The Best CPUs: Productivity and Gaming

I5-12400 holds great value still, a pity that Intel didnt gave us something slightly bigger on Alder Lake, akin to the i7-9700. I have found a nice sweet spot on the R5-9600X, having the newest Zen5 arch, high clocks and fantastic gaming performance (for the ones without X3D).
 
After updates and still running stock clock speeds the Intel outperforms the AMD in compute and gaming alike. With a small tweak to the inter connect clocks it outperforms it by a lot. Many of the do called reviews of this CPU were done before the 5 fixed has been rolled out by Intel and Windows so those reviews are not valid.
 
GTvon said:
After updates and still running stock clock speeds the Intel outperforms the AMD in compute and gaming alike. With a small tweak to the inter connect clocks it outperforms it by a lot. Many of the do called reviews of this CPU were done before the 5 fixed has been rolled out by Intel and Windows so those reviews are not valid.
Click to expand...

Because it is surely the reviewer’s fault for Intel releasing a broken product that wasn’t properly tested internally. /S

We will see soon enough how much performance is actually improved when new X3D CPUs from AMD are released alongside new GPUs from both camps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ephebus, wizardB, Clynt and 1 other person
Roboyt0 said:
Because it is surely the reviewer’s fault for Intel releasing a broken product that wasn’t properly tested internally. /S

We will see soon enough how much performance is actually improved when new X3D CPUs from AMD are released alongside new GPUs from both camps.
Click to expand...
What use is a review that doesnt give you accurate information on how a product performs? If things have changed just 5 days after release a good reviewer will go back and revise their findings. A bad reviewer will stay quiet.

If they then go on and release more articles using the performance numbers from before updates that changed things then I would go ahead and say you should not trust that reviewer as they would be attempting to deceive you.

I myself haven't seen any evidence that updates caused Intel chips to leapfrog AMD in the performance charts. But if that has happened any good reviewer will make sure that this is communicated to the customers.

CPUs are a commodity. You should buy the best value for the price. Both Intel and AMD are disgusting companies. Neither deserves our patronage.
 
manowar51 said:
What use is a review that doesnt give you accurate information on how a product performs? If things have changed just 5 days after release a good reviewer will go back and revise their findings. A bad reviewer will stay quiet.

If they then go on and release more articles using the performance numbers from before updates that changed things then I would go ahead and say you should not trust that reviewer as they would be attempting to deceive you.

I myself haven't seen any evidence that updates caused Intel chips to leapfrog AMD in the performance charts. But if that has happened any good reviewer will make sure that this is communicated to the customers.

CPUs are a commodity. You should buy the best value for the price. Both Intel and AMD are disgusting companies. Neither deserves our patronage.
Click to expand...

Intel has addressed performance on Windows 24H2 to look like what we've already shown on 23H2. It's best to know what you're talking about before throwing mud, in this example 'GTvon' has no idea what they're talking about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Julio Franco
GTvon said:
After updates and still running stock clock speeds the Intel outperforms the AMD in compute and gaming alike. With a small tweak to the inter connect clocks it outperforms it by a lot. Many of the do called reviews of this CPU were done before the 5 fixed has been rolled out by Intel and Windows so those reviews are not valid.
Click to expand...
Could you supply some evidence for this? Haven’t seen any Intel defeating AMD when I’ve looked…

And we don’t even have a category for best workstation cpu, as Intel has no options… it’s Threadripper vs Threadripper Pro….
 
  • Like
Reactions: wizardB
Maybe should have waited the whole 8-9 days for CES and seen what 9900X3D and 9950X3D bring to the table, because these are no longer just for gaming. 99zzX3D renders the bog stock versions redundant now. I think Zen 6 should just launch ll models with v-cache.
 
GTvon said:
After updates and still running stock clock speeds the Intel outperforms the AMD in compute and gaming alike. With a small tweak to the inter connect clocks it outperforms it by a lot. Many of the do called reviews of this CPU were done before the 5 fixed has been rolled out by Intel and Windows so those reviews are not valid.
Click to expand...

Woah.

Are you insinuating there is a grand conspiracy going on by Cultists in hooded robes led by Techjesus & Co to hurt Intel?

There isn't a single respectable reviewer that claims new Intel CPUs beat AMD CPUs in gaming. Idc about productivity, so I won't bother commenting.

I mean yeah, Steve likes to wear a hood but I dunno man. No matter which way I look at it, I can see no conspiracy here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wizardB
I personally set a rating on a product regardless of the performance. I see it is, can it do the job? yes/no. People opinions will differ.
 
manowar51 said:
What use is a review that doesnt give you accurate information on how a product performs? If things have changed just 5 days after release a good reviewer will go back and revise their findings. A bad reviewer will stay quiet.

If they then go on and release more articles using the performance numbers from before updates that changed things then I would go ahead and say you should not trust that reviewer as they would be attempting to deceive you.

I myself haven't seen any evidence that updates caused Intel chips to leapfrog AMD in the performance charts. But if that has happened any good reviewer will make sure that this is communicated to the customers.

CPUs are a commodity. You should buy the best value for the price. Both Intel and AMD are disgusting companies. Neither deserves our patronage.
Click to expand...
Updates plus the other fixes.
 
PierreJG said:
I personally set a rating on a product regardless of the performance. I see it is, can it do the job? yes/no. People opinions will differ.
Click to expand...
Well then just get the cheapest whatever for productivity. It'll get the job done eventually.
Any CPU released in the last 10 year gets the same rating by that logic?
 
manowar51 said:
What use is a review that doesnt give you accurate information on how a product performs? If things have changed just 5 days after release a good reviewer will go back and revise their findings. A bad reviewer will stay quiet.

If they then go on and release more articles using the performance numbers from before updates that changed things then I would go ahead and say you should not trust that reviewer as they would be attempting to deceive you.

I myself haven't seen any evidence that updates caused Intel chips to leapfrog AMD in the performance charts. But if that has happened any good reviewer will make sure that this is communicated to the customers.

CPUs are a commodity. You should buy the best value for the price. Both Intel and AMD are disgusting companies. Neither deserves our patronage.
Click to expand...

You are completely discounting the insane amount of work that is involved with testing/benchmarking CPU's as thoroughly as the best outfits do. It is easily days, if not weeks, of work.

Intel has said there would be multiple fixes and there are also new CPU's that are supposed to be releasing. Given the huge undertaking it is to properly test/record all of that data, one would assume that the reviewers are waiting for ALL of the fixes to be released, and/or other new hardware to be out as well, to do the testing in one shot.

Everyone is so up in arms over this unimportant nonsense. Oh no! The gaming performance isn't as good!

Anyone who expected Intel's first stab at a CPU architecture, that wasn't a revision of a revision of a revision, to be the best at everything was foolish. If anything this puts into perspective how successful AMD has been with Ryzen.

Intel has at least made progress in reigning in power consumption, getting operating temperatures in check, and the chips do well at plenty of other tasks outside of gaming. This is their first attempt at something completely new in a long, long time. It, unsurprisingly, is having teething issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ephebus
When I build my next PC, it's more like an investment into the next decade so I want the absolute best parts. Must have a 5090. Must have either the 285K or 9800x3d. Must have a 1200W PSU and 64GB DDR5 (at least). CPU and GPU AIO.
 
Megalomaniac said:
When I build my next PC, it's more like an investment into the next decade so I want the absolute best parts. Must have a 5090. Must have either the 285K or 9800x3d. Must have a 1200W PSU and 64GB DDR5 (at least). CPU and GPU AIO.
Click to expand...
You want the best gaming PC…. I’d rather invest in a Threadripper if money was no object…
 
Typical advertisement benchmarks. you don't need to read to know what's it going to say or conclude.

'spend more get more, no hacks nor genuine knowledge'

'stay hungry, stay foolish. The industry knows you all.'
 
Roboyt0 said:
You are completely discounting the insane amount of work that is involved with testing/benchmarking CPU's as thoroughly as the best outfits do. It is easily days, if not weeks, of work.

Intel has said there would be multiple fixes and there are also new CPU's that are supposed to be releasing. Given the huge undertaking it is to properly test/record all of that data, one would assume that the reviewers are waiting for ALL of the fixes to be released, and/or other new hardware to be out as well, to do the testing in one shot.

Everyone is so up in arms over this unimportant nonsense. Oh no! The gaming performance isn't as good!

Anyone who expected Intel's first stab at a CPU architecture, that wasn't a revision of a revision of a revision, to be the best at everything was foolish. If anything this puts into perspective how successful AMD has been with Ryzen.

Intel has at least made progress in reigning in power consumption, getting operating temperatures in check, and the chips do well at plenty of other tasks outside of gaming. This is their first attempt at something completely new in a long, long time. It, unsurprisingly, is having teething issues.
Click to expand...
You are correct. I am completely discounting the amount of work that goes in. If the results change 5 days after release then that work was a waste of time. Because the important thing is making sure the reader is aware of the actual performance they will get when they spend their money and buy the product.

Its not ok to leave a review with incorrect results and conclusions just because the reviewer put a lot of effort into it. Now performance will always change. But if an update just a few days after release changes the landscape then buyers need to be informed of that. And no CPU manufacturer is obliged to have their updates ready on the launch day of the silicon.

I just want to mention, I dont think Steve is doing that. I think his reviews are good. I have seen him go back and revise his reviews, despite it being a lot of work. And also in this case I really dont see any evidence that any update has significantly changed the results between AMD and Intel CPUs.
 
Roboyt0 said:
You are completely discounting the insane amount of work that is involved with testing/benchmarking CPU's as thoroughly as the best outfits do. It is easily days, if not weeks, of work.

Intel has said there would be multiple fixes and there are also new CPU's that are supposed to be releasing. Given the huge undertaking it is to properly test/record all of that data, one would assume that the reviewers are waiting for ALL of the fixes to be released, and/or other new hardware to be out as well, to do the testing in one shot.

Everyone is so up in arms over this unimportant nonsense. Oh no! The gaming performance isn't as good!

Anyone who expected Intel's first stab at a CPU architecture, that wasn't a revision of a revision of a revision, to be the best at everything was foolish. If anything this puts into perspective how successful AMD has been with Ryzen.

Intel has at least made progress in reigning in power consumption, getting operating temperatures in check, and the chips do well at plenty of other tasks outside of gaming. This is their first attempt at something completely new in a long, long time. It, unsurprisingly, is having teething issues.
Click to expand...
Go back and look again at the first ryzen chips for comparison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TechSpot
The Best Value Gaming CPUs: 28 Top CPUs Tested
2
Replies
30
Views
304
captaincranky
captaincranky
TechSpot
The Best Laptops: Power, Productivity, Portability, and Budget Choices
Replies
6
Views
168
axiomatic13
axiomatic13
TechSpot
The Best Gaming Monitors: 4K, 1440p, High-Refresh, Ultrawide, 1080p
Replies
11
Views
277
Raytrace3D
Raytrace3D

Latest posts

Back