Best CPUs (Archive)

[barryv88]

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???

Even the 'new' H370 boards make no sense. Hardly any tweaking can be done on em, forget overclocking and the price is far too close to that of Z370 boards. Too little, too late, but ultimately, more products that will be quickly forgotten.

 

[logainofhades]

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.

Please don't type in all caps. FX 8370 is only about i3 6100 performance at best, with regards to gaming. The architecture is 6 years old now, so yes it is really that dated.

 

[maitlandvt]

@agentlozen:

If you think about it, the physics involved with 5ghz speeds and 8+ cores really starts to break down... it's really difficult to push beyond about 4ghz without some kind of cryogenic self-cooling or something like that. Ive read about 8 ghz+ speeds, but cpu clockspeed isnt everything; timing is just as important... you gotta have memory that can keep up as well as data busses that can manage the requests.

Likewise, not every program can be optimized to make use of multiple cpu cores, so unless you are running a server, or doing dynamics sims, or cpu rendering, or you just like to have a bunch of apps running simultaneously, its not necessarily beneficial to just pile more cpu cores on the chip.

Take a look at what AMD is doing with the Vega architecture and also read up on "infinity fabric." If you look, they havent announced any more discrete Vega graphics cards... instead we're seeing heterogeneous "apus" with Vega gpu cores in both AMD and intel cpus... the only discrete Vega card which has been announced for 2018 is not even a GPU, it's AI/machine learning card.

Why is this significant? I think we are going to see Vega (or similar tech) take on a new role as an intelligent memory controller and we are gonna get away from having discrete GPUs at all... its a gross waste of resources to have 16 GB of system memory and 8 to 11 GB GPU memory. Instead, i think we are gonna see motherboards that have multiple heterogenous processor sockets which allow the user to install gpu, cpu, or apus, depending on their needs. The memory control will be able to intelligently allocate memory and maybe even change bus width on the fly. All of these components will be connected by the so-called infinity fabric.

If you think about it, the main difference between cpu and gpu memory is the bus width consideration. There is generally not much ise for a >128 bit bus for a 64 bit cpu, but gpus regularly make use of 256, 384, evin up to 2 kilobyte memory busses.

This is just a guess on my part, but i think we will see dynamic bus widths and a complete shift away from discrete graphics cards soon, maybe even as soon as next generation, Navi gpus...

now if only they can get Nvidia to play nicely

 

[ajac09]

ummm ryzen 2700x over all pick?!?! OMFG!!!!!! ITS HAPPENED!!!!!!

 

[red92camaro]

@LOCKIANO53 the 8370 was dated when you got it..but for music production i dont see it being an issue..It's about 50% slower per core/thread than the ryzen series which was already out a year ago..released last april..It was slower than intel's offering as well at the time..It's based on 2011 technology

 

[AgentLozen]

now if only they can get Nvidia to play nicely

I've read that Nvidia has dropped their partner program recently. They seem to acknowledge how crummy that is for competition. Maybe there's hope for them yet.

 

[justin.m.beauvais]

now if only they can get Nvidia to play nicely

I've read that Nvidia has dropped their partner program recently. They seem to acknowledge how crummy that is for competition. Maybe there's hope for them yet.

Unfortunately the damage may have already been done. Companies have sunk a bunch of money into the re-branding to meet the supposed GPP expectations. Large brands now have lines with little brand recognition for AMD GPUs. The real winners here are the ones who didn't take a knee before NVidia and kiss the ring. The program is gone and they didn't waste a ton of money. To those who joined the program, this sucks. They sunk money into marketing, printing, changing labels, possibly some redesigning card designs. AMD is the real loser here, even with the GPP gone. Even if 3-5% of consumers are confused by the new branding, that is a big hit to AMD as those 3-5% come right off their income as AMD cards are now Arez and whatever and people want Strix because that is what they associate with performance.

Admittedly this is all worst case and assuming that consumers are idiots... which is what NVidia pretty much claimed when they said they want to make things easier for them. So... take from that what you will.

 

[justin.m.beauvais]

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???

Actually, I'm with Tom's on this one.

Dollar for dollar the 8400 is the better gaming CPU. It performs solidly and is very competitive with the Ryzen CPUs. Sure, it doesn't overclock, but it does include a cooler that is sufficient for it and is in the mainstream gamer's budget. The 2600 is a little more expensive, can overclock, but the 8400 is still right there with it. It is also clocked higher and has more games optimized to take advantage of the Core architecture.

I do like the Ryzen CPUs but I think the 8400 is the better choice in this price range for the majority of consumers.

 

[logainofhades]

The 8400 is great, but once we get B450 boards, the 2600 might be a better option. We are in the same situation we were in when Coffee Lake came out, but on the AMD side. The more affordable motherboards, aren't out yet. Yea B350 can be used, with a bios update, but not all users have that level of knowledge to do such things. AMD was nice enough to setup a bios update kit, though.

 

[Magnus Thunderson]

Threads are not as important in gaming so the best CPU right now is the 8700k and i got one coming from new egg for 334.99

 

[Shumok]

Got to spend so much money on graphics cards and high refresh monitorses and stuffses to distinguish between the best cpu's in gaming anymore...they are all so fast. My games all play smooth on an R7 240 :O I'm not even kidding. Run an i5-2400 with a crappy entry level R7 240 from years back and I play War Thunder at 60fps....looks good too at 1360*768 native resolution on a 24" flat panel tv. Play a bunch of other games too and all smooth as butter. Feel like I remember old reviews from years back...the games were running in the 30's for framerates. You rich kids are spoiled I tell ya..SPOILED!

 

[logainofhades]

Threads are not as important in gaming so the best CPU right now is the 8700k and i got one coming from new egg for 334.99

Straight up gaming, right now, the 8400 is the sweet spot, for price/performance, without a doubt.

It seems we are finally heading in a more multithreaded direction, though. There isn't much more juice left to be squeezed out of x86, so multithreading is the only alternative. I do believe we are close to hitting a wall, performance wise, just due to pure physics, with x86. Intel's struggles with 10nm make it even more apparent.

Also these days game streaming seems to be picking up in popularity. On the mainstream platforms, the 2700x is king for streaming, with the 2600x being the more budget friendly option. I would take a 2600x, with a better GPU, than an 8700k with a lesser GPU, any day.

The i7 8700, non k, is a reasonable option for those that prefer intel, but cannot afford a full blown 8700k setup. It's max turbo being 4.6ghz, makes for a quite capable CPU, and I would suspect streaming capability to be pretty evenly matched, if not better, than a 2600x, depending on how well the cooling is keeping up, allowing the 8700 to hit its max turbo potential.

 

[mlee 2500]

Threads are not as important in gaming so the best CPU right now is the 8700k and i got one coming from new egg for 334.99

Yeah, we're starting to see games avail themselves of more CORES...four, or even more for titles like Total War...but threads? I'm not sure if the engines make a distinction, or if the latter are more difficult to code and optimize for then cores. I do know that most major virtualization platforms are designed to treat a thread like a virtual cpu.

 

[funnydavid99]

its nice having amd in most price ranges

 

[sunsanvil]

Point of clarification on the 8400: Motherboard/BIOS's "Multi-Core Enhancement" setting is totally benign on this CPU, right?

 

[revive4563]

Where's my Ryzen 7 2700?
It's most balanced CPU.

 

[funnydavid99]

Where's my Ryzen 7 2700?
It's most balanced CPU.

true

 

[funnydavid99]

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.

the way to go would be those six cores and those extra threads

 

[test_purch1]

Test Automation comment 1526641956996

 

[xravenxdota]

Personally i don't see any cpu better than the other.If your gaming yes intel is the way to go.If productivity then amd is the better choice.I am picking up the 2600 cause i am not much of a gamer.My 1050ti gaming x are clean as it never have to switch on its fans lol.Can't argue that both intel and amd make great cpu's for different uses.

 

[Soushiro]

I think best value should be R5 2600x (currently only $209.99) at Amazon, compared to i5-8400's whopping $319.52 price tag.

 

[agello24]

AMD has to do a shit load to get these reviewers to vote for them. anything intel comes out with, these guys jump on it and call it a winner. always leaving out the important details of why intel 6 core beats an 8 core at times. intel back in the day said clock speed does not matter. yet now they are clocking the coffee lake way way over the ryzen clock speed to make it "look" like a better performer. did toms hardware forget about that part?

 

[ubercake]

AMD has to do a shit load to get these reviewers to vote for them. anything intel comes out with, these guys jump on it and call it a winner. always leaving out the important details of why intel 6 core beats an 8 core at times. intel back in the day said clock speed does not matter. yet now they are clocking the coffee lake way way over the ryzen clock speed to make it "look" like a better performer. did toms hardware forget about that part?

You have to remember, these Ryzen Processors signify the first time in over a decade where AMD has delivered on a promise regarding their CPU performance. This may be why it's been easy for review sites to take a wait-and-see attitude or be a little hesitant (e.g. see piledriver, see bulldozer, see anything AMD after the Athlon 64x2 and until Ryzen for that matter!) when it comes to AMD processors.

Also, I would argue with any one that the fact one processor is clocked higher than another out of the box is because it CAN be; clock for clock arguments aside, higher clock rates are also an aspect that affects overall performance and there's nothing else to argue about.

That being said, it's a great time to buy a CPU. Whether you're a fan boy or an informed decision maker, you really can't go wrong choosing blue or red these days and they both are battling for our business.

 

[Giroro]

That being said, it's a great time to buy a CPU. **

** If you a gamer on a GTX 1080TI or better, who doesn't already own a Haswell-or-newer k-series CPU... or you use your computer primarily as a workstation and you also don't care about security.

I realized recently that Haswell (2013) and 2nd gen Ryzen basically have the same IPC so an i5- 4670k overclocked to 4.2GHz (most can get better than this) and a Ryzen 2600x (or 2700x for that matter) at it's max overclock of 4.2GHz will perform almost exactly the same on any game optimized for four cores or fewer.

But hey, these are really exciting times for anybody who uses, just, a whole lot of cinebench. Assuming that the seemingly-endless stream of performance destroying retrospect patches ever ends. It seems like every one supposedly reduces performance by like ~10% and we are on, what, round 3?

 

[dgalietti]

I wonder why the i5 8600 isnt mentiined? Combined with the new chipsets and cheaper motherboards... It is extremely powerful and quite a bit cheaper for those of us that don't overclock. I just picked up a chip and Mobo for $219.