Best CPUs (Archive)

[jpishgar]

It all makes sense now.

Not quite. AMD as well not long ago as well from what I recall. Advertising does not affect reviews or reporting. There's a wall between Editorial and Ad Sales. Don't know how many times or how many ways to say this, but Intel, Samsung, Apple, Microsoft, Pepsi nor Coke send us money for review content - nor would we allow them to if they asked. Though, we do receive accusations of bias and unfairness every time there's a critical review that takes place, particularly on the subject of CPUs and Graphics Cards - periodically smartphones. Please read above in the comments for discussion as to future reviews, and the methodology.

Feel free to provide feedback and constructive comments, but I'd ask everyone to please refrain from baseless accusations of bias without any supporting evidence. Thanks!

-JP

 

[ffleader1]

- You did not even take into account that playing with the 1700 gives users smoother framerates. All you care is average FPS.
- Why this article is about gaming, and the title is "Best CPUs", and the entire article is about gaming. Do you guys feel anything fishy...like at all?
- This article is biased. The fact that i3 7100, i5 7400 is on this list and you guys just keep BSing about being "neutral", "unbias" shit just prove that Intel is now funding Tom

 

[ffleader1]

Take down the article and write a better one. Really? Is it so hard to do?

 

[Guest]

It all makes sense now.

Not quite. AMD as well not long ago as well from what I recall. Advertising does not affect reviews or reporting. There's a wall between Editorial and Ad Sales. Don't know how many times or how many ways to say this, but Intel, Samsung, Apple, Microsoft, Pepsi nor Coke send us money for review content - nor would we allow them to if they asked. Though, we do receive accusations of bias and unfairness every time there's a critical review that takes place, particularly on the subject of CPUs and Graphics Cards - periodically smartphones. Please read above in the comments for discussion as to future reviews, and the methodology.

Feel free to provide feedback and constructive comments, but I'd ask everyone to please refrain from baseless accusations of bias without any supporting evidence. Thanks!

-JP

Total absence of gaming while multitasking benchmarks (streaming/browser,music service app) is evidence enough. I guess I'm not surprised no real-world scenarios like this were included, given the unrealistic scenario provided of pairing a $600 GPU with $150 CPU.

 

[Paul Alcorn]

- You did not even take into account that playing with the 1700 gives users smoother framerates. All you care is average FPS.
- Why this article is about gaming, and the title is "Best CPUs", and the entire article is about gaming. Do you guys feel anything fishy...like at all?
- This article is biased. The fact that i3 7100, i5 7400 is on this list and you guys just keep BSing about being "neutral", "unbias" shit just prove that Intel is now funding Tom

The i5-7400 isn't included in the list. Why? From the 1500X review:

But a little tuning puts the 1500X in contention with similarly-priced Intel CPUs. We experienced unflattering frame time spikes in some titles on the Core i5-7400, so an overclocked Ryzen 5 1500X provides a smoother experience in that regard. Overclocking also helps the 1500X against Intel's Core i5-7500.

So, yes, we are taking smoothness into account. The i5-7500 is included in the list of best CPUs, and a glance at the gaming price efficiency chart explains why.

 

[Paul Alcorn]

It all makes sense now.

Not quite. AMD as well not long ago as well from what I recall. Advertising does not affect reviews or reporting. There's a wall between Editorial and Ad Sales. Don't know how many times or how many ways to say this, but Intel, Samsung, Apple, Microsoft, Pepsi nor Coke send us money for review content - nor would we allow them to if they asked. Though, we do receive accusations of bias and unfairness every time there's a critical review that takes place, particularly on the subject of CPUs and Graphics Cards - periodically smartphones. Please read above in the comments for discussion as to future reviews, and the methodology.

Feel free to provide feedback and constructive comments, but I'd ask everyone to please refrain from baseless accusations of bias without any supporting evidence. Thanks!

-JP

Total absence of gaming while multitasking benchmarks (streaming/browser,music service app) is evidence enough. I guess I'm not surprised no real-world scenarios like this were included, given the unrealistic scenario provided of pairing a $600 GPU with $150 CPU.

Intel would also love for us to do these sorts of tests, as the whole Mega-Tasking angle is a big part of their marketing strategy (and we've called that out as dubious on several occasions). You don't see many such tests at other outlets, either, for several reasons, one being that much of the streaming work is done on the GPU. It also makes it, again, hard to ensure repeatable results. I am interested in seeing some of these tests, though, so if you have a link to another outfit that conducts them, I'm happy to look at it.

 

[SEALBoy]

<snip>

There is a reddit thread in r/amd (which another reader graciously posted) that urges readers to come post here. Considering that, and the fact that many many of these comments are from accounts created today with only one post, it's hard to draw a line between the "9/10 respondents" bit. I do value the opinions, though, as everyone is entitled to one.

We are testing for smoothness, a quick trip to our articles will reveal in-depth frame analysis to quantify performance variability. The results speak for themselves. As stated, we are testing the 1600, and if it merits it, we will include it.

We have also quantified Ryzen's overlocking performance, and in fact, that was the key factor that spurred us to give the Ryzen 5 1500X an award and recommended it as a solid alternative to Intel's -7500 and -7400. However, that recommendation is applicable to the entire picture, such as productivity and heavily threaded applications. The recommendations in this article focus strictly on gaming performance, therefore we have a different set of criteria.

You're getting a lot of hate right now but little substance, so I will (as a non-fanboy) lay out why I still think your article is wrong. I don't think you're a paid shill or anything, but I do think you are wrong.

1. G4560 - no argument, the best recommendation.

2. i3-7100 - I would not recommend this processor at all over the G4560. It costs 70-80% more and performs marginally better. I understand why you had it - there's nothing in that ~$120 price range that's competitive, but it's just a bad deal even with no competitor. I would have just told people to go for the G4560 and save some money or step up to the $170+ price range.

3. i5-7500 - I would really recommend the Ryzen 1500X here. Yes, the i5-7500 is maybe slightly faster in gaming at the moment at stock speeds. But the Ryzen 1500X has much more room to grow with 8 threads. And it is a better all-around processor for than the 1500X, which should be taken into account even if your list is gaming-focused.

4. i5-7600K - Similar story to the i5-7500. The 1600X with 12 threads has much more room to grow than a 4t CPU. I can still see the appeal of the 7600K with its unlocked multiplier. Personally, I would have presented both as viable options. If I was building a gaming rig today with a $250 processor I would not get the 7600K.

5. i7-7700K - I'm actually fine with this choice even if some people say the Ryzen 1700 is better. It's not, at least in gaming, and the 7700K does lead Ryzen pretty consistently.

Hope this helps.

 

[Paul Alcorn]

<snip>

<snip>

You're getting a lot of hate right now but little substance, so I will (as a non-fanboy) lay out why I still think your article is wrong. I don't think you're a paid shill or anything, but I do think you are wrong.

1. G4560 - no argument, the best recommendation.

2. i3-7100 - I would not recommend this processor at all over the G4560. It costs 70-80% more and performs marginally better. I understand why you had it - there's nothing in that ~$120 price range that's competitive, but it's just a bad deal even with no competitor. I would have just told people to go for the G4560 and save some money or step up to the $170+ price range.

3. i5-7500 - I would really recommend the Ryzen 1500X here. Yes, the i5-7500 is maybe slightly faster in gaming at the moment at stock speeds. But the Ryzen 1500X has much more room to grow with 8 threads. And it is a better all-around processor for than the 1500X, which should be taken into account even if your list is gaming-focused.

4. i5-7600K - Similar story to the i5-7500. The 1600X with 12 threads has much more room to grow than a 4t CPU. I can still see the appeal of the 7600K with its unlocked multiplier. Personally, I would have presented both as viable options. If I was building a gaming rig today with a $250 processor I would not get the 7600K.

5. i7-7700K - I'm actually fine with this choice even if some people say the Ryzen 1700 is better. It's not, at least in gaming, and the 7700K does lead Ryzen pretty consistently.

Hope this helps.

I appreciate your feedback, and you're right, there really is no clear competitor in the $120 class. Hopefully Ryzen 3 can unseat the -7100, as it is currently the best value proposition (at that price point) simply by default.

The -7500 is a close call, but our gaming price efficiency chart only includes the price of the silicon. The -7500 has a slight lead, but at a higher price. However, the Ryzen 5 1500X requires 3200 MT/s-capable memory and a solid overclock to contend, and that adds more price into the equation. In my tests, the bundled 95W cooler can't hang with the 3.9 GHz overclock (other outlets agree) so you're on the hook for a better cooler, too. Adding in those costs will increase the price by a minimum of $40, and at that point you're looking at a $229 1500X that is slower than the $200 i5-7500. (in gaming, specifically)

The i5-7600K vs. 1600X is also a tough one, but overclocking just entirely skews the performance story in favor of Intel. It doesn't help that the 1600X is more expensive. There is value in having more threads, I agree, and in the future it will likely come in handy. However, many of the same things have been said in the past, and we haven't seen it come to fruition (at least not entirely). Ultimately, we are trying to give the best recommendation that we can based on the current climate. I'm not very good at predicting the future, but we also test with more powerful GPUs to take evolution into account. It's really hard to recommend a processor that is more expensive yet lags the competition by roughly 15%.

 

[Paul Alcorn]

This is such garbage, whoever wrote this should be canned immediately, the Ryzen 1600x and Intel 7600 are the same price, but the ryzen is massively faster. you take a small performance hit in some applications, but you get 12 threads vs 4 for THE SAME PRICE. were talking a cinebench score of 650 vs 1150!! good by tom.

Ryzen 5 1600X sells for $249 and Core i5-7600K goes for $240.

 

[Paul Alcorn]

dismissing Ryzen 1700 for high price point while it's the same price as the i7 7700k in this list, in light of intel's announcement for users not to overclock the 7700k , which is the only thing gaving it an edge on gaming, but still i can understand the pick for a purely gaming perspective by dismissing all other values, but that is not the case according to the title of the article...
but picking the i5 7600 over the Ryzen5 1600, is pure madness, no matter how you look at it, this is probably the wort hardware pick i saw for a very long time and by a long shot.
and the reasons for dismissal and far fetched and quite innacurate.
lol @ Paul Alcorn, either you didn't take time to test the chips or you sir take bribes, i can't find another explanation, and this has nothing to do with Fanboyism.

Can you expand on why you feel they are inaccurate?

 

[Steve_104]

Paul it is pure fiction that "However, many of the same things have been said in the past, and we haven't seen it come to fruition (at least not entirely)."

When was one time that a lower thread count CPU maintained a lead over a higher thread count CPU? see Tom's Hardware's own numbers over time for the i5 2500 and the FX 8xxx. Tom's recommended the i5 2500 as the "faster" CPU by about 15% originally, in today's games is the i5 2500 still 15% faster? See Tom's Hardware's numbers for the launch of the 3rd generation and 4th generation I series processors for confirmation that over time the FX did in fact age better. Also see the Athlon X2 or the Core2Quad launch numbers and aging. In other words every time the Thread Count vs. Raw Frequency has been put to the test in the history of our industry.

You clearly have not looked back at the path we have been on as the computer industry.

 

[jpishgar]

To reiterate, accusing staff of bribery is an ad hominem attack, and against our rules of conduct. In fact, accusing ANY user of bribery here on Tom's is ad hominem attack, and personal insults are not permitted in our community. Civility is compulsory. If you intend to engage, please keep your commentary and discussion civil and constructive.

-JP

 

[Paul Alcorn]

Paul it is pure fiction that "However, many of the same things have been said in the past, and we haven't seen it come to fruition (at least not entirely)."

When was one time that a lower thread count CPU maintained a lead over a higher thread count CPU? see Tom's Hardware's own numbers over time for the i5 2500 and the FX 8xxx. Tom's recommended the i5 2500 as the "faster" CPU by about 15% originally, in today's games is the i5 2500 still 15% faster? See Tom's Hardware's numbers for the launch of the 3rd generation and 4th generation I series processors for confirmation that over time the FX did in fact age better. Also see the Athlon X2 or the Core2Quad launch numbers and aging. In other words every time the Thread Count vs. Raw Frequency has been put to the test in the history of our industry.

You clearly have not looked back at the path we have been on as the computer industry.

Do me the justice of quoting the sentence before that, as well.

There is value in having more threads, I agree, and in the future it will likely come in handy. However, many of the same things have been said in the past, and we haven't seen it come to fruition (at least not entirely)

Does the FX beat the -2500K now? I've seen several recent re-tests of the two head-to-head, and the FX lags by 20%. (one of the tests was done with 16 modern games on March 12, 2017).

More threads are beneficial, no doubt, but per-core performance is hard to beat in games, which are still primarily lightly-threaded. Bear in mind, it's five years later, and most games are still not fully leveraging multi-core architectures. I wish they would, though.

 

[Paul Alcorn]

<snip>

many of these comments are from accounts created today with only one post,

I'm somewhat concerned Paul at why after two yrs that your profile still has no avatar?

Fixed.

 

[aeriolwinters]

I've been looking at this site for recommendations for Hardware for years, but it is a sad state that people can't objectively give price/performance ratios. By that alone merits at least one Ryzen processor.

What we have here is the common tactic that Intel has. Remember the 64 and Intel's bribes not to highlight it because it would make the Pentium 4 look stupid in comparison?

Well, History is repeating itself.

Here we have AMD offering 6-core processing to the masses and Intel saying "MUH IPC". sounds eerily similar to when Netburst was shoved through everyone's throats.

 

[Steve_104]

Paul it is pure fiction that "However, many of the same things have been said in the past, and we haven't seen it come to fruition (at least not entirely)."

When was one time that a lower thread count CPU maintained a lead over a higher thread count CPU? see Tom's Hardware's own numbers over time for the i5 2500 and the FX 8xxx. Tom's recommended the i5 2500 as the "faster" CPU by about 15% originally, in today's games is the i5 2500 still 15% faster? See Tom's Hardware's numbers for the launch of the 3rd generation and 4th generation I series processors for confirmation that over time the FX did in fact age better. Also see the Athlon X2 or the Core2Quad launch numbers and aging. In other words every time the Thread Count vs. Raw Frequency has been put to the test in the history of our industry.

You clearly have not looked back at the path we have been on as the computer industry.

Do me the justice of quoting the sentence before that, as well.

There is value in having more threads, I agree, and in the future it will likely come in handy. However, many of the same things have been said in the past, and we haven't seen it come to fruition (at least not entirely)

Does the FX beat the -2500K now? I've seen several recent re-tests of the two head-to-head, and the FX lags by 20%. (one of the tests was done with 16 modern games on March 12, 2017).

More threads are beneficial, no doubt, but per-core performance is hard to beat in games, which are still primarily lightly-threaded. Bear in mind, it's five years later, and most games are still not fully leveraging multi-core architectures. I wish they would, though.

The sentence before was called into question by the sentence I quoted, which is in fact at odds with computer history.

I would really like to know where you see modern software running faster on the i5-2500K, most places the FX-83XX is faster at this point as the mean number of threads per computers continues its northward march. Not sure what benchmarks you are looking at with modern games that the i5 is posting even faster results than it did back when both were new, that is completely at odds with what I have seen in the field. This is also why I directed you to look at the performance comparison over time of the Athlon X2 which was terrible for gaming at introduction and the Core2Quad which offered no advantage in the released titles when it was launched. Yet today a Core2Quad, yes I know a person who still games on one of these, is vastly superior to a core2duo today, and that is a nine year old design.

I don't know about you but five years is well within the duty life of many of the computers I build, making a recommendation on hardware buys requires a forecast of future hardware optimizations.

I will give you that for a computer with one year of service ahead for it your recommendations make sense, two years is questionable, for a computer that will be in service for three or more years they are very short sighted.

Games are optimized to the mean average number of cores in computers, you want to see games actually succeed in leveraging more threads, don't downgrade the average computer's available core count with bad recommendations.

 

[Paul Alcorn]

<snip>

Google i5 2500K vs. FX 8370. I don't recall saying the -2500K is faster than it was in the past. I stated that with current benchmarks it beats the -8370 by ~20% in average frame rates (and ~12% in minimums).

No one has a crystal ball (well, that works). I can't overlook the data and recommend products in an attempt to sculpt the future of gaming.

 

[rasmusdf]

That's a bit different than other sites - for instance Tech Report: http://techreport.com/review/31624/the-tech-report-system-guide-march-2017-edition/2

 

[John_734]

Yes, that is exactly why I was so shocked to see that not even Ryzen 1600 did not make it to the list. If you go to futuremark page:
https://www.futuremark.com/hardware/cpu
and check the new prices on newegg for example you see 1600 with a cost of $220 makes 15.140 points. You divide 15140/220 and you get 68,80 points Value for Money. Your pick at 200$ i5-7500 makes 7.710 points with a score of 37.68 Value for Money and you claim your review is fair? I recently built a new PC putting components from your recommendation list, blindly trusting you but I will never do that again.

 

[ffleader1]

Okay, I will elaborate on a few matter, with reasoning, because, after all, this is one of the first tech sites that I came to.
Set aside the accusation of bribery, which I still think so, let me point out just two problems with this article:
1) The Title: Best CPUs, and the contents is just about gaming.
There is no justification for doing this. PERIOD.
Honestly, it's like putting a title about "Best smartphones", and the article is like: "We only talk about phones running iOS. If you use another mobile OS, this article is not for you"
As journalists, you guys must have known how many people just read the headlines, and probably some pictures, and they will be like: Seem like Intel is the best choice OVERALL, not just for gaming.
So, please, for the sake of not spreading misleading information, correct your title.
2) Your entire article is based on only two things: average FPS and price.
You did not factor in: future-proof, smoothness (in other reviews article you have, BUT not in this one, and it's very misleading), and overall experience.
- There is no way a 4C4T CPU like i5 7500 is more future proof than R5 1600. Many games now have already used lots of threads.
- I think smoothness with Ryzen is pretty much confirmed at this point so I would rather not elaborating further.
- When you play video games, there are still background Windows tasks running. This applied for every machines in the world, regardless of gaming or not, and that will affect performance from time to time.
- Like R5 1600 is only a very little more expensive, but give outstanding experience.
My point is: by only limiting the scope of your article to just average FPS and price, you have thrown away a lots of smaller details that contribute to the overall good PCs, and you know this. There are countless source only talking about Ryzen is a better choice, and you here choose i5 7500 or i3 7100 simply because of two factors...This is if not cherry-picking then Intel-fanboyism. NOT bribery, but still fanboysim.
Articles like this are suppose to give people The best gaming experience, not the best price/performance numbers, as if so, it's more of an Intel commercial rather than anything else.

 

[Paul Alcorn]

That's a bit different than other sites - for instance Tech Report: http://techreport.com/review/31624/the-tech-report-system-guide-march-2017-edition/2

Go back and read that article again.

TechReport recommends the i5-7500, i5-7600K and i7-7700K as the "sweet spot." In that price range, those are the recommendations.

Does that list look familiar? Those are the same picks we made in the same price range.

For the "high-end" segment they recommend the Ryzen 7 1700, 1700X and 1800X. We don't recommend products in that price range for our gaming CPU guide.

A quote from TR about the high-end products.

Even if these chips' prices overlap a bit with our Sweet Spot parts this time around, don't take that as a sign of equivalence. As we've been saying, "high end" in this context means "multithreaded power" not "gaming champion."

 

[Steve_104]

<snip>

Google i5 2500K vs. FX 8370. I don't recall saying the -2500K is faster than it was in the past. I stated that with current benchmarks it beats the -8370 by ~20% in average frame rates (and ~12% in minimums).

No one has a crystal ball (well, that works). I can't overlook the data and recommend products in an attempt to sculpt the future of gaming.

I did before I started talking:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylvdSnEbL50

Here is one of many sources documenting the trend I described.

You are overlooking the data of CPU utilization % consistently, so yes you are overlooking part of the data to make your recommendation.

Here is more I just upgraded my own personal machine from a i7-4790K to an R7 1700X, now by your site's CPU hierarchy I didn't upgrade.

Yet in my own bench marks I get a 400% increase in FPS in handbrake.

I get a 5% increase in FPS in Civilization 6.

Nothing is neutral or negative in the benchmarks.

There is demonstrable bias here.

 

[Paul Alcorn]

<snip>

<snip>

I did before I started talking:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylvdSnEbL50

Here is one of many sources documenting the trend I described.

You are overlooking the data of CPU utilization % consistently, so yes you are overlooking part of the data to make your recommendation.

Here is more I just upgraded my own personal machine from a i7-4790K to an R7 1700X, now by your site's CPU hierarchy I didn't upgrade.

Yet in my own bench marks I get a 400% increase in FPS in handbrake.

I get a 5% increase in FPS in Civilization 6.

Nothing is neutral or negative in the benchmarks.

There is demonstrable bias here.

I knew you were referencing the AdoredTV video, I watch them as well. However, his video encouraged others to go back and do actual testing. His video is interesting, but he is comparing game results in reviews that used different hardware and software platforms over time. That is an inherent flaw that can exaggerate performance deltas. Check out some of the videos where other Youtubers fact-checked the analysis, but instead, used static tests systems.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76-8-4qcpPo

 

[Paul Alcorn]

Yes, that is exactly why I was so shocked to see that not even Ryzen 1600 did not make it to the list. If you go to futuremark page:
https://www.futuremark.com/hardware/cpu
and check the new prices on newegg for example you see 1600 with a cost of $220 makes 15.140 points. You divide 15140/220 and you get 68,80 points Value for Money. Your pick at 200$ i5-7500 makes 7.710 points with a score of 37.68 Value for Money and you claim your review is fair? I recently built a new PC putting components from your recommendation list, blindly trusting you but I will never do that again.

The FutureMark Physics tests scale with core count. In fact, we include those synthetic tests in our reviews as a guide to the amount of raw performance available to the game engine. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of games do not extract that level of performance, as they are lightly threaded.

Synthetics are never a good substitute for actual game testing, though they are interesting and provide valuable data points.

 

[Steve_104]

<snip>

Google i5 2500K vs. FX 8370. I don't recall saying the -2500K is faster than it was in the past. I stated that with current benchmarks it beats the -8370 by ~20% in average frame rates (and ~12% in minimums).

No one has a crystal ball (well, that works). I can't overlook the data and recommend products in an attempt to sculpt the future of gaming.

I did before I started talking:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylvdSnEbL50

Here is one of many sources documenting the trend I described.

You are overlooking the data of CPU utilization % consistently, so yes you are overlooking part of the data to make your recommendation.

Here is more I just upgraded my own personal machine from a i7-4790K to an R7 1700X, now by your site's CPU hierarchy I didn't upgrade.

Yet in my own bench marks I get a 400% increase in FPS in handbrake.

I get a 5% increase in FPS in Civilization 6.

Nothing is neutral or negative in the benchmarks.

There is demonstrable bias here.

I knew you were referencing the AdoredTV video, I watch them as well. However, his video encouraged others to go back and do actual testing. His video is interesting, but he is comparing game results in reviews that used different hardware and software platforms over time. That is an inherent flaw that can exaggerate performance deltas. Check out some of the videos where other Youtubers fact-checked the analysis, but instead, used static tests systems.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76-8-4qcpPo

"Here is one of many sources."

There you go doing what you tried to call me out for doing. Here is another of sources: ME an IT professional who has been practicing for 21 years now. Again, if you do not like the FX-83xx vs i5-2500 take a look at the Core2Duo v. Core2Quad, it isn't as though this is a lightning bolt that has only struck once.

Still curious how you justify ignoring CPU utilization %, or claiming that the R7 1700X is equivalent to a i7-4790K.

In the real world computers are neither static in hardware or most especially software.

I am not saying in my computer practice I recommended the FX-83xx over the i5-2500, I didn't. I am willing to call that one a mistake however in hindsight.