Best CPUs (Archive)

[aeriolwinters]

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 reliant upon per-core performance.

This is basically TL;DR the you don't need x cores argument for games.


EDIT: This doesn't suprise me anymore coming from one of the only sites that recommended the P4 over the 64X2

Also funny is the assertion that "you don't need x anything". By locking them up with the 1151 Socket and with AM4 continuing on.

I don't think you've even considered that side of the argument for Ryzen/any AM4 CPU. You've got upgrade paths that don't include the whole CPU-Board.

If it's any indication of intel's responses (which is a 6c/6t i5). that argument doesn't work anymore.

I've noticed. most of the old articles about the Athlon 64 x2 and Pentium EE's were highly protective of the Intel parts.

 

[Paul Alcorn]

<snip>

<snip>

<snip>

"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.

Agreed. Hardware and software are never static. But, you can't compare benchmarks on a platform with Windows XP against a different test platform five years later running Windows 10. Sure, there were demonstrable differences if you go back and compare disparate test systems, but, if you put the chips in the same hardware and software configurations you see the error of that approach, as evidenced by the results from others who actually tested (correctly).
Remind me where I said the 1700X is equivalent to the 4790K?

 

[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.

Agreed. Hardware and software are never static. But, you can't compare benchmarks on a platform with Windows XP against a different test platform five years later running Windows 10. Sure, there were demonstrable differences if you go back and compare disparate test systems, but, if you put the chips in the same hardware and software configurations you see the error of that approach, as evidenced by the results from others who tested correctly.
Remind me where I said the 1700X is equivalent to the 4790K?

As I said previously "Your site" being Tom's Hardware posted a CPU hierarchy today as well, I am sorry if I implied you had personally said that. That post is where the 1700X and the 4790K are being equivalent CPU's came from. Actually if you check technically the 4790K is a few places up from the 1700X on the list, and I am pretty sure that has to be wrong.

That frankly blew me away and left me slack-jawed. Mostly because that is what I did with my own desktop about 30 days ago. With the video card, SSDs, power supply and case moving from system A to system B. All I did was swap motherboard, CPU and RAM. Now I am using this as a live computer and not a test bed, I am not running bench mark after bench mark, but for me in the things I do, I have seen between 5%-400% improvement in performance, no place have I looked and seen performance loss or even a performance neutral only improvements most pretty substantial.

You can and should compare benchmarks from Windows XP vs. Windows 10 that actually comes closest to computer life cycle performance. I would say a good many FX and i5 systems have made that journey. As long as the platforms are evolved in the same evolution, so you are not throwing in apples and oranges to the data (such as this one had better RAM or a better Video Card at any step in the journey), it does indicate how a person who bought computer A faired compared to the person who bought computer B and did the same upgrades and software installs over time.

Frankly in my opinion that is what comes closest to simulating what an actual computer user, goes through in an actual production/personal computer. Now this one is going to be an opinion thing, I understand the value of static testing, but it is a snapshot in the life of a computer, and really not the life narrative in my view.

 

[onlyanoob]

PaulAlcorn 6 hours ago

Hi guys, I see a lot of new faces here, so I just want to preface the discussion by stating that I am open to civil discourse on our test methodology and how we derive our recommendations.We haven't yet tested the 1600 and 1400, though we are in the process. As stated, we want to make data-driven statements. If the processors merit it, they will make the list in the next monthly update.


Excuse me but how come your the last on the Data Train ? how come every man dog and boy has a review on the R5 line up covering every angle of its abilities, testing it against its I5 counterparts and all coming to the same conclusion infact even ending up with almost identical headers "THE I 5 IS DEAD"

 

[Paul Alcorn]

<snip>

<snip>

<snip>

<snip>

<snip>

<snip>

As I said previously "Your site" being Tom's Hardware posted a CPU hierarchy today as well, I am sorry if I implied you had personally said that. That post is where the 1700X and the 4790K are being equivalent CPU's came from. Actually if you check technically the 4790K is a few places up from the 1700X on the list, and I am pretty sure that has to be wrong.

That frankly blew me away and left me slack-jawed. Mostly because that is what I did with my own desktop about 30 days ago. With the video card, SSDs, power supply and case moving from system A to system B. All I did was swap motherboard, CPU and RAM. Now I am using this as a live computer and not a test bed, I am not running bench mark after bench mark, but for me in the things I do, I have seen between 5%-400% improvement in performance, no place have I looked and seen performance loss or even a performance neutral only improvements most pretty substantial.

You can and should compare benchmarks from Windows XP vs. Windows 10 that actually comes closest to computer life cycle performance. I would say a good many FX and i5 systems have made that journey. As long as the platforms are evolved in the same evolution, so you are not throwing in apples and oranges to the data (such as this one had better RAM or a better Video Card at any step in the journey), it does indicate how a person who bought computer A faired compared to the person who bought computer B and did the same upgrades and software installs over time.

Frankly in my opinion that is what comes closest to simulating what an actual computer user, goes through in an actual production/personal computer. Now this one is going to be an opinion thing, I understand the value of static testing, but it is a snapshot in the life of a computer, and really not the life narrative in my view.

The hierarchy list is for each set of products (Intel and AMD), but they are merely centered in the fields. If the 1700 is across from an Intel offering on the chart, that is merely due to the centered alignment, and not indicative of relative performance between the two. I admit, it does appear a bit confusing.

 

[Paul Alcorn]

PaulAlcorn 6 hours ago

Hi guys, I see a lot of new faces here, so I just want to preface the discussion by stating that I am open to civil discourse on our test methodology and how we derive our recommendations.We haven't yet tested the 1600 and 1400, though we are in the process. As stated, we want to make data-driven statements. If the processors merit it, they will make the list in the next monthly update.


Excuse me but how come your the last on the Data Train ? how come every man dog and boy has a review on the R5 line up covering every angle of its abilities, testing it against its I5 counterparts and all coming to the same conclusion infact even ending up with almost identical headers "THE I 5 IS DEAD"

You will find that for gaming the majority of websites still recommend the i5 series. Read at pcper, pcgamer, etc etc. They do say the Ryzen 5's are better for productivity, as we do, but read the articles and look specifically for the gaming recommendations, usually in the last few paragraphs of the conclusion.

Pcgamer

For pure gaming performance, I'd still point people to Intel, but if you're looking for something of a Jack-of-all-trades processor that won't break the bank, the new Ryzen 5 chips warrant serious consideration.

Pcper

Gaming is still something to keep an eye on, and pure gamers will likely want to stick to Intel for now. But for those of us with a range of computing going on day to day, AMD has a very compelling solution - finally.

Tweaktown

Still Need Gaming Optimizations: Game optimization as we saw with Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation won't happen overnight, but it's apparent that AMD is working with game developers to improve Ryzen's performance. Right now, the major gaming disparities are at lower resolutions such as 720p and 1080p, but we can't disregard those since 1080p is still quite relevant and lower resolutions remove the GPU as a bottleneck...All that being said, you aren't going to see a major difference between a similarly priced Ryzen CPU and Intel CPU in games if you have a nice GPU setup, but if your setup isn't that strong and the CPU's IPC and frequency comes into play, the difference might be more pronounced.

Guru3D

The biggest discussion at Ryzen's launch was 1080p gaming performance. This problem is still here, but not as big as some state it is. Ryzen is a truly great processor series, but it lacks a little in 1080p gaming situations where you are more CPU bound (if you have a fast enough graphics card). There has been much debate on the cause of it, memory latency, latency in-between the CCX modules on the processor, driver issues, Windows 10, game optimizations, benchmarking with a GeForce card over an AMD one, thread schedulers and so on. The reality is simple, the results are what they are. Ryzen 5 and 7 lack a good 10-20% in performance with super fast graphics cards in a lower resolution compared to the fastest clocked Intel SKUs.

All of this craziness that we are coming to some wild conclusion that others aren't. Well, look around a bit more.

 

[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.

Agreed. Hardware and software are never static. But, you can't compare benchmarks on a platform with Windows XP against a different test platform five years later running Windows 10. Sure, there were demonstrable differences if you go back and compare disparate test systems, but, if you put the chips in the same hardware and software configurations you see the error of that approach, as evidenced by the results from others who tested correctly.
Remind me where I said the 1700X is equivalent to the 4790K?

As I said previously "Your site" being Tom's Hardware posted a CPU hierarchy today as well, I am sorry if I implied you had personally said that. That post is where the 1700X and the 4790K are being equivalent CPU's came from. Actually if you check technically the 4790K is a few places up from the 1700X on the list, and I am pretty sure that has to be wrong.

That frankly blew me away and left me slack-jawed. Mostly because that is what I did with my own desktop about 30 days ago. With the video card, SSDs, power supply and case moving from system A to system B. All I did was swap motherboard, CPU and RAM. Now I am using this as a live computer and not a test bed, I am not running bench mark after bench mark, but for me in the things I do, I have seen between 5%-400% improvement in performance, no place have I looked and seen performance loss or even a performance neutral only improvements most pretty substantial.

You can and should compare benchmarks from Windows XP vs. Windows 10 that actually comes closest to computer life cycle performance. I would say a good many FX and i5 systems have made that journey. As long as the platforms are evolved in the same evolution, so you are not throwing in apples and oranges to the data (such as this one had better RAM or a better Video Card at any step in the journey), it does indicate how a person who bought computer A faired compared to the person who bought computer B and did the same upgrades and software installs over time.

Frankly in my opinion that is what comes closest to simulating what an actual computer user, goes through in an actual production/personal computer. Now this one is going to be an opinion thing, I understand the value of static testing, but it is a snapshot in the life of a computer, and really not the life narrative in my view.

The hierarchy list is for each set of products (Intel and AMD), but they are merely centered in the fields. If the 1700 is across from an Intel offering on the chart, that is merely due to the centered alignment, and not indicative of relative performance between the two. I admit, it does appear a bit confusing.

It is confusing at least, and I gathered that is what you were doing, yet for them to be in the same category seems to be at odds with my own testing. There certainly could be things where the 4790K is better or even just equal, I just have not found them yet.

 

[onlyanoob]

@ PAULALCORN

Cant even believe that your trying to defend this article. You haven't even tested a R1600 WTF the last place on the planet to not have tested an R1600 LOL really a " do called leading hardware review site" I must have read about 50 write ups and articles within a couple of days of the R1600 release. So the CPU's you are ADVISING people to spend their hard earned money on haven't been put up against by the RYZEN CPUs because of why ? because your behind the times.......becoming less relevant...loss of all credibility..................................you have outdone yourselves big time. Why should I write here to teach you your technical misinformation. you research it you look it up then amend your article to advise those not in the know what is the BEST CPU for their Money. You may think your being unbiased but your own words can no matter how much you protest lead to other conclusions because you have INCORRECT information plain and simple your 2 weeks out of date. An eternity in the tech world.

 

[aeriolwinters]

You will find that for gaming the majority of websites still recommend the i5 series.

Who puts "Best CPUs" for their article

and then goes

"For gaming"

at the end of it all. Saying the i5 is better all-around when in fact it isn't is a big crime here.

The topic is : BEST CPU.


People do not just game on their desktop computers. And for this reason, people need the right to know how things stack up from a non-gamer's perspective.

By saying that "But we've already said that for everything else, Ryzen is a better price/performance option; BUT GAMEZZZZZZZ" ; I guess the intention wasn't to recommend a CPU that's best for its price on any situation. JUST GAMEZZZZZZZ

 

[rasmusdf]

Hi PaulAlCorn

Sorry - I can't figure out how to respond directly to you post - so I am submitting a separate answer.

I get it - this is a gaming CPU list - and I understand your reasons. But I have 2 specific gripes:

- The i3 seems to be obsolote and too expensive now that the Pentium is out - and I know - Ryzen 3 is not out yet.
- The 4c/4t i5 are now maxed out for online play (demonstrated lots of places) - perhaps for a gaming CPU list you should mention this or directly recommend a stronger CPU with more cores.

So specifically - the i3 and (locked) i5 seems like strange choices - even in a gaming CPU list.

If you haven't fully tested the Ryzen 1500/1600 CPUS you should perhaps hold of recommending anything else until those reviews are done fully. I know I would be kind a miffed to build a locked i5 build for playing BF1 online, for instance.

 

[SurferBoyUK]

Shameful goodbye tomshardware looks like you are taking Intel hand out as this selection is wrong

 

[aeriolwinters]

Tom's Logic:

"If it's good in gaming, it should be enough elsewhere that's why it's
the BEST CPU for your shekels."

Don't care if my rig can't do VM's while having horsepower for it BECUZ GAMEZZZZ


Don't care if my rig can't do anything productivity better BECUZ GAMEZZZ


Don't care if my rig can't deliver a wholistic experience and not just GAMEZZZZ

 

[Paul Alcorn]

Quotes from Ryzen 5 reviews. I encourage you to read the reviews to take the comments in context.

Pcgamer

For pure gaming performance, I'd still point people to Intel, but if you're looking for something of a Jack-of-all-trades processor that won't break the bank, the new Ryzen 5 chips warrant serious consideration.

Pcgamer best gaming CPU picks - i5-7600K, i3-7100, i7-6850K


Pcper

Gaming is still something to keep an eye on, and pure gamers will likely want to stick to Intel for now. But for those of us with a range of computing going on day to day, AMD has a very compelling solution - finally.

Tweaktown

Still Need Gaming Optimizations: Game optimization as we saw with Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation won't happen overnight, but it's apparent that AMD is working with game developers to improve Ryzen's performance. Right now, the major gaming disparities are at lower resolutions such as 720p and 1080p, but we can't disregard those since 1080p is still quite relevant and lower resolutions remove the GPU as a bottleneck...All that being said, you aren't going to see a major difference between a similarly priced Ryzen CPU and Intel CPU in games if you have a nice GPU setup, but if your setup isn't that strong and the CPU's IPC and frequency comes into play, the difference might be more pronounced.

Guru3D

The biggest discussion at Ryzen's launch was 1080p gaming performance. This problem is still here, but not as big as some state it is. Ryzen is a truly great processor series, but it lacks a little in 1080p gaming situations where you are more CPU bound (if you have a fast enough graphics card). There has been much debate on the cause of it, memory latency, latency in-between the CCX modules on the processor, driver issues, Windows 10, game optimizations, benchmarking with a GeForce card over an AMD one, thread schedulers and so on. The reality is simple, the results are what they are. Ryzen 5 and 7 lack a good 10-20% in performance with super fast graphics cards in a lower resolution compared to the fastest clocked Intel SKUs.

HardOCP

For those of you looking to build a new system strictly for gaming, it is still hard to argue against the Intel Core i5-7600K, and then it is going to depend on whether or not you are gaming at a CPU-limited resolution like 1080p. Once you get beyond a "1080p gaming only" system, it is hard to prop up the 7600K at its ~$250 price point. As applications move to being more thread-aware, it only makes sense to have more true CPU cores and threads in your system.

PCadvisor

although a little more expensive than the i5-7600K, it’s easy to see that the Ryzen 5 1600X is better value for demanding tasks such as 3D- and video rendering, video editing and compressing and decompressing files. The Intel chip still has an advantage for gaming, but as games are optimised for AMD’s new processors the gap will narrow.

KitGuru

Gaming performance for Ryzen is still off the pace set by Kaby Lake and other Intel architectures. That point is still true for Ryzen 5 in its four-core, eight-thread guise. There were instances where the Core i5 was significantly faster when paired with a powerful graphics card.

Don't read Digital Trends review, your heads will explode.

All of this craziness that we are coming to some wild conclusion that others aren't. Well, look around a bit more.

 

[aeriolwinters]

For pure gaming performance, I'd still point people to Intel, but if you're looking for something of a Jack-of-all-trades processor that won't break the bank, the new Ryzen 5 chips warrant serious consideration.

Why call it "BEST CPU" for the money? when the Ryzen 5 can do other things significantly faster other than gaming.

You're not painting the whole picture here. What you're painting isn't a recommendation: It's an ad for Intel's gaming performance.

 

[aeriolwinters]

The point here is that "BEST CPU" should be taken in to consideration, all facets of the CPU itself.

Why is there suddenly the importance of gaming; when people can get more than just gaming for the chip

 

[aeriolwinters]

FPS performance seems to be a new way for dick-waving contests:

I don't care. What realistic people want isn't the best for a singular facet. It's the product that could hit multiple targets at the same time.

 

[aeriolwinters]

the context of most of the reviews are simple:

Intel is Steph Curry : 3 pt/Gaming Specialist

AMD is Kahwi Leonard: Offense/Defense full product.

It's a pretty apt comparison too, considering that Kahwi is a complete player, while Steph has no defense and has questionable shot selection.

 

[onlyanoob]

All of this craziness that we are coming to some wild conclusion that others aren't. Well, look around a bit more.


Your missing the point why are you getting all these replies ? Because all these people have looked around have read up watched, have friends who have brought Ryzens and compared and tried and discussed. They have all come the same conclusion a different one to this sites conclusion and your implying that they DO NOT know what they are talking about.

Gaming whilst streaming tested that here ? Gaming running countless other Apps at the same time tested that ? Modern gaming is more than just playing a game. its more than maximum FPS. Even as gaming CPU's the line up you have listed are Dead. Those who understand computers realise this. Static bench tests glean a particular data set who's relevancy belongs back in the early days of computing. To justify your conclusion in relation to gaming real world that incudes' multiplayer online gaming experience is what counts for most users these days.

Its the 21C time to get with the times.

 

[Paul Alcorn]

All of this craziness that we are coming to some wild conclusion that others aren't. Well, look around a bit more.


Your missing the point why are you getting all these replies ? Because all these people have looked around have read up watched, have friends who have brought Ryzens and compared and tried and discussed. They have all come the same conclusion a different one to this sites conclusion and your implying that they DO NOT know what they are talking about.

Gaming whilst streaming tested that here ? Gaming running countless other Apps at the same time tested that ? Modern gaming is more than just playing a game. its more than maximum FPS. Even as gaming CPU's the line up you have listed are Dead. Those who understand computers realise this. Static bench tests glean a particular data set who's relevancy belongs back in the early days of computing. To justify your conclusion in relation to gaming real world that incudes' multiplayer online gaming experience is what counts for most users these days.

Its the 21C time to get with the times.

So, now the argument is that all of the sites are wrong?

 

[aeriolwinters]

So, now the argument is that all of the sites are wrong?

The argument is that none of the websites tested real-world scenarios. They tested benchmarks. Benchmarks run singularly.

Benchmarks are not the end-all be all of tech. They're just guidelines. Answer me first: Why put "BEST CPU" when the chart is "BEST Gaming CPU"?

 

[Paul Alcorn]

So, now the argument is that all of the sites are wrong?

The argument is that none of the websites tested real-world scenarios. They tested benchmarks. Benchmarks run singularly.

Benchmarks are not the end-all be all of tech. They're just guidelines. Answer me first: Why put "BEST CPU" when the chart is "BEST Gaming CPU"?

I didn't assign the title, but I'm not sure how many more times we can say the list is for gaming, specifically. It is listed numerous times, even in bold print.

If everyone is testing wrong, I guess that kinda invalidates the "Tom's is a paid Intel shill" line.

 

[onlyanoob]

All of this craziness that we are coming to some wild conclusion that others aren't. Well, look around a bit more.


Your missing the point why are you getting all these replies ? Because all these people have looked around have read up watched, have friends who have brought Ryzens and compared and tried and discussed. They have all come the same conclusion a different one to this sites conclusion and your implying that they DO NOT know what they are talking about.

Gaming whilst streaming tested that here ? Gaming running countless other Apps at the same time tested that ? Modern gaming is more than just playing a game. its more than maximum FPS. Even as gaming CPU's the line up you have listed are Dead. Those who understand computers realise this. Static bench tests glean a particular data set who's relevancy belongs back in the early days of computing. To justify your conclusion in relation to gaming real world that incudes' multiplayer online gaming experience is what counts for most users these days.

Its the 21C time to get with the times.

So, now the argument is that all of the sites are wrong?

The Argument is this. Yes TBH real world is what counts. the days of number crunching alone to determine ( in Gaming specifically) what performs best has morphed tremendously these last 5 years. So yes frankly those who game and keep up with what is the gaming "norm" these days understand that average and Max FPS has a context tied into what else is going on with their PC usage. Revisit your article in 2-3 years to see where the line up you have just listed stands. Because anyone buying any computer set up wants it to be relevant for 3-5 years not just the next 12 months.

 

[Kaos Sverige]

<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.

I can't speak for others but if you will search about me on YouTube , Reddit , Twitter , etc you will clearly see that for decades I am nothing but an Intel "fanboy" mostly because of my connection to the Apple ecosystem . Among the ocean of my computers ( Apples , Spectrums , Amstrads , Acorns , Commodores including Amigas , Ataris , every single Intel architecture , few Suns , SGIs & POWERs ) through the decades I owned only 3 AMD based systems : 386 , 486 & Athlon . So , yeah , surely I cannot be an AMD fan let alone a "fanboy" .

But yes , I too , created my account just yesterday but not because of a subreddit post but because of the "inner rage" . And I didn't ask to any of our family or friends to come here and rage / rant or whatever because I think that would be an even more of a stupid thing to do ( raging being enough of a stupid already ) .

Ryzen price / performance ratio in most cases is already undeniable and as the time goes by it will only get better . But yeah Intel is the best for gaming . What a complete and utter joke of a statement coming from an "authority" on the matter .

I already "regretted" my previous post and something tells me that I will regret about this one here only because it will land on "deaf" ears and "blind" eyes .

 

[orifiel]

many youtube videos tells us 1600x vs all i5s oced, 1600x wins them all by 15-20-or 40 fps... only maybe 1 game the intel may shine. They improved them allot since launch. So I believe the list you promote is bad. I wouldn't care buying intel though, my pc is intel, but since AMD came with better cpus and they have long term sockets, I go with it.
Here is videos from known youtube channels hardwarecanuks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71UHFJjs3Go
here is another https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8bRqdFGCf0

and many many many others, the youtube list is big... I suspect that either intel or amd paying sites to promote their stock.. I believe its intel. lol I believe its intel, I have that feeling I have sixth sense. lol

So I would suggest instead of trying to sell some unsold intel cpus, ask from Intel to make their sockets last much much longer than 1-2 years cycle and give us cheaper more cores as amd does. Now if intel send me some free goodies, I may change my statement and my sixth sense will be gone... lol

I dont think intel pays all sites to do that, its more than that, motherboard vendors gave us an idea whats going on. All stores stock up with intel motherboards and cpus during holydays and amd ryzen was a huge slap in the face for the market, including stores and motherboard vendors. So all the stock remain in the store shelves while everybody is running for amd ryzen now! Its not intel that forces some sites to promote intel, but the stores and the market they have to sell their stock. My vendor still have no motherboards for ryzen, he tells me everyday : there is no stock.. they vanish day one in EU and there is no leftovers for the eastern EU. 20 days ago they told me they may be able to bring some x370 by MSI but no luck yet.. I want asrock though... lol

 

[Paul Alcorn]

many youtube videos tells us 1600x vs all i5s oced, 1600x wins them all by 15-20-or 40 fps... only maybe 1 game the intel may shine. They improved them allot since launch. So I believe the list you promote is bad. I wouldn't care buying intel though, my pc is intel, but since AMD came with better cpus and they have long term sockets, I go with it.
Here is videos from known youtube channels hardwarecanuks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71UHFJjs3Go
here is another https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8bRqdFGCf0

and many many many others, the youtube list is big... I suspect that either intel or amd paying sites to promote their stock.. I believe its intel, I have that feeling I have sixth sense. lol

So I would suggest instead of trying to sell some unsold intel cpus, ask from Intel to make their sockets last much much longer than 1-2 years cycle and give us cheaper more cores as amd does.

Now if intel send me some free goodies, I may change my statement and my sixth sense will be gone... lol

Interesting videos. It's noteworthy that the OBS streaming tests were conducted against a previous generation Intel i5-6600K that had a rather conservative overclock. 4.4GHz as opposed to the easy 5.0 you can get with the i5-7600K, which is the current gen chip. Not sure how much that would change the results, but it certainly would make a difference.

In the Hardware Canuks video, the i5's beat the comparably-priced Ryzen's in every single game. That's interesting, we seen a few instances where the Ryzen's won, but we also tested with more games.