Best CPUs (Archive)

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
I waited 8 years to upgrade, and I started by referring to Tom's best guides to help me decide. Unfortunately, the more I learned the less I needed to refer to them because I realized they are not correct. I now have a 1600 and I couldn't be happier, especially with the amazingly quiet/cool included heatsink, I saved a lot of money and have comparable results to Kaby Lake CPU's.

I think at the very least the 1500X and 1600 should be included as side-by-side with the 7600k, even though I would definitely recommend the 1600 over the 7600k myself. I would feel especially bad if someone happened upon this site and bought a 7500/7100 expecting it to remain relevant for a while. This is a terrible recommendation. People build computers around CPU's that will last for more than a year or two, even if they perform acceptably today. These need to be considered when offering informed recommendations, if people just wanted to know pure simulated benchmark comparisons they could look anywhere else.
 
So while I don't agree with these choices. Reasons why? Well I will talk about it below.

1. Pentium G4560 - no other choice at this level that doesn't offer similar performance. That is fine and I'm not really worried about it. Very solid performer for the price.

2. i3-7100 - Once again no other real choice in this. You could say that there is no other option at this price point for the price but I would say that the Pentium is really the only processor from this level until $150.

I would look at putting the Pentium G4620 there since there is less than a 4% difference between the i3 and it.

3. I would look at the $150 range which would be the i3-7300. The reason is because at this point there is more than a 10% difference between that and the previous option.

4. i5-7500. While I do agree with the placement, more and more people are option to have other things going at the same time. This has been more and more common as of late where someone will be playing a game, twitch/youtube in the back ground, Skype/discord/vent, and others.

- Toms used to do a thing called honorable mentions when there were other options in a certain price range. That would be ideal since the Ryzen 1500x is very close in both games and extra programs.

6. i5-7600k Same thing as above. Close performance but others are very close like the Ryzen 1600/x. Honorable mention should be used.

7. i7-7700k Same as above. Honorable mention Ryzen 7 1700.

Today's world, more people are needing more options. Utilizing the Honorable mention would be wise and would probably prevent this from happening.
 


See, comments like this make you sound...let's just say not informed. Almost reminds me of the morons that said my DDR3 would break my Skylake and that some Intel magic curse would stop allowing a base clock overclock (and here we are almost 18 months later, I am still right, and you are still wrong).

Even Paul said the article was written before the lower tier Ryzen processors were tested. That means THW Editorial admits that posting this article is about as good as a congressman voting for the Patriot Act without having read the bill. Quite a disservice. People have a right to be mad. This article should be pulled immediately until someone does their homework properly. It's not like "Best of" articles haven't been late before. Take time, and do it right. The current situation here is that THW looks like it is spewing garbage to satisfy clicks, and therefore sponsor money. Fix that, problem solved, and everyone happy. Don't fix it, and people get more pissed off, and make more fun of THW at more knowledgeable tech forums. Your choice.
 
I think the wild accusations being thrown around aren't fair.

The tale of the tape is that, today, most games that don't use a lot of threads, and the brute force single thread performance of Kaby Lake wins the race. This is mostly true when you use an overkill GPU for testing and if you're not doing anything else. However, as noted at the top, this is good if you don't have time to do research. For all of us that have done research, not necessarily the list of recommendations we would make. And if you're getting a mid-range platform and want to, for example, be able to RAR or 7-zip stuff like a maniac, then you take more into consideration.

I just replaced my FX-8350 with a R5 1500X and fast RAM. I'm happy with the upgrade. It's solid, steady, and gives me a bit better results with my existing graphics solution. I decided on that before the article came out, so I favored the 1500X vs the i5 7400 in my budget range, for several reasons.

I'm sure things will get shaken up soon. AM4 is a new platform. As it matures and as games are coded to use the Ryzen architecture I'm sure they'll make the list. And even if they're not on the list, if you're convinced you're right or like the reporting on other sites, then go with your own decision.

Remember back when you could buy a 64 bit CPU but couldn't get a 64 bit operating system? And then later, when the only benefit to the 64 bit OS was that the 32 bit games you ran didn't soak up your system's memory so you actually could tab out and do other stuff with the game minimized? Or then when there were DX10 GPUs but hardly any DX10 games? It takes time for things to reach a happy medium.
 
Tom's Hardware is the leading site of industry. No doubt. I always believe you have the most hardcore staff, and the most solid test numbers.

Is "System Builder Marathon" still alive? C'mon, build one with I3, an benchmark it!

At that time, I wonder, will you have a very different view of the CPU you have recommended here?
 
If my comment is going to be deleted, I would really at least like a PM to tell me why. Even if the comment from the mod I was replying to was also deleted, I would prefer mine remain in place because the point stands and I took the time and effort to write it.

Just because someone has joined on a new account does not mean they haven't been on the site for a while. Undoubtedly some people will complain for the sake of complaining, but many people browse review sites without making accounts for long periods of time. Some people (myself included) may only make an account if we felt the need to speak up. Luckily, I already had an account with Toms for a bit, lest I be dismissed as just another reddit troll for expressing my dissatisfaction with this list. There will be the trolls who will cover AMD no matter what, but the fact is not everyone is going to have the time to go into detail about the issues they have with this list, such as the methodology of the testing, and just want to let you know they are not happy. Others with more time can (and have in this thread) go into such details. If I did not already have an account with Toms, I would have made one to let you know that this list does a disservice to what I originally believed to be a reliable source of tech information. The community is great, but this list is not. I will refer you to the points raised by others earlier in the thread, because I don't have much time. Much less when my comments are being deleted for no apparent reason.
 
Your comment was removed because it was in context to a divergent part of the thread. We welcome all feedback, dissent, agreement, constructive criticism, and praise with the same level of acceptance. The only requisite is that civility is maintained and that personal attacks are not made. Time as member is not a part of this consideration. Would certainly prefer to keep the discussion on-topic, however.

For what it's worth, to everyone interested, all the feedback has been aggregated and will be taken into consideration in the future. And as I mentioned, we do genuinely appreciate passionate, informed discourse on reviews - even contentious ones. 😉
-JP
 
yeah, you keep doing it, completly disregard and disrispect from us, your parcialitty just shows how dependent you are or how disconected with what really going on you are...get back from 2015 to 2017 plz.
 


Thank you, i separated my own feedback from this thread, for obvious reasons.... would my feedback also be taken into account?

Thanks :)

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/id-3407513/feedback-toms-hardware-cpu-reviewing.html
 
I'm a little surprised that Ryzen didn't make the list at all, but then I actually read the article, specifically this line:

"Remember, though, that these recommendations only apply to gaming performance specifically."
"Remember, though, that these recommendations only apply to gaming performance specifically."
"Remember, though, that these recommendations only apply to gaming performance specifically."

I'm repeating it because it's important to pay attention, not just get mad as soon as you see the list at the top.

They're right. At any price point if all you do is game Intel wins with current titles period. If you do just anything else and especially anything else at the same time as gaming they lose but with that qualifier they are correct.

The i5-7600k even at stock beats every single Ryzen in every single game.
Obviously the 7700K is in the same boat.
The i5-7500 beats the R5 1500 even with max overclocks at the same price in almost every game.
There is no Ryzen at the same price as a G4560 so it obviously wins, even R3 won't go that low in terms of price.

The i3s are moot as far as I'm concerned and if they are best at their price point you should eliminate the price point but I guess based on the Caveat they do win at that price.

It's sad but true; most PC users that need CPU power need it for gaming and only gaming; Intel still wins that user base. For how long? No idea, maybe 6 months, maybe forever; CoffeeLake is coming with its 6 core chips long before Games will get "Optimized for Ryzen".

If I were buying today, there would only be 4 choices: G4560, i7-7700K, R5 1600 or R7 1700, plus maybe the 6950X for that E-Peen. I don't just game though so Ryzen is a better choice for me. IF you only game, or game 90% of the time, Intel is the best right now. There is no debate, it wins; The R5 1600 sitting on the floor not plugged in while I type this on a 6700K says something.
 
The RYZEN 1600 should be on the list because overclocked it's on par with the 1600X, is $40 cheaper and overclocked could beat out a I5 7500 in a lot of new titles.
 


With the time code embedded, just click on it it will play from the relevant point. https://youtu.be/wwi14SxPSM4?t=50m9s

Anyway, i don't really like this "paid off by Intel" accusation,
But that is funny, and just just sums all this up...

Despite that i'm just going to assume this is maybe down to aftershocks from the quake that was 'Bulldozer' perhaps overly cautious about putting anything AMD on to any sort of pedestal though fear of being on the wrong side of the debate.
Sadly AMD just seem to be tainted like that with mainstream reviewers, it seems they can't actually do anything right, even when they have....

Its a shame because clearly AMD have worked very very hard to put right the wrongs with Bulldozer, yes starting from a low base but still, a more than 50% performance uplift in one go? that from Excavator, its more like 65% from Bulldozer, that's astonishing.
But don't speak about it, best just to keep quiet.

Its just sad because AMD really have achieved something here, and it is a great chip by any measure, as good as Intel's current chips, in many ways better. who would have thought that would ever be possible again?

AMD do deserve much better than this.
If they can't get any recognition for the work they do and there-in deserved revenue for R&D... then what is the point of AMD trying?

Toms and actually a lot of mainstream reviewers are very much opposite to their readers with stuff like this.
 
A lot of butthurt ryzen fanboys out there. Are you serious? AMD's been a pos for 10 years, both for processors AND video cards. I buy whatever is the best, not brands. For example, I owned a BMW when it was the Ultimate Driving Machine. Now the new models are flabby and soft. So I've changed brands.

Stop being fanboys.
 
What the actual heck... Did you idiots even test the Ryzen CPUs or just look at Intel's provided info in the case of money they handed you? I can believe the Pentium recommendation at the bottom end (only because R3 hasn't launched yet) and the 7700k because at this instant it out preforms the current Ryzen offerings (love to check back in a few years based on how more cores effected chip longevity). But every other chip on this list is a joke at their price point. The Ryzen prices where aimed at killing these overpriced chips, and your review seemed to be bent on saying otherwise. I've slowly stopped coming here since the blatant pandering to certain companies has become less subtle, but with this I doubt I'll be coming back and in the off chance I do adblock will now be on. This piece was just disgraceful to yourself and your company...
 
Baffled. Absolutely baffled. But also VERY disappointed at this list. To see that THG can go as far as recommending a whole list of Intel chips with claims that they are "better at gaming". What the hell does that even mean? Since when is a Kaby lake at say 150 fps "better" than a Ryzen at around 130 fps? Can someone please explain this to me?
Why are gaming fps numbers suddenly the selling factor and recommendation, when in true honesty, both companies provide perfectly smooth user experience in games in the first place? That 10-20 fps difference - how on Earth does that help you game better? How can anyone call it "beating" the other processor? Hasn't the crucial 60 fps line been exceeded greatly in the first place by most i5 and Ryzens? I honestly do not get it.
Which human being on this planet possesses this fine gift to tell the difference between 150fps and 130fps at HD res? And what about 4K gaming where those ratios are reduced to 0 and gfx cards are fps bound?
I dare THG (I'm just making a point) to round up a bunch of gamers and ask them to play on machine 1 and machine 2 and do a survey to tell em apart from game responsiveness, smoothness and overall satisfaction. Here's the funny thing. Throw in live streaming and recording while you're at it. And choose a winner. AdoredTV on youtube has already made a vid about it.

Anyways, that's my 2c worth. THG has alot of redeeming to do for me, but these are the kind of articles I take with a pinch of salt. No honorable mentions even. Not even to the little true valued beast that more and more people are noticing - the 1600 (non x).
Nah, this is the last straw. I think I'm done with THG. 20 years of following and then to read this and see their full recommendations to a bullying monopoly that has even been found guilty and payed 1.4 billion USD to AMD for anticompetitive tactics.

Disgusting!
 


130 vs 150 fps at 1080p on a card you'd buy for 1440p or 4K. It's an "on paper" difference to most users. The theory makes sense but it's farther away from the middle.

I believe that the tried and true benchmark methodology has been shaken up because the newest GPUs are "too powerful." Where Ultra at 1080p was once something you could only do with a ridiculous video card that had two GPUs overclocked and melting down at 90 degrees C, the current crop of $500 graphics cards laugh through it.

So. Because a GPU like the 1080Ti is capable of outrunning any CPU in existence except at 4K, and because many games only use 4 threads (on occasion), single thread performance is over emphasized in helping the mega GPU run away. Kaby Lake chips have the highest single thread and on that basis they made this list.

I think that the actual sales numbers in the real world will be interesting. And I expect that next month and every month after the list will change.
 
I took a second look at this entire article, and I'm still pondering over the whole thing.
Firstly, the main title named "Best CPUs". The subtitle then outlines that it's actually "best gaming CPUs". Ok fine...
Followed by: These processors offer the best performance at their price and are "suitable for overclocking". Now this is the part where I started scratching my head, unless I'm totally missing something. But please correct me if I'm wrong.
The first 3 recommendations by THG are a Pentium, an I3 and an I5 that are all non K processors. Now how are they exactly overclockable??? Obviously the subtitle is misleading.
But whatever, lets move on.

Inside the article, on the right hand side they've outlined in bold "This list is for gamers who want to get the most for their money." So lets delve into just that. What do gamers generally want from a gaming CPU? I'm assured that the majority will state that it must be a chip that can easily exceed the crucial 60fps mark in modern games, and provide extra headroom towards future titles. From my own research, most R5 and R7, i5/i7's of the latest generations exceed the 100fps mark while the 1500X scores in the 90's region.
So yes, from an absolute price perspective, Intel's offerings do eek out extra frames, though to me, that advantage will definitely not relate in necessarily a "better" gaming experience. With a 7700K netting a rough 15+fps advantage, will your games look smoother? Will you run faster or aim better at your targets? Meh... I'm not convinced. But lets be fair. I'll allocate a point to the Kabys in this regard even though it doesn't sway my opinion.

Moving onto streaming and live recording. Something that more gamers engage with and posting their vids on twitch, youtube and other platforms.
At 20:10 in this vid, the i7's stutter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0fgy4rKWhk
Linus tech tips also gave a narrow win to Ryzen at 9:42 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jludqTnPpnU
So a small win to Ryzen, as I'm convinced that world-wide, only a fraction of all gamers care to record and post their vids online.

Then, there's Ryzen's extra cores on the 1600/1600X vs the Kaby's. It remains uncertain what the software gaming ecosystem will look like in a few years from now and whether titles can harness the power of those extra cores, but I certainly hope so. The world simply has to move on. We've seen the shift from single cores to dual, dual to quad, and the next shift towards 6 and 8 should once again bring extra realism, detail and performance. Again, I hope this happens sooner than later and we've got Ryzen to thank since this will help advance the push ahead.
Anyways, this means that Ryzen might just age better on their current chips. I could be totally wrong. Who knows.

Finally, all Ryzens are multiplier unlocked for OC headroom, while this is not a standard case on Intel's side. AMD clearly shows better respect towards gamers and enthusiasts alike. Another small win to Ryzen in general.

To end off, I think THG should have delayed this article and at least provide better emphasis and reason, since there's too much controversy and confusion among the community with their recommendations. It simply doesn't paint the entire picture and there's too many discrepancies that I've found. I find it mysterious that the 1600 (non x) has gotten very little mention with no review, however I do understand if it's something that lies in the pipeline.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom