Must be one hell of an air cooler.FX should overclock higher. My 8350 runs @ 5 GHz on air...
In a 2017 and newer world, people who hang on to this high ST 4 core tops mega MT idea are going to get a shock if they have not already.the i5 2500k is still a better buy then an fx8350...and if you overclock it like it is supposed to be then it becomes way faster...
the german site is also showing an i7 6950x being faster on gaming compared to an i7 7700k?! in what world?
if you test only few new well threaded games yes....but in 95% of cases the i7 7700k is going to be the fastest gaming cpu for at least another 3 years...even an i5 7600k especially overclocked with high frequency ram is going to pawn 8cores 10 cores on the majority of games..
You could say thatMust be one hell of an air cooler.
Still a lower % overclock though.
Pretty sure only few aaa titles will need more then 4 cores and thats all about it...you dont buy a pc to have better performance on 3 games out of 200...In a 2017 and newer world, people who hang on to this high ST 4 core tops mega MT idea are going to get a shock if they have not already.
Dont be surprised if a r1700 or 5960x start overtaking 7700k in most games this year, especially when overclocked.
Did you not read that german review? I think you are going to get a shockPretty sure only few aaa titles will need more then 4 cores and thats all about it...you dont buy a pc to have better performance on 3 games out of 200...
the i5 2500k is still a better buy then an fx8350...and if you overclock it like it is supposed to be then it becomes way faster...
the german site is also showing an i7 6950x being faster on gaming compared to an i7 7700k?! in what world?
if you test only few new well threaded games yes....but in 95% of cases the i7 7700k is going to be the fastest gaming cpu for at least another 3 years...even an i5 7600k especially overclocked with high frequency ram is going to pawn 8cores 10 cores on the majority of games..
This post OTOH aged like fine wine. The "i5 is the best bang for buck for gaming" rhetoric when it was obvious to many of us it no longer was, continued right through the 6/6 9 series. Only reviewer I saw that called it out was Gamers Nexus and even Steve was a little too even handed about it. He should have roasted it the way he does now.I think the important thing this shows is that 4 cores is not going to be enough going forward. If your budget allows it you need to spring for the i7 or equivalent Ryzen versions when they are released. I've have people argue with me saying an i5 is enough for gaming but this clearly shows this isn't true as new games continue to release.
Only reviewer I saw that called it out was Gamers Nexus and even Steve was a little too even handed about it. He should have roasted it the way he does now.
Your upgrade path with 7th gen is sad trombone.
My only dispute with you here is that all of this occurred while AMD was on the same platform. And despite the haters complaining about the temporary attempts by AMD to kill AM4 it's still here and still a top seller in retail sales in the U.S. week after week. Making the "use your Intel as long as you can" point seem quaint.Don't get me started on the tech press' love of the mid range i5. I rant about it too much. It was so obviously not a good long term buy after 4th gen Intel that it was crazy. The less said about 9th gen the better. They still love the mid range but at least its been proven in the past 6 years that the midrange ryzen x600 chips had good long term value and only now might it be wiser to jump up to 8/16+ cpus for gaming for the next 5+ years. I was certainly wrong for favoring ryzen 7 at least until the Zen2 chips in 2019. I still wish I had waited until the 1600AF to jump in and then waited till the last year or two to upgrade to 5700x3d etc..
Intel only got up to speed with 10th gen putting HT on all chips and then they won the low and mid range because AMD had nothing but old chips under $300 after Zen3.
True but with Intel it has long been the wise play to just ride out the Intel build until its too old for your needs, especially the i7 chips. The 8700k was a good buy long term since its nothing but a 5600x performance available three years earlier at $350 vs $300.
That's a real killer isn't it. You tell someone to get a 4c4t i5 back then, its not bad, but its not a great option even then because between HDET and the move to X86 on the consoles most games were getting threaded. It's sad the choice was either 4t or 8t on the general consumer end but anyone buying a gaming pc at the time really should have saved for an i7. Where as even if the 1600 wasn't as fast as the 7600 in games not only did it run better as we moved on to more CPU resources used in games. One of the fastest gaming CPU's (5800X3D) is still compatible on some of those boards. So not only did you get stuck with a CPU that was going to age like milk, your only real option was either do a whole platform update, or buy the CPU you should have gotten to begin with in the i7. Versus a drop in tops in gaming. It doesn't get much better for the next 2 gens really, but that 7th gen Core i vs. 1st Gen Ryzen really is one of those huge chasms in tech and philosphy differences that only get worse with age. But as noted should also have been evident by how much closer something like FX was getting in newer games. Still never really competitive, but a trend that should have warned Intel and should have killed all the i5 recommendations of the day.My only dispute with you here is that all of this occurred while AMD was on the same platform. And despite the haters complaining about the temporary attempts by AMD to kill AM4 it's still here and still a top seller in retail sales in the U.S. week after week. Making the "use your Intel as long as you can" point seem quaint.