Best CPUs (Archive)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dan_53

Commendable
Feb 24, 2016
3
0
1,510
0
As a video editor, I don't know why reviews about CPUs with many cores have 'good for video editing' as a feature. In my experience, you need fast drives and a good graphics card to edit videos. I can happily edit several 4k 10bit streams on my several-year-old X-99 based machine. This is because i've got a 1080 and a QNAP box with a 10gb connection, not because my CPU has many cores. I'd say cores are more important for 3d graphics etc, although what little of that I do these days seems to work better on GPUs too. Is it not true though that DX12 is supposed to take advantage of multi core chips? This surely will turn gaming on it's head when it finally gets properly implemented.
 

1_rick

Reputable
Mar 7, 2014
46
0
4,540
2
I think it's more about stuff like transcoding than editing as such. Transcoding seems to scale pretty linearly with both core count and clock speed.
 

1_rick

Reputable
Mar 7, 2014
46
0
4,540
2
Also, the 2400G capsule says if you're going to buy a video card, get an i3-8100 instead. But why not go for the 2200G instead of the i3? The 2200G will probably overclock to a higher speed than the 8100 and is $20-40 cheaper (Micro Center's online prices: $79 vs $119. Fry's: $109 vs $119. Newegg: $99 vs $119.)
 

quilciri

Dignified


At stock speeds, the 2600 is further behind the 8400 than the 2700X is behind the 8700K.

It's most likely because of the physical core difference. If the 2600 was an 8 physical core chip without multithreading, It would perform the same vs. the 8400 as the 2700X performs vs the 8700K.

Yes, if you overclock, the 2600 is the better chip, but Tom's doesn't just consider people who will overclock in it's recommendations.
 

totaldarknessincar

Distinguished
Oct 20, 2006
25
0
18,530
0
More nonsense.

Best Gaming CPU in the 300+ is Intel 8700K, period. We aren't talking most cost effective, nor Best multi-use CPU, or which has a cooler and which doesn't. Best period is intel 8700K/8086, and while we are at it, the 7900x is better than the 2700 also.

NO point in telling me which is best if I'm also steaming or doing intense multi-tasking. A very small minority of folks stream while gaming. And few multi-task if they are truly engaged in gaming. And as mentioned above, the 7900x will beat the 2700 in both games and multi-tasking as well. Lastly, it will be years from now when 6-10 cores actually matter much for gamers. By then people will have moved on to other processors.

One last thing I want to say: Games so far have been so poorly optimized for cores that the old Sandy Bridge 2600K or my previously owned x79 3820, both of these chips overclock extremely easily, resulting in excellent FPS in games, whereas the GPU becomes the real bottle neck. So if we aren't choosing the absolute best (8700K or 8086), then the best may simply be to stick with that old trusty 2011 Core I7 2600K overclocked yet again.
 

quilciri

Dignified
You forgot two things.

1. overclockers aren't the only gamers that buy CPU's

2. this article has never been about the absolute most powerful CPU for gaming. The 8700K wouldn't even be close if that were the case. It's always been best value in each price bracket.
 

totaldarknessincar

Distinguished
Oct 20, 2006
25
0
18,530
0
Again, then don't list the title as best cpu at various segments. Name it most cost effective, or best bang for the Buck.

As you can see here. Even the even the 8600K beats the AMD 2700 in gaming, and its value is pretty damn good to boot.

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-8600K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-2700X/3941vs3958

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/ If you set this to show you fastest average bench performance, you'll see that there is a myriad of intel processors, some super expensive, some well within the price range of AMD's .

What I will give to AMD, and I think what the article intended, but titled it wrong, was what is the best multi-purpose processor. Not what is best gaming. Best multi-purpose processor at that price range, is the 2700. And it should list it at ~300, not 300+, again, if you list 300 and above, and you don't specify price/performance, you again then open yourself up to the beasts like 7900x for which the 2700 was not meant to be compared to.

Just my two cents.
 

salgado18

Distinguished
Feb 12, 2007
524
1
18,995
3
I think what would make everyone happy is a new category: Top Performance.

It would have the fastest gaming CPU, independent of cost or other uses. So, probably the i7-8700k.

I still think it would be a bad sensible choice, but as we see over and over, people are not sensible.
 

quilciri

Dignified


In that case, it would be the 7900X, not the 8700K.

In saying 8700K is the "best" instead of the 7900X, people are already claiming a value proposition, rather than absolute best performance.

In that context, denying that the 2700X is the best is contradictory.
 

kiniku

Distinguished
Mar 27, 2009
163
0
18,680
0
This is huge for Tom's to de-throne the coveted, (and rushed) 8700K. Once again, just like 64bit, AMD has permanently changed the playing field and made 6 core+ systems mainstream versus where Intel had placed them as expensive revenue creating cash cows.
Sorry, Intel fanbois. But competition is a consumer win.
 

totaldarknessincar

Distinguished
Oct 20, 2006
25
0
18,530
0
"In that case, it would be the 7900X, not the 8700K.

In saying 8700K is the "best" instead of the 7900X, people are already claiming a value proposition, rather than absolute best performance.

In that context, denying that the 2700X is the best is contradictory."

That's actually incorrect. For Pure Gaming, the 7900x is NOT better than the 8700K or 8086. It's single threaded performance at stock, and it's inability to overclock to or near 5GHz means that it almost always lose to the 8700K or 8086. It is though a much more balanced processor with it's 10cores.

To the guy who said sorry intel fan boys. I don't have any allegiance to anyone. I was squarely in the came of AMD in the days of Athlon XP (I had the 1600+), and I again was in the AMD camp with Athlon 64. I kept that Athlon 64 for quite a bit of time actually until I simply couldn't keep it any longer and went with the Core-2 Duo E6600, then the Core 2 quad q9550, then the 3820k. Same with GPUs, I was squarely in AMD came with Radeon 32, then 64, then Radeon 9700, then got the 9800 (at the time nVidia had that crappy 5800 that was late to the show and ran hot as hell with that vaccum cleaner blower. After that I think i went with the nvidia 8800, after that back to AMD with Radeon 5850, then Radeon 7970, finally then back to nVidia with 970, and now 1080TI.

so over the years, I simply have gone to either great price/performance like the Athlon xp, or went great performance but not Hot/loud, or recently just went with the best performance. Despite all that, I always was aware of what was the absolute Top performance, which currently is the 8700K/8086 for the CPU side, and the nVidia Volta/Titan/1080ti for the GPU side with respect to GAMING.

my 2 cents.
 

quilciri

Dignified


Like I've already said, these articles don't cater exclusively to overclockers.
 

nogaard777

Prominent
Dec 19, 2017
2
0
510
0
Ironically if you click on their own link the i7 is $10 CHEAPER than the Ryzen. lols. I'll hang onto my 4790k for another generation at least.
 

nogaard777

Prominent
Dec 19, 2017
2
0
510
0
Ironically, if you click their own link the i7 is $10 CHEAPER than the Ryzen. lols. Kinda takes the wind out of the sails of it being the far better value when the i7 still beats it in 4/5 games. I have no loyalties to either and prefer to see AMD compete and even beat intel, but I get a strong pro-AMD vibe from Tom's these days that just doesn't add up.

Just read the review and it heavily downplays i7 strengths and gives half truths insinuating you aren't getting a cooler when in reality they add in the cost to replace the lackluster stock one, or that the RGB one is SO valuable. Any overclocker is tossing the stock cooler regardless. The Gigabyte z370 is only $170 so that "expensive platform cost" is simply untrue. The prices listed here are all higher for intel chips and boards than when you click them, and the AMD ones are accurate.

Hell, there's even links to AMD wares everywhere on the page.

Anyone here knows enough about hardware to actually understand the benchmarks, take 15 whole seconds to click a couple links and see REAL pricing and ?? the 9/10 AMD vs 7/10 I7 ratings. It's pretty obvious AMD has either a fanboi here, sponsors THG, or both.

I'm only thankful the Ryzen exists to keep intel honest in it's pricing on it's still slightly superior offerings, even when you factor in value.
 

rich1051414

Honorable
Apr 8, 2013
63
0
10,660
5
The thing is, all of AMD's CPU's are overclockable, but the same cannot be said for Intel, you have to pay a premium for that privilege. Because of this, this disqualifies a lot of potential Intel processors, unfortunately.
Additionally, with the cost of equivalent quality motherboards also being in AMD's favor, it is hard to insinuate that Intel is doing a good job right now with bang for the buck. They need to back down a bit on the cash grabbing before they start grabbing the cash out of their own wallets instead...
 

codo

Honorable
May 5, 2012
69
0
10,630
0
oh boy. tough to keep coming back here when you would recommend this crap out Temperature Keeps Ryzen junk
 

mossberg

Distinguished
Jun 13, 2007
122
0
18,690
1


What about temperature? Coffee lake is the one with temp issues, due to Intel's cheap TIM, for the heat spreader. Ryzen CPU's are soldered.
 
Aug 1, 2018
3
0
10
0


 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY