Ryzen 2000

True, but I cannot put both in a single tier. I have to put one on top!

Pretty inaccurate, TR and i9 are worse for games than i7/ryzen.

Just go with your natural instinct to shill for Intel, Falcon. No reason to change now.

I put that in.

Attached: Untitled.png (341x571, 83K)

Put the intel on top to piss off AMD fanboys and make them jump on you in every thread until you update the image.

I'm looking them up right now and it seems people were talking out their asses, 2700X beats 8700K in Premiere Pro but not Lightroom

>CPU dies
>forced to upgrade to a 1600
>Ryzen 2 drops couple weeks later
Did I fuck up?

I'd honestly say 2700(x) over an i5 8600. Gaming performance is basically identical but the R7 is just so much better at everything else.

Threadrippers overclock like crazy easily though while i9s just turn into housefires.

Attached: 1524177909474.png (849x803, 89K)

Put the AMD on top to piss off intel fanboys and make them jump on you in every thread until you update the image.

Yea famo

>do the thing that will generate drama for the lulz!
I want to do the thing that is useful.

But this thread is giving me ideas.

Just put them in the same tier and say to buy whichever one you fanboy for the most

IMHO I think the way you build the graph up until now was made obsolete with the new Ryzen chips. The 8700k and the 2700x are almost toe to toe in most applications, it would be unfair and misguiding to put the 2700x on a lower tier than the Intel chip.

What was your previous CPU? How much did you pay for the new one? The 1600 is 3 to 5% less powerful overall than the 2600, so no worries man.

Guess I'll pick up Ryzen gen 3 then when it drops I guess. Really can't be bothered selling and buying again and setting everything up.

Incompatible mobos/HSFs. They must be in separate tiers.

8350 which was pretty shit.
The 1600 only cost me 170 bucks including the heatsink. I'm quite happy with its performance so far.

Why? Buy a whole new CPU for 10% improvement?

No. It's still nonsensical, as it has been since ryzen release. I really can't recommend the CPU advice here to anyone. I have said this many time in your comment section.

>I have to put one on top!
You need to rethink your guide. If you won't then at least put intel and amd side by side on all the midrange categories. None of them are better for everything, intel is better for 144hz gaming and amd is better for multi-threaded productivity/multitasking. Which is better depends on your screen and use case.

Look at how Exellent - enthusiast has gets better FPS in games than extremist.
Look at how outstanding - exceptional has worse productivity than superb.

>Why? Buy a whole new CPU for 10% improvement?
Literally Intel customers for 11 years now.

Put the 2700X over Intel because it's cheaper with a cooler

Why is 8600k in excellent while it's only $240? That makes no sense senpai

It looks about right to me.

>Like crazy
>Barely fucking reaches 4ghz
>600mhz lower than i9 in your own pic
Are you retarded?

I can't tell if Intel users are actually this retarded or if you're falseflagging.

Look at the pic, imbecile

>what is power consumption

Are you blind? Are you gloating about using liquid nitrogen on a 16 core CPU that costs $1000 more? This has to be bait.

Ok, how about now? Please note the descriptions I added for each CPU.

Attached: Untitled.png (2710x1940, 875K)

How big of a pain in your ass would it be to rehaul the site to accommodate for multiple CPU/mobo combinations per tier? They're actually competitive now.

I don't think the AMD gaming performance is lower than Intel anymore so I'd not mention a specific percentage at all. (see )

>spamming wrong benchmarks
(lol

I cannot put incompatible stuff in a single tier. I can have duplicate tiers of the same colour, but obviously one of them is going to be above the other in the list.

Consider splitting tiers in AMD and Intel with their respective mobos and coolers.

I read many, many reviews, not just Anand's.

This site is completely useless. You should arrange tier based on use case and display resolution+refresh rate rather than prices.

>spamming benchmarks with HPET disabled and no Spectre/Meltdown patches
equally lol
Would be a neat idea to have a toggle for Nvidia/AMD and Intel/AMD

I'd trash the 8350k completely, honestly. It's too much of a corelet to be relevant.
The descriptions are pretty solid, but I really think you need some way of noting that the 2600-2700x and 8600-8700k are all fantastic CPUs and very competitive with eachother on the actual chart.

Then go make your own.

>wosre for gaming
>better for gaming
>worse for gaming
>better for gaming

The chart is just flip-flopping. Also "superb" now spends between $4 less and $95 more than excellent on cpu+mobo+cooler. Stoch HSF needs to be a option on 2700x too.

And you're still ignoring me.

this, monitor choice is the most important part when making a computer for gaming.

>I really think you need some way of noting that the 2600-2700x and 8600-8700k are all fantastic CPUs
Like this?

Attached: Untitled.png (438x442, 14K)

What is this site again? I always forget the URL and have trouble finding it again

logicalincrements
pcpartpicker

Unrelated to this, but the Dark Rock 4 CPU coolers are out. Can't comment on the regular one, but the Pro 4 is slightly worse at cooling in return for being 20db at max load instead of 30db.
It looks off to me, like the person designing it kept forgetting what they meant to put in. Sure you can't put AMD/Intel CPUs/mobos in the same price bracket? I think it's the only way to solve it cleanly.
Logical increments.

No, that is just confusing, or rather the chart looks confused.

If you really want to make a good guide you should ask first what screen(s) the user plans to use for games as this should dictate both CPU and GPU choices.

>Stock HSF needs to be a option on 2700x too.
That is not a very realistic recommendation for $1200+ budgets. And the HSF I am recommending is incredibly cheap: $24.

Yeah and it's not any better than the stock cooler. This isn't intel, the stock coolers are capable and even offers bling for the kids.

2700x stock heatsink is likely better than the Gammax, presuming it's as good as the Wraith Max.

If you a retard who upholds that website it does.

>dynamic chart
At some point, as soon as I can spare the time, I intend to completely redo the site from scratch: Allow a user to deselect a column (if they already have a good case, for example), allow a user to choose only AMD/Intel, etc. When I do that, it will be easy for me to add extra filters: Pure gaming, gaming+work, 4K gaming, etc.

For now though, the table is static. It is a limitation that I have to live with.

>Sure you can't put AMD/Intel CPUs/mobos in the same price bracket? I think it's the only way to solve it cleanly.
The way it's designed, with compatible mobos in each bracket, would mean a complete redesign of the tiering and colouring of each bracket in order to reflect this, it's much easier to make compromises in recommended components and bracket them as they already are.

Not sure about the cooler he suggested but I saw a vid comparing the stock 2700X cooler and some fancy one and there was a 25-50 MHz clock difference under load so it does throttle a it.

1600 is still pretty solid cpu fornow, wait for 3700x/3800x 12c/24t to replace it with .

Stock cooler is on par with cheap aircoolers, so that sounds about right.
Note - it's not throttling, it's just not boosting. XFR or precision boost or whatever the fuck it is boosts slightly more at lower temperatures, but that threshold is quite a bit below TJmax.

Rearrange the columns so motherboard comes right after CPU so you can clearly link the two

You'll probably be putting weeks into that even with modern frameworks, because once you're trying to be smart, web browsers and users try to be dumb. Not sure if it's worth it, unless you think redesigning the site would be fun.

Would be interesting to see that.
The point is though that you need a expensive cooler to significantly outperform the stock cooler. There's just no point in buying a lower end cooler like a gammax 400 or 212 evo. And high end coolers have little point other than noise levels too considering the CPU currently doesn't overclock well at all.

>Not sure if it's worth it, unless you think redesigning the site would be fun.
It will not be fun, but it will be necessary. If people want to have "only AMD options" or "only nVidia options", then I have to do it.

Also, site is bloated now. Kept adding extra things to it for years and years. I need to start over from scratch.

And what happens if someone reads it and perceives that an x370 mobo would be compatible with their 8600k? Say they're an idiot, or say the design wasn't clear?

How it is now is as good as it can get while being clear to it's purpose.

>If people want to have "only AMD options" or "only nVidia options",

I haven't seen anyone asking for this, what people are asking for is recommendations that make sense.

The CPU and the Motherboard should be in the same row of course.

I don't know, add a little graphic like a link.png that you can wave over to show that those two require each other.

What the fuck is 8350k even doing on the list? It's pretty terrible value considering it costs $50 more than 8100 and $10 less than 8400.

falcon has been recommending products that should never be bought for a while now. Don't bother.

What's the point when the i5 is cheaper and higher ranked? Makes no sense

>What in tarnation is 8350k even doing on the list?
Waiting for AMD to release the Ryzen 5 2500X.

I guess. Well, at least you'll get to spend some time with DataTables + your server-side thing of choice, or such.

>And the HSF I am recommending is incredibly cheap: $24.
Yeah, that's kind of the problem. There's no point in putting something that cheap on the 2700x when it already comes with an excellent stock cooler. Anyone buying it should either spend $60+ on a cooler or just stick with the Ryzen Prism. Getting a cheap cooler that's at most slightly better than it is(and possibly worse) just makes no sense.

>amd for gaming
>no 8400
Aweful

I'm looking at a 2700 or 2700x but waiting for next intel release before I buy. One of the Intel's i5 6 core processors looks pretty good value for money tho. People been overclocking up to 5ghz.

I'm fairly keen on getting a 8 cpu with highest clock rate for less then 450 AUD. I'd be keen to see gaming performance benchmarks with other apps open such as discord and some broswer tabs for example. Who actually games with only games running? Also wouldn't buying a 8core CPU future proof your build for dx12. Why are people still buying 4 core CPUs?

No, see, even completely ignoring AMD's offerings it STILL doesn't make sense in the slightest.

Then recommend the 8400 instead..

The Gammax punches way above its weight. But I will recheck to make sure that it is significantly better than AMD's stock stuff. If not, I will remove it.

reminder that 2700x with x470 mobo and pbo+xfr2 = 4.4 - 4.5ghz boost clocks

these new ryzen chips are actually better without overclocks now

You make some valid points. Changing it to the 8400.

Got any proofaloofs on that? I just received my 2700x, got a gigabyte 7 board inbound, should I be looking for a any specific bios setting for PB2?

Swapped the 8350K for the 8400. Removed the 8700K from that one tier because it makes to sense there any more.

How does it look now?

Attached: Untitled.png (1772x1940, 289K)

Any reason you haven't replaced the 1400 with the 2400g everywhere? IMO the CPU performance increase alone is enough to warrant the price gap.

Not him but you can see it in TPU's 720p game tests, they lose a lot of performance with their overclock.

Ian Cutress doubled down on that, they did not miss anything, they us used updated OS.
3GB
There is no fucking way 2700X can be inferior to 8600K. 8600K is AT BEST as good as 2600X.

The 2400G is very good for the iGPU. If you are not using it, the 1500X is better for the same price.

Let me recheck the 1400. It may need to go.

>they us used updated OS.
So did many other sites. I think the differences are from the high precision timer being on in anandtech's review causing more accurate FPS readings.

Attached: chart15-600x417[1].png (600x417, 129K)

Can I have more feedback on this: ?

Currently unresolved and will require a bit of reseach:
-Gammax 400 worth it in higher builds
-R5 1400 worth keeping

I do not think that it's related to accuracy. I remeber reading on Jow ForumsAmd (with links to AMD technical blog) that HPET causes OS overhead.
Would certainly like to see the reasoning.

I think it makes a lot more sense now.
Maybe add the 1070 with the 8600k? But then I understand that it pushes up the price more towards the next tier

I feel as though you could almost get rid of the "Very Good" tier in favour of the higher performing GPUs paired with the 1500x/1400, for the sake of $50. While it would leave quite a price gulf I feel this may help to simplify things.

If he did they I'd remove both the 1400 and the 1500X and have the 2400G and the 8400 as the lower and upper tiers of the new bracket.

stackoverflow.com/questions/22942123/is-queryperformancefrequency-accurate-when-using-hpet
hexus.net/tech/news/cpu/103531-amd-tech-guru-shares-ryzen-gaming-optimisation-tips/

Fuck I would really like Ian to clarify that.

Yeh, those two tiers are so closely matched in performance that neither of them really need to be there.

I think replacing the 8350K with the 8400 is very sensible - having more than 4c/4t is a very good idea in $Current_Year and most people don't OC anyway.
Speaking of not OC'ing, it occurs to me it might be good to add the 8700 as an alternative to the 8700K - if you don't OC, their turbo clocks are only 0-100 Mhz apart anyway. Kinda like you already do with the non-X/X Ryzens, although unlike Intel, on that platfrom the cheaper CPUs are the ones you're more likely to want to OC.