-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Top 5 Best CPU's
- Thread starter humbug
- Start date
Intel aren't in competition with themselves anymore tho
Yeah i was thinking the same thing, anyone know what this is about?
The 8400 would only win if it was purely 1080P gaming on a GTX 1080TI and selectively Intel favored games.
The real world is nothing like that, in the real world people who buy a Ryzen 5 or Intel i5 are not running 1080TI's.
With that in mind the i5 is no better in real world gaming, with that said even the 8600K cannot keep pace with the 1600 in heavy CPU workloads let alone the Ryzen 2600 vs 8400, the 2600 completely smokes it while its very close in gaming even if you are using a 1080TI at 1080P, its actually give and take. this is why it is "Best Value All-rounder".
The real world is nothing like that, in the real world people who buy a Ryzen 5 or Intel i5 are not running 1080TI's.
With that in mind the i5 is no better in real world gaming, with that said even the 8600K cannot keep pace with the 1600 in heavy CPU workloads let alone the Ryzen 2600 vs 8400, the 2600 completely smokes it while its very close in gaming even if you are using a 1080TI at 1080P, its actually give and take. this is why it is "Best Value All-rounder".
Last edited:
Someone like you should have gone 8600K or better yet 8700K to start with. Its what i would always recommend for that higher end GPU.
Its as he says if you have a 1080TI and are looking for the most possible frame rates what you want is the 8700K, thats why its the "Best Performance Gaming CPU" frankly it should not have been a surprise to you that a Ryzen 1600 was bottle necking your 1080TI.
Yeah i had similar issues with the 4690K at 3840x2160 and didn't think that was possible on a GTX 1070 but here i am having replaced it and the problem is gone.
Its why i would never recommend an i3 8350K for anything more than a GTX 1050TI.
I should add the higher the resolution the more pixels you're pushing, its not quite the same thing as running a low resolution and in that way making the CPU work harder at keeping up with the GPU, but running very high resolution also has an effect on the CPU, in different ways and to a lesser extent but it still matters.
I don't fully understand it but looking at enough comparative reviews shows a pattern of weaker CPU's also starting to struggle with very high resolutions.
i'm listing their conclusions in the terms they set, and your quite wrong, if a CPU by measuring it in multiple relevant aspects is better and cheaper, or around the same price, then it is the best value if another CPU is better but much more expensive.
For example the 8700K is in every way better than the 2600, however it costs nearly twice as much, the 2600 in the round is better than anything in its price range and not that much worse than the 8700K, in that its rightfully categorised as the "Best Value All-rounder"
Its better than the 8400, not as good as the 8700K but priced like the 8400.
I'll put it another way, you wouldn't say its not fair because its not ignoring the cost and not ignoring everything that makes the opposition good, right?
If you ignore the cost and everything that anyone does on their computer other than playing games on a 1080TI then all you ever get is 8700K.
I'm not looking for a £350 CPU to power my GTX 1070 when the Ryzen 2600 or as it happens Ryzen 1600 does the job just as well as the 8700K, i also have hobbies that i use my computer for that do not involve gaming, there fore, because i'm unwilling to spend £350 on a CPU i'm looking at a more value orientated CPU, and because i do many different things with my computer including gaming i'm looking for the best All-rounder, 'that' when i bought it was the Ryzen 1600, its now the Ryzen 2600.
This CPU cost me £150, with the Motherboard it was £225, the same price as the 8600K on its own and the Ryzen 1600 is better in Blender and the 10 other 3D applications i use than the 8600K, oh i did not "back the wrong horse"
Last edited:
I'm a hardware enthusiast, i like debating it and since we only have two CPU vendors i have to chose one or the other based on its merits and with that explain my reasoning when owning one, i have no doubt that if i had chosen Intel we wouldn't be having this conversation, not that you see it as that, your attempt to assassinate me personally in an attempt to get me to shut up makes that perfectly clear.
It took you what, 3 posts to become a vile individual? people don't react like they belong in a nursery unless when presented with an argument they don't like but find difficult to challenge, i'm defiantly doing something right. And if that's who you are getting up your nose is no skin off mine, throw at me what you like.
I have been nothing but cordial. you are a hateful individual.
PS: you obviously haven't seen my reasoning for owning a GTX 1070 instead of Vega or anyother current AMD Graphics card
All you haters can ###############
Last edited:
90 vs 106. So 17% more with 25% higher clocks, if you had asked me i would have told you to get the 8700K for that Titan Xp but having said that considering you would have got exactly the same performance with a £160 Ryzen 1600 you're not getting all that much more for a lot more money.
Which is why i make the argument that if you have something less than a GTX 1080TI saving £200 and getting the Ryzen 5 instead you're losing nothing in gaming performance but you gain £200 to spend on something else.
BTW, clock for clock the gaming performance is up 7% Ryzen 1 vs Ryzen 2. add the extra 300/400Mhz clock speeds on top of that and there is little in it now anyway.
I agree it is, the 8700K is still the best CPU for getting the most out of the best GPU's. I often feel like in these threads that i have to keep saying that, i have never made the argument that it was not the best gaming CPU, it clearly is, what i'm saying is its not the only right choice, the Ryzen CPU's fill an important gap, or a few.
Careful, saying things like this makes you an AMD fanboy around here, you'll get jumped on.
Exactly, some people behave as tho they would like the clock turned back to the good old Bulldozer days where it was easy to argue the case for only and always Intel.
Ok that's a valid point.
Yeah, far more interesting to me are the 2600X vs 8700K results.
2600X: 272 FPS
8700K: 255 FPS
8700K OC 323 FPS.
A properly overclock 2600X would also get over 300 FPS, clearly 272 vs 290 FPS is a very mild overclock on the Ryzen chip.
Also, 8350K faster than 8700K, yeah i see how they set these benchmarks up... and what a mess of a chart, surely reviewers would have learned by now charts with that much highly compressed information on them are unreadable to most viewing them.
Last edited: