Is this the 2500k killer? Intel actually released a decently priced and featured cpu. Thank you AMD

Is this the 2500k killer? Intel actually released a decently priced and featured cpu. Thank you AMD

Other urls found in this thread:

techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i3_8350K/17.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

no

Why not?

I'm ignant so bear with me

This is like $20 less than the 8400. Why? Just overclocking?

>"upgrading" from one 4c4t CPU to another

lol

The 8350K is a ridiculously-priced waste of money. The 8400 is the same price and far better for anything, including gayming.

>Just overclocking?
Yes. Also overclocked it has the best single thread performance of any cpu

Damn, I wish I had shelled out a little extra for a 2600k instead of my 2500k. I also fucked up and got the 1GB 6950. I'll never listen to another "games don't even use more than x" again.

Okay here's a question, why the fuck would you pay money for a tiny-ass upgrade on an exceptionally expensive board?

If you waited 7 years to upgrade your CPU, you can wait some more and save up money for an actually decent upgrade instead of garbage.

AMD still beats it in value with the R5 1400

its decent, but def. not 2500k level

in a few years games will adapt to 6c+, so this is definitely not gonna last as much as 2500k

>6700k with better minimums than the 7700k

What was the point of kaby lake again?

>4c/4t in the current year
>on a likely soon to be dead socket

Shekels

It's only 25-30% faster than a 2500k and runs much much hotter.
After more than 6 years and multiple node changes

>techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i3_8350K/17.html
>only get stable 4.5 Ghz
2500K is a fantasy. It's at best same.

i5-2500K cost $216 at launch in 2011, which is $235 after inflation. It's not bad for $180 if you consider that. Better performance, lower price .. although it did take them 6 years.

still at the end of the day you're splitting hairs to get a modern i3 to get old i5 performance.

looks at the numbers
8350
2500

that's 6 (six) generations of numbers from a mfgr.

whether or not it's 6 real generations.

there should never be a comparison here unless we've hit some quantum stride, which we have not.

more coars wins 5 years ago, despite what Sup Forums says.

I'll replace my 2500k when it dies or a CPU that respects my privacy can run Quake Live and Broodwar.

Some of the FX series CPUs can certianly run that stuff and they don't have any botnet shit.

intredasting

Yep, 8350K is a bloody sleeper if you willing to OC. It kills the 7600K and 7640X for less $$$$ and practically as fast as 7700K in majority of mainstream apps/games.

It almost a repeat of Pentium Anniversary Edition Edition save for price tag.

SGX support. That's what Kaby Lake was all about.

You shouldn't be upgrading before 5-6 years anyway. Unless something absolutely revolutionary came out.

Still just 4 cores, you can buy used i5-6600K and get the same for less + cheaper mobo. 8350K is not a bad deal, but it isn't very interesting. Too bad there are no cheap 4c8t versions.

If something, i5-8600K is interesting. And then of course i5-8400 and i7-8700, but those are locked.

It's easy to upgrade every few years if you're smart with Craigslist/Ebay shopping. Just sell your PC or parts before they become obsolete to get money to spend on something new. You can get a new GPU every year that way for dirt cheap, so you're always on the bleeding edge.

It's really not though. It's the same price as the 8400, which kills the 7600K, the 7650X, the 7700K AND this thing, whilst running a lot cooler and using less power. People are so obsessed with MUH GIGAHERTZ these days that they don't even bother to look at actual performance.

Even if you clawed back that 20% raw performance deficit over the 8400 (and you won't, even at 5GHz, since frequency and performance don't scale linearly, as you can see by the 8400 vs 8700K), it'd still be a stutterfest in terms of frametimes as i5s have been for a while now, no matter how much you overclock them. And needless to say it'll be smashed by the extra cores of the 8400 in any workload using more than four threads.

The only possible argument you could make for it is requiring extreme single-threaded performance for specific applications. As a general purpose CPU though, it's horrible value compared to the 8400. In fact, it's probably the biggest joke of the entire lineup, like the 7350K was. If it was the price of the 8100, THEN you could make an argument for it being decent value.

>sidegrading after 6 years
This is a horrible upgrade if you're a 2500K owner. You'd be better off buying a used 2600K. You should always more cores or threads, the only 4 core to 4 core upgrade that ever made sense was Q6600 to 2500K.

I want to say that the 2500k did so well because of it's overclocking potential, and games never really wanted much more than 4 threads.
As it is, developers should be utilising the extra cores than AMD and Intel are now providing on their desktop platforms, so I'd imagine the "2500k" of now would probably be the R5 1600. I'd say the i5 8400 as well, but it's not officially overclockable.

What about brain dead emulator writers who can't into multithreading?

>Too bad there are no cheap 4c8t versions.
Intel made a huge mistake not releasing a 7700K Coffee Lake refresh. Either as a high end i3 or low end i5. I can only think of think of two reasons why they wouldn't.
>They thought consumers would get confused between the 4C8T and 6C6T model
>A Coffee lake 4C8T model might be faster than the 8700K in games, cannibalizing i7 sales.

Intel's entire lineup has been fucked up by amd lol

I haven't touched an emulator in a while, so I wouldn't've had a clue about their threading.
Well hopefully they use the thread counts available too.

>I'd say the i5 8400 as well, but it's not officially overclockable

It has a 3.8GHz all-core turbo out of the box, which is approaching the 1600's maximum possible overclock, so that hardly matters. Especially when it also has better single-threaded performance and absolutely destroys Ryzen in games.

RPCS3 is heavily multi-threaded. Ryzen has been extremely good for it and the six core Coffee Lakes should be too.

1600's biggest weakness is clockspeed just like all Ryzen. I think Ryzen 2's 6 core has the potential to be a huge success, especially if it can OC to 5GHz.

Neflix 4k

Honestly though, why is 8400 so magically good?

The usual Intel good single core performance, and 6 cores finally on the mainstream platform. Not too expensive either. Now it's a matter of waiting for non-Z370 mobos

>Buying a whole new platform
>still 4c 4t in 2017
>hardly even better

It's garbage.

Thepiratebay exists.

>2014
>1080p
Garbage

Why do i5s have such shit minimum framerates in this?

4 threads

Any idea if the new 6 core ones fix that? The FX 8370 outperforming the 7600k in minimums is scary.

I'd sure as fr*ck hope so

Well, supposedly i5 8400 is a 6/6 that beats 8700k at times, with worse stock and turbo clocks

That's strange. Wonder if the Windows thread scheduler being shit is causing that.

Six very strong cores with more than enough clock speed.

Completely. One thing we've learned from the 8400 is that six real cores with no Hyperthreading seems to be the absolute sweet spot for today's games. Multiple reviews have shown the 8400 somehow outperforming the 8700K in certain titles. My guess is that's because they're making bad use of the 8700K's threads, putting more load onto some cores than others via Hyperthreading, whereas every thread goes to its own core on the 8400.

Of course, you could just turn off Hyperthreading on the 8700K, and future games will likely start using even more threads and redress the balance, but the 8400 is incredible value in the here and now. I wouldn't be surprised if Intel 'do a G4560' with it and limit availability to raise the price a little.

Thanks for bringing this up OP

I was looking into a coffee lake i3 but after looking at some benchmarks I realized Intel hasn't really improved since Sandy/Ivy

If anything TDP got worse for 4th gen over Ivy. I'm sure Skylake is more efficient but meh I'll just stick with my 3770

>not getting the 6-core i5 8400 for $190

What's the point when 1600 is just $200 and you get 12 threads.

gaymes

>AMD

>$10 more for worse performance

Looks like the shill team are out in full force.
I'll deal with each of them separately.

Enjoying that microstutter and excessively low 1% framerates? Go back to you manchild.

Stupid gaymur.

Blatantly false. Multithread performance of 1600 wipes 8400.

I'm not shilling lol. If I was shilling I'd say that 8400 is also good for productivity or something. Gaymes is just a standard response "why intel is better"

Do you have any evidence of this supposed "microstutter" on the 8400? Keep in mind that there's a chart based on frametimes here: which puts it well above even an 8c/16t Ryzen chip.

>Stupid gaymur
It has nothing to do with gayming. AMD is shit. Even in the professional field (i.e. Xeon vs Opteron)

>opteron
>2017

Are you blind to the Threadripper or just trying to forget how it massively rapes Intel's offerings?

Threadripper is shit tho

Nice try bootlicker.

Ofcourse he doesn't have any evidence, AMD shills only have memes to justify their budget purchase

Meanwhile this is what happens with the stutter meme when you test it in reality. It backfires into the shills face

Virtually no serious company uses AMD in their servers tho.

