Modern day CPU reviews and what is wrong with them.

[humbug]

That logic makes little sense given it raised in light of the election.

The pound is hurting because of brexit and the uncertainty, given we are walking into a massive conservative majority with theresa hardcore brexit may, it's probably going to get worse.

Maybe, i don't want to turn this into a politics thread but my theory is actually the reason the £ has gone up a little recently, from $1:24 to $1:30.

The business world likes stability, predictability.... Winning the Election gives May a stronger negotiating position in the EU with the Brexit thing, especially if she wins by a landslide, which its predicted she will, a stronger negotiating position = a better deal for the UK, the markets like that, they like the election happening and they will like the outcome.

I'll say no more about it

 

[humbug]

PC gamer is also useless.

The best gaming processor: Intel Core i5-7600K
The best high-end gaming processor: Intel Core i7-6850K
The best budget gaming processor: Intel Core i3-7100.
The best multi-core processor: AMD Ryzen 7 1700

What they say about the 1700 is laughable :



The reasons they give for not choosing the 1700 also apply to the 6850K

http://www.pcgamer.com/best-cpu-deals-today-uk/

Another one...

Core i3 for a gaming CPU? good grief the tech review world really has sunk to the most deprived parts of the gutter.
Yeah i feel sorry for anyone who spends their hard earned cash on recommendations like that.

The only saving grace is that the comments section, just like in Toms Hardware's bizarre nonsensical "Best CPU" crap' is a sea of bamboozled readers screaming "have you lost your minds?"
Intel's marketing guys must have paper burns by now writing all those cheques.....

Unbelievable.

 

[humbug]

At last.... someone recommending Ryzen CPU's, and its Tech Report. http://techreport.com/review/31846/the-tech-report-system-guide-may-2017-edition/2

All Rounder: Ryzen 1600X

It should be of little surprise that the topic of the day in the CPU arena is AMD's Ryzen 5 lineup. Our benchmarking revealed that the Ryzen 5 1600X is a great all-around performer at its price point. This six-core, 12-thread chip challenges Intel's Core i5-7600K in gaming smoothness, and its copious threads are great for the times where you may need to do some serious work. Sure, there's just no catching the mighty Core i7-7700K when it comes to gaming prowess, but AMD has produced solid competitors for nearly every other price point.

Budget: Pentium G4560

In this price range, we think Intel's Pentium G4560 is a great buy. Its healthy 3.5GHz clock speed should be brisk enough for most, and its Hyper-Threading support can boost performance in multithreaded tasks. It'll also appear as a quad-core CPU to games that require one. This Pentium is a good choice for non-gamers, too, since it has basic integrated graphics. For $64, it's hard to find anything to complain about with this chip.

Sweet Spot: Ryzen 1500X

At last. Intel's CPUs dominated the Sweet Spot chart for longer than I care to remember, but that ends today. The Ryzen 5 1500X and 1600X are a nice one-two-punch combo, seeing as they offer solid performance for prices very similar to their direct competitors from Intel.

Compared to the Core i5-7500, the Ryzen 5 1500X has SMT support, so it boasts eight logical threads from its four cores. It also offers unlocked multipliers for those who'd like to overclock, and it comes with a nice cooler that's up to the task of some tweaking. The Core i5-7500 may offer a bit more performance in some tasks, but it's also a bit more expensive. We'd be OK building with either of these CPUs at their price points.

High End: Ryzen 7

Thanks to their copious core counts and aggressive prices, AMD's Ryzen 7 CPUs have taken over our higher-end CPU suggestions. Even if these chips' prices overlap a bit with our Sweet Spot parts this time around, don't take that as a sign of equivalence. As we've been saying, "high end" in this context means "multithreaded power," not "gaming champion." If you're not sure whether your workload requires eight cores and 16 threads, we'd suggest taking a look at the in-depth tests in our Ryzen review and picking the chip that best fits your needs. For gaming alone, that chip might be a Kaby Lake quad-core, not a Ryzen 7 eight-core part.

 

[humbug]

Not sure what you mean, most people on these forums at least seem to to think that these 720p low quality tests are a joke. Benchmarking at low resolutions with low details may "help judge CPU performance" but there are plenty of other benchmarks that do that. People are interesting in gaming benchmarks to see how the CPU performs in those games, at settings they are likely to use either now or in the future.

In which case there is no or very little difference between these CPU's, all these reviews, Toms Hardware, Tech Power Up ecte.... have the Ryzen CPU performing almost the same as the Intel CPU, aside from a couple of games where the game needs to understand Ryzen better, like Tomb Raider, even when you add all of the Avr FPS together the overall difference is still only 10%.

So I added Toms Hardware Ryzen review FPS together to come up with an overall score....

The scores are 1075 to the 7600K and 979 to the 1600X, If the 1600X is at 100% the 7600K is at 111%, so 11% to the 7600K.
Now because the 7600K is actually a little more expensive than the 1600X 'and the Ryzen 1600 is a lot cheaper while being the same CPU' Toms used the same priced i5 7500 as the "best CPU" in that category instead.

So adding up all the 7500 scores it comes to 929 points, now compare THAT to the 1600X which scored 979, yup the 1600X is 5% faster than the 7500, but because the 1600X is $30 more expensive the 7500 won "the best CPU"
Had it been up against the 7600K it would have lost as that is more expensive, had the i5 7500 been up against the 1600 (none X) the 7500 would have lost because the 1600 is the same price and faster, this is why Toms Hardware use these odd ball locked Intel CPU's and made a whole lot of "games only- no overclocking" disclaimers, because they are just cheap enough to make sense against the Ryzen chips, if you ignore overclocking and everything outside gaming.
Its an obvious stitch-up.

Besides all of that the games which they used at the res and settings that they used there is actually no performance difference between them, take out Tomb Raider and there is literally nothing in it.

This is why when you test for CPU gaming performance you make the CPU work for it, if all the work is on the GPU then you would not see any difference in performance.
Aside from Tomb Raider there is no performance difference between these CPU's in Toms benchmarks.

If you make the CPU work for it, this happens.......

Why does that even matter ^^^^ ? because pepole upgrade thier GPU more than the CPU, GPU's get faster... so to keep up with future GPU performance CPU need to be faster.

Funny how the tables turn, on how to review CPU's the pro Intel argument is now what the pro AMD argument used to be!

Right now AMD are making better gaming CPU's than Intel, not just that, AMD are making better CPU's than Intel full stop.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-ryzen-5-1500x-cpu,review-33880.html
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/intel-core-i3-7350k,review-33797-2.html

 

[humbug]

AdoredTV takes a look at whether Tom's Hardware is biased towards Intel or not. Quite an interesting watch.

Anyone doubting the arguments as to why Toms Hardware made the wrong conclusions needs to watch that ^^^^

Toms own Data contradicts them.

 

[humbug]

Exactly, the same people said the 2500K, even the i3 was better for gaming than the FX-8350 because when the CPU is the bottleneck the i3 and i5 were faster.

Now that the Ryzen 5 is faster than the i5 in todays games the argument is turned on its head, now they are saying CPU bottlenecks don't matter because everyone runs graphics settings and resolutions relative to the performance of their graphics cards.

So was the AMD crowed right in saying exactly the same thing back then, can they have been wrong at the time but still be wrong today when those who said they are wrong use those methods today?

The truth is the situation between AMD and Intel CPU's has been turned on its head, so the reasoning gets turned on its head to suit the same agenda.

Logic also goes out the window, the Intel CPU running at 100% to keep up (often not) with the AMD CPU running at 50% is the better CPU than the AMD one..... madness, it boggles the mind.

 

[humbug]

When the CPU is the bottleneck it's not a rule that a Ryzen is faster than an Intel, because Intel still has the absolute best core for core performance, which is why in some games an Intel i5/i7 is still faster than any Ryzen chip, but the reverse can also be true on those games that can utilize the more threads, and ergo higher grunt of the Ryzens.

I never went low resolution though. 1080p's what matters for me as that's reasonable enough to show a CPU bottleneck in games as they actually matter, I've never once went on about 300 FPS 720P results, and in todays market at 1080p Ryzen CPU's and Intel lock horns, to a point that buying AMD is no longer a compromise, but should become far more dominate over any Intel 4 core.

To me if you're doing what you argued against, then you're just as flawed.

You and i are in agreement.

 

[humbug]

Is AdoredTV biased towards AMD?

If you watch the video you would see that he is defending Toms Hardware in a lot of ways and he agrees with some of their conclusions.

Some things he doesn't agree with Toms, he doesn't agree that the "Best CPU's" are a complete 'blue wash', he goes on to explain why he thinks that, whats more he uses Toms Hardwares own reviews and numbers to explain why the Pentium, i3 and 7700K are right but the i5's are not, when you watch all of it you soon realise Toms Hardware based their conclusion on the wrong numbers, for example they used the Ryzen stock gaming performance vs the 7600K 5Ghz OC performance to come up with their numbers, and if you take out just one game, the Ryzen 'nVidia driver' troubled Tomb Raider the Ryzen 5 results higher performance than the i5's in any case, that Toms are also ignoring their own previous article on the fact that the i5's are at maximum capacity with the GTX 1080... just as a lot of other reviewers have shown, some unwittingly.

So no.

 

[humbug]

I don't think he's biased towards any side tbh. If you look at his videos, he's quite detailed and breaks down his analysis quite clearly. I think the method that he uses is fair and clear to see. It just so happens that it's showing up some of the more well known tech sites.

+1.