Best CPUs (Archive)

Page 8 - 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 Tom should change the color scheme of this site to blue and white to show his obvious allegiance to his master. So much for objectivity. Everyone's true colors show through eventually.
 
It might be time to change the website colors to blue and white as the true colors are starting to bleed through anyway. Shame really.
 
The article is written as if majority will buy PC exclusively for gaming. And even when compared in gaming the difference is not much its like negligible when we see the performance.
Sad to see the site where I learned a lot about tech in my early days spitting out garbage like this. I mean there was a logical explanation about everything. If i5 was recommended for a price bracket then why is that a good CPU to spend so much money on. I mean look at this list now. They say we have made the list and we have all the rights to make it this way. My visiting frequency has been reducing and maybe I will stop visiting one day. Really miss those days when I used to visit and always found things worth the read.
Now?? Not so much.
 


Because intel paid them off and the writer is a intel shill until proven otherwise.
Paul Alcorn really needs to test more chips and do this list again with the AMD Ryzen 5 1400 and 1600
 
According to TomsH, Intel is the only CPU brand in 2017. Always knew this site was biased. Thanks for proving mine and just about everyone else's thoughts right.
 
wow no ryzen do they know there are out or r they intel fan boys???????? I gone and got the new 1700 and its way better than the 7600intel over priced chip,and cheaper than intels 8core, well that's my thoughts and I have had intel cjips for the passed 10years
 
Bruh even as someone who is leaning more Intel than AMD, I am shocked to see not ONE. SINGLE. RYZEN CPU on the list. Sure Ryzen 7 wasn't the best, but Ryzen 5 1600 is probably the absolute best mid-range CPU out on the market right now! That's not to mention it comes with a pretty sweet stock CPU cooler. Also, i3-7100? Please, that's just pathetic. However, to the people that are like "GRRR BIASED BS TOMSHARDWARE SHOULD KYS". I am sure it's not like they're biased and this was probably a mistake. Every thing else seems fine. So don't use one article to criticize an entire website please.
 
Wow I lost all my trust to this website. I was following tomshardware for years but no more. This list obviously smells full of advertisement. Everybody knows Amd's Ryzens are way too good. Whole world knows it and you can't change it. You can maybe still put i7 7700K to the list but not the rest. And Intel should urgently change it's policy. First they should decrease current cpu prices, then they should stop releasing so called new gens with %5-6 power increase and they should stop bribing websites for advertisement to get ignorant peeps money and start working.
 
It's funny how Tom's can't accept that AMD has finally Ryzen (heh see what I did there) again. I see that it says best gaming cpus throughout the article, but the problem is the title. It's misleading as hell, otherwise Toms is basically clickbaiting. Sad, honestly just sad
 


You should consider checking out AdoredTV on Youtube. He has a good analysis of the Tom's Hardware recommendations. I basically agree with him - they are perhaps not biased or bought by Intel - but their test methodology is skewed/flawed. One older game is really bad on Ryzen, this skews the average - while on all the modern games, the Intel and AMD CPUs are neck and neck.
 
The worst part about this whole thing is that the moderators have blown off everything written in the comments calling everyone "AMD fanboys". When I first got into PC building this site was my go-to resource. I was very active in the forums and loved giving/getting advice. Over time, though, I saw problems start to arise, namely on the GPU side with the hierarchy chart (r9 390x lower tier than gtx 980 even though it beats it in almost every benchmark, just for an example).

Even though I haven't been active on the forums in a while, I read most of the articles on my cell phone in my free time. It is really depressing to see a site that helped me get into a hobby that I am so passionate about not only get so one sided on their recommendations, but blow off all criticism when they get called out. I will stick around for the next CPU recommendation, but honestly if I don't see something that resembles correction and/or humility from the staff I am going to jump ship altogether.

BTW for those who are looking for an alternative to the forums here, I highly recommend overclock.net. There are a lot fewer fanboys there and they are eager to actually help you, not just be demeaning about your hardware choices.
 


Hi Captain

Thanks for the overclock.net - I will definitely check it out. As I mentioned in another mail, AdoredTV on youtube has a good analysis of how Toms Hardware might have ended up with it's recommendations, based on flawed benchmarks and test methodology.

Funny ho, lately, the youtube channels in general are much more neutral, in-depth and interesting.

And yes, I agree - I really don't like the arrogant rejection of differing views as coming from fanboys.

Finally - it turns out that both Tom's Hardware and Anandtech is owned by Purch, a marketing and advocacy media group - not a journalistic enterprise. That really leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I still quite like Tom's Hardware and much of their content. But the current debacle has definitely lowered my opinion of them - either it's bad faith and manipulation, or just as bad - lack of competence.
 
This thread reads more like a political opinion column's comment section than a tech site right now.

Moving on, it does make sense to include both the 4560 as well as the 7100 because the chart is organized by price. There simply aren't any other options between the sub-$100 price range and the >$150 range. Is there a significant price premium for very little performance between the two? Sure. But it's pretty much the same going from an rx 460 or 1050 up to 1050ti. The 470 runs rings around all three of them, but it's jumping another price tier. If you've got exactly $140 to spend on a GPU, and you want as much performance as you can, the 1050 ti would be the recommendation to make. Obviously it would also make sense to say save up enough for a 470 instead, and it gets said constantly yet in thread after thread you see people settle for the 1050 ti now rather than the 470 later.

Recommending a Ryzen processor now for gaming is a pretty tough call to make. There are a ton of arguments flying around, mostly speculative in nature. Ie they all hinge on how future games will be written and how much performance will change as a result. If you base your decision on the performance measurements you can make right now, Intel still represents the safest bet.

Nobody knows what the upper limits on thread utilization for games will be, or if those unused resources can even be taken advantage of. When a Ryzen CPU shows lower utilization combined with lower FPS, it could mean coding optimizations will eventually make use of them. It could also mean an inherent inefficiency that can't be overcome in a gaming workload. It's too early to make that call right now.

Finally, in my own personal opinion I think the R5 1600 deserves a place on that list. But so far Tom's hasn't published their review yet. (Only the 1600x) So I do find it completely understandable why that chip may not show up on their list. A tech site recommending a chip they haven't reviewed would be a clear indication of bias, unlike most of the other accusations flying around here.
 


THW hasn't done a review of the i5-7500 or i3-7100 but still included them in the charts....so you were right they were bias?
 
I'm also still confused as to why the 1600 review he claimed was being worked on still hasn't been released. That's been weeks. As you can see from my profile ive spent a lot of time here. I'm pretty much done with the website at this point I'm only here to help out on the forums. I'm sure they get some revenue from the forums but I shan't be giving anymore on the site itself.
 
You're right, I don't see an i5 7500 or i3 7100 review. But the i5 7500 was benchmarked by the German site for the 1600x review, and the US site for the 1500x review. There only seems to be benchmarks for the i3 7350k and 6320, not the 7100. However, they did conclude in their Kaby Lake 7700k and 6600k review that Kaby parts were basically identically in performance to their Skylake counterparts when set to the same clockspeed, and the 6320 and 7100 are both at 3.9 GHz. I agree that it does seem to be a pretty glaring omission, moreso since the 6320 and 7350k both have a 4 vs 3 MB cache.

I'm assuming a 1600 review is forthcoming since they reviewed both the 1700 and the 1700x, rather than inferring performance off relative clockspeeds.
 
Nothing to see here people. Tom's Hardware's recommendations have been a joke since 2015. This website is a hollow shell of its former self.


In fact I brought up some concerns in the comments a month ago, and THEY BANNED MY ACCOUNT FOR A FEW DAYS. That's right people if you complain about the drop in quality, you get sent to the gulags.


It was funny too because they said they "Take criticism seriously" in my ban notice. I happily offered to discuss why they thought my criticism was unfair, and they never replied. Why would they? It would cut into the paychecks Intel is sending them.


Oh and if Intel isn't paying them off, it's even more pathetic. That means they are Intel fanboys for free lol. This video does a great job deconstructing the endless problems in this article:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a87Iy7avG7o
 
While I can't agree with how things have been discussed thus far in this thread, I do feel like the decision to focus expressly on gaming is somewhat misleading. The way this article is presented, it comes across as "Best Value for the Money", not "Best Value for the Money at Games". That would be under a different title, one would think. I know there's a list of notes about these recommendations on the right side, but even going by that, these recommendations aren't strictly accurate.

Being a gamer does not prohibit one from wanting to use the computer for other tasks. I'm a gamer. I'm also a software developer, content creator, IT, and engineer. I technically fall into the category of "gamers who want to get the most for their money". Unfortunately, if I go by this list, I won't get the best value for my money. I understand that I'm an unusual case, but I can't be that unique, and not everyone with varying interests has the time to sift through every CPU review you guys write. I'm not about to ask that you change how you pick the Best CPUs, but I would like to see some sort of honorable mention that outlines the circumstances that one would choose the alternate option.

I might be asking too much considering the amount of time I know you guys put into each article and revision you publish, though. I would like to see something like an honorable mention for the Ryzen CPUs, though.
 


Even as a gaming CPU list, this list is questionable. i3? Get real. And i5? As of BF1 Multiplayer, and other new games - the i5s are gasping and stuttering.
 


My opinion:
Budget: Pentium G4560
Low end: Ryzen 5 1500X
Mid range: Both Ryzen 5 1600 and i5-7600K would be great, though I'd go with Ryzen anyday
High end: i7 7700K
Enthusiast: Ryzen 7 1800X (or Ryzen 7 1700 if you're not a balls to the walls type of person)
 
some of the comments here seem a tad off base. Even though the article says "Best CPU's" the description, literally directly underneath the header, specifies that it relates to gaming. From the benchmarks I've seen, the Ryzen CPU's are absolutely a best bang for the buck, esp for people who do lots of video editing and other multi task operations. However, I haven't seen much compelling evidence to see that the Ryzen chips outright game better. I'd be willing to bet that as the hardware, drivers and what not mature, we will see the AMD's on this list. Get a grip, guys.
 
I think a lot of these comments are off-the-mark. Even though the article is titled "Best CPU's" it clearly states a focus on gaming, NOT overall performance or multitasking. Most of the benchmarks I've seen still have the intel chips winning that fight. Not everyone is video editing for youtube or twitch-streaming their games. I think there is little doubt that the AMD chips certainly multitask better, but I also don't think that this article was attempting to say anything contradictory to that. Get a grip, guys.
 
This article is a big FAIL, due to the Ryzen CPU omissions! There - is that simple enough, concise and constructive criticism? Has this article resulted in an admission that it isn't as factual as it can be? I respect people's opinions when they state that's what they are. But this article is misleading and a non-tech reader would be dismissing of AMD's latest, if they trust the author's conclusions. I do not have half the experience of either author, yet I know faulty arguments when I read them. Very disappointing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom