Best CPUs (Archive)

[kevin83]

I don't see how your reasoning overcomes the numbers. In a stock clocks comparison the Pentium G3258 beat out the Athlon x4 860k in all but 2 of the tested games (the exceptions were battlefield hardline and hitman absolution), and there were some games that clearly suffered bugs on AMD systems. At stock the Pentium G4500 is 300mhz faster than the G3258, plus you have the IPC improvements. On top of that you get an integrated graphics solution and the ability to slot into H170 and Z170 motherboards, which have great new technologies like PCIe based M.2. You want to build a blazing fast home media server? You can slot a Samsung 950 pro into an H170 motherboard with a Pentium G4500 for about $500 or $650 for 512gb of space. You can't do that on AMD hardware.

Whoever is saying that you can't put 4 game threads on 2 cores has no idea how CPU scheduling works. Also running a lot of additional background programs is a single use case. Windows 8 and later have defender built in for antivirus anyway, and Windows 7 has it as an optional update. For someone who understands how to manage Windows' background processes and not install too many apps, the Pentium G4500 is a great solution.

 

[clutchc]

The Hierarchy chart is here for those of you wondering: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html

 

[shrapnel_indie]

Anybody know how the i3-6100 compares to the i3-4170?

 

[kevin83]

Anybody know how the i3-6100 compares to the i3-4170?

They both run at 3.7ghz, so the 6100 will probably be 9-13% faster. However, the cost of the 4170 system is going to be a lot lower between the motherboard, ram, and the cpu itself. So it's really down to whether the new motherboard tech like m.2 and ddr4 is worth the price bump.

 

[Compuser10165]

I have personally went with the I7 6700K for 370$ even if it seemed overpriced but I figured it was worth it since I was upgrading from a very old dual core cpu (entire pc upgrade as well). Otherwise the i5 6600K seems a better cjoice for now.

 

[Tylerr]

Intel Core i5-6500 is the best for $200 range?

 

[logainofhades]

Not really understanding why the i3 4170 makes the list, when you can get i3 6100's, now, for $120-125. Figured the 6100 would at least get an honorable mention.

 

[logainofhades]

Although it's good to see an update after months of looking at June's column over and over, this is so little changed from that column that it's almost funny.
Not even a mention of the Core i7-6700k on the higher end....
I don't mean to be critical, but I almost feel like TH is just 'going through the motions' with these 'Best of' columns....

You obviously did not read the complete article.

Intel pushes the Core i7-6700K’s price up as well; it currently appears around $370, or $20 shy of the Core i7-5820K. As a result, it doesn’t make our list. Although Skylake offers better performance than Haswell per clock cycle, the -5820K arms you with six cores, 28 lanes of PCIe and a quad-channel DDR4 memory controller. The X99 platform as a whole is more expensive, but we think it outshines Skylake at close to the same price.

 

[achamate]

I read all comments but none refers to a particular game or application. Can you play games like Batman AK med settings on AMD 3650 Fm1/Nvidia 950? YES for what I know. I suppose an 860k/GTX 970 combination wont have any limitations. Yes you save a lot when not buying Intel for gaming or anything else, thats how I bought my son´s video card and/or my pc recording interface, HD, memory, etc. and our Iphones, Xperias.... I think Im rich thanks to AMD.

 

[logainofhades]

You don't really save all that much, going AMD vs Intel. An i3 based build would be comparable in price to an FX 6300 build, and the FX needs overclocked to match/beat an i3. By the time you spend enough to really overclock and FX 6300, you can get an i5, and cheap board, for the same cost. An 860k would bottleneck a GTX 970. That 3650 is probably bottlenecking that GTX 950, by a fair amount also, due to its low clock speed. It is basically a Phenom II X4, with IGP.

 

[achamate]

You don't really save all that much, going AMD vs Intel. An i3 based build would be comparable in price to an FX 6300 build, and the FX needs overclocked to match/beat an i3. By the time you spend enough to really overclock and FX 6300, you can get an i5, and cheap board, for the same cost. An 860k would bottleneck a GTX 970. That 3650 is probably bottlenecking that GTX 950, by a fair amount also, due to its low clock speed. It is basically a Phenom II X4, with IGP.

CPU indicators while playing Bat AK are not full so I guess no bottleneck 3650 oc 3.1 ghz at 1360 res with GTX 950. For me an i3 is junk since I do recording and video editing. My laptop has an i5 and is same passmark level as A6 3650 but I cannot install GTX 950 or 970 on a laptop, but covers my personal test. In any case you can check videos showing 860k with 970, playing any games hi sett. At the end, Tom is right about AMD. BTW any i3 cost twice than FX 6300 here in Mexico.

 

[logainofhades]

You did not state any overclock. Passmark does not equal real world performance. Just because they can be played, with that combo, doesn't make it right. The GTX 970 cannot perform, to its potential, with an 860k. You could pair that 860k, with a GTX 960, and I doubt the performance would be any different, than when paired with a GTX 970. The 860k is a nice budget chip, but it is not meant to be paired with high end GPU's. An expensive GPU is a waste of money, when you don't have a CPU that can keep up with it, and don't have an upgrade path to a CPU that can keep up.

 

[achamate]

You did not state any overclock. Passmark does not equal real world performance. Just because they can be played, with that combo, doesn't make it right. The GTX 970 cannot perform, to its potential, with an 860k. You could pair that 860k, with a GTX 960, and I doubt the performance would be any different, than when paired with a GTX 970. The 860k is a nice budget chip, but it is not meant to be paired with high end GPU's. An expensive GPU is a waste of money, when you don't have a CPU that can keep up with it, and don't have an upgrade path to a CPU that can keep up.

Upgrade Path if need it in two years: Keep your GTX 970, mem, hd... add AMD FX or Intel i5 if you have the money. For today gaming I don see the point for any Intel as Tom states it. Maybe Im missing something if you want to play at 4k 100 fps but most people dont care ultra hi res, insane fps and dont have the money to spend. Anyway enjoy some one else PC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ID2pDIrbKQ8

 

[logainofhades]

You did not state any overclock. Passmark does not equal real world performance. Just because they can be played, with that combo, doesn't make it right. The GTX 970 cannot perform, to its potential, with an 860k. You could pair that 860k, with a GTX 960, and I doubt the performance would be any different, than when paired with a GTX 970. The 860k is a nice budget chip, but it is not meant to be paired with high end GPU's. An expensive GPU is a waste of money, when you don't have a CPU that can keep up with it, and don't have an upgrade path to a CPU that can keep up.

Upgrade Path if need it in two years: Keep your GTX 970, mem, hd... add AMD FX or Intel i5 if you have the money. For today gaming I don see the point for any Intel as Tom states it. Maybe Im missing something if you want to play at 4k 100 fps but most people dont care ultra hi res, insane fps and dont have the money to spend. Anyway enjoy some one else PC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ID2pDIrbKQ8

You just went from talking about an 860k, to posting a pointless youtube video using an FX 8350.

 

[achamate]

You did not state any overclock. Passmark does not equal real world performance. Just because they can be played, with that combo, doesn't make it right. The GTX 970 cannot perform, to its potential, with an 860k. You could pair that 860k, with a GTX 960, and I doubt the performance would be any different, than when paired with a GTX 970. The 860k is a nice budget chip, but it is not meant to be paired with high end GPU's. An expensive GPU is a waste of money, when you don't have a CPU that can keep up with it, and don't have an upgrade path to a CPU that can keep up.

Upgrade Path if need it in two years: Keep your GTX 970, mem, hd... add AMD FX or Intel i5 if you have the money. For today gaming I don see the point for any Intel as Tom states it. Maybe Im missing something if you want to play at 4k 100 fps but most people dont care ultra hi res, insane fps and dont have the money to spend. Anyway enjoy some one else PC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ID2pDIrbKQ8

You just went from talking about an 860k, to posting a pointless youtube video using an FX 8350.

860k is probably same thing for gaming as any AMD or Intel, that is the point today. By same thing I mean little differences in fps and visuals but huge differences in prices. A GTX 950 is good option for budget gaming. A 960 or 970 can improve some games fps with 860k and OC. A new gen i5/i7 can make GTX 970 run full potential 10 more fps from 90 fps, wich is really unnoticeable, If you have the money go for i7 GTX 980, it will be obsolete next year for sure.

 

[logainofhades]

An i7/980ti wouldn't be obsolete in a year. I have been using my 3570k, for quite a bit longer than that. For gaming, I have no valid reason to upgrade it still. I do want an i7/E3 Xeon for F@H though. My GTX 770 is still holding its own, just fine too. I have an FX 8320, @4.0ghz, and for the games it is used for, it is slower than my older i5 2400. If not for the insanely good black friday deal, that I got on it, a couple years ago, I would have went with an i3.

 

[achamate]

An i7/980ti wouldn't be obsolete in a year. I have been using my 3570k, for quite a bit longer than that. For gaming, I have no valid reason to upgrade it still. I do want an i7/E3 Xeon for F@H though. My GTX 770 is still holding its own, just fine too. I have an FX 8320, @4.0ghz, and for the games it is used for, it is slower than my older i5 2400. If not for the insanely good black friday deal, that I got on it, a couple years ago, I would have went with an i3.

The DX11/12 path is very recent and is already making a lot of components obsolete for ultra gaming. Once every company exploits, maybe sooner than we think you will see next generation games that requires even more power. That is how this business needs to survive or we can still be happy with Atari 1040ST or dual core androids to play games.

 

[logainofhades]

All GTX 900 series GPU's are DX12 compatible, as are all recent AMD GPU's based on Hawaii, Tonga, and Fiji. The 900 series support a higher level of DX12, though.

 

[gbenninger]

5820k has been $299 at microcenter since it came out.

 

[alidan]

5820k has been $299 at microcenter since it came out.

in store only.

 

[deekster_caddy]

What about Intel's new I3-6300 processors? http://ark.intel.com/products/90731/Intel-Core-i3-6300-Processor-4M-Cache-3_80-GHz They have a recommended box retail of $147, seems competitive to the Haswell i3 pricewise with much better specs. Are they just not tested yet, or not for sale yet? I do see them for sale on a few sites.

 

[logainofhades]

Anybody know how the i3-6100 compares to the i3-4170?

They both run at 3.7ghz, so the 6100 will probably be 9-13% faster. However, the cost of the 4170 system is going to be a lot lower between the motherboard, ram, and the cpu itself. So it's really down to whether the new motherboard tech like m.2 and ddr4 is worth the price bump.

Yea, it really does depend on what features matter to you. A 4170, with an M.2 capable board isn't hugely different, in price, to a 6100 and M.2, if you do not care about raid capability. The gap widens a bit more if you want both Raid and m.2, but even then you can manage to keep it fairly close. I would make the jump to skylake, if you really want M.2 capability, with an i3. If you don't care to have it, then yea, you can get a 4170 based rig, for considerably less, right now.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i3-4170 3.7GHz Dual-Core Processor ($113.88 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-H97-D3H ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($91.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Memory: Mushkin ECO2 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($37.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $243.86
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-11-10 16:51 EST-0500

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i3-6100 3.7GHz Dual-Core Processor ($120.99 @ NCIX US)
Motherboard: MSI B150 PC Mate ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($82.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR4-2400 Memory ($46.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $250.97
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-11-10 16:52 EST-0500

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i3-6100 3.7GHz Dual-Core Processor ($120.99 @ NCIX US)
Motherboard: ASRock H170 Pro4 ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($99.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR4-2400 Memory ($46.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $267.97
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-11-10 16:52 EST-0500


No M.2
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i3-4170 3.7GHz Dual-Core Processor ($113.88 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: ASRock H97 Anniversary ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($61.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: Mushkin ECO2 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($37.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $213.85
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-11-10 16:59 EST-0500

 

[logainofhades]

Cleaner look, and better airflow, due to less cables. I for one hate doing cable management. Also I believe M.2 is faster than Sata 6.0.

 

[deekster_caddy]

Why would i want m2 in an atx case with enough room for ssd's and harddisks? Someone explain please, i dont get it.

M.2 SSDs can outrun a SATA connected SSD. They remove one more potential bottleneck loading information into memory. I would use one on a new build today instead of a SATA SSD, but it depends on your needs. 250GB is enough for me for the OS and a few games, and I can put other stuff on a big, cheap (inexpensive) spinning drive if I need to.

 

[alidan]

Why would i want m2 in an atx case with enough room for ssd's and harddisks? Someone explain please, i dont get it.

M.2 SSDs can outrun a SATA connected SSD. They remove one more potential bottleneck loading information into memory. I would use one on a new build today instead of a SATA SSD, but it depends on your needs. 250GB is enough for me for the OS and a few games, and I can put other stuff on a big, cheap (inexpensive) spinning drive if I need to.

unless i missed something, there is 1 m.2 drive that is better in every way than a sata ssd by any appreciable amount, that same drive runs over 115c, and in real world use, shows very little benefit... there are applications, but not to normal people. it also costs what, twice as much as a normal ssd, id personally rather get a 512gb drive if that was my choice.