Best CPUs (Archive)

Status
Not open for further replies.

AndrewJacksonZA

Distinguished
Aug 11, 2011
448
0
18,780
0
Wow, I am genuinely amazed to see AMD being recommended at so many price points, not for the so many tasks that it is best for at $ per performance, but for _gaming_.

Well done AMD!
 

xrodney

Distinguished
Jul 14, 2006
587
0
19,010
10
Sorry but recommending 4c/4t Core i3 8100 over 6c/12t Ryzen R5 in $100-$200 price range is something I cant agree on.

Currently even i5-8500 or R5 2600 is bellow $200.
 

salgado18

Distinguished
Feb 12, 2007
526
1
18,995
3


But the R5 1600/2600 cost 50% more than the i3 8100. If you can't put in the extra money, the i3 is still an option.
 

ubercake

Splendid
Moderator
Times they are a changin'. Who would have imagined even two years ago that we'd be at a point where Intel would be the "Value" choice and AMD the top performer???

AMD's progress especially with the Ryzen 2 processors is great for competition. This is forcing Intel to sell 6 and 8 core processors which probably were to be slated as "extreme" or enthusiast processors as mainstream high-performance processors with prices hundreds of dollars less.

This is really the first time in over a decade where the hype has equaled the performance coming out of AMD. And now the price of RAM is inching its way down... hmmmm... New Build???
 

Blas

Distinguished
Sorry to pile on what i already mentionned in the Zen+ review, but: in the recommendations on top of the page, the Ryzen 2700X appears as using "socket 1331" while Ryzen 2200G or 2400G use "socket AM4", and it's the same socket. For novice users, it might be confusing. I would suggest using "AM4" as it's the most usual denomination of that socket. :)
 

AgentLozen

Distinguished
May 2, 2011
511
0
19,010
22


I agree with this sentiment.

Years ago I used to look at Intel's CPU timeline on Wikipedia following the Core 2 launch and wonder what kind of fantastic technology looms over the horizon (this would have been 2006-2008). The first gen Core 2s were dual core followed by quad cores soon after. So what will Nehalem offer? More clock speed? 6 cores? What wonderful secrets does Sandy Bridge hold? 8 core? 5+ Ghz???? I can't even begin to speculate on Ivy Bridge. Oh boy.

But as we all know, that's not how Intel chips evolved. 2007 AgentLozen would have been disappointed to learn that if you wanted more than 4 cores after 2010, you would need to shell out tons of money. Clock speeds stopped scaling. IPC gains per generation became less and less. Thermal performance actually decreased in 2012 with Ivy Bridge.

This is why Ryzen is so important to the CPU landscape right now. Growth has been so stagnant for the last 7 years that a CPU bought in 2011 still works perfectly well today. It's finally time to upgrade that old Sandy Bridge quad core CPU. Thank you AMD for bringing the heat.

Edit: I wanted to mention that technologies surrounding the CPU have evolved nicely and modern chipsets reflect that. 2011 chipsets didn't offer M.2 slots or PCIe 3.0 and even USB 3.0 was mostly handled by 3rd party controllers.
 

xrodney

Distinguished
Jul 14, 2006
587
0
19,010
10

In that case AMD Ryzen 5 1400 should be still option, $30 more expensive but with SMT and including cooler unlike i3.

I don't think it's worth to buy i3 anymore as you might save maybe $20-30 on 600$ build but at cost of loosing 20-50% overall performance.

 

Ilya__

Reputable
Jan 7, 2016
118
0
4,710
9


I wouldn't discount the entire i3 line. 8350K is a very potent cpu for those just doing gaming. Take a peek: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i3-8350k-cpu,5304-5.html
 

logainofhades

Titan
Moderator
Problem with the 8350k is the cost to overclock it. For a similar cost to get a solid overclocking 8350k rig, you could get an R5 2600, even with an x470 board. More can be saved with a B350, or even some X370 boards. The 8350k is simply a poor value.


PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel - Core i3-8350K 4GHz Quad-Core Processor ($164.69 @ OutletPC)
CPU Cooler: CRYORIG - H7 49.0 CFM CPU Cooler ($34.89 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: MSI - Z370 SLI PLUS ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($129.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $329.57
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2018-05-02 12:22 EDT-0400

vs

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 5 2600 3.4GHz 6-Core Processor ($199.88 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: MSI - X470 GAMING PLUS ATX AM4 Motherboard ($130.98 @ Newegg)
Total: $330.86
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2018-05-02 12:22 EDT-0400


 

shabbo

Distinguished
Nov 29, 2011
30
4
18,545
2
Intel doesn't really helping in this list. Ryzen5 2600 is way better than the i5-8400. It offers better performance and comes with a nice cooler whilst also offering an upgrade path to Zen2 in 2019.
 

lockiano53

Reputable
Feb 27, 2014
1
0
4,510
0
SORRY TO PUT A DAMPER ON THE "RYZEN" / "I7,5,3" LOVE, HATE CONVERSATION.
I'M DISABLED WHICH PUTS ME MOSTLY IN A LOWER PRICE BRACKET. TO AVOID THIS PROBLEM ABOUT 3 YRS. AGO
I WOULD SAVE MY LEFTOVER COIN OVER MONTHS TO BE ABLE TO WATCH AND SNAG BETTER PIECES FOR MY FIRST
DESKTOP BUILD. UNFORTUNATELY TIME HAS BECOME EVEN SHORTER FOR SUPERIOR MODELS TO APPEAR.IS MY AMD
FX 8370 8-CORE 4.3 GHz A YEAR AGO REALLY THAT DATED NOW, OR WILL I STILL COMPONENTS NEW ENOUGH TO
BUILD THE POWERFUL MUSIC PRODUCTION BUILD I HAD PLANED TO?
I'M STARTING ON IT IN ABOUT A MONTH.
 

hendrickhere

Reputable
Feb 26, 2016
121
0
4,710
10
It's not THAT dated depending on your needs. It'll handle all the tasks that you need and if you pare the 8370 with a modern GPU you can game just fine.
 

Giroro

Reputable
Jan 22, 2015
412
2
4,815
13
Is Ryzen R5 2600 missing from this list due to performance, or because it hasn't been reviewed yet?
From what I've seen, even with the price hike, the R5 2600 (especially overclocked) be recommended over the 1600/1600x - possibly even over i5-8400.
 

Giroro

Reputable
Jan 22, 2015
412
2
4,815
13


FX 8370 Isn't a year old, it was released September 2014. For workstation or encoding type work that can take advantage of all 8 cores, FX8370 should perform comparably to a low-end (4 core/4 thread) Ryzen. But for anything optimized for 4 or less threads (like gaming), the Ryzen will be significantly better. Ryzen R7 2700x is going to be between 2-3x faster than FX 8370 for multi threaded work.

I don't really know how much processing power is actually necessary for music production, though. Can audio encoding be offloaded to a sound card in the same way that video processing can go to a GPU? That's maybe worth looking into.
Since price is an issue, just try using what you have for now and see how well it works. I would also recommend investing in a keyboard with a functioning caps lock key. You will probably get a better answer if you ask the community directly instead of as a comment on a gaming CPU comparison.
 

AgentLozen

Distinguished
May 2, 2011
511
0
19,010
22


Encoders like LAME always use the CPU as far as I know. Audio encoding is a relatively easy thing for a CPU to do. I don't see the need for sound card accelerated encoding.
 

Chris Fetters

Honorable
Dec 6, 2013
14
0
10,510
0
I'm really wondering if the only reason they gave the i5-8400 the $100-200 nod over the R5 2600 is simply to avoid having AMD outright run the table, potentially raising the ire of the Team Blue fanboys, because otherwise I'm at an absolute loss on the logic of that one. The only scenario where the former is the definitively better option, is also the one least likely to happen considering the product segment these are in. Namely if your first and foremost focus above all is 1080p 144/240Hz gaming with at MINIMUM a GTX 1070 Ti/RX Vega 56 class or better GPU. People in that group aren't buying $100-200 CPU's, and ESPECIALLY not locked i5's. In every other build / use-case scenario, both short AND long term (and for the first time, this EVEN includes primarily single-threaded workloads like Photoshop as an OC'd 2600 is practically in a dead-heat with the locked 8400 in single-threaded performance. While absolutely obliterating it everywhere else).

The 2600 includes a cooler, is just as fast in single-thread when OC'd, extremely similar average 1080p frame-rates in all the likely builds/GPU combo's for this price range but more often than not SUPERIOR 1 & .1% minimums from the 2x thread count & bigger cache, is VASTLY superior in multi-thread & thus with any/all multi-tasking as well, and is on a cheaper (specifically better value/bang per $) & FAR more future proof platform. Come on Tom's team, what exactly am I missing here???
 

Chris Fetters

Honorable
Dec 6, 2013
14
0
10,510
0


For serious DAW work, an FX chip, even the mighty 8370 is gonna be a MAJOR bottleneck from the very start, to stay nothing of years down the road. Anyone telling you otherwise hasn't spent much time testing heavy audio work on a variety of different machines/CPU's/core counts/etc... This is because most all modern DAW's are the near ideal representation of what's known as a "mixed workload". Being incredibly complex software, with a massive amount of moving parts in a complex project, different facets of it are going to put strain on both your per-core performance (general snappiness/responsiveness, esp. when dealing with heavy effects for ex, each of which adds CPU strain to real-time playback for example, with an FX chip becoming simply unable to output in real-time at all with VASTLY smaller loads than a modern CPU from either side) to multi-core performance as well, because while most major DAW's are decently threaded by themselves, get really MT demanding REALLY fast as you add on/in more and more 3rd party plugins, and more importantly other pieces of audio software/ other DAWs.

For example I often have both Ableton & Reason going at once, each of which is decently threaded up to around 4c/8t utilization, but still HEAVILY dependent on single-thread speed for overall performance as this multi-threading is far from evenly balanced at this point. Having 6 or 8 FAST cores (the later in my case with a R7 2700X) allows both programs to perform as if they were running in isolation, with no compromises rather than 8 gimped cores not even half as fast as the former's, where both will run like trash, and even 1 by itself chugs with anything but the simplest projects. Most all DAW's are still primarily single-threaded workloads in isolation & without 3rd party additions, so it's better to be able to run 1 program at a time fast, than 1 slow, but 2+ not as slow as the former chip. Going with Ryzen 2 in particular gives you both w/o compromises at a better price than Intel, which as far as Coffee Lake is also a fantastic music workstation option, though much more pricey. An FX series otoh, are just about the worst chips you could pick for those particular workloads, and I say that as a MASSIVE AMD fanboy (bought both 1700 & 2700X at launch).

Literally the only place an FX series holds it's own when it comes to music workloads is straight up encoding, where it can get close to modern & cheap 4c/4t quads. Everywhere else though, even an older Intel quad like a i7-3770 would be the FAR superior choice, because then at least you'll get decent single-tasking DAW performance. But my outright recommendation would prolly be the Ryzen 5 2600. It's going to be outright superior to BOTH the prior options.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS