add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

What Are The Current Most Popular CPUs

andrewrg
  • 17 months ago

Hey guys, I'm trying to get caught back up with the current hardware; I haven't been paying attention since my haswell build. What are the top most popular CPUs for Intel and for AMD currently? Which CPUs will I see used most often in the newest gaming builds here for under, say, $400?

Comments

  • 17 months ago
  • 6 points

Why are people saying the 2600 is trash? With the stock cooler you can achieve 4.0Ghz at decent temps.

  • 17 months ago
  • 2 points

From the past few months, its been the:

Intel

  • i7 8700k for high end builds

  • i5 8600k for high-moderate builds

  • i5 8400 , 8500 & 8600 for low-moderate-high builds.

AMD

Depends what you're doing:

Streaming, editing etc

  • Ryzen 7 2700 , 2700X for high end builds

Gaming and streaming and editing

  • Ryzen 5 2600 and 2600X for mid to high end builds.
[comment deleted by staff]
  • 17 months ago
  • 5 points

Price fluctuations and availability routinely put the 8500/8600 chips priced very close to the 8400. There's nothing wrong with these CPU's and buying them does not constitute knowing nothing about PC's.

The 2600X has been on sale for as low as $189. It would cost almost that much to put a cooler worth a darn on a 2600.

There's certainly nothing wrong with the 2600X. Buying this CPU does not constitute knowing nothing about PC's. In fact, the person who buys this CPU, might know exactly what they are looking for in a PC and find that this fits the plan nicely.

  • 17 months ago
  • 2 points

What

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

Yeah, I know where you're coming from, but some countries have price fluctuations and they have no choice to buy the 8500, 8600 etc, or it even is cheaper than the 8400.

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

Which CPUs will I see used most often in the newest gaming builds here for under, say, $400?

8700K, 8600K, 8400/2700X/2600X/2700/2600 In that order performance wise the last are all grouped together because without considering cooling, overclocking and RAM speed they all trade blows so performance can swing a little on them swapping them around for third place.

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

I agree with this statement

  • 17 months ago
  • 2 points

Yeah, I don't know why it was so heavily downvoted.

  • 17 months ago
  • 2 points

It was for listing the 8400 ahead of the Ryzen.

But as I pointed out comparing all of them running baseline stock cooling and baseline 2133mhz RAM that's about how the end up performance wise.

It's only when you get into higher RAM speeds, overclocking, and aftermarket cooling that things start swapping places.

Even then the difference between them really isn't major for gaming workload.

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

I know there are already several answers, but for < $400 you'll probably be seeing a Ryzen 5 2400G/Ryzen 3 2200G or Intel's Coffee Lake i3-8350K/i3-8100.

[comment deleted by staff]
  • 17 months ago
  • 2 points

Trash for what?

The 8350K is by far the best value CPU available right now for users willing to overclock who are trying to optimize for poorly threaded real-time workloads like CAD viewports, World of Warcraft, etc.

The 2400G offers an excellent value proposition for certain applications.

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

The i3-8350k is really a niche CPU. Sure it can overclock but you have its price to consider compared to the locked i5 CPUs. For workloads that can't scale past 4 CPU cores the i3 is amazing because you are likely able to get a 4.8-5.0 GHz OC on it and dominate those workloads. Though when it comes to triple A games these days they are starting to scale better with 6 cores performance wise and having the 2 extra cores on even the i5-8400 puts those 2 CPUs way too close performance wise. Consider the motherboard and cooler on the i3 to OC it to that level and consider the i5 on stock cooling and a b360 motherboard and the i5 is far better price for about the same performance on a workload that can use 6 cores.

Older games and e-sport games rarely support more than 4 cores so the i3 is a beast on those but with e-sport titles they are made not to need the top PC to max out the settings and the basic i3-8100 or even the i3-2200g has enough cpu power to run those games well.

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

how so?

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

andrewrg,

I think some people are interpreting your question differently than others. Are you interested in hearing about CPU's under $400, or CPU's that fit into completed builds priced at $400?

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

I'm not so sure others are interpreting differently than I intended. Anyway, the former.

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

Have many games (or other common mainstream applications) now come to take advantage of more than 4 cores? I don't often operate more than one application at a time, besides maybe a game and a browser.

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

Have many games (or other common mainstream applications) now come to take advantage of more than 4 cores?

Several of the newer AAA titles will scale pretty decently (Assassins Creed, Far Cry 5, Battlefield 5) up to 8 available threads.

Most of your more competitive titles tend to avoid heavily multi threading and are generally very easy on the CPU (PUBG, Fortnite, Overwatch) although they can be harsh on graphics cards (PUBG).

I don't often operate more than one application at a time, besides maybe a game and a browser.

Web Browers are not very CPU intensive and you are more likely to find any modern CPU struggling with the game itself rather then struggling with a Single Browser+Game unless you have a software conflict going on.

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

Right, it sounds like there still isn't much of an argument for loads of cores. Not for what I do. My Haswell i5 is actually on par with a 2700 per core, so it would literally be no upgrade unless I were to utilize more cores, which I won't yet. Not often enough to warrant switching. This is a shame. My hearts always been with AMD.

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

Depends: Keeping the whole price under $400? I'd try to swing a AMD2200G. Can't beat it's value if you want CPU+GPU power (but expect to pay more for memory).

Paying $400 for a CPU? Not such a good idea. For gaming, I'd put the excess in a GPU, for anything else in the monitor. Some great chips (its hard to go wrong with any): i5 8600k: Probably the per-thread champ and the best for gaming and nearly all other tasks. Almost as strong for the occasional thread-heavy tasks and comes at a great price. ($240) AMD R7 2700x: If you can fill the threads, this beast will be the fastest (short of something like a threadripper). Does its thing without need for overclocking (if you care). Pretty good at single thread (expect that even a 2080ti will limit your framerate in games): $320 i7 8700k: bit of a compromise between the above: all the single thread power of the i5 8600k, with maybe 10-20% more power if you can fill 12 theads (but still won't catch the 2700x): $320 6 core AMD: good prices, but if you are willing to spend $400, I'd just go straight to the i5 instead. Saving $200 vs. $160 isn't much of a value if you care about single thread performance. On the other hand, you could buy one of these with the idea of upgrading to a Zen2 in 2019-2020 (don't ever assume you can re-use an Intel motherboard). If you really want to spend $400 wisely, I'd go so far as to say "buy a 2200G today and a $300 Zen2 after prices stablize late 2019. Keep 5+ years".

[comment deleted]
[comment deleted by staff]
  • 17 months ago
  • 2 points

bruh what, an i3 8100 will outperform a 2600 in games

  • 17 months ago
  • 0 points

Yes, in situations in which you are not GPU bound. So for the vast majority of people the 2600 is a better CPU as it will run circles around the i3 8100 in everything else.

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

Did you just build a computer with a 2600 in it?

[comment deleted]
[comment deleted]
  • 17 months ago
  • 2 points

Would agree with that in most cases but the two extra cores do help out quite a bit. 8350k and the 8400 are both great chips but I would recommend the 8400 because you don't need a good cooler to oc and you dont need a z370 board.

[comment deleted]
  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

Yea for 1080p gaming either the 8350k or 8400 are all you are gonna need!

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

I personally regret my purchase of an 8600K and z370 Taichi. You could save a ton of money getting an 8400, a B360 motherboard and an m9i rather than invest a ton in overclocking, and have almost exactly the same performance. Overclocking is really a hobby, and not really worth it.

Would like to hear your thoughts on this perspective, as you're a fellow 8600K-owner

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube