Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy (Archive)

[razamatraz]

Other than the R5s all needing to be added (probably to tier 1) there is nothing wrong with it; all it means to be tier 1 is that the chip can play all modern games well. To be tier 2 means settings might come down, below that they start to struggle. I do find i7-2600K being tier 2 while non K i5-3XXX are tier 1 to be a little odd but they are both on the edge of that line.

I hate repeating this but the text is vertically centered; it doesn't mean R7 1800X is worse than an i7-4770 (although it might be) because it is lower; they are all in the same class for gaming since anything with 4 or more decent cores is in that class right now.

 

[Phenomgamer]

well, it is wrong displayed then

 

[razamatraz]

well, it is wrong displayed then

If they put all the Ryzens at the top it would also be displayed wrong in many people's minds.

There is no statement about anything in the tier being better than anything else in the tier period. Anything in that tier can drive 60FPS + gaming in any modern game (not including pre-release alpha crap) assuming the GPU is also good enough so they are all basically equal. This is a gaming only performance chart so production work doesn't count here; if it did clearly the R7s and 8+ core intel stuff would get an even higher tier while 6 core Ryzen and Intel would get a tier 2 above all the 4 core stuff.

 

[Phenomgamer]

you are not understanding, it is common sense, a chart must be well done, efficiently understandable for majority of public, we can´t guess what is in others peoples minds....we should look a chart and know what it means without the need of writing a letter to site editor to understand it....

 

[razamatraz]

Perhaps you can suggest a solution? Admittedly Tom's sometimes assumes its readers have been with the site for years and just know what charts mean. There used to be a better explanation in the accompanying article than there is now. Just complaining solves nothing though; propose solutions; be constructive.

 

[Fernando Cardenas]

Wondered about this too. According to 3DMark in DX12 Time Spy, my FX-9590 with a GTX-1080 is on par with an i7 4790K with SLI GTX-980s at 7000 points. If I'm not mistaken, the 1700x and above Ryzens score something like 13,000 points in the same benchmark. So how can they be on par with a 4790K with almost double the score?? That chip is in the same generation as my FX-9590 many years ago and even loses slightly to mine in some multithreading tasks.

 

[razamatraz]

Wondered about this too. According to 3DMark in DX12 Time Spy, my FX-9590 with a GTX-1080 is on par with an i7 4790K with SLI GTX-980s at 7000 points. If I'm not mistaken, the 1700x and above Ryzens score something like 13,000 points in the same benchmark. So how can they be on par with a 4790K with almost double the score?? That chip is in the same generation as my FX-9590 many years ago and even loses slightly to mine in some multithreading tasks.

Because Benchmarks don't reflect real games and in real games with real GPUs they all run about the same while the 9590 is slower. This chart is only about gaming.

 

[mcconkeymike]

I'm curious to see where Tom's puts the Ryzen 5 and the upcoming Ryzen 3 on this list.

 

[razamatraz]

I'm curious to see where Tom's puts the Ryzen 5 and the upcoming Ryzen 3 on this list.

R5 has to be tier 1 across the board. The 6 cores are awesome but even the 1400 at stock is in range of an i5-7400 and they have i6-44XX in tier 1. With a GTX 1070 I can't tell the difference between my R5 1600 and i7-6700K; i assume the 4 cores are the same; I'll have a 1400 to test soon too.

In terms of R3 at least the 1200X will be tier 1, no clock speeds on the others yet but I can't imagine them under performing an i5-3570 (non-K) so likely all tier 1 unless they start to move the tier divider up.

 

[OpieLand]

I7 7700k is 300 flat if you have a Microcenter near you....

I5 7600k is $210

 

[sunwoo]

ryzen 5

 

[sunwoo]

Where does Ryzen 5 belong on the chart?