[Pro3ootector]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad Pistol

One example where Ryzen is currently in the lead. The game also loves a CPU with lots of cores/threads... However, is there a reason the i7 7700k is not included in that graph? Being $330, the R7 1700 is a price competitor with the i7 7700k.

More games will begin to emerge with emphasis on multi-threading as time progresses.

Wiedzmin 3 means Witcher 3

 

[Mad Pistol]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pro3ootector



Wiedzmin 3 means Witcher 3

The problem with your examples is that they don't include the i7 7700k. The 7700k is the heavy hitter as far as gaming CPUs goes, at least for the moment. Only a few dollars separate the i7 7700k and the R7 1700.

Again, I am not disputing the excellent value that Ryzen represents... I am just approaching this from a different point of view.

 

[Ashura]

The words Purely gaming are being used a lot nowadays.

 

[ozlay]

I agree with the CPU's under $120 because its all that is really available at that price point. But to not include Ryzen in the mix is just wrong. When Ryzen 3 arrives it should shake up the $120 price points.

I wonder how many gamers are just using their system for "Purely gaming". A lot of gamers I know use there system to stream or do other back ground tasks while gaming. So a duel-core and even a quad-core 4c/4t chip just isn't enough.

 

[doritos93]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ashura

The words Purely gaming are being used a lot nowadays.

Yeah as if PC builders were putting together consoles

Tom's on a streak with these great articles, it's as if they actually like this monopoly Intel has. AMD does a great thing in providing excellent alternatives and you'd think reviewers like Tom's would sell that like a good thing.. nope........

 

[Beagle Box]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad Pistol

The problem with your examples is that they don't include the i7 7700k. The 7700k is the heavy hitter as far as gaming CPUs goes, at least for the moment. Only a few dollars separate the i7 7700k and the R7 1700.

Again, I am not disputing the excellent value that Ryzen represents... I am just approaching this from a different point of view.

Even including the i7-6700k in those tests would mean something. It generally out-performs the i5-7600k by a good bit and can be had for $270.

 

[SuperZan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad Pistol

The problem with your examples is that they don't include the i7 7700k. The 7700k is the heavy hitter as far as gaming CPUs goes, at least for the moment. Only a few dollars separate the i7 7700k and the R7 1700.

Again, I am not disputing the excellent value that Ryzen represents... I am just approaching this from a different point of view.

I get what you're saying about the 7700k, but I mean... the rest of Tom's list was just more Intel CPU's. Given that there is little to no observable difference in loads of games and even ones like Witcher 3 where the 1600x and 1500x are right there with their price competition, how does Tom's completely overlook the R5's?

The whole gaming thing is way overblown anyway. I'm on a 1440p 144hz display with a 1080 and I'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference in gaming between my 6700k (which I've now given to my brother) and the 1700x I'm using now. I mean, the reality is that AAA gamers are going to be pushing graphics. This 720p Titan X testing nonsense hasn't been the reliable bellwether it's been made out to be because there's always somewhere more to go with graphics. The 7700k makes sense, it's the fastest single-core performer out there and if you 'need' 600 FPS in CS:GO that's your only option. I can't justify the rest of the nonsense on that list.

 

[Arizonian]

/editorial moved out of news section.

 

[Mad Pistol]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperZan

I get what you're saying about the 7700k, but I mean... the rest of Tom's list was just more Intel CPU's. Given that there is little to no observable difference in loads of games and even ones like Witcher 3 where the 1600x and 1500x are right there with their price competition, how does Tom's completely overlook the R5's?

The whole gaming thing is way overblown anyway. I'm on a 1440p 144hz display with a 1080 and I'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference in gaming between my 6700k (which I've now given to my brother) and the 1700x I'm using now. I mean, the reality is that AAA gamers are going to be pushing graphics. This 720p Titan X testing nonsense hasn't been the reliable bellwether it's been made out to be because there's always somewhere more to go with graphics. The 7700k makes sense, it's the fastest single-core performer out there and if you 'need' 600 FPS in CS:GO that's your only option. I can't justify the rest of the nonsense on that list.

This is my question as well. There has to be some battery of tests that Tom's runs on their CPUs in order to reach the conclusion of Intel > AMD. Us, as enthusiasts, definitely are not the majority of consumers, but it is telling that it is virtually a unanimous concensus on this forum that Ryzen should be somewhere on the Tom's list. Intel just does not beat AMD that convincingly... not even close.

 

[Shau76434]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad Pistol

This is my question as well. There has to be some battery of tests that Tom's runs on their CPUs in order to reach the conclusion of Intel > AMD. Us, as enthusiasts, definitely are not the majority of consumers, but it is telling that it is virtually a unanimous concensus on this forum that Ryzen should be somewhere on the Tom's list. Intel just does not beat AMD that convincingly... not even close.

Must be those 480p benchmarks.

 

[kd5151]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beagle Box

Even including the i7-6700k in those tests would mean something. It generally out-performs the i5-7600k by a good bit and can be had for $270.

7700k's are on ebay all the time like today on neweggs store for $300. But Yes I'd still take 6700k over 7600k for a few more bucks! Especially with the heat issues kaby seems to be having. 6700k > kaby lake

 

[Shatun-Bear]

This is despicable from Tom's.

How much is Intel paying them, or what incentives are they being awarded for this crap? No seriously? This stuff is depressing and worrying.

 

[iLeakStuff]

Tomshardware have been a joke ever since they started with the oscilloscope measurements of power draw in GPUs just to have something to write about.

 

[BobiBolivia]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iLeakStuff

Tomshardware have been a joke ever since they started with the oscilloscope measurements of power draw in GPUs just to have something to write about.

Out of curiosity - did that metode bring them more precision to tests ? There is a thin line between useful measurements and wasting of time.

 

[iLeakStuff]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobiBolivia

Out of curiosity - did that metode bring them more precision to tests ? There is a thin line between useful measurements and wasting of time.

Well they sucessfully managed tto stir up discussions on the internet ever since they started with that nonsense.
For example they found out that the 980Ti draw over 420W max while sites like TechPowerUp measured 280W maximum. Of course that was a single spike they apparantly saw using the oscilloscope, and that was later used by fanboys as proof that 980Ti drew crazy amount of power.

So pretty much wasting time. Unless you are interested how the capacitors and other electronic components work together

 

[Smanci]

TBH most of their power/noise/temperature measurements are much better than TPU and other popular sites.

 

[Beagle Box]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kd5151

7700k's are on ebay all the time like today on neweggs store for $300. But Yes I'd still take 6700k over 7600k for a few more bucks! Especially with the heat issues kaby seems to be having. 6700k > kaby lake

Yeah, I run mine @ 5.0 / 4.7.

It routinely idles in the mid/upper 20s. On the same machine, a 7700 idled @ 34C and gave lower performance up to 5.0 GHz. I did benchmark that 7700 up to 5.2 GHz, but it ran crazy hot and I didn't want to bother delidding.

Then, the buyer for my 6700 balked, so I returned the 7700 and am I'm happily running the 6700. I'm pleased with the gaming, benchmarking and overall performance. But since it looks like Kaby is the end of 1151 socket, I'll probably bump back up to the 7700, just for that little extra...

 

[mmonnin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bucdan

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

Yup, I still don't read hardly anything from Toms due to this. The Intel handjobs probably go back to P4 days? Maybe before?

 

[magnek]

From the same author who brought us this gem.

 

[AlphaC]

G4560 is the only recommendation I agree with since nothing competes at $80-120.

I don't see how someone could recommend an i3 when the G4560 is cheaper and only loses a couple hundred MHz ... maybe 10% difference. Of course if your applications use extra instruction sets it's different.

Ryzen 5 1400 / Ryzen 5 1500X have lower IPC than Kabylake i3s and you need to get a GPU but the clocks are similar. I foresee the price of Ryzen 5 1400 dropping to mid-tier i3 levels within a quarter, it's starting to see discounts of ~$20 (so ~$140).

At $220 I think Ryzen 5 1600 is a solid recommendation unless what you run is super single threaded. 12 threads vs 4 threads.