Joined
·
2,725 Posts
I'm going to echo the choir here...
The Core i5 2500K comes to mind as the most obvious over the last 15 to 20 years. It wasn't the first quad core CPU, but the earlier ones were usually more expensive (discounting the Core 2 Quad Q6600's emergency drops), not as fast, and/or released in a time way ahead of needing that many cores/threads. I think the Core i5 2500K came around at about the right time, and was faster than the prior ones to the point to where it aged so much better. Unfortunately, this was mostly also because it was after this that Intel became too stingy to add extra cores, and IPC only crept up slowly, to where even today I only consider Intel's latest offering a mere, what is it, two or only three "real" generations newer, despite being called 10th generation? What makes a CPU so good is hardly ever just it's raw capability (the best few were often never the best even at their time, and that also applies here) but the circumstances that surround it. Largely, price and longevity (or how much you get out of it compared to what it's intended as, but that's less present these days with everything being released so close to its limits) in my opinion. While I'd obviously avoid 4 core CPUs (even Hyper-threaded ones) for anyone looking at their CPU situation today, and I think the release of the upcoming consoles and their games will be what really speeds up finalizing their obsolescence, for anyone who may still have one, even today Sandy Bridge holds on (though showing age in a few highly threaded titles). Nearly a decade of real usability would have been unheard of even a decade ago, let alone two where you'd get two or three years out of a CPU.
The Core i7 2600K too, much for the same reasons. If you got use of the extra threads to where the Core i5 2500K would have struggled, it was the better option, but since value is a big part of what goes into determining this for me, I think the Core i5 2500K was better. The Core i7 2600K was more of it's "extended offering if you need more threads" option, so by extension, it would of course be included.
I'm not sure I'd call anything afterwards on Intel's side as good, but I admit I stopped paying much attention after Ivy Bridge and Haswell or so. I don't think the Core 2 Quads aged as well, same for the initial Core i7/i5s, but a few of them were standouts too (Core 2 Quad Q6600, Core 2 Duo E8400, and perhaps Core i7 920 come to mind, though I'm hesitant to list the latter as buying into DDR3 at the time, especially more modules for triple channel, wasn't exactly "value" oriented).
I think the current crop of Ryzens might have a few that have a chance at being remarkable going forward, too. Time will tell.
I can't remember much of AMD during the Athlon 64/X2 era, though I had one for a short time, and I do recall many of them were fantastic values for the time.
The Core i5 2500K comes to mind as the most obvious over the last 15 to 20 years. It wasn't the first quad core CPU, but the earlier ones were usually more expensive (discounting the Core 2 Quad Q6600's emergency drops), not as fast, and/or released in a time way ahead of needing that many cores/threads. I think the Core i5 2500K came around at about the right time, and was faster than the prior ones to the point to where it aged so much better. Unfortunately, this was mostly also because it was after this that Intel became too stingy to add extra cores, and IPC only crept up slowly, to where even today I only consider Intel's latest offering a mere, what is it, two or only three "real" generations newer, despite being called 10th generation? What makes a CPU so good is hardly ever just it's raw capability (the best few were often never the best even at their time, and that also applies here) but the circumstances that surround it. Largely, price and longevity (or how much you get out of it compared to what it's intended as, but that's less present these days with everything being released so close to its limits) in my opinion. While I'd obviously avoid 4 core CPUs (even Hyper-threaded ones) for anyone looking at their CPU situation today, and I think the release of the upcoming consoles and their games will be what really speeds up finalizing their obsolescence, for anyone who may still have one, even today Sandy Bridge holds on (though showing age in a few highly threaded titles). Nearly a decade of real usability would have been unheard of even a decade ago, let alone two where you'd get two or three years out of a CPU.
The Core i7 2600K too, much for the same reasons. If you got use of the extra threads to where the Core i5 2500K would have struggled, it was the better option, but since value is a big part of what goes into determining this for me, I think the Core i5 2500K was better. The Core i7 2600K was more of it's "extended offering if you need more threads" option, so by extension, it would of course be included.
I'm not sure I'd call anything afterwards on Intel's side as good, but I admit I stopped paying much attention after Ivy Bridge and Haswell or so. I don't think the Core 2 Quads aged as well, same for the initial Core i7/i5s, but a few of them were standouts too (Core 2 Quad Q6600, Core 2 Duo E8400, and perhaps Core i7 920 come to mind, though I'm hesitant to list the latter as buying into DDR3 at the time, especially more modules for triple channel, wasn't exactly "value" oriented).
I think the current crop of Ryzens might have a few that have a chance at being remarkable going forward, too. Time will tell.
I can't remember much of AMD during the Athlon 64/X2 era, though I had one for a short time, and I do recall many of them were fantastic values for the time.
