Biggerboat1 said:
Would you say that the 2600, as Bofferbrauer2 is suggesting would be a good compromise? (especially if the OC is a realistic option...) |
Overclocking is always a realistic option with AMD.
The 2600 will win in lightly threaded scenario's once overclocked, no question against a stock R7 2700/i5 8400. - But it's heavily threaded performance will probably come up short against the 2700... Which is expected with a 25% reduction in core/thread counts.
I would still go with the 2700 personally, even if it meant a reduction in the GPU performance. (Which you will likely swap out for a faster one in a couple years anyway.)
That's not to say the 2600 is a bad chip, far from it... But I am of the mind of buying the best CPU you can afford, because these days they tend to last 7-10 years in a rig where you replace a GPU far more often... My 6-core i7 3930K chip in another PC from 2011 is still playing the latest games at max settings for instance.
**********
Or you could take it in the complete opposite direction and grab the Ryzen 3 2200G. 3.9ghz is good with those chips... And then upgrade to the Ryzen 7 3000 series when it releases, which should increase clocks, core counts and IPC across the entire board later this year. (Also AMD's first 7nm CPU's.)
...Should also be a drop in replacement. win win.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--