With readers constantly inquiring about which CPU they should buy, and after all the extensive testing you're familiar with, the TechSpot CPU buying guide narrows things down to a handful of recommendations you can trust.
With readers constantly inquiring about which CPU they should buy, and after all the extensive testing you're familiar with, the TechSpot CPU buying guide narrows things down to a handful of recommendations you can trust.
I have one and at the time of purchase was the best option for me (found it on discount, 11th gen Intel was still kinda of expensive)Seems to me like you somehow find a way to dodge what the *vast majority* of people should get as the best and most well rounded, the 5600x.
It's just makes very little sense to me.
Seems to me like you somehow find a way to dodge what the *vast majority* of people should get as the best and most well rounded, the 5600x.
It's just makes very little sense to me.
I picked up a new i5-10400F in a sale for £107 (down from £129). At the same time the 5600X was "normally" £260 peaking at £330. It may be "well rounded" but the 5600X has been very poor value ever since AMD stuffed their 5000 prices up (and even ignoring Intel, for comparison it wasn't that long ago that the previous 6C/12T AMD CPU's were £99 for 1600AF / 2600 and £129 for the 3600...) It certainly made little sense to me to pay triple the money for virtually no difference at 1440p (link).Seems to me like you somehow find a way to dodge what the *vast majority* of people should get as the best and most well rounded, the 5600x. It's just makes very little sense to me.
The 5950x is not listed for its value, but for top performance. The value spot went to the 12700k.5900X offers way better value for a productivity CPU than 5950X. The performance difference between them doesn't justify the price difference.
It is cheaper, but it's not "very close" in performance. If you only care about gaming and saving money then it could be "close enough" in performance but if you ever need to do something else even passingly, there's a significant performance advantage.I have one and at the time of purchase was the best option for me (found it on discount, 11th gen Intel was still kinda of expensive)
With current pricing though, 11400f seems a way better option, unless you already have an AM4 motherboard that supports 5XXX
11400f is 80% cheaper. and very close in performance.
Lmao, the 3000 series was on TSMC 7NM, the same process as the 5000 series, the 3600 frequently sold for $150. The reason AMDs prices are high is because AND have ambitions of being the premium choice, they want to be the company that sells the most expensive CPUs. The board and shareholders are quite obviously pushing for the average unit price to be raised. It’s classic corporate shenanigans. It might work too.If you want to talk 11400 (The actual non f version) vs 5600G then that would be a much fair comparison to make but the fact is that due to TSMC constrains AMD simply has no low end products, at all.
This isnt ryzen 1800 VS 6700k. The difference in production tasks for the 5600x and the 11400f are not that far apart, adn teh 12 series is passing the 5000 series. The 11400f does plenty well in productivity, again this isnt skylake. It's about 20% slower then the 5600x while costing 35% less. Perf/$ intel actually wind the argument.It is cheaper, but it's not "very close" in performance. If you only care about gaming and saving money then it could be "close enough" in performance but if you ever need to do something else even passingly, there's a significant performance advantage.
See I actually said "well rounded" for a reason and that's because the 5600x is not AMD's cheapest entry, that'd be the 5600g which cuts down the performance a bit because of the reduced L3 cache but it is also cheaper.
If you want to talk 11400 (The actual non f version) vs 5600G then that would be a much fair comparison to make but the fact is that due to TSMC constrains AMD simply has no low end products, at all.
Yet my point is that this kind of articles in the past almost always include a "most well rounded" option and now it's gone because no: the 11400f is not "well rounded" it performs ok for it's price but it's decisively slower specially for productivity. It's a low end product and priced as such and that's ok, it literally has no competition right now (The expense of the new platform with scarce motherboards and only high end options take the 12400 out of the equation for right now) but it's not suddenly "very close" to the mid range tier.
Wow, I didn't think that there are still 10100s available (they are 2 gen back). It is like we are reaching back 2400G (or max 3400G, 3100 or 3300X) from AMD side. These are probably remaining stocks, from old deliveries, which people didn't want to buy because at the time of their introduction, there were better options.
Today, it is an absolutely cracking deal, not a shread of doubt about it.
Still, it is not fair to compare an 10100 to a 5600G: they are not even in the same ballpark (neither CPU, nor integrated GPU wise). So, let's jst stick to the facts: the 10100 from 2 generations ago is a great deal at the moment (while remaining stocks last), and AMD has no offering in that segment (which is a pity), shall we?
That's a bulldozer part. You may as well suggest somebody buy a pentium IV for a CPU. Even intel's dual core pentiums with AVX run circles around that part. No exaggeration, the (MUCH) faster FX-8350 when tested by gamers nexus could only maintain 20-30 FPS average in most games, this A series has half the CPU hardware. The pentium G6400, OTOH, maintains upper 50s average, and can be put in the same motherboard as a 11900k (alderlake pentiums will be coming).AMD isn't out of the game for lower cost products, they're just harder to find and acquire, this one at the shown price is definitely a budget price, comes with a fan and uses the future proof socket, AM4 for easy/cheap upgrades.
That's a bulldozer part. You may as well suggest somebody buy a pentium IV for a CPU. Even intel's dual core pentiums with AVX run circles around that part. No exaggeration, the (MUCH) faster FX-8350 when tested by gamers nexus could only maintain 20-30 FPS average in most games, this A series has half the CPU hardware. The pentium G6400, OTOH, maintains upper 50s average, and can be put in the same motherboard as a 11900k (alderlake pentiums will be coming).
So no, if you're shopping in this range, get a pentium. Hell, get a celeron, even those will beat the snot out of the A6. The construction cores were the most pathertic attempt at computer hardware in AMD's history.
Oh, one other thing, you cannot use that A6 in any 500 series motherboards. Even most 400 motherboards ship with newer BIOSes that remove support for bulldozer chips to make room for 3000 series AGESA code.
Just....dont.
sir have you heard of the 12600k?It is cheaper, but it's not "very close" in performance. If you only care about gaming and saving money then it could be "close enough" in performance but if you ever need to do something else even passingly, there's a significant performance advantage.
See I actually said "well rounded" for a reason and that's because the 5600x is not AMD's cheapest entry, that'd be the 5600g which cuts down the performance a bit because of the reduced L3 cache but it is also cheaper.
If you want to talk 11400 (The actual non f version) vs 5600G then that would be a much fair comparison to make but the fact is that due to TSMC constrains AMD simply has no low end products, at all.
Yet my point is that this kind of articles in the past almost always include a "most well rounded" option and now it's gone because no: the 11400f is not "well rounded" it performs ok for it's price but it's decisively slower specially for productivity. It's a low end product and priced as such and that's ok, it literally has no competition right now (The expense of the new platform with scarce motherboards and only high end options take the 12400 out of the equation for right now) but it's not suddenly "very close" to the mid range tier.
sir have you heard of the 12600k? Same price significantly better then the 5600x.Seems to me like you somehow find a way to dodge what the *vast majority* of people should get as the best and most well rounded, the 5600x.
It's just makes very little sense to me.
AMD isn't out of the game for lower cost products, they're just harder to find and acquire, this one at the shown price is definitely a budget price, comes with a fan and uses the future proof socket, AM4 for easy/cheap upgrades.
It's weird they included 11700k when you can pick superior 12600k or 5800x for similar money or 10700k significantly cheaper.
From my perspective best CPU's are 11400 (agreed here), 5600x, 5800x, 5900x, 12th gen and 10900k/10850k
Yeah the point is 10th gen was broadly awesome, especially high end, 11th gen was total garbage on the high end, but great on the low end and 12th gen is amazing, but comes with newer architecture issues like some games won't work, windows 11 kinda required, etcIt's a confusing lineup. The chip to buy is the 12700
If that's too high get a 12600
Need more Low Cost << get a 12100 or a 12150
Need more poware! Get a 12400
Shop across gens for lower prices, but should focus on getting the newest generation possible. If shooting for AMD - slide a replacement to where intel sits, let intel work for you.