The Best CPUs: This is what you should get

You do realize that Godzilla is the coolest monster ever right? .

I know right? I hope he kicks Kong's *** in 2020, movie is going to be sick!
Ohh and did you just get back from a vacation around the earth?
I've since changed my tune and commented for Ryzen in many threads/posts since, ease off the pedal brotha.
 
Where is analysis? Recommendations are based on number of cores and price and not performance?? AM4 best platform? Number of PCI lanes alone disqualifies this as serious platform...

Not sure I understand why you have a problem with PCI lanes. I am running an m.2 ssd and two 1080ti's on an x370 board.. oh your probably misquoting the article or don't understand that they recommended the budget board. Now if you want something valid to discount the value of Ryzen, I would point at the memory issues. Unfortunately it is well documented how to pick the right chips to avoid problems.
 
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.

I am running two GPU's mostly without issue even tho the Cross hair 6 is quite a challenge.
 
I also agree, Ryzen would do fine for people who do video editing/streaming. For gaming Intel is best. I have i5 7500 that I expect to replace with a Hex core Coffee Lake in 2018/19 (hopefully there will be a Hex intel for LGA1151 chipset).

You cannot say Intel is best for gaming when opinion is purely based on benchmarks with no internet connection and no background tasks. Many agree that 8-core Ryzen runs games more smoothly than 4-core Intel. Also on many games 7700K is already around 100% CPU utilization while 8-core Ryzen has about half of that. Ryzen is clearly better choice for tomorrow. To be honest, at current prices every i5/i7 is only for Intel fans.

There won't be hex for Intel LGA1151 CPU socket. At least if we believe Intel's official statements.


"Background tasks"?
Antivirus and some voice application use next to nothing, a browser -even with a 100 open tabs- doesnt use any CPU time neither as long as it isnt actively loading anything (which it wont, when you are in a game), it just uses a lot of RAM.

An i5-7500 with a H110 mainboard is about 250€ and beats anything AMD has to offer at this price point by a far margin.
Even an R5 1600 with a B350 mainbaord (which is already the best p/p AMD has to offer at 310€) is still slower in many games when not overclocked.

Ryzen is a nice CPU overall but when strictly looking at games an i5 is still the best you can get from a p/p point of view, because most games just cannot make use of more than 4 cores and prefer IPC/clockspeeds... this might change in the future - but it might aswell not change, considering the i5 has been THE gaming CPU for nearly a decade now and game-studios/programmers know that 90% of their customers have such a CPU.

I think AMD is targeting productivity primarily with these chips and regarding that Intel is not competing as the 6900 is too expensive. The fact is Intel have been sitting on their Laurels for the past 6-7 years and the market has needed a competitor to get Intel off their butts. If the video card in my Sandy Bridge laptop had not been so out of date I would from a productivity stand point not needed an upgrade(except for Gaming) this past year on my laptop. I should also say I love Intel I7 chips tho my desktop is running a LGA 1366 xeon X5675. I am also running a Ryzen 1800x on my new system though both AMD and Intel have places in the Eco system Ryzen Mobo's definitely need to mature. Mine still black screens and reboots with little provocation however I still love it and could never afford the Intel equivalent.
 
"Bottom line, how can you not love a 6-core/12-thread CPU that can be overclocked to 4 GHz using the stock cooler for under $250."

I would really love for my next build to use an R5 1600 but atm I would almost be forced to go with an intel setup as I am fixed on the mini-itx format for which at the moment there are no good am4 boards. In particular id want something to challenge the Asus strix z270 mini-itx board.

They are coming.. I think Bitwit was building on one.
 
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.
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
Before the debate about cores from AMD’s past rears its head (Vishera/Bulldozer designs in that case), given that AMD’s single thread performance is not too far behind, having a big set of cores as an alternative is something interesting for end-users, especially as more work flows and gaming titles rely on multithreading to scale. As a result, where Intel offer four cores and four threads, AMD is now offering six cores and twelve threads – a potential +200% uptick in the number of threads and +50% in cores, albeit at 10-15% lower instructions per clock.
and
Platform wise, the Intel side can offer more features on Z270 over AM4, however AMD would point to the lower platform cost of B350 that could be invested elsewhere in a system.

On performance, for anyone wanting to do intense CPU work, the Ryzen gets a nod here. Twelve threads are hard to miss at this price point. For more punchy work, you need a high frequency i5 to take advantage of the IPC differences that Intel has.
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.

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,.

It may be worth waiting a little while as all the AM4 lower end motherboards seem to have the ports for an integrated GPU.
 
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.
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
Before the debate about cores from AMD’s past rears its head (Vishera/Bulldozer designs in that case), given that AMD’s single thread performance is not too far behind, having a big set of cores as an alternative is something interesting for end-users, especially as more work flows and gaming titles rely on multithreading to scale. As a result, where Intel offer four cores and four threads, AMD is now offering six cores and twelve threads – a potential +200% uptick in the number of threads and +50% in cores, albeit at 10-15% lower instructions per clock.
and
Platform wise, the Intel side can offer more features on Z270 over AM4, however AMD would point to the lower platform cost of B350 that could be invested elsewhere in a system.

On performance, for anyone wanting to do intense CPU work, the Ryzen gets a nod here. Twelve threads are hard to miss at this price point. For more punchy work, you need a high frequency i5 to take advantage of the IPC differences that Intel has.
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.

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,.

It may be worth waiting a little while as all the AM4 lower end motherboards seem to have the ports for an integrated GPU.

I should also note that as I understand it 3 Way or greater SLI is pretty much Dead. I run 4 way XfireX on Intel and 2 way SLI on Ryzen, and according to my superposition Benchmarks I will be able to run 8K on my Ryzen for quite some time and 4K on my Intel for the next few years.
 
I chat with mates who are anti AMD such as yourself all the time and AMD could be 20% better IPC and then the argument would change to I don't want to use the extra 20W to power it and I hate all that heat.

The reality is that $330 (AUD) is a bad price for a 4 core CPU in 2017 and everyday life on a PC is highly threaded and be even more so in the next few years. Even if people don't realize it computers are considered an always on or instant on device expected to do lots of things at once.

You can buy your Intel and me AMD and you know what I am perfectly ok with that.
You should start by not making assumptions - I am not anti-AMD. What I am against is making the recommendation to anyone at this moment in time that one is better than the other. If you are that person where multi-threaded workloads are your bread and butter the Ryzen offerings are a no brainer. For those of us whose only "heavy task" consists of games (the majority of which are DX11 titles) then the Intel is the correct choice today.

I would have liked the article to include a disclaimer to wait if you are building a new computer today. Of the 10 or so reviews I've seen most report that the AM4 platform is still exhibiting some growing pains though they appear confident that in time most issues will be resolved. When they are resolved, Ryzen meets mainstream adoption, and software developers begin to utilize Ryzen's strengths in their offerings then it will be "no-brainer" over the i5.

Until then it's a tradeoff.


I love Ryzen but I have to agree here, many users would be very discouraged with some of the issues still outstanding with the Ryzen platform, I am waiting for fixes for the Cross Hair Mobo, which is still quite unstable.
 
Where is analysis? Recommendations are based on number of cores and price and not performance?? AM4 best platform? Number of PCI lanes alone disqualifies this as serious platform...

AMD's solutuin offers (selectively) 4 PCI Express lanes and 4 SATA 3.0 ports connected directly to CPU. So you can use full speed M.2 drive without consuming any bandwidth between chipset and CPU. With Intel's LGA115x platform, that CPU-chipset bandwidth is fully consumed with one full speed M.2 drive.

So while AMD offers "less" PCI Express lanes, AMD's x370 platform is still much better than any Intel's LGA115x one.
 
It's also ironic, given that this was the complaint about AMD fanboys in the past, since the AMD FX chips were technically "faster" than Intel's comparable chips -- the FX-8350, for example, is "faster" (4.0GHz core/4.2GHz max Turbo, without overclocking) than the comparable Ivy Bridge i5-3570K (3.4GHz core/3.8GHz max Turbo, without overclocking) or i7-3770K (3.5GHz core/3.9GHz max Turbo, without overclocking)...but we all know that when it came to performance (especially in games), it's only been in the past year that those FX chips caught up to the Intel counterparts.

What's this nonsense about the FX-8350 being faster than an i7-3770K? You fall on your head or something? These are overall representative results showing it behind, here too you see it behind and even the i5-3570K, even productivity shows it lag behind the 3770K...
 
What's this nonsense about the FX-8350 being faster than an i7-3770K? You fall on your head or something? These are overall representative results showing it behind, here too you see it behind and even the i5-3570K, even productivity shows it lag behind the 3770K...

It's also ironic, given that this was the complaint about AMD fanboys in the past, since the AMD FX chips were technically "faster" than Intel's comparable chips -- the FX-8350, for example, is "faster" (4.0GHz core/4.2GHz max Turbo, without overclocking) than the comparable Ivy Bridge i5-3570K (3.4GHz core/3.8GHz max Turbo, without overclocking) or i7-3770K (3.5GHz core/3.9GHz max Turbo, without overclocking)...but we all know that when it came to performance (especially in games), it's only been in the past year that those FX chips caught up to the Intel counterparts.
 
The part of this that fascinates me, is everyone assuming that "Intel is dead". What I've seen over the last decade, is better described as a game of "leapfrog". Going back to the Prescott Pentium P-4, was another era of bragging and bluster from the AMD camp. "Intel will never surpass these Athlons", was spoken with great conviction. Net burst architecture is garbage, blah, blah, blah.

Then, Intel dropped the "Core2Duo series, and the AMD ship rats went scurrying down the "SS AMD's" mooring cables. Which netted glorious peace and quiet to Intel fans, for nigh on 8 years.

In that time period, AMD floundered, and was even forced to move out of Silicon Valley, as from the pictures of their campus, it appeared they couldn't no longer afford groundskeepers. :sad:

And here we are in 2017, with the mob chanting "Rizen", with the same level of zeal, as the crowd in Jerusalem shouted, "give us Barabbas"!

Guess what, the game's not over yet. While perhaps it might turn out that Intel is so bloated, arrogant, and complacent, that Rizen may ring as its death knell, and this could easily come to pass. But on the other hand....

While it appears that Intel's clock has stopped "tick-tocking", that's because they haven't marketed anything with a 10nm process. To know the real reason that's so, I would probably have to be guilty of industrial espionage. But I strongly suspect, it's a lot more difficult hurdle, than anyone in the industry has suspected it would be.

With that said, product releases are very similar to a game of poker, and AMD has shown its hand. That gives Intel the opportunity to see how Ryzen does, but more importantly, it gives them the opportunity to work Rizen's most popular features, into one truly bad-a** line of 10nm processors.

As the article states, not matter what the base clock, Rizen, similar series numbered CPUs, all overclock to about the same frequency. And while it seems the AMD camp is going to forgive them for that limitation, Intel fanciers seem much less flexible and/or forgiving.

Accordingly, witness the furor created by Intel telling users, "don't overclock i7-7700K if you're having heat issues! https://www.techspot.com/community/...-tells-owners-they-shouldnt-overclock.235062/

OK, who didn't see something like this coming, raise your hands? The truth of the matter is (IMO), that all the speed that can be milked out of 14nm CPUs has been done already. These CPUs have been "binned to death", and that has closed the gap between rated speed and overclock speed.

So, get your "Jiffy-Pop" ready and get comfy, 'cause I'm hoping we're all going to see one hell of a show in the next couple of years!
 
Back