4 ms·

How I pick a CPU: - Visit https://www.cpubenchmark.net/single-thread/ https://www.cpubenchmark.net/single-thread/ and pick the fastest CPU under $400 - Visit

How I pick a CPU: - Visit https://www.cpubenchmark.net/single-thread/ https://www.cpubenchmark.net/single-thread/ and pick the fastest CPU under $400 - Visit https://www.cpubenchmark.net/multithread/ https://www.cpubenchmark.net/multithread/ and verify there are no CPUs at a lower cost with a higher score It has been, for a long time, the latest generation Intel CPU with a 2xxK or 2xxKF model number these used to be "i7" models now there's just a 7, I'm very vaguely annoyed at the branding change. It would be hard for anybody to convince me that there is a better price|performance optimum. I get it, there was a very disappointing generation or two a few years ago, that hasn't put me off. The dominance of Apple CPUs might be putting me off both Intel and AMD and consider only buying Apple hardware and maybe even doing something like Linux running on a Mac Mini in addition to my MacOS daily driver.

dangus 1y ago
Flawed way to pick a CPU if you ask me. - generic benchmarks don’t pick up unique CPU features nor they pick up real world application performance. For example, Intel has no answer to the X3D V-cache architecture that makes AMD chips better for gaming. - You can’t really ignore motherboard cost and the frequency of platform socket changes. AMD has cheaper boards that last longer (as in, they update their sockets less often so you can upgrade chips more and keep your same board) - $400 is an arbitrary price ceiling and you’re not looking at dollars per performance unit, you’re just cutting off with a maximum price. - In other words, Intel chips are below $400 because they aren’t fast enough to be worth paying $400+ for. - If you’re looking for integrated graphics, you’re pretty much always better off with AMD over Intel
- lostlogin 1y ago
  ‘Stupid’ is more than a bit strong. Your points are good and the tone undermines them.
  - dangus 1y ago
    Modified to “flawed”
- halJordan 1y ago
  When i read "here's how i choose..." At no point did i engage with it under anything other than "this is what some random dude does once every 5 years" Let him pick his cpu how he does it. Youre overreacting, and frankly over emphasizing things that dont matter like needing vcache or avx512 or misapprehending his own price points
  - dangus 1y ago
    How many people who buy desktop DIY systems don’t care about gaming performance? That market is like 90% gamers at least. 3D v-cache is a key feature for that audience. It makes gaming performance significantly better.
- bfrog 1y ago
  I got a 265kf and motherboard for 350. Plenty fast and saves money for the real issue which is GPU costs. Thankfully B580 is actually a pretty good deal as well at 250 compared to green or red options. Team blue has some good deals out there really if you aren't tied to a team color.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- beeflet 1y ago
  I made the mistake of going with intel because of SR-IOV, which they still haven't mainlined to the linux kernel
- colechristensen 1y ago
  > $400 is an arbitrary price ceiling and you’re not looking at dollars per performance unit, you’re just cutting off with a maximum price. So if there’s a $430 AMD CPU that’s 20% faster you’re going to forego that better price per performance value just because it’s slightly above your price target. My choice of CPU currently has the best value / performance on this benchmark aside from two very old AMD processors which are very slow and just happen to be extremely cheap. No new AMD processors are even remotely close. It's also currently $285 no top tier performers are even close except SKUs which are slight variations of the same CPU. https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_available.html https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_available.html > benchmarks don’t pick up unique CPU features nor they pick up real world application performance. For example, Intel has no answer to the X3D V-cache architecture that makes AMD chips better for gaming. Happy to be convinced that there's a better benchmark out there, but if you're trying to tell me it's better but in a way that can't be measured, I don't believe you because that's just "bro science". > If you’re looking for integrated graphics, you’re pretty much always better off with AMD over Intel I never have been looking for integrated graphics, sometimes I have bought the CPU with it just because it was a little cheaper. > You can’t really ignore motherboard cost and the frequency of platform socket changes. AMD has cheaper boards that last longer (as in, they update their sockets less often so you can upgrade chips more and keep your same board) I've always bought a new motherboard with a CPU and either repurposed, sold, or given away the old CPU/motherboard combination which seems like a much better use of money. The last one went to somebody's little brother. The one before that is my NAS. There's not a meaningful difference to comparable motherboards to me, particularly when the competing AMD CPUs are nearly double the cost or more.
  - dangus 1y ago
    It’s hard to take you seriously if you’re going to claim equivalent AMD processors cost double or more. Your example of tossing your motherboard away is not a very good one here. That was your choice to act illogically. My AMD AM4 motherboard started with a Ryzen 1600, 3600, and now runs a 5600X3D. Basically I’ve had this same motherboard for something like 6 or 7 years and the performance difference between a Ryzen 1600 and 5600X3D is completely wild. I’ve had no need to buy a new board for the better part of a decade. If you’re buying a new board with every processor purchase that’s a huge cost difference. When I say that generic benchmarks are bad I mean that cpu benchmarks like the one you are just now linking are bad. You need more practical benchmarks like in-game FPS, how long a turn takes in Stellaris, how long it takes to encode a video or open an ZIP file, etc. That is where the X3D chips play in as well. You might be able to buy an Intel chip with more cores and better productivity performance, but if you’re eyeing gaming performance like I imagine most desktop DIY builders are, you’d rather get better gaming oriented performance and sacrifice some productivity performance. If you are gaming and buy a 9800X3D, Intel literally doesn’t not make anything faster at any price. You can offer Intel $5,000 and they won’t have anything to sell you that goes faster at playing games. At lower price points, AMD still ends up making a lot of sense for their long-supported sockets, low cost boards, better power/heat efficiency, and X3D chips performing well in gaming applications.
- tester756 1y ago
  >For example, Intel has no answer to the X3D V-cache architecture that makes AMD chips better for gaming. So, it should be visible in gaming benchmarks, right? >- If you’re looking for integrated graphics, you’re pretty much always better off with AMD over Intel What? Lunar Lake CPU has strong iGPU
  - sosborn 1y ago
    https://gamersnexus.net/cpus/rip-intel-amd-ryzen-7-9800x3d-cpu-review-benchmarks-vs-7800x3d-285k-14900k-more https://gamersnexus.net/cpus/rip-intel-amd-ryzen-7-9800x3d-c...
khannn 1y ago
I seriously want a Mac, but I hate Apple's pricing and stinginess with RAM/Storage sizes.
- andrewmcwatters 1y ago
  You’re not missing out on a lot. Coming from someone who has used their products for many years now. Their products have more compromises and trade-offs now than they did during Apple’s Intel era. What you will tangibly miss is low noise, low power draw hardware and very, very specific workloads being faster than the cutting edge AMD/Nvidia stack people are using today.
  - klelatti 1y ago
    Genuine question: what compromises are you referring to here?
  - LeFantome 1y ago
    I would also like to hear about those compromises. I have been wanting this hardware and would like to know what I don’t know.
    - linguae 1y ago
      I have a work-issued M3 MacBook Pro, and at home my daily drivers are a Ryzen 9 3900 PC (still on Windows 10) and a Framework 13 laptop with a Ryzen 5 7640U running Windows 11. The hardware on my MacBook Pro is fantastic; I get amazing battery life that lasts far longer than my Framework 13, and the performance is excellent. I also love my MacBook Pro's build quality. However, the reason my personal laptop is a Framework 13 and not a MacBook Pro is because I value upgradability and user-servicability. My Framework has 32GB of RAM, and I could upgrade it to 64GB at a later date. Its SSD, currently 1TB, is also upgradable. I miss the days of my 2006 Core Duo MacBook, which had user-serviceable RAM and storage. My Ryzen 9 3900 replaced a 2013 Mac Pro. Additionally, macOS doesn't spark the same type of joy that it used to; I used to use Macs as my personal daily drivers from 2006 to 2022. While macOS is less annoying than Windows to me, and while I love some of the bundled apps like Preview.app and Dictionary.app, the annoyances have grown over the years, such as needing to click a security prompt each time I run lldb on a freshly-compiled program. I also do not like the UI directions that macOS has been taking during the Tim Cook era; I didn't like the changes made during Yosemite (though I was able to live with them) and I don't plan to upgrade from Sequoia to Tahoe until I have to for security reasons. Apple's ARM hardware is appealing enough to me that I'd love to purchase a M4 Mac Mini to have a powerful, inexpensive, low-power ARM device to play with. It would be a great Linux or FreeBSD system, except due to the hardware being undocumented, the only OS that can run on the M4 Mac Mini for now is macOS. It's a shame; Apple could probably sell more Macs if they at least documented enough to make it easier for developers of alternative operating systems to write drivers for them.
Aurornis 1y ago
> - Visit https://www.cpubenchmark.net/single-thread/ https://www.cpubenchmark.net/single-thread/ and pick the fastest CPU under $400 FYI www.cpubenchmark.com is a running joke for how bad it is. It’s not a good resource. There are a few variations of these sites like userbenchmark that have been primarily built for SEO spam and capturing Google visitors who don’t know where to go for good buying advice. Buying a CPU isn’t really that complicated. For gaming it’s easy to find gaming benchmarks or buyers guides. For productivity you can check Phoronix or even the GeekBench details in the compiler section if that’s what you’re doing. Most people can skip that and just read any buyers guide. There aren’t that many CPU models to choose from on the Pareto front of price and performance.
- embedding-shape 1y ago
  > For productivity you can check Phoronix or even the GeekBench details in the compiler section I guess the reason people prefer something like cpubenchmark, is because it seems way easier to get an overview / see data in aggregate. GeekBench (https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/multicore https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/multicore) for example just puts a list of all benchmarks, even when the CPU is the same. Not exactly conductive for finding the right CPU.
- IAmGraydon 1y ago
  >FYI www.cpubenchmark.com is a running joke for how bad it is. It’s not a good resource. That's not the prevailing opinion at all. Passmark is just fine and does a lot to keep their data solid like taking extra steps to filter overclocked CPUs. Then you go on to recommend GeekBench??? Right...
- sznio 1y ago
  >FYI www.cpubenchmark.com is a running joke for how bad it is. It’s not a good resource. You might be confusing them with UserBenchmark.
  - Lord-Jobo 1y ago
    Userbench is openly mega biased and fudges their own test scores against AMD, it’s so bad it shouldn’t even be listed in search results, There are also many criticisms against CPUbennchmark that are much more minor like its over simplified testing leading to weird anomalous score gaps between extremely similar CPU’s. For the average consumer, I think cpu benchmark is fine and probably as good as you can ask for without getting into the weeds which defeats the purpose really.
brian-armstrong 1y ago
Why would anyone use such an arbitrary method when you could have a 9800x3D for $40 more?
- colechristensen 1y ago
  A 9800X3D is $479, my present choice of intel processor is $275. Is it that much better? Show me.
  - pixelpoet 1y ago
    So much sass for such a googleable thing, good grief.
    - colechristensen 1y ago
      A bunch of people telling me I'm wrong and that I should google why... I mean just don't say anything if what you're trying to add is just "go look it up yourself"
      - pixelpoet 1y ago
        And now you're being bossy? Good day, sir.
        amypetrik8 1y ago
        Do you have a source for that?
        pixelpoet 1y ago
        For the 7800x3d and 9800x3d being really good CPUs? I worked on Cinebench and its rendering engine, so I'll often go by its single- and multi-threaded results, and in a past life I worked on Indigo Renderer and find IndigoBench still works great too: https://indigorenderer.com/indigobench https://indigorenderer.com/indigobench
Aeolun 1y ago
Huh, my method involves the same thing but filtering out all the Intel stuff before selecting the best AMD version.
redox99 1y ago
That's probably the worst benchmark you could choose.
- nerdsniper 1y ago
  What's a better one where i can sort all cpus?
  - homebrewer 1y ago
    Depends on what you're doing; I'm mostly interested in typical developer workloads, so I've been relying on https://openbenchmarking.org/test/pts/build-linux-kernel-1.17.1 https://openbenchmarking.org/test/pts/build-linux-kernel-1.1... There are lots more tests in the sidebar.

dangus 1y ago

Flawed way to pick a CPU if you ask me. - generic benchmarks don’t pick up unique CPU features nor they pick up real world application performance. For example, Intel has no answer to the X3D V-cache architecture that makes AMD chips better for gaming. - You can’t really ignore motherboard cost and the frequency of platform socket changes. AMD has cheaper boards that last longer (as in, they update their sockets less often so you can upgrade chips more and keep your same board) - $400 is an arbitrary price ceiling and you’re not looking at dollars per performance unit, you’re just cutting off with a maximum price. - In other words, Intel chips are below $400 because they aren’t fast enough to be worth paying $400+ for. - If you’re looking for integrated graphics, you’re pretty much always better off with AMD over Intel

lostlogin 1y ago
‘Stupid’ is more than a bit strong. Your points are good and the tone undermines them.
- dangus 1y ago
  Modified to “flawed”
halJordan 1y ago
When i read "here's how i choose..." At no point did i engage with it under anything other than "this is what some random dude does once every 5 years" Let him pick his cpu how he does it. Youre overreacting, and frankly over emphasizing things that dont matter like needing vcache or avx512 or misapprehending his own price points
- dangus 1y ago
  How many people who buy desktop DIY systems don’t care about gaming performance? That market is like 90% gamers at least. 3D v-cache is a key feature for that audience. It makes gaming performance significantly better.
bfrog 1y ago
I got a 265kf and motherboard for 350. Plenty fast and saves money for the real issue which is GPU costs. Thankfully B580 is actually a pretty good deal as well at 250 compared to green or red options. Team blue has some good deals out there really if you aren't tied to a team color.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
beeflet 1y ago
I made the mistake of going with intel because of SR-IOV, which they still haven't mainlined to the linux kernel
colechristensen 1y ago
> $400 is an arbitrary price ceiling and you’re not looking at dollars per performance unit, you’re just cutting off with a maximum price. So if there’s a $430 AMD CPU that’s 20% faster you’re going to forego that better price per performance value just because it’s slightly above your price target. My choice of CPU currently has the best value / performance on this benchmark aside from two very old AMD processors which are very slow and just happen to be extremely cheap. No new AMD processors are even remotely close. It's also currently $285 no top tier performers are even close except SKUs which are slight variations of the same CPU. https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_available.html https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_available.html > benchmarks don’t pick up unique CPU features nor they pick up real world application performance. For example, Intel has no answer to the X3D V-cache architecture that makes AMD chips better for gaming. Happy to be convinced that there's a better benchmark out there, but if you're trying to tell me it's better but in a way that can't be measured, I don't believe you because that's just "bro science". > If you’re looking for integrated graphics, you’re pretty much always better off with AMD over Intel I never have been looking for integrated graphics, sometimes I have bought the CPU with it just because it was a little cheaper. > You can’t really ignore motherboard cost and the frequency of platform socket changes. AMD has cheaper boards that last longer (as in, they update their sockets less often so you can upgrade chips more and keep your same board) I've always bought a new motherboard with a CPU and either repurposed, sold, or given away the old CPU/motherboard combination which seems like a much better use of money. The last one went to somebody's little brother. The one before that is my NAS. There's not a meaningful difference to comparable motherboards to me, particularly when the competing AMD CPUs are nearly double the cost or more.
- dangus 1y ago
  It’s hard to take you seriously if you’re going to claim equivalent AMD processors cost double or more. Your example of tossing your motherboard away is not a very good one here. That was your choice to act illogically. My AMD AM4 motherboard started with a Ryzen 1600, 3600, and now runs a 5600X3D. Basically I’ve had this same motherboard for something like 6 or 7 years and the performance difference between a Ryzen 1600 and 5600X3D is completely wild. I’ve had no need to buy a new board for the better part of a decade. If you’re buying a new board with every processor purchase that’s a huge cost difference. When I say that generic benchmarks are bad I mean that cpu benchmarks like the one you are just now linking are bad. You need more practical benchmarks like in-game FPS, how long a turn takes in Stellaris, how long it takes to encode a video or open an ZIP file, etc. That is where the X3D chips play in as well. You might be able to buy an Intel chip with more cores and better productivity performance, but if you’re eyeing gaming performance like I imagine most desktop DIY builders are, you’d rather get better gaming oriented performance and sacrifice some productivity performance. If you are gaming and buy a 9800X3D, Intel literally doesn’t not make anything faster at any price. You can offer Intel $5,000 and they won’t have anything to sell you that goes faster at playing games. At lower price points, AMD still ends up making a lot of sense for their long-supported sockets, low cost boards, better power/heat efficiency, and X3D chips performing well in gaming applications.
tester756 1y ago
>For example, Intel has no answer to the X3D V-cache architecture that makes AMD chips better for gaming. So, it should be visible in gaming benchmarks, right? >- If you’re looking for integrated graphics, you’re pretty much always better off with AMD over Intel What? Lunar Lake CPU has strong iGPU
- sosborn 1y ago
  https://gamersnexus.net/cpus/rip-intel-amd-ryzen-7-9800x3d-cpu-review-benchmarks-vs-7800x3d-285k-14900k-more https://gamersnexus.net/cpus/rip-intel-amd-ryzen-7-9800x3d-c...

khannn 1y ago

I seriously want a Mac, but I hate Apple's pricing and stinginess with RAM/Storage sizes.

andrewmcwatters 1y ago
You’re not missing out on a lot. Coming from someone who has used their products for many years now. Their products have more compromises and trade-offs now than they did during Apple’s Intel era. What you will tangibly miss is low noise, low power draw hardware and very, very specific workloads being faster than the cutting edge AMD/Nvidia stack people are using today.
- klelatti 1y ago
  Genuine question: what compromises are you referring to here?
- LeFantome 1y ago
  I would also like to hear about those compromises. I have been wanting this hardware and would like to know what I don’t know.
  - linguae 1y ago
    I have a work-issued M3 MacBook Pro, and at home my daily drivers are a Ryzen 9 3900 PC (still on Windows 10) and a Framework 13 laptop with a Ryzen 5 7640U running Windows 11. The hardware on my MacBook Pro is fantastic; I get amazing battery life that lasts far longer than my Framework 13, and the performance is excellent. I also love my MacBook Pro's build quality. However, the reason my personal laptop is a Framework 13 and not a MacBook Pro is because I value upgradability and user-servicability. My Framework has 32GB of RAM, and I could upgrade it to 64GB at a later date. Its SSD, currently 1TB, is also upgradable. I miss the days of my 2006 Core Duo MacBook, which had user-serviceable RAM and storage. My Ryzen 9 3900 replaced a 2013 Mac Pro. Additionally, macOS doesn't spark the same type of joy that it used to; I used to use Macs as my personal daily drivers from 2006 to 2022. While macOS is less annoying than Windows to me, and while I love some of the bundled apps like Preview.app and Dictionary.app, the annoyances have grown over the years, such as needing to click a security prompt each time I run lldb on a freshly-compiled program. I also do not like the UI directions that macOS has been taking during the Tim Cook era; I didn't like the changes made during Yosemite (though I was able to live with them) and I don't plan to upgrade from Sequoia to Tahoe until I have to for security reasons. Apple's ARM hardware is appealing enough to me that I'd love to purchase a M4 Mac Mini to have a powerful, inexpensive, low-power ARM device to play with. It would be a great Linux or FreeBSD system, except due to the hardware being undocumented, the only OS that can run on the M4 Mac Mini for now is macOS. It's a shame; Apple could probably sell more Macs if they at least documented enough to make it easier for developers of alternative operating systems to write drivers for them.

Aurornis 1y ago

> - Visit https://www.cpubenchmark.net/single-thread/ https://www.cpubenchmark.net/single-thread/ and pick the fastest CPU under $400 FYI www.cpubenchmark.com is a running joke for how bad it is. It’s not a good resource. There are a few variations of these sites like userbenchmark that have been primarily built for SEO spam and capturing Google visitors who don’t know where to go for good buying advice. Buying a CPU isn’t really that complicated. For gaming it’s easy to find gaming benchmarks or buyers guides. For productivity you can check Phoronix or even the GeekBench details in the compiler section if that’s what you’re doing. Most people can skip that and just read any buyers guide. There aren’t that many CPU models to choose from on the Pareto front of price and performance.

embedding-shape 1y ago
> For productivity you can check Phoronix or even the GeekBench details in the compiler section I guess the reason people prefer something like cpubenchmark, is because it seems way easier to get an overview / see data in aggregate. GeekBench (https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/multicore https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/multicore) for example just puts a list of all benchmarks, even when the CPU is the same. Not exactly conductive for finding the right CPU.
IAmGraydon 1y ago
>FYI www.cpubenchmark.com is a running joke for how bad it is. It’s not a good resource. That's not the prevailing opinion at all. Passmark is just fine and does a lot to keep their data solid like taking extra steps to filter overclocked CPUs. Then you go on to recommend GeekBench??? Right...
sznio 1y ago
>FYI www.cpubenchmark.com is a running joke for how bad it is. It’s not a good resource. You might be confusing them with UserBenchmark.
- Lord-Jobo 1y ago
  Userbench is openly mega biased and fudges their own test scores against AMD, it’s so bad it shouldn’t even be listed in search results, There are also many criticisms against CPUbennchmark that are much more minor like its over simplified testing leading to weird anomalous score gaps between extremely similar CPU’s. For the average consumer, I think cpu benchmark is fine and probably as good as you can ask for without getting into the weeds which defeats the purpose really.

brian-armstrong 1y ago

Why would anyone use such an arbitrary method when you could have a 9800x3D for $40 more?

colechristensen 1y ago
A 9800X3D is $479, my present choice of intel processor is $275. Is it that much better? Show me.
- pixelpoet 1y ago
  So much sass for such a googleable thing, good grief.
  - colechristensen 1y ago
    A bunch of people telling me I'm wrong and that I should google why... I mean just don't say anything if what you're trying to add is just "go look it up yourself"
    - pixelpoet 1y ago
      And now you're being bossy? Good day, sir.
      - amypetrik8 1y ago
        Do you have a source for that?
        pixelpoet 1y ago
        For the 7800x3d and 9800x3d being really good CPUs? I worked on Cinebench and its rendering engine, so I'll often go by its single- and multi-threaded results, and in a past life I worked on Indigo Renderer and find IndigoBench still works great too: https://indigorenderer.com/indigobench https://indigorenderer.com/indigobench

Aeolun 1y ago

Huh, my method involves the same thing but filtering out all the Intel stuff before selecting the best AMD version.

redox99 1y ago

That's probably the worst benchmark you could choose.

nerdsniper 1y ago
What's a better one where i can sort all cpus?
- homebrewer 1y ago
  Depends on what you're doing; I'm mostly interested in typical developer workloads, so I've been relying on https://openbenchmarking.org/test/pts/build-linux-kernel-1.17.1 https://openbenchmarking.org/test/pts/build-linux-kernel-1.1... There are lots more tests in the sidebar.