The Best CPUs 2019: This is what you should get

[funkydmunky]

Why is everyone talking about the Ryzen 2700x and not Ryzen 2700? Is the Ryzen 2700 no good?

Depends on what you want out of it. 2700X isn't much more $$ and includes a much better HS/fan and higher stock frequencies and boosts. It also has a much higher TDP rating so probably better paired with a more premium MB.

 

[Bp968]

Now, it's just waiting for the GPU pricing to come down. I'm still debating the possibility of just buying a 1060 now and then picking up a new 1180 when they arrive. Although, there are some decent 1080 Ti deal right now, I'm hesitant to pull the trigger when the 11xx series is just around the corner.

Thoughts?

I was ponderi g to keep my 1060 in my new build and wait out or go all out for a 1080 ti, but I decided on sticking a 1070 ti in there instead of 1080 ti.

Much better value for money, and with the change Ill buy a 1180 when the time comes and the cryptomarket comes crashing down.

Yes, it's a better value for driving 2560x1440p @60Hz, but anything beyond that (like 1440p@120Hz or 3440x1440) the 1080 Ti stomps it, offering about 50% more fps. For the folks in that crowd, the 1070 Ti doesn't offer much value at all. It couldn't crack the 90 fps mark in any of the tested games other than Doom.
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gigabyte-gtx-1070-ti-gaming-8g,5338-3.html

This Is true. Hes not likely looking for that performance if hes looking for a 4k TV to use as a monitor though. I know that I ended up *needing* a 1080ti for pushing my 1440p 144hz monitor at good framerates (144fps).

For the OP: dont do the 4k TV as a monitor thing if your into FPS games. The latency on most of them suck. Get a good fast PC monitor instead. You could also consider one of the nvidia Gsync TVs though they are likely to be pricey.

 

[Viking2121]

Got me the Ryzen 1700 when my i7 5820k failed, To be honest I thought I wasn't going to see much of a difference but this 1700 puts up a good fight even in gaming. Im impressed for how cheap I got the chip. Its miles ahead of my FX8320 at 5ghz. Only thing im missing is the x99 and some of the features that my Asus x99 Deluxe offered vs this x370 Taichi.

Like I said, my i7 5820k died, and Asus would replace the board but not the CPU, and Intel wanted nothing to do with the CPU as they claimed it was Asus's fault or mine for overclocking, Well bought the AMD R7 1700 for $229 USD and the Asrock x370 Taichi for $169 which all cost less than just the i7 5820k back then, My RAM and my 1070's and disks/SSD's, PSU were all still fine.

 

[Danielx64]

Why is everyone talking about the Ryzen 2700x and not Ryzen 2700? Is the Ryzen 2700 no good?

Depends on what you want out of it. 2700X isn't much more $$ and includes a much better HS/fan and higher stock frequencies and boosts. It also has a much higher TDP rating so probably better paired with a more premium MB.

I would love the performance of an 2700X but the TDP rating kinda put me off considering that I would like to have my next computer use less power than my current Intel I5 4690.

 

[CheekyP]

G.Skill Ripjaws V Series, 16GB kit (2x8GB): $160 from newegg for DDR4-2400/CAS 15 ([url[https://pcpartpicker.com/product/4vWrxr/gskill-memory-f42400c15d16gvr[/URL])

G.Skill Ripjaws V Series, 16GB kit (2x8GB): $165 from newegg for DDR4-3000/CAS 15 (https://pcpartpicker.com/product/3C...b-2-x-8gb-ddr4-3000-memory-f4-3000c15d-16gvkb) or DDR4-3200/CAS 16 (https://pcpartpicker.com/product/Nqp323/gskill-memory-f43200c16d16gvrb)

Yes, I can see how there's such a big price difference in paying for faster DDR4 RAM for Ryzen systems....

(/sarcasm)

As already mentioned, your prices are wrong... plus Ryzen gaming performance suffers a lot from high latency as well, so cheaper CL16 DDR4-3200 isn't going to cut it - you'll need CL14 DDR4-3200 at a minimum to achieve the level of performance shown in reviews.

And if you further tweak the memory for maximum gaming performance, as shown here:

you will need an expensive Samsung 'B Die' DDR4 kit like the G.Skill Flare X 3200 CL14 used by Steve which costs $240 https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...e=g.skill_flare_X_3200-_-20-232-530-_-Product

So to effectively match a 8400 at gaming you'll need:
A 2600 overclocked to 4.2GHz
A decent HSF to hit those clocks
DDR4-3200 CL14 memory

So the total platform cost can end up about $60 - $100 more than an equivalent 8400 system, depending on the choice of memory and cooler you use. It would be overall a more powerful platform, as the 2600 is the better productivity CPU, but for gaming only rigs its actually better value to go with Intel, particularly the 8400.

 

[meric]

G.Skill Ripjaws V Series, 16GB kit (2x8GB): $160 from newegg for DDR4-2400/CAS 15 ([url[https://pcpartpicker.com/product/4vWrxr/gskill-memory-f42400c15d16gvr[/URL])

G.Skill Ripjaws V Series, 16GB kit (2x8GB): $165 from newegg for DDR4-3000/CAS 15 (https://pcpartpicker.com/product/3C...b-2-x-8gb-ddr4-3000-memory-f4-3000c15d-16gvkb) or DDR4-3200/CAS 16 (https://pcpartpicker.com/product/Nqp323/gskill-memory-f43200c16d16gvrb)

Yes, I can see how there's such a big price difference in paying for faster DDR4 RAM for Ryzen systems....

(/sarcasm)

As already mentioned, your prices are wrong... plus Ryzen gaming performance suffers a lot from high latency as well, so cheaper CL16 DDR4-3200 isn't going to cut it - you'll need CL14 DDR4-3200 at a minimum to achieve the level of performance shown in reviews.

And if you further tweak the memory for maximum gaming performance, as shown here:

you will need an expensive Samsung 'B Die' DDR4 kit like the G.Skill Flare X 3200 CL14 used by Steve which costs $240 https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...e=g.skill_flare_X_3200-_-20-232-530-_-Product

So to effectively match a 8400 at gaming you'll need:
A 2600 overclocked to 4.2GHz
A decent HSF to hit those clocks
DDR4-3200 CL14 memory

So the total platform cost can end up about $60 - $100 more than an equivalent 8400 system, depending on the choice of memory and cooler you use. It would be overall a more powerful platform, as the 2600 is the better productivity CPU, but for gaming only rigs its actually better value to go with Intel, particularly the 8400.

You know you need to use the 8400 on a z370 board to achieve its optimum performance too right? You can check here https://www.techspot.com/review/1608-core-i5-8400-vs-ryzen-5-1600-best-value/page3.html

 

[CheekyP]

You know you need to use the 8400 on a z370 board to achieve its optimum performance too right? You can check here https://www.techspot.com/review/1608-core-i5-8400-vs-ryzen-5-1600-best-value/page3.html

Yes, I'm aware of that, but the difference is that the 8400 only suffers a ~5% performance hit by using DDR4-2666 instead of 3200, in some games the difference is like 2%, so from a value perspective it makes sense, as you are saving $30 on a B360 and another $30 - $40 on DDR4-2666 instead of 3200, for a ~5% performance hit. AMD would suffer a much bigger performance hit if you were to use DDR4-2666 memory, if you don't believe me, ask Steve to test it out.

My point is that, to even approach 8400 levels, you need a fully tweaked 2600 @ 4.2GHz, which requires
1. a decent aftermarket HSF, as the small Stealth HSF won't cut it for 4.0GHz+ overclocks
2. CL14 3200 DDR4 memory, preferably 'B Die' modules

All of which doesn't come free - the 2600 is already $20 more than a 8400, a decent budget HSF like the Hyper 212 costs $30, and even the cheapest CL14 3200 kits are generally around $200 or more, which is about $40 more than a 2666 kit. You also get much higher power consumption from the AMD system because you are comparing an overclocked system to a stock one, so the energy bill difference would mount up over the course of a year or two.

Assuming B350 and B360 motherboards cost the same (they pretty much do), you end up paying $90 more than the 8400 platform. Again, I reiterate that if any highly multi-threaded programs are used, then it's probably worth the premium as the extra 6 threads are worth a lot for those use cases.

However, if you are strictly building a gaming only machine, the 8400 represents better value IMO, and the savings there should go towards a faster GPU, which is the key for gaming systems. That $90 is enough to get you an upgrade from a 1070 to a 1070 Ti, for example, which further improves gaming performance by about ~20%.

 

[RCynic]

Ok i5/i7 are still better in gaming performance (paired with at least 1070Ti)

and yes Ryzen 5/7 provides great performance in multi-threaded software, but please correct me if I'm wrong (maybe I'm ill-informed) can Corona be used w/o the dGPU? can a hypothetical (d)GPU-less 3D-render -workbench on i5-8400 run Blender?
I mean, Ryzen would needs at least GT710, right? and that's some ~$35more to the "strictly-non-gaming" build in addition to a bit more for faster RAM, aftermarket cooler, a mobo with a descent VRM-cooling

 

[Jim$ter]

I will wait till they fix the Spectre and Meltdown flaws in current processors which Intel announced maybe later this year. Why anyone would buy a flawed processor before the fix is beyond me.

 

[Nobina]

It's really annoying when you 'want' to upgrade but can't really justify it from a 'need' point of view.

My i5 4690K has sat happily running at 4.5Ghz for the last 4yrs and still gives me all the juice I need in the stuff I run, I don't do production tasks so 6/12 or 8/16 cores/threads are simply not needed.

I'd love to build a shiny new PC, not because I need it but because I'm bored with my current one....derp.

That is the effect of marketing.

 

[alabama man]

Interesting how AMD seems to have overtaken Intel. Intel used to be the top processor for years and AMD was way behind, but things seems to have changed.

Wonder what happened at Intel that they now lag behind?

They had no competition so they didn't innovate, they focused only on servers and other useless **** and they hire people based on color and gender, not skill.

 

[fktech]

Glad to see AMD is back! And their stock prices show it! Nice job AMD.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Why is everyone talking about the Ryzen 2700x and not Ryzen 2700? Is the Ryzen 2700 no good?

The 2700 is good, but the 2700x is better out of the box. The 2700 is a tweaker's dream, but there is no "best tweaking chip" category here.

I just built a new PC (https://pcpartpicker.com/list/) and sprung for the I7-8700K-based system. I was moving from a i7-2600 and I really wanted to go with AMD this time, but the 2700X still seemed too far behind the i7-8700K in gaming. I'll be gaming more than performing productivity-based work, so I justified the cost in that regard for gaming. Also, I scored the i7-8700K, Gigabyte Aorus Gaming 7 Z370 mobo, and the G.Skill Trident Z RGB RAM in a combo getting a $45 discount on top of sale pricing and rebates, so I think the "extra" was worth the cost of admission.

Now, it's just waiting for the GPU pricing to come down. I'm still debating the possibility of just buying a 1060 now and then picking up a new 1180 when they arrive. Although, there are some decent 1080 Ti deal right now, I'm hesitant to pull the trigger when the 11xx series is just around the corner.

Thoughts?

I’m currently in desperate need of a new GPU to power my 4K monitor and I have almost bought a 1080 ti a few times now. However at this point I would wait until the 1180 drops which should be in he next 3/4 months hopefully. I wouldn’t pay out for a 1060 for just three months though. Maybe go online and pickup a second hand 780 or something for a lot less?

It's called a 2080, and it's gonna cost more then a 1080ti.

So might as well pick up that 1080ti now and save the $$$.

Why is everyone talking about the Ryzen 2700x and not Ryzen 2700? Is the Ryzen 2700 no good?

Depends on what you want out of it. 2700X isn't much more $$ and includes a much better HS/fan and higher stock frequencies and boosts. It also has a much higher TDP rating so probably better paired with a more premium MB.

Doesnt really matter if you OC though. 2700/2700x basically hit the same 4.2GHz ceiling.

Interesting how AMD seems to have overtaken Intel. Intel used to be the top processor for years and AMD was way behind, but things seems to have changed.

Wonder what happened at Intel that they now lag behind?

They had no competition so they didn't innovate, they focused only on servers and other useless **** and they hire people based on color and gender, not skill.

Servers are not useless you muppet. The server market makes up a ridiculous amount of intel's earning.

Fun fact, if AMD captured 5% of the server market at intel prices per chip, their revenue would DOUBLE. There is a TON of money in servers, and AMD has been missing out.

Desktop users are small potatoes.

 

[Badelhas]

I can still hold off until 2020. I plan to go from Sandy Bridge to Ryzen 2. Hopefully by that time GPU pricing is no longer grossly inflated and DRAM price fixing is a tad less rampant with all parties involved recently getting heavily slapped on the wrists. SSDs with DRAM should also be coming down in price due to this.

I am exactly on the same boat. My 7 year old 2500K overclocked to 4.5Ghz is rocking great, along a 1070 GPU. I would like to upgrade to a 8700K but having to change Mobo and this RAM stupid prices make me decide to wait, as yourself.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

I can still hold off until 2020. I plan to go from Sandy Bridge to Ryzen 2. Hopefully by that time GPU pricing is no longer grossly inflated and DRAM price fixing is a tad less rampant with all parties involved recently getting heavily slapped on the wrists. SSDs with DRAM should also be coming down in price due to this.

While I want to agree with you, I've noticed my workloads on Lightroom and Photoshop being somewhat limited by my 2500k @4.5ghz. I think ill be getting the 2600x this year..

If you have an i5, yeh, then the Sandy bridge is definitely showing its age. For those of us with i7 Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge however, most programs still don't stress it anywhere near full cpu load.

 

[floor board]

Tbh this all makes sense perfect sense

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

I was trying to decide between the Ryzen 5 2600 and 2600X - then I saw that the 2600X was still $229 and the 2600 was marked down to $169.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07B41WS48/?tag=httpwwwtechsp-20

Made it a pretty easy decision.

 

[EClyde]

It's really annoying when you 'want' to upgrade but can't really justify it from a 'need' point of view.

My i5 4690K has sat happily running at 4.5Ghz for the last 4yrs and still gives me all the juice I need in the stuff I run, I don't do production tasks so 6/12 or 8/16 cores/threads are simply not needed.

I'd love to build a shiny new PC, not because I need it but because I'm bored with my current one....derp.

There is little need...except if it's 1995 and you want to play Doom. I do it for fun

 

[meric]

Adding this here for information. There seems to be some good discounts for first gen Ryzens ( TR 1950x and R7 1700X) if someone is interested. https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-threadripper-1950x-deal,38097.html

 

[seeprime]

Interesting how AMD seems to have overtaken Intel. Intel used to be the top processor for years and AMD was way behind, but things seems to have changed.

Wonder what happened at Intel that they now lag behind?

Intel's 10nm process turned out to create excessive edge errors when layer were applied. They have to do a lot of re-engineering to overcome the issue. In the meantime, they reverted back to 14nm lithography for the chips that couldn't be produced at an acceptable level on 10nm. This pushed Intel's CPU output behind schedule, which they compensated for by raising prices.

 

[144hzGamer]

You know you need to use the 8400 on a z370 board to achieve its optimum performance too right? You can check here https://www.techspot.com/review/1608-core-i5-8400-vs-ryzen-5-1600-best-value/page3.html

Yes, I'm aware of that, but the difference is that the 8400 only suffers a ~5% performance hit by using DDR4-2666 instead of 3200, in some games the difference is like 2%, so from a value perspective it makes sense, as you are saving $30 on a B360 and another $30 - $40 on DDR4-2666 instead of 3200, for a ~5% performance hit. AMD would suffer a much bigger performance hit if you were to use DDR4-2666 memory, if you don't believe me, ask Steve to test it out.

My point is that, to even approach 8400 levels, you need a fully tweaked 2600 @ 4.2GHz, which requires
1. a decent aftermarket HSF, as the small Stealth HSF won't cut it for 4.0GHz+ overclocks
2. CL14 3200 DDR4 memory, preferably 'B Die' modules

All of which doesn't come free - the 2600 is already $20 more than a 8400, a decent budget HSF like the Hyper 212 costs $30, and even the cheapest CL14 3200 kits are generally around $200 or more, which is about $40 more than a 2666 kit. You also get much higher power consumption from the AMD system because you are comparing an overclocked system to a stock one, so the energy bill difference would mount up over the course of a year or two.

Assuming B350 and B360 motherboards cost the same (they pretty much do), you end up paying $90 more than the 8400 platform. Again, I reiterate that if any highly multi-threaded programs are used, then it's probably worth the premium as the extra 6 threads are worth a lot for those use cases.

However, if you are strictly building a gaming only machine, the 8400 represents better value IMO, and the savings there should go towards a faster GPU, which is the key for gaming systems. That $90 is enough to get you an upgrade from a 1070 to a 1070 Ti, for example, which further improves gaming performance by about ~20%.

Im glad someone finally talks abou it! This ryzen glory bandwagon on the web is just too annoying. i5 8400 is the chip to get on most mainstream situations. This thing runs cool and has amazing performance even for high refresh gaming without any advanced tweaking. It also runs full potential on a 60€ b360 board and a 70€ 2x4gb 2400mhz kit. While ryzen needs serious tweaking and motherboard, hsf and ram investment to make it SIMiLAR to 8400.

Also I dont agree with 8700k being the best for gaming, 9700k almost same price in my country and 8 real cores at 4,6ghz > 8700k for gaming

 

[Lew Zealand]

Ryzen 5 2600 FTW. My kid's R3 1200 will be replaced next year with one of these or an R5 3600 or similar, depending on price/performance at the time. It's great to be able to start cheap but still decent and have that affordable upgrade path with usable performance gains a year or two later. Now that 16GB 3200MHz CL16 DDR4 is $115 and still heading lower, even that Ryzen penalty has been removed.

 

[USAvenger]

Ryzen 7 1700X was going for $127.50 today with the coupon code on the eBay app.

 

[Evernessince]

You know you need to use the 8400 on a z370 board to achieve its optimum performance too right? You can check here https://www.techspot.com/review/1608-core-i5-8400-vs-ryzen-5-1600-best-value/page3.html

Yes, I'm aware of that, but the difference is that the 8400 only suffers a ~5% performance hit by using DDR4-2666 instead of 3200, in some games the difference is like 2%, so from a value perspective it makes sense, as you are saving $30 on a B360 and another $30 - $40 on DDR4-2666 instead of 3200, for a ~5% performance hit. AMD would suffer a much bigger performance hit if you were to use DDR4-2666 memory, if you don't believe me, ask Steve to test it out.

My point is that, to even approach 8400 levels, you need a fully tweaked 2600 @ 4.2GHz, which requires
1. a decent aftermarket HSF, as the small Stealth HSF won't cut it for 4.0GHz+ overclocks
2. CL14 3200 DDR4 memory, preferably 'B Die' modules

All of which doesn't come free - the 2600 is already $20 more than a 8400, a decent budget HSF like the Hyper 212 costs $30, and even the cheapest CL14 3200 kits are generally around $200 or more, which is about $40 more than a 2666 kit. You also get much higher power consumption from the AMD system because you are comparing an overclocked system to a stock one, so the energy bill difference would mount up over the course of a year or two.

Assuming B350 and B360 motherboards cost the same (they pretty much do), you end up paying $90 more than the 8400 platform. Again, I reiterate that if any highly multi-threaded programs are used, then it's probably worth the premium as the extra 6 threads are worth a lot for those use cases.

However, if you are strictly building a gaming only machine, the 8400 represents better value IMO, and the savings there should go towards a faster GPU, which is the key for gaming systems. That $90 is enough to get you an upgrade from a 1070 to a 1070 Ti, for example, which further improves gaming performance by about ~20%.

Im glad someone finally talks abou it! This ryzen glory bandwagon on the web is just too annoying. i5 8400 is the chip to get on most mainstream situations. This thing runs cool and has amazing performance even for high refresh gaming without any advanced tweaking. It also runs full potential on a 60€ b360 board and a 70€ 2x4gb 2400mhz kit. While ryzen needs serious tweaking and motherboard, hsf and ram investment to make it SIMiLAR to 8400.

Also I dont agree with 8700k being the best for gaming, 9700k almost same price in my country and 8 real cores at 4,6ghz > 8700k for gaming

I'm guessing you don't own a Ryzen system. Fact: Ryzen memory compatibility have been excellent since AGESA 1.0.0.3. It's been that way since 4 months after launch. I'm sure you heard that at launch and haven't bothered to validate if it is still true. A vast majority of Ryzen systems can get the maximum 2933 of the processor out of the box with zero tweaking and OC to 3000 or 3233. I would highly recommend that you read up on it as your assumptions are outdated.

The 8400 running great on a midrange board is a moot point given the mentioned AMD processor does just that as well. The RAM investment on Ryzen is nill right now. You might pay $10 more for DDR4 3200. The Ryzen motherboard's costing more claim is complete BS. I'm assuring by hsf you mean heatsink and fan, in which case the Ryzen wins. The included heatsink is much better then Intel's junk.

Right now the 8400 costs 220 + shipping.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0759FGJ3Q/?tag=httpwwwtechsp-20

The Ryzen 5 2600 is $160

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07B41WS48/?tag=httpwwwtechsp-20

If you are going for maximum gaming performance then you should be buying the 8700k or 9700K. The 8400 is a more budget minded CPU and yet it's price compared to the 2600 makes it a non-option. Why would anyone with a tight budget drop that much on the CPU when it's only advantage is 3% gaming performance when paired with a 1080 Ti, a $700 GPU? If you have that much money to spend you would just buy the best gaming CPU, not the budget option. If you are on a budget it makes way more sense to get a 2600 and put the extra money you saved towards a faster GPU. A majority of people buy in the $200 GPU range. The 8400 isn't faster with any GPU at that price bracket. That's before considering that the multi-thread performance of the 2600 is better AND it can be overclocked AND you can drop next gen processors in the same motherboard. The cherry on the cake here is that the 2600 actually has stock while the 8400 is sparse in stock. I've already seen 3 sales of the 2600 at $135 and zero sales on the 8400. Even Amazon only has 3rd party sellers with the 8400 in stock.

It just makes more sense to buy the 2600 and put the saved money towards a better GPU.


FYI the post you were quoting was from half a year ago. It should be a dead giveaway when he said the 2600 was more expensive then the 8400. In fact the only time that was true was right after the 8400 launched. It quickly went out of stock and is still has stock issues. The pricing has clearly inflated as a result and now stands significantly above the 2600.

 

[toooooot]

I just ordered AMD 2400g and other parts to build around it. It is for someone who doesnt game and wants a budget but fast computer. I am very excited to test this CPU. I havent used AMD for a long time, but the stars have align right, they point toward AMD, so I have forsaken intel for now.