Ryzen 5 2600 vs i7-870

VS

Aggregate performance score

Core i7-870
2009
4 cores / 8 threads, 95 Watt
1.97
Ryzen 5 2600
2018
6 cores / 12 threads, 65 Watt
8.30
+321%

Ryzen 5 2600 outperforms Core i7-870 by a whopping 321% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core i7-870 and Ryzen 5 2600 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking1928903
Place by popularitynot in top-10022
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.189.83
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Seriesno dataAMD Ryzen 5
Power efficiency1.9612.08
Architecture codenameLynnfield (2009−2010)Pinnacle Riege (Zen+) (2018)
Release date8 September 2009 (15 years ago)19 April 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$305$199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Ryzen 5 2600 has 5361% better value for money than i7-870.

Detailed specifications

Core i7-870 and Ryzen 5 2600 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores4 (Quad-Core)6 (Hexa-Core)
Threads812
Base clock speed2.93 GHz3.4 GHz
Boost clock speed3.6 GHz3.9 GHz
Bus rate2.5 GT/s4 × 8 GT/s
Multiplierno data34
L1 cache64 KB (per core)96K (per core)
L2 cache256 KB (per core)3 MB
L3 cache8 MB (shared)16 MB (shared)
Chip lithography45 nm12 nm
Die size296 mm2192 mm2
Maximum core temperature73 °C95 °C
Number of transistors774 million4,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on Core i7-870 and Ryzen 5 2600 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration11 (Uniprocessor)
SocketFCLGA1156,LGA1156AM4
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i7-870 and Ryzen 5 2600. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.2MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, BMI2, ABM, FMA, ADX, SMEP, SMAP, SMT, CPB, AES-NI, RDRAND, RDSEED, SHA, SME
AES-NI-+
FMA-+
AVX-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology1.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
Idle States+no data
Demand Based Switching-no data
PAE36 Bitno data
Precision Boost 2no data+

Security technologies

Core i7-870 and Ryzen 5 2600 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data
EDB+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i7-870 and Ryzen 5 2600 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-d+no data
VT-x+no data
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i7-870 and Ryzen 5 2600. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4
Maximum memory size16 GB128 GB
Max memory channels22
Maximum memory bandwidth21 GB/s46.933 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardN/A-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i7-870 and Ryzen 5 2600.

PCIe version2.03.0
PCI Express lanes1620

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

i7-870 1.97
Ryzen 5 2600 8.30
+321%

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

i7-870 3137
Ryzen 5 2600 13189
+320%

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

i7-870 476
Ryzen 5 2600 1163
+144%

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

i7-870 1555
Ryzen 5 2600 4896
+215%

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

i7-870 4007
Ryzen 5 2600 4726
+17.9%

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

i7-870 5881
Ryzen 5 2600 9290
+58%

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

i7-870 5
Ryzen 5 2600 14
+159%

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

i7-870 497
Ryzen 5 2600 1248
+151%

Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.

i7-870 100
Ryzen 5 2600 157
+57.3%

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

i7-870 1.19
Ryzen 5 2600 1.76
+47.9%

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

i7-870 0.5
Ryzen 5 2600 7.5
+1371%

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

i7-870 29
Ryzen 5 2600 75
+159%

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

i7-870 121
Ryzen 5 2600 205
+69.7%

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

i7-870 3923
Ryzen 5 2600 4517
+15.1%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.97 8.30
Recency 8 September 2009 19 April 2018
Physical cores 4 6
Threads 8 12
Chip lithography 45 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 65 Watt

Ryzen 5 2600 has a 321.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, 50% more physical cores and 50% more threads, a 275% more advanced lithography process, and 46.2% lower power consumption.

The Ryzen 5 2600 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i7-870 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i7-870 and Ryzen 5 2600, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Core i7-870
Core i7-870
AMD Ryzen 5 2600
Ryzen 5 2600

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.9 1105 votes

Rate Core i7-870 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 14945 votes

Rate Ryzen 5 2600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core i7-870 or Ryzen 5 2600, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.