which is cheaper then the 5600 at 190$ cad and it's faster. Also the 14400f is pretty interesting being 10$ cheaper then the 5600 but from the looks of it, it's hardly faster then the 12400f.

the 5500 is honestly not really worth it even at 110$, it's not much of an upgrade at all.

[Wichtelman]

in my country the ryzen 5 5500 costs like 70€...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-v0TADxZhis

[Julien, cut it out.]

Originally posted by stoneyoda:

one thing that is confusing to me then is why my i5 8600k score so close to the 12400f and beating the 5600 in CPU-Z benchmark, i am aware this is at 5ghz on the i5 8600k but you are claiming nearly 2x performance on the 5500/5600 and i5 12400f. https://valid.x86.fr/3xdcr1

In the multi-threaded workload, you compare the results of your non-SMT cpu against CPUs with disabled SMT. On the CPU-Z Validator page, change the 'number of threads' to 12 to get the full picture of the 6C/12T CPUs (12400f and 5600). Your OC'd CPU beats the referenced 8700K in 6T workload aswell.
The configuration I use on my 5600x reaches 654.0 in ST and 5126.2 in MT(12T).

Since no one has asked and it's essential to know before considering a CPU upgrade;
Regarding your GTX 1070, is your system even CPU-limited in gaming?
If your system is not CPU-limited, a CPU with better peformance will not yield any substantial improvement in (average) FPS, respectively in lowering the (average) frametime.

If the amount of cores/threads is an issue, consider getting a second-hand 8700k (6C/12T) or 9900k (8C/16T), if the motherboard supports coffee lakre refresh and the general increase in power consumption.
You won't have to spend money on a new motherboard and you will have comparable performance (when OC'd) to the 5X00 and 1X400F CPUs you've mentioned.

Also, the multiplier on non-k CPUs is locked.

[stoneyoda]

Originally posted by Julien, cut it out.:

Originally posted by stoneyoda:

one thing that is confusing to me then is why my i5 8600k score so close to the 12400f and beating the 5600 in CPU-Z benchmark, i am aware this is at 5ghz on the i5 8600k but you are claiming nearly 2x performance on the 5500/5600 and i5 12400f. https://valid.x86.fr/3xdcr1

In the multi-threaded workload, you compare the results of your non-SMT cpu against CPUs with disabled SMT. On the CPU-Z Validator page, change the 'number of threads' to 12 to get the full picture of the 6C/12T CPUs (12400f and 5600). Your OC'd CPU beats the referenced 8700K in 6T workload aswell.
The configuration I use on my 5600x reaches 654.0 in ST and 5126.2 in MT(12T).

Since no one has asked and it's essential to know before considering a CPU upgrade;
Regarding your GTX 1070, is your system even CPU-limited in gaming?
If your system is not CPU-limited, a CPU with better peformance will not yield any substantial improvement in (average) FPS, respectively in lowering the (average) frametime.

If the amount of cores/threads is an issue, consider getting a second-hand 8700k (6C/12T) or 9900k (8C/16T), if the motherboard supports coffee lakre refresh and the general increase in power consumption.
You won't have to spend money on a new motherboard and you will have comparable performance (when OC'd) to the 5X00 and 1X400F CPUs you've mentioned.

Also, the multiplier on non-k CPUs is locked.

i have a 4060 now, that benchmark is rather old, but yes in the games i play i am very cpu bound.

Looking around online the 8700k and 9900k are well more then they are worth.
it's basically the same price to get an LGA 1700 board and a i5 12400f. let alone what the i9 9900k costs.

[fourfourtwo79]

As for gaming, Ryzen 5500 = pretty much Ryzen 3600 (performance-wise). Both are 6 Core / 12 Thread CPUs, so profit more from more threaded workloads. The 8600K is 6 Core / 6 Threads. Gaming is usually a tad different, though Intel 6 cores since support 12 threads too.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-5-5600x/12.html
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-5-5600x/15.html

Even so, swapping an entire platform is pretty expensive. It seems you're on a budget, as you're aiming for the smallest chip rather than better ones. The 5600 is generally the better bang for the buck usually and the smallest chip still recommended for gaming (has PCIe 4.0 support too, the 5500 is only PCIe 3.0). Considering this, I'd argue wait until you can afford better. Including a platform that still sees support for the coming years, AM4 is a dead end.

[Lord Flashheart]

Originally posted by stoneyoda:

i'v been wanting to upgrade my CPU for a while now but im not sure how much of an upgrade this would be. the 5600 and i5 12400f are also on the table, but i do not have enough to go for AM5 atm because of motherboard and ram prices out here in canada also i'm not really interested in the Ultra series.

how much faster are these CPU's to my current i5 8600k in games?

The 5700X3D if available?

You will need a bios update, assuming your motherboard has one available.

If money is tight, it seems to be the most economical.

[hawkeye]

OP, when you ask how much faster is a cpu in games, it depends on which games and the rest of the pc including monitor specs. You would get a better answer if you are more specific.

The 8600k is a 6 core / 6 threads (no hyperthreading) with a single thread score if 2571. That's slow by current standards but it would be good enough for most games. Possibly not great with online games.

The 5500 is a 6 core / 12 threads with a single thread score of 3059. That's still slow. Overclocked the 8600k would still be slower but probably close. I wouldn't move to that unless there was a specific issue that doing so would solve.

The 12400 is a 6c / 12t with a score of 3459. That's medium performance. You would need a new mobo and ideally new ram.

However if your gpu is the bottleneck then no gain would be made regardless of the cpu.