Should I laugh at the list?

it seems in the world of tomshardware, games wont use more than 4 thread....

 

obvious shilling going on there.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clocknut

Should I laugh at the list?

it seems in the world of tomshardware, games wont use more than 4 thread....

well it's only Tom's

still if you're on a budget putting money saved from the CPU into a better graphics card is way better

having 8 cores 16 threads is going to do little if you're stuck on a 1050/RX460

now if you wouldn't have to buy a new board every time you want to upgrade an Intel CPU
for me on a budget that would be a reason to choose Ryzen even with only 4 cores 4 threads

at least I could upgrade to a better CPU later (even way later) as AMD supports/uses the same socket longer than a year or so

 

Holy interplanetary yardstick, Batman!... make your guess.
I'd say 50 thousand dollars. I don't think intel would pay more than that to Tom's.
That list is absolutely ridiculous. The 1600/1600X is not losing to a 7600K on gaming, and it demolishes it at everything else.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by renx

Holy interplanetary yardstick, Batman!... make your guess.
I'd say 50 thousand dollars. I don't think intel would pay more than that to Tom's.
That list is absolutely ridiculous. The 1600/1600X is not losing to a 7600K on gaming, and it demolishes it at everything else.

Lmao. The shilling going on here is amazing.

@Toms

 

Tom's has always been known to be a pro Intel website from wayyyyyyy back. Nothing new here.

 

6800k and 6900k is not on the list either. No love for moar cores! Tom's loves dual cores and quad cores from 2007!

 

Games probably will focus more on 8 core development now that consoles have them..

But, as far as TODAY, you guys have to keep that in mind.. most people don't have 8 core on the PC, so it's a good 2-3 year run on how many games will receive any such optimizations..

So, let's say you want to be future proof, you buy the 8 core ryzen today, yea it might be better for coming games 2-3 years from now.. But by that time, Ryzen 2 will be out, so what was the point in having a worse platform BEFORE those optimized games come out..

So, with TIME as a factor, today, the intel still represents a significantly better gaming platform for people to buy into..

Gaming performance is OK on the ryzen, but for the less multicore optimized games like CSGO, the Ryzen is no where close to the 7700k even with that 3600mhz ram thing.. hahaha.

Ryzen @ 4ghz is still significantly behind at ~300 fps in csgo , while 7700k @ 5ghz will give you ~550-600 fps.. That's a huge advantage ..

 

Tom's is a joke. Quickly looking through the article, there seems to be no mention of motherboard options for these CPUs.

Intel's budget mobo options are worse than AMD's. You can ether get a 7500 + B250 with no option to OC and get memory higher than 2400, or go with 1500x + B350 with the option to OC and higher memory clocks.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by scorch062

Tom's is a joke. Quickly looking through the article, there seems to be no mention of motherboard options for these CPUs.

Intel's budget mobo options are worse than AMD's. You can ether get a 7500 + B250 with no option to OC and get memory higher than 2400, or go with 1500x + B350 with the option to OC and higher memory clocks.

If you're are going to overclock? Why not just get the 1600? For $30 dollars more that's like getting a 4770 and 4170 for around $200 bucks!

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by kd5151

If you're are going to overclock? Why not just get the 1600? For $30 dollars more that's like getting a 4770 and 4170 for around $200 bucks!

That is the user's choice if they want to OC. Providing the option and the tools is what counts here!

I used the 1500x to compare with 7500 because they are priced identically where i live. Otherwise yeah, 1600 is a better long-term solution.
That said, getting something like 1400 now and upgrade to a higher core-count Rzyen+ later on seem like a good option as well. This upgradability is another thing the article is silent about

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tp4tissue

Games probably will focus more on 8 core development now that consoles have them..

So, with TIME as a factor, today, the intel still represents a significantly better gaming platform for people to buy into..

Gaming performance is OK on the ryzen, but for the less multicore optimized games like CSGO, the Ryzen is no where close to the 7700k even with that 3600mhz ram thing.. hahaha.

Ryzen @ 4ghz is still significantly behind at ~300 fps in csgo , while 7700k @ 5ghz will give you ~550-600 fps.. That's a huge advantage ..

500-600fps on the fastest of 1080p monitors that have a 240hz refresh rate??

 

They forgot to publish this article 6 months ago

 

Toms should always go in rumors. No better than WC

 

Even though Tom's have one of the best GPU power, temperature, noise etc. measurements, I do get the slight hate towards them. These lists are LTT class.

 

Quote:

The quad-core Core i5-7500 is another easy recommendation, since it replaces the Core i5-6500 at a similar price point.

It's quite the opposite. And why choose that $199.99 price point to begin with when it's so close to the next one ($239.99)? In fact it's at less than half the distance compared to the CPU that precedes it ($115.9). Why not choose a lower price point? If the argument is that the $10 cheaper 1500X needs overclocking and needs a "beefier heatsink", why not actually back it up in the 1500X review they did? Because they didn't. The 65w TDP 1500X comes with a 95W Wraith Spire cooler, but they didn't bother to test anything, let alone overclocking, with it. They went straight ahead and made some general considerations about it (see below) and moved on to test it with third party cooling solutions.
Quote:

At stock clock rates or under conservative overclocks, it should be ample. Expect more aggressive tuning to require a higher-end third-party cooler, though.

They also add a second requisite in the CPU list in the OP:
Quote:

but budgeting in a beefier heatsink and 3200 MT/s-capable memory blurs the value proposition

But in their review they couldn't get more than 2933 Mhz out of their sample, so how do they make a 'fake' recommendation based on performance they don't have for a more expensive memory kit that didn't work with their CPU instead of just going for the cheaper 2933 Mhz? Because that would void that part of the argument too?

In the end, why not choose the Ryzen 5 1400 that changes the value preposition by being even cheaper and arguably a much better buy than the preceding CPU on that list, a 2C/4T locked i3?

Also, if this is supposed to be a gaming CPU list, is the i3-7100, with the same 2C/4T core configuration, the same 3 MB of L3 cache (only the 7300 and up have 4 MB) and locked multiplier really worth $38.8 extra for 400 Mhz more speed over the Pentium G4560, when it's going to be bottlenecking any modern game that needs four real cores and potentially even 8 threads?

This list is, well, I have to say it, bullcrap. The i3-7100 is terrible value; in my opinion the whole i3 line-up is terrible value and so is the i5-7500, because they are accounting for the here and now instead of giving advice for the near future. A recommendation for a buy has to bear in mind the lifespan of the CPU and 4C/4T CPUs for $200 are on their way out and fast as more games start to take advantage of 8 threads. At least the i5-7600K can be overclocked to compensate and extend its lifespan, but recommending the slower and locked i5-7500 for $199.99 is as shaky as it gets.

I would remove the i3-7100 from the list, along with the i5-7500, and replace both in the middle, between the Pentium G4560 and the i5-7600K, with the Ryzen 5 1400.

Edit: Oh, and I'd put the Ryzen 5 1600 and 1600X alongside the i5-7600K. The 7600K earns its recommendation in part because it can overclock and that requires a more expensive platform, whereas even the overclock enabled AMD B350 boards have to be able to supply the CPU with at least 128w. Considering how strong the 1600 and 1600X are for the money, it's impossible to overlook them.

 

I think recomending a dual core CPU at any price point these days is downright wrong.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmericanLoco

I think recomending a dual core CPU at any price point these days is downright wrong.

what else is there under 100 or for a few $ more?

Its about the current performance, number of cores doesn't directly translate to more performance in gaming, i thought people knw that...
Intel outperforms in most pc games, these particular ones that are more popular (not AAA crap) prefer fast cores.

unless if you guys want those triple A games (some even have poor multi thread efficiency but most are ok) or rendering, yea ryzen might be a good choice.

 

When the shilling is this obvious you're doing it wrong.

 

Damn it! I hate my stupid Ryzen chip now. Pure garbage. Should have waited for Tom's list!

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by DADDYDC650

Damn it! I hate my stupid Ryzen chip now. Pure garbage. Should have waited for Tom's list!

Hey, at least you have Joker's benchmarks!

 

Ummmmmm... Tom's, you smokin something?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by ToTheSun!

Hey, at least you have Joker's benchmarks!

Heh.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmericanLoco

I think recomending a dual core CPU at any price point these days is downright wrong.

Dual-Cores in 2017 should NOT exist.

 

DAMN IT!

I just bought a 1700 too.

I guess I'm just going to have to throw it in the trash now, because it's obviously completely useless since it didn't make Tom's best CPUs of May 2017 list.