Go back to

>"No evidence allowed reeeeeeeeeee!"

dumb question but is an i3 8100 3.6ghz faster than a i5 8400 2.8ghz ? at least when it comes to basic stuff like browsing? i5 has moar coars but outside of gaymen and encoding, whatll utilize them?

Not really but 7700 costs $100 more and 8700 $200. No CPU really beats 1600 for price value. If anyone values their wallet then the choice is clear. Most people only run 60hz monitors so they won't a difference anyway.

No, not for anything. The 8100 is locked to 3.6GHz with no turbo. The 8400 runs at 4GHz with one core loaded, 3.9GHz with four cores loaded and 3.8GHz with all cores loaded. You can completely ignore the 2.8GHz number, as you'll never see it unless the chip thermal throttles, and that won't happen even on the stock cooler with a 65W TDP. It's better in every single way, including single-threaded performance. But of course it costs more.

Do you also only eat dry bread and only drink water because nothing beats it in value/price?

Sometimes people are willing to pay a little extra for getting the best, and I'm sure that also applies to your life in many aspects

>food analogy
>food is equivalent to computer parts

>things have to be equal when using a metaphor
Are you really this stupid?

This argument can be extrapolated to infinity because you place no point of reference for where the water standard of cpus is. As you can extrapolate to infinity even 8700 may be considered underperforming compared to more expensive cpus. Basically the very argument you use jeopardizes your stance.

He doesn't have any arguments that aren't on the script in front of him, which is why he's resorted to after he initially wanted to talk about Ryzen's gaming performance and supposed better frametimes and got BTFO.

I will not change my X79 z420 until Zen 3 is EOL.

>le smart consumer high horse
It shows that the argument that one should always pick price/performance over performance is retarded when you aren't on a tight budget.

*1200, its slower, but it overclocks to 3.8 on the stock cooler for $150 less.

Except this thread is talking about the 8400 and 8350K... which are "budget" by default...

Nah it goes to show how intel shills will reverse their psychology even more to advertisew intel crap. You wouldn't have said this crap 2 years ago.

My buddy built a 2500k based pc.
It quite rustles my jimmies that my 4430 piece of shit that I had some nigger in a tech shop pick when I knew shit about PCs gets fucked on by the 2500k.
Should I just say fuck it, find a z75/77 (I want usb3) and 2500k used and sell my crap?
It has always bugged me how much of a shit build those guys made for me:
>windows 100€
>literally the worst value CPU, 4430 4c4t at 3.0ghz, in the history of computing
>a shitty 270
>a shitty vs550 psu
>shitty cooler master case
>800€ total
fuck me I could have made a beast with 700 if I knew what I know now reeeeeeeee

So Tencent, JD.com, Dell, HP, Microsoft, Baidu, 1&1, Dropbox, LexisNexis, Bloomberg and others aren't serious companies?

My local Intel representative says yes.
Buy Xeon Scalable Family processors.

Go for 3770k + Z77, no point of getting a 2500k now.

>3770k
the thing is that I can find the 2500k for half or even a third of the 3770k used.

Unless you're doing >100 fps, nothing.

You're probably right. Unless you have a usecase specifically for the hyperthreading I don't see it helping for the extra price when it's only one gen newer.

yeah the 2500k seems to be a lot more popular, and since I live in shitaly, the used market is already pretty bad, so I dont have much to work with

Because amd has only had a competitive product for a few months

no

tis shit

What's wrong with italy?

many things.
but regarding this, not many people have custom desktop pc's

>Do you also only eat dry bread and only drink water because nothing beats it in value/price?

...

I have an I7 3770 and I want to upgrade. What should I buy? Is this a six core i5? No amd shit please.

Penis

Pros and cons are the most important part of the test and for that I am not sure what to do with their glorified bizarro version of the first sin bane é um filme de terror e uma série de filmes de terror e de uma série de filmes de terror e de uma série de filmes de terror e de uma série de filmes de terror e de uma série de filmes de terror e de uma série de filmes de terror

Ryzen 1600
My guess is that you'll have to wait for 2018 with upgrades anyway because of paper launch, so you might as well check out what Ryzen+ brings (1st gen is low power process, second is for performance). If you manage to get a CPU by then, get 8350k or 8400