| | | | | | |

Ryzen 5 2600 vs Core i5-10400F


Description
The 2600 is based on Zen+ architecture while the i5-10400F is based on Comet Lake.

Using the multithread performance as a reference, the 2600 gets a score of 291.5 k points while the i5-10400F gets 370 k points.

Summarizing, the i5-10400F is 1.3 times faster than the 2600. To get a proper comparison between both models, take a look to the data shown below.

Specs
CPUID
800f82
a0653
Core
Pinnacle Ridge
Comet Lake-S
Architecture
Base frecuency
3.4 GHz
2.9 GHz
Boost frecuency
3.9 GHz
4.3 GHz
Socket
AM4
LGA 1200
Cores/Threads
6/12
6/12
TDP
65 W
65 W
Cache L1 (d+i)
6x64+6x32 kB
6x32+6x32 kB
Cache L2
6x512 kB
6x256 kB
Cache L3
2x8192 kB
12288 kB
Date
April 2018
April 2020
Mean monothread perf.
57.13k points
68.14k points
Mean multithread perf.
291.53k points
369.97k points

Non-optimized benchmark
The benchmark in Mode 0 (FPU) measures cpu performance with non-optimized software. It uses the basic µinstructions from the i386 architecture with the i387 floating point unit. This mode is compatible with all CPUs so it's practical to compare very different CPUs
Monothread
2600
i5-10400F
Test#1 (Integers)
3.41k
4.3k (x1.26)
Test#2 (FP)
15.96k
16.56k (x1.04)
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
4.69k
5.25k (x1.12)
Test#1 (Memory)
17.42k
12.61k (x0.72)
TOTAL
41.47k
38.72k (x0.93)

Multithread

2600

i5-10400F
Test#1 (Integers)
20.88k
18.1k (x0.87)
Test#2 (FP)
110.37k
79.16k (x0.72)
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
39.25k
26.75k (x0.68)
Test#1 (Memory)
6.66k
13.81k (x2.07)
TOTAL
177.16k
137.82k (x0.78)

AVX2 optimized benchmark
The benchmark in mode III (AVX2), like AVX1, is optimized to used 256 bits registers beside the second version of the Advanced Vector Extensions (AVX). The first AVX2 compatible CPU was released in 2013.
Monothread
2600
i5-10400F
Test#1 (Integers)
13.76k
26.28k (x1.91)
Test#2 (FP)
23.03k
23.38k (x1.02)
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
5.12k
5.52k (x1.08)
Test#1 (Memory)
15.23k
12.96k (x0.85)
TOTAL
57.13k
68.14k (x1.19)

Multithread

2600

i5-10400F
Test#1 (Integers)
83.23k
163.67k (x1.97)
Test#2 (FP)
161.06k
159.74k (x0.99)
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
40.52k
39k (x0.96)
Test#1 (Memory)
6.73k
7.56k (x1.12)
TOTAL
291.53k
369.97k (x1.27)

Performance/W
2600
i5-10400F
Test#1 (Integers)
1281 points/W
2518 points/W
Test#2 (FP)
2478 points/W
2457 points/W
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
623 points/W
600 points/W
Test#1 (Memory)
103 points/W
116 points/W
TOTAL
4485 points/W
5692 points/W

Performance/GHz
2600
i5-10400F
Test#1 (Integers)
3529 points/GHz
6112 points/GHz
Test#2 (FP)
5904 points/GHz
5438 points/GHz
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
1313 points/GHz
1283 points/GHz
Test#1 (Memory)
3904 points/GHz
3014 points/GHz
TOTAL
14650 points/GHz
15847 points/GHz

Monothread performance graph
Monothread performance graphics gives the performance vs time. They are useful to measure the time it takes to the CPU to reach the maximum performance.

Usually, CPU's performance will be steady during these tests but if it has a slow frequency strategy, the first samples will show a lower score.


Test#1 (Integers) [points vs time]

grafica bm.hardlimit.com


Test#2 (FP) [points vs time]

grafica bm.hardlimit.com


Test#3 (Generic, ZIP) [points vs time]

grafica bm.hardlimit.com


Test#1 (Memory) [points vs time]

grafica bm.hardlimit.com

Multithread performance graph
Multithread graphs measure the performance against a heavy load during certain time.

If CPU's TDP doesn't limit the frequency and the machine is properly cooled, performance should remain steady vs time. Otherwise, the performance score will oscillate or decrease over time.


Test#1 (Integers) [points vs time]

grafica bm.hardlimit.com


Test#2 (FP) [points vs time]

grafica bm.hardlimit.com


Test#3 (Generic, ZIP) [points vs time]

grafica bm.hardlimit.com


Test#1 (Memory) [points vs time]

grafica bm.hardlimit.com

Hardlimit Benchmark Central - Ver. 3.11.4