After all the extensive testing you are familiar with, we've come up with this quick guide to bring you the best CPU choices available right now, divided into three categories: the best enthusiast/value CPU, best budget CPU, and best high-end CPU.
The Best CPUs: This is what you should get
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
Technosense
Posts: 43 +25
Considering I just built 2 high end workstations (intel 6 core) for video editing, it doesn't look Like I'll be changing anything over for at least a year or so. IF it were possible to just change the chip, I'd love to make Premiere sing with one of the new AMD chips. The article correctly points out the bus speeds and number of ports could well be an issue for people like me with high end video cards, multiple SSDs for OS, Cache and Data all fighting for attention under heavy loads. That said, SO glad AMD is back and the next machine looks like will be an AMD system.
S
ScubaRhys
Interesting section, the new R5's seem to be pretty epic value for money, definitely what I would recommend for most people building today. As for me, as long as Intel are the gaming performance kings I will continue to buy Intel. I understand that it's a few dollars more but il pay it for the performance. Outside of gaming the most demanding thing I do with my PC is comment on these videos. I'm not sold on multithreaded gaming happening and making the 7600k look "vastly inferior" happening within the next 3 years or so though, I must say.
SirChocula
Posts: 174 +183
I'm just waiting for a good mATX board, Vega to come out, and the RAM issue to subside and I'll be aboard the Ryzen/1700 train! Choo choo!
1600 is going on sale a bunch too - already was a way via ebay coupon to get it for $175
Squid Surprise
Posts: 5,611 +5,241
"Yes, the more affordable R7 1700 is our top pick here, at $320 it’s a total steal. That’s 8x less than the 6950X and 3x less than the 6900K."
Um.... let's do some math... 8x320 = $2560.... who's saying the 6950X costs that much?? $1650 is the real price... which is just over 5X the price of the 1700....
Otherwise, great article
While mentioned briefly, I think it does behoove people to remember that if they need 40 PCI lanes, Intel is still the only way to go... SLI and Crossfire may be rare, but there is still demand - and PCI SSDs are also becoming more prevalent...
Um.... let's do some math... 8x320 = $2560.... who's saying the 6950X costs that much?? $1650 is the real price... which is just over 5X the price of the 1700....
Otherwise, great article
While mentioned briefly, I think it does behoove people to remember that if they need 40 PCI lanes, Intel is still the only way to go... SLI and Crossfire may be rare, but there is still demand - and PCI SSDs are also becoming more prevalent...
OcelotRex
Posts: 558 +302
Highlighted above is the reason I feel this article is a few weeks too early. As the AM4/Ryzen platform matures and these issues are resolved Ryzen looks to be a slam dunk in the value department. Until then the more mature Intel platform seems a safer choice irrespective of value.
liammac002
Posts: 46 +12
I had a Pentium a while back and upgraded to an i5 4460 around Christmas. If I hadn't already had an Intel motherboard I totally would've held out for Ryzen. Maybe next time
Skidmarksdeluxe
Posts: 8,645 +3,290
And it's also very likely that by the time all that happens, the chip will be irrelevant. The next gen Ryzens are already well into development... and so are Intel's equivalents. Buying hardware my friend, is a mugs game, but with the digital life and times we now live in, we have no choice.
Arbie
Posts: 532 +898
When I do upgrade it will be with AMD. Even where (and if) Intel offers a little more performance per dollar, AMD has amazingly reduced the difference to the point where I can accept it in order to help fuel competition. If the market does not reward AMD for their valiant effort in Zen, the company may be forced to give up. It seems impossible for them to come from behind yet again in such a high-stakes arena. Then Intel will really slack off, and several years from now we'll ALL be worse off than if they were still duking it out.
Everyone has to make their own decision, and I couldn't buy the Bulldozer etc fiascos, but the AMD product is now a real contender - and we need to keep them there.
(For the same reason my next GPU will be AMD. I switched to NVidia but, considering the bigger picture and the fact that Vega too should be a contender, will go back.)
Everyone has to make their own decision, and I couldn't buy the Bulldozer etc fiascos, but the AMD product is now a real contender - and we need to keep them there.
(For the same reason my next GPU will be AMD. I switched to NVidia but, considering the bigger picture and the fact that Vega too should be a contender, will go back.)
codgerface
Posts: 44 +69
Although there are no bar graphs in this article, Steve has done a tremendous amount of testing and evaluation since Ryzen's launch. He has investigated gaming performance (in many configurations with various GPUs), productivity performance, memory scaling... you name it. I suggest looking up his previous articles from this site and all of his videos on the 'Hardware Unboxed' channel. The suggestions above are the culmination of thousands of benchmarks Steve has personally performed since Ryzen launched, combined with knowledge about pricing, cores, longevity of sockets, typical real-world usage, etc. He's unbiased and naturally investigative. Plus, he understands the scientific method and lets the data create the conclusions (instead of the other way around). And the best part of his analysis is the way he breaks down what all of the numbers mean so that the information is tangible and can actually be applied to purchasing decisions. That's what you're seeing in this article.
Adhmuz
Posts: 2,346 +1,191
Still not terribly impressed with these chips for gaming, the platform as a whole is nothing special either. I don't see myself buying any of these Ryzen chips any time soon.
Evernessince
Posts: 5,469 +6,158
"Yes, the more affordable R7 1700 is our top pick here, at $320 it’s a total steal. That’s 8x less than the 6950X and 3x less than the 6900K."
Um.... let's do some math... 8x320 = $2560.... who's saying the 6950X costs that much?? $1650 is the real price... which is just over 5X the price of the 1700....
Otherwise, great article
While mentioned briefly, I think it does behoove people to remember that if they need 40 PCI lanes, Intel is still the only way to go... SLI and Crossfire may be rare, but there is still demand - and PCI SSDs are also becoming more prevalent...
2-way SLI / Crossfire isn't the problem, it's 3-Way or more. I dare say that AMD does already have a platform coming out with more PCIe Lanes just for people who need them.
Except for that professionals, you can get the same performance of a $1015 CPU for the price of $320 in the 1700. Saying Ryzen is nothing special is like saying the original FX chips were nothing special. They are a major uptick for not just AMD but the market as a whole.
Squid Surprise
Posts: 5,611 +5,241
Well, if you want the full X16 for each card, then 32 lanes is needed (I understand 8 is fine for a second card, but that might not stay the same for long) and if you want to add an SSD or 2, 24 isn`t enough.... I fully expect AMD to rectify this soon - but until they do, if you actually need the extra PCI lanes, Intel is your only option.
Sadly tho Amd doesnt have anything in the "meaty but low power" eg T or S.. and their GPUs are also less efficient. I will wait till they can squeeze out a r5 1600 @ 45w or less, pref on a good quality mobo (also lo -power). The rest I can handle .
Thier new r3 might topple the budget king too.
Thier new r3 might topple the budget king too.
F
Flebbert
Lets call it what it is...... a great WIN for AMD.
Just got a 1600x and where my previous 3770k struggled with a 2K show streaming, chrome with a heap of tabs open and playing games at the same time the 1600x does it without breaking a sweat.
I think this is perfect for majority of consumers and the small complaints seem to be the 1% who want to run 2 or 3 GPU's. I think this will be resolved by new revisions of motherboards that include a PLX chip to increase the lanes.
Just remember this has only just come out and everyone please give Ryzen and AM4 the same time as Sandy Bridge to mature.
Just got a 1600x and where my previous 3770k struggled with a 2K show streaming, chrome with a heap of tabs open and playing games at the same time the 1600x does it without breaking a sweat.
I think this is perfect for majority of consumers and the small complaints seem to be the 1% who want to run 2 or 3 GPU's. I think this will be resolved by new revisions of motherboards that include a PLX chip to increase the lanes.
Just remember this has only just come out and everyone please give Ryzen and AM4 the same time as Sandy Bridge to mature.
OcelotRex
Posts: 558 +302
F
Flebbert
Those statements are still correct, I was more meaning towards the high end enthusiast consumers wanting 3 way SLI etc.
It is a great win for AMDas it made the i5 pointless overnight and really the only Intel CPU I would buy is the 7700K as its single core IPC is still way ahead.
DSirius
Posts: 788 +1,613
A welcome article. Now we really have a choice for performance with decent money.
Until Ryzen you could not have performance without paying often too much than is worth it for Intel.
I should point that my pick for Best High-end CPU is Ryzen 1700X not Ryzen 1700.
That's because you have better chances to overclock Ryzen 1700X to 4.0 or 4.1 Ghz at 1.4V and with decent temperature than with Ryzen 1700. Also at stock frequency Ryzen 1700X is better than 1700. I didn't pick Ryzen 1800X because overclocked, both 1700X and 1800X have about the same performance for voltage and temperature.
So for best Higend CPU I am willing to pay 100$ more - 70$ more for 1700X (than 1700) +30$ for a nice cooler.
Until Ryzen you could not have performance without paying often too much than is worth it for Intel.
I should point that my pick for Best High-end CPU is Ryzen 1700X not Ryzen 1700.
That's because you have better chances to overclock Ryzen 1700X to 4.0 or 4.1 Ghz at 1.4V and with decent temperature than with Ryzen 1700. Also at stock frequency Ryzen 1700X is better than 1700. I didn't pick Ryzen 1800X because overclocked, both 1700X and 1800X have about the same performance for voltage and temperature.
So for best Higend CPU I am willing to pay 100$ more - 70$ more for 1700X (than 1700) +30$ for a nice cooler.
OcelotRex
Posts: 558 +302
Those statements conflict with each other. Also the i5 still has better IPC as Ryzen -
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11244...x-vs-core-i5-review-twelve-threads-vs-four/17
and
To me the lower platform cost argument goes out the window when you consider the integrated GPU on the i5. Ryzen necessitates a GPU somewhere in the $50-80 range to outperform Intel's offering. For those quick to retort that people who game will be buying a GPU anyways then Intel has the advantage.
If AMD irons everything out on AM4 I'd give the win to Ryzen 5 over Kaby Lake i5s. TODAY though as it stands it's too early to make that call.
F
Flebbert
So I guess would you buy the 1600x or the i5 7600K if you were building a PC today as they are basically the same money, the i5 has slightly higher IPC but only 4 core vs the 6 of the 1600X? The i5 has no hyper threading and the Ryzen has 12 threads...
Each persons opinion is there own but no way I could recommend an i5 CPU.
I do see your point with the integrated graphics of the Intel chips and have been a little sheltered as I don't see many used outside of the USFF desktops. Majority of fleet is dual and tri screen (work) which are dedicated cards. Actually that is handy for troubleshooting as well,.
Reehahs
Posts: 1,297 +970
Nvidia is focused on supporting two-way SLI in the future given the rarity of people using 2+ GPUs in SLI and the trouble of making it work.
It has been a decade since AMD made such a comeback and to be recommended in almost every CPU category.
OcelotRex
Posts: 558 +302
I guess you didn't click my link - Anandtech is still recommending the i5. It's not yet a slam dunk.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Visa challenges the legitimacy of stablecoins as a payment technology- WhiteLeaff replied
-
Apple's impossibly thin iPad Pro packs an M4 chip and tandem OLED technology- themastergoose replied
