caustin582
Distinguished
- Oct 30, 2009
- 95
- 3
- 18,635
- Status
- Sep 2, 2018
- 1
- 0
- 10
I'm in the process of selecting parts for a new high-end gaming PC as well as a work PC for my lady. Usually articles like this one would have been among my primary sources of information.
However, ever since the "Just buy it!" article from your editor-in-chief appeared, I just can't see Tom's Hardware with the same level of trust that I had for the site in the past 15 years. I'm sorry, but I just can't. Especially since the article was not removed (even though multiple people pointed out its massive problems), but instead kept up with a few half-hearted fixes. Removing it _would_ have reinstated my trust in the site, because I'm aware that everyone makes mistakes - but since your EiC is convinced that this article _wasn't_ a mistake, I adjusted my view of Tom's Hardware accordingly.
My friends and I are currently exchanging links to other tech sites on the net. Which I won't mention here out of respect for Tom's Hardware, but I wanted to at least inform you why some people are moving away from your site. There appear to be a couple of youtube channels that seem more willing and able to provide the critical analysis we are looking for.
However, ever since the "Just buy it!" article from your editor-in-chief appeared, I just can't see Tom's Hardware with the same level of trust that I had for the site in the past 15 years. I'm sorry, but I just can't. Especially since the article was not removed (even though multiple people pointed out its massive problems), but instead kept up with a few half-hearted fixes. Removing it _would_ have reinstated my trust in the site, because I'm aware that everyone makes mistakes - but since your EiC is convinced that this article _wasn't_ a mistake, I adjusted my view of Tom's Hardware accordingly.
My friends and I are currently exchanging links to other tech sites on the net. Which I won't mention here out of respect for Tom's Hardware, but I wanted to at least inform you why some people are moving away from your site. There appear to be a couple of youtube channels that seem more willing and able to provide the critical analysis we are looking for.
maddogfargo
Splendid
- Nov 28, 2006
- 3,344
- 8
- 22,965
This must be a GAMING hierarchy chart. In applications, especially highly threaded and vendor neutral ones, Ryzen excells. And we're not even talking efficiency yet either.
TerryLaze
Titan
- May 9, 2016
- 10,952
- 3,120
- 76,440
It does include applications but it doesn't look too good with the 2600x needing 6c/12t to barely beat the i5-8600k that only has 6c/6t but on the other hand has another roughly 25% headroom for overclocking...
Translation=magical software that doesn't exist (yet,just wait a few years, they are working on it soooo hard)
- May 18, 2007
- 23,878
- 5,317
- 108,890
Video encoding, 3D rendering, scientific simulation, etc. software aren't magical and have existed for decades.
TerryLaze
Titan
- May 9, 2016
- 10,952
- 3,120
- 76,440
And AMD has been better value at those for decades but alas there doesn't seem to be enough demand for those types of software to make it worth it for the mainstream user to get a AMD cpu be it FX or now ryzen.
For the end user it's still ~33% better cores in average in favor for intel (including Video encoding, 3D rendering, scientific simulation but not being limited to those) ,and that's before starting to exhaust the additional ~25% overclock potential.
- May 18, 2007
- 23,878
- 5,317
- 108,890
I don't understand where all the vitriolic comments are coming from. The opening paragraphs clearly declare the following: "We determined the order based on average gaming performance across our test suite". The preface went on to say: "but we also include an application performance metric in the application score column". The application data was for reference for those who are more interested in video editing, rendering, etc. There is nothing new about Intel CPU's taking the lead in gaming and the 7700 is often cited as the best bang for buck gaming CPU. Now the 8700 takes the crown until all the new chips are released over the next couple of months. I don't see where accusations of bias toward one OEM or the other are justified.
TerryLaze
Titan
- May 9, 2016
- 10,952
- 3,120
- 76,440
Tom's benchmark shows the 2600x with 6c/12t and the i5-8600k with 6c/6t to be on the same level,57.9 vs 56.1, while the 2600x has 6 logical cores more then the 8600.
~30-35% is what all benches show as gain from HT/SMT.
Tom's also shows the i7-8700k with 6c/12t on the same level as the 2700x with vs 8c/16t ,70 vs 70.40,that's actually 33% more real cores.
- Feb 24, 2015
- 890
- 431
- 19,360
It is a good upgrade path! Here is testing with the 2200G and a discrete GPU.
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-pentium-gold-g5600-g5400-cpu,5679-3.html
2sidedpolygon
Prominent
- Jul 1, 2018
- 775
- 0
- 660
TerryLaze :
It does include applications but it doesn't look too good with the 2600x needing 6c/12t to barely beat the i5-8600k that only has 6c/6t but on the other hand has another roughly 25% headroom for overclocking...
Translation=magical software that doesn't exist (yet,just wait a few years, they are working on it soooo hard)
Wow, this is a doozy. Okay, so, firstly, cores and threads are not the same thing. Physical cores will have a much bigger performance impact than threads. And, even if they were, it's not about which CPU has more "impressive" performance with the specs, it's about which performs better (That being Ryzen in multithreaded workloads). When it comes to overclocking, even with it, Ryzen still outperforms Intel, if by a smaller margin. And software that doesn't exist? What?! This is absurd. I'd go so far as to say most workloads that aren't gaming are multithreaded. This is absurd. As for pricing, I honestly can't believe you brought this up, because you're making yourself look stupid at this point. The 8700K goes for around $270-$280 online, the 8700 tends to go for about $340, and the 8600k goes for around $240-$260. As for Ryzen, the 2600X goes for about $200-$220, and the 2700X goes for about $320. Upon some not-so-careful observation, I think you'll find that Ryzen is cheaper by a significant margin. If you want to make the gaming argument, sure, go ahead. But this? This is BS.
mcconkeymike
Distinguished
- Dec 31, 2007
- 1,060
- 1
- 19,960
I really like this list but you guys REALLY need to start breaking out the groups. There is no universe where the i5-3550 is in the same league as an i9-7980xe. I'd guess that half of the top tier Intel chips should move down into a new second tier, if not into 2 new tiers. I'm fairly tech savvy but I still like to look at these lists for older hardware, but it's becoming more and more inaccurate. Please give it a closer look and a little love. Thanks
Caustic Aspirin
Honorable
- Feb 8, 2013
- 18
- 0
- 10,520
How on earth does a 2600X improve on the 1600X's gaming score from 84.8 to 98.2? Looking at your 2600X review, this really doesn't seem consistent with the performance difference shown.
Caustic Aspirin
Honorable
- Feb 8, 2013
- 18
- 0
- 10,520
How on earth does a 2600X improve on the 1600X's gaming score from 84.8 to 98.2? Looking at your 2600X review, this really doesn't seem consistent with the performance differences shown. That's a ~15% improvement from a product with performance improvements in the single digits of percentage.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
[SOLVED] Windows is using Microsoft Basic Display Adapter ?
- Started by Corbin8756
- Replies: 89
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram