Best CPUs (Archive)

Page 7 - 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 think it's likely ryzen will find its way into the recommendations over time, but I think getting so upset because it hasn't immediately displaced intel is unreasonable. There really hasn't been much time for ryzen to prove it's worth yet and it does still lag behind intel in almost every test I've seen (which is quite a few and not just here).

Maybe more could have been said regarding the potential of ryzen for the future and the comments about the title not accurately describing the intent of the article bear consideration but a lot of these comments read more like children throwing a tantrum for not getting their way than anything constructive. I personally would not be much influenced by such ranting.

I read the article and was fine with it even though I also would seriously be considering ryzen if building a PC right now. Then I started reading the comments, and wow. I look forward to the next best cpu article with interest, and if ryzen still aren't on it I'll be interested to see the reasoning but I won't be upset about it. I think Toms make their testing methodology and conclusions sufficiently clear to be very useful even if you disagree with them.

Not sure who will see this way down here under that torrent of backlash though :)
 
For those of us that have been reading these articles and the hierarchy charts for years they don't seem misleading at all, but perhaps after reading all these comments one of the good points made was the title doesn't accurately reflect the intent of the article.

Personally I read the article and didn't have a problem with it at all and found it informative as usual. Then I started reading the comments and holy cow! I'm envisaging an angry mob of children throwing toys in all directions because they aren't getting their own way. It's one thing to disagree with a recommendation and state your reasons. Most of this is something else entirely.

I think given time Ryzen is bound to find it's way into the recommendations, but it's not been around long enough for it to have proven itself and testing does still put intel in front for gaming in almost every test around. Yes you can make a good case for more cores in many situations but that doesn't negate the data used in this article.

There are some good arguments made for Ryzen amongst the comments and I find that very useful. I would seriously consider Ryzen myself if currently building a PC. I think though it's important for anyone looking for guidance on such things not to rely on any single source. I do look forward to seeing how AMD compares in the future but I don't think anyone who currently has an intel i5/i7 really has much to be worried about.

I also think those who are predicting the death of quad core CPUs and saying i5's are a bad choice are perhaps overstating a little but it's impossible for anyone to truly know. I think anyone with an i5 is probably going to be able to get a few good years of use out of it regardless of how well AMD do.

I went for a core 2 Quad Q9300 when they came out to replace my Core 2 Duo E6750 and it did everything I wanted it to do until I eventually replaced it but wasn't really much of an upgrade. Almost every other gamer I know stuck with a faster clocked dual core and guess what, they lasted just as long playing all the same games and I never saw a gaming advantage from those 2 extra cores (yes it was perhaps not the best choice of C2Q - not the point). It's not until fairly recently that games that won't run on a dual core became reality and Quad cores have been common now for what, 10 years?

PS sorry about 2 similar posts, thought I lost the first one on my tablet so tried again
 
The i5 7600K has more overclocking headroom than the i7 7700K? WAIT, Intel said not to overclock, and all those that overclock are the reason the i7 7700K gets hot. Intel is not to blame, just ask them - they talk like lawyers turned politicians more each year. There are ways to avoid the heat issue, Intel simply will not address them.

Anyone in the know is aware that the i7 7700K often produces a more fluid gaming experience than an i5 7600K [that is not to say the latter will not play games - it does], and fluid gaming is what gamers want. If an i7 7700K is unaffordable then people should look at AMD now that the BIOS on motherboards is maturing.
 
Guys, calm down!
Where are the articles that show that Ryzen vs Kaby at the same price is better for the majority of games?
It seems that I am the only one in agreement with Paul and Chris recommendations, weird!
 
Not sure why Saga Lout is still hired by Tom's hardware. Useless comments coming from a moderator. Lots of detail arguments but all ignored. No point in continuing guys. I think the original author just made a flawed article, but Tom's never cared to do a 360 analysis. Instead of investigating, they decided to stick with it due to pride. In any case, we know what's good because there are other reviews out there that we can use. Tom is dead to use so just move on.
 
Saga Lout is not hired by Tom's - Moderators are volunteers. I've fixed PCs for my sole living for thirteen years but don't regard myself sufficiently qualified to engage the technical arguments made in this thread because I have no call to build high-end gaming machines..

I merely sought to restore some order into the thread but still the attacks go on from new posters who join solely to shoot the messenger but they add nothing of substance to the message.

I think there may be several posts you haven't read.
 
I can't see how we have all Intels in this list. Even with your explanation it doesn't make sense. If you do any productivity At all you aren't getting a 7600k. At that price you are going to get a Ryzen. Also the Intel platform is a hell of a lot more expensive. Disclosure I'm not an amd fan boy, hell I've been running Intel since the Core 2 came out. However this article puts a really bad taste in my mouth.
 


Wow....

To sum up this whole thing in just about every way is wrong, not even its own numbers add up and the Ryzen 5 wins in all the newer games....

After seeing this video, Paul, do you still think the mass of responses in this thread are all just trolls?

It far easier to dismiss mass disagreement as mass trolling than it is to admit mistakes have been made.
The problem is behaving like that, as many of the mods on this forum do... is incredibly condescending, so its not going to help is it?
They might think it is just a small group of fanboys but what if it isn't? what if the people here are genuine? its not a good look for your organisition and this thread is all over the internet, people who have not commented here but commented elsewhere on it are saying the same thing. its not just a group of fanoys, it really isn't.

If you want to have a reasonable conversation with your readers tell your mods to stay out of it, do their job but not get involved, they themselves cause more problems than they solve.

Anyway...

As AdoredTV points out your own numbers and your own past analysis on the i5 performance in modern games completely contradicts your conclusion here....

Ok so maybe you didn't do this deliberately, but when you refuse to acknowledge your mistakes and put them right is it any wonder you get accused of Intel bias?

When all the threads on the i5 are maxed out with modern games (according to your own research) then how can it have a future over the Ryzen 5 when its 12 threads are not? The i5 has no performance left to give, its at 95 to 100%, the Ryzen 5 has plenty left to give.... in that how can the i5 be better?

Logic has gone out the window, the Intel CPU running at 100% to keep up (often not) with the AMD CPU running at 50% is the better CPU than the AMD one..... madness.

For goodness sake please look at this....

e_Xunnst.png


4_NQORdh.png


The same people said the 2500K, even the i3 was better for gaming than the FX-8350 because when the CPU is the bottleneck the i3 and i5 were faster.

Now that the Ryzen 5 is faster than the i5 in todays games the argument is turned on its head, now they are saying CPU bottlenecks don't matter because everyone runs graphics settings and resolutions relative to the performance of their graphics cards.
 
What bothers me mostly is that in benchmarks a powerful graphics card the gtx1080 is used in order to alleviate GPU bottleneck. This puts more bottleneck back to the CPU. This is done specifically to evaluate future gaming performance. This is all good and well.

Now tell me how the hell a 4 core / 4 thread CPU which sits already at near 100% utilization in most newer games can perform better in the future compared to CPU-s that have more utilization headroom. It will get worse and worse as more powerful GPU-s will come out. You dont need a crystal ball to see that.

These things contradict each other or the intention of evaluating future gaming performance.
Which brings me to the fx83xx vs 2500k topic. When these processors came out the GPU-s were much less powerful. Because of that 2500k had lots of utilization headroom to spare. This isnt the case with current i5-s.
 
I too don't like that post, I've seen many rants about it, but keep in mind this is not Reddit[. It's Tom's Hardware, a serious forum made for helping people, I too disagree with the post, but keep it civil, you don't have to bash the guy. He made a post on the internet..
------------Now for my opinon----------------
With all the new Ryzens that are released, all the benchmarks about them, there is no way the poster wouldn't get bashed for posting an all Intel best CPU's list, even if he's not paid or a fanboy and he really thinks that's how it is.

It makes no sense to include both the i3-7100 and the G4560 in the same Best CPU's list, I mean they basically perform the same with the i3 doubling the price, that's the worst value ever.

There is no explanation about the choices, there are two budget CPU's, the G4560 and the i3. There's two i5's which also doesn't make sense, since one of them is MUCH better than the other.

Here's what I think the list should, will still make it of 5 CPU's, just to keep it constant:


  • G4560($69) - Best budget CPU, high value, performs like an i3, costs half of an i3. Good for budget gaming, but not much else.

    R5 1500X($188) - Best CPU for working on a budget, it has 4C/8T, also good for gaming.

    i5-7500($199)&R5 1400($169) - Kings of the budget gaming, I can't give this title to one of them, because they perform almost the same, the weaker one also a bit cheaper.Both come with coolers, R5 1400 is overclockable.

    i7-7700K($337) - Currently it's the best gaming CPU, it can also take some workload. Comes without cooler and is overclockable.

    R7 1700($329) - It's the best CPU for working, if your pockets are not too deep. Compared to the i7, it lacks gaming performance because of the lower clocks, but it still gives an enjoyable experience. Comes with a good cooler and is overclockable.

 


But thats not what is actually happening, your own CPU thread load article proves the i5 is right on the limit with a GPU like that.

On the limit but not quit enough to throttle the GTX 1080 much.

If you wanted to see how much these CPU's can bottleneck fast GPU's then use a fast GPU, like the big Pascal Titan, what do they call it? the Titan Xp? or at least a 1080TI.

Look at the screen caps i posted time and time again, they are from this review....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlOs_McAVZ0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXVIPo_qbc4

You cannot whatch that and take your own i5 thread load review into account and conclude the i5 will drive faster GPU better than the Ryzen 5, clearly its the other way round.

This is not AMD shilling or anything like that, i have an Intel CPU and an nVidia GPU.

Its just not right.

fsdfgwsdefg.png



Yes thats an i5 with a GTX 1070 ^^^^^ the next thing i'm going to upgrade is the CPU, i have had that CPU since launch and have been very happy with it, but its completely and utterly out of its deph trying to keep up with the 1070, i can see what the threads are doing, i use the OSD in MSI AB.
My next CPU will not be a Kaby Lake i5, not even an i7 because thats just too expensive.... Ryzen 5 is where i'm going when i have the money to change platforms.

With respect maybe actually use systems like the one i'm using (as your only system) for a couple of months before writing stuff like this article.
 
Low CPU usage on Ryzen (with low GPU usage) is probably because of other platform bottlenecks which are very hard to diagnose, specifically cache and memory latency issues come to mind. But even with those quirks, my list curently:

KL Pentium 2c/4t
Ryzen 4c/8t
Ryzen 8c/16t

3 choices simple :)
 
And with this potato of a Best CPU article you just lost a long time reader ... you can`t possible recommend those i5 at this time ... it makes 0 sense .. and yet ... so good riddance and sit on your Intels.
 
I mean, toms hardware surely are dropping the ball on the quality of articles lately, benching small batchs of games in GPU reviews, taking way too long to come up with new hardware reviews (don't remember them taking so long to review the kaby lake CPUs), and making the worst recommendations possible in at least 3 price brackets this month. Just because you didn't made a review on most of the Ryzen CPUs yet, doesn't mean you can't recommend them Paul, there are other better sites available where you can gather info to make a descision.
 


But your R5 1600X is $100 more than his 7500 and the board needed to run your 1600X is $40 more than the board needed to run his 7500. And he got a cooler for free. The for the price thing is what people seem to not get here; We've gotten so used to AMD being the budget option that we assume they are cheaper....they aren't until you get to the 7700K and above.

And what is a 7500 struggling with? Battlefield 1?
 
this is insane.. i just bought ryzen x1600 platform for my son at age of 15, he is 100% gamer, but he uses skype, web browsing, lot of tools to regulate all those flashy lights..and watching youtube for clues, and much more, he is constantly multitasking.. AT THE SAME TIME.. this is 2017, and it is not going away, it will be more demand for cpu time even if you are only a gamer
 
AMD is the budget king. However you put it.
The 1600X can't even be compared to the 7500.
We should pit it against the 7600K, since they're both overclockable.
6C/12T VS 4C/4T for 10$ more is a good bargain.
The motherboard needed for both costs around the same.
Cheapest B350 is around $70. Cheapes B250 is around $65.
Unlike the 7600K, the 1600X can overclock on this cheap motherboard.
The 7600K needs to throw a minimum of $100 on a "Z" motherboard.

@razamatraz, Your point is invalid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom