Best CPU

>>59602611
2500K, no question.

i5 2500k

>>59602640
i7 920 was better

>>59602640
>>59602648
>>59602663

>last 5 years

i7 4790k. Although the past 5 years have been abysmal.

The i7 920 was the last interesting part.

4690k

>>59602674
It was released in 2011 but was EOL in 2013. It fits OP's description anyway.

>>59602611
r7 1700 obviously.

>>59602611
I7 920, or G4560.

FX6300 was fantastic too but didn't really stand out since it was compared to i5 instead of i3.

>>59602750
>FX6300
Can still get shit on by an i3 though.

>>59602611
any intel cpu sandy bridge and up

>>59602611
>What is the best CPU from the past 5 years?
Ryzen 7 1700

>>59602611
ryzen 1700 or i5 2500k

>>59602640
>>59602648
>>59602681
classic i5 poorfags

the sweet spot is a 4core/8thread for the last 4-5 years at least and it will continue to be so for at least 10-20 years.

what most retards don't get is that interactive applications - such as gaymes and most workstation software during interactivity - are algorithmically impossible to be made fully multithreaded.

>>59602925
Same was said about your precious pentiums, intel corelets are pathetic.

>>59602945
In this case amdfag, we have a history of nearly 10 years. I also have experience in multithreaded programming. Sorry, but the "moar cores" meme you are so sprerging about fails abysmally in the real world, when it gets to interactivity - such as in gaymes and most workstation software during operation by the user.

>>59602925
Age of the 4 core is over. Intel is bringing out 6 core i7s with Coffee Lake to replace 4c/8ts.

>>59602945
>>59602969
Very slowly samefag, very slowly. Most gaymers still believe 4core/4thread is still ideal. I beg to differ, I think 4core/8thread is the sweet spot for new gaymer or most workstation needs.

Sure, we might go 6core/12thread as a sweet spot in 2-4 years maybe, but the amdfags are delusional.

Sorry but 8core/16thread is a mentally deficient delusion that is a sweet spot for gaymers and most workstation users (during interactivity), unless they have a very special need, but we are talking about the general sweet spot here so that's out of the question.

R7 1700

If amd toddlers weren't mentally retarded they would at least say the soon to be released 6core/12thread or even the 4core/8thread, but let's stay at the 6c/12t for the sake of argument. The notion that an 8c/16t cpu is efficient for a regular gamer or power desktop user is delusional. One only has to check the average of benchmarks for those desktop needs.

File: salt.png (20KB, 400x188px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 400x188px

>>59603003
>salty baby can't even recognize new IPs in the thread
Don't be that bitter for your bad purchase.

File: Combined-Applications-Performance.png (44KB, 450x2364px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 450x2364px

>>59602858
Yeah by a 6th or 7th gen i3.

Nothing 4th gen or earlier if the tast used 4 or more threads, pretty much most modern workloads.

File: file.png (31KB, 398x137px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 398x137px

>>59603040

>>59602611
Probably the 6700k or other skylake CPUs. The increase of PCI E lanes and the way it interacts with ram will probably be around for a long while.

5820k
6 cores and overclocks like a motherfucker.
It's going to have an extremely long lifespan, where as the 4 core models will soon start showing their shortcomings, when more games and programs start seeing better multi core utilization.

>>59603055
>people with 4chanx can't independently verify new IPs
As expected of the salt baby.

Commercially or at least meme-like, the i7-2600K for sure, it was a sweet spot for almost everything for the interactive desktop for nearly 5 years (exceptions were only very old games that would work the same even on an i3). The 4790K was also amazing but generally those were good choices if didn't have at least a sandy bridge yet. If I were to say an AMDtoddler cpu, maybe the 4core/8thread or the 6core/12thread they will release have a chance, the 8c/16t are "moar cores" bullshit for most desktop, gayming and workstation needs (for most people).

>>59603110
Why are you acting like posting for the first time in the thread?

>>59603135
I think it's time you go back to your subreddit so you can moderate people at your leisure.

>>59603076
>140W TDP
I can't believe Intel made something that runs hotter than a Piledriver

>>59603154
Back to /v/ with you corelet

>>59603169
When OC'd to 4.6 or so this nigga pulls crazy watts but I'd love to have one.
t. 6600k corelet

>>59603076
>6 cores and overclocks like a motherfucker.
Plus AVX2 and DDR4 support. It will age good

>>59602611

If we don't count Ryzen since it's quite new and Sandy cause it was released in 2011, it's Haswell Refresh series i7 4790k

if we do, it's 1700 without a doubt. 8 core 16 threads CPU with Broadwell-E IPC and clocks for 4/8 prices? I still can't believe that shit is real.

If we count Sandy but not Ryzen than i5 2500k without a doubt.

BUT

I am conflicted between 1600x, 2500k and 1700.

>>59603041
Yea true.

>>59603110
I'm never upgrading my 2600k. I haven't even been running it on a constant oc yet, and it's still perfectly fine. Fuck Intel and their sockets and choosers though.

>>59602925
A hyperthreaded quadcore like the i7 has a terrible price to performance ratio compared to a $100 cheaper i5. It's better, yes, but marginally, and mainly for the pockets of Intel.

Q6600

File: 85887.png (46KB, 650x350px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 650x350px

>>59603237
>if we do, it's 1700
You mean the thing that's nothing compared to a 6700k that's been out for 18 months, and has worse price/performance than an i5?

File: getgud.png (42KB, 519x879px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 519x879px

>>59604387
>no difference between 6900k add 7700k
What's that benchmark supposed to prove aside from you don't get maximum core performance when your workload is interdependent?

>>59602925

>10-20 years
May 7, 1997
Intel® Pentium® II Processor

This was 20 years ago. How can a person be so shilled?

i5 6400 on Z170 boards that let you overclock it.

Runners up:
2500K
G4560

>>59602611
4790k

>>59602858
It can be beat by a Celeron, just not in multi core performance

FX8320e
You could get one for like 110$ and its really good once overclocked to about 4Ghz
And the boards are also cheap

>>59602611
4790K hands down

File: 1479092051566.png (142KB, 715x585px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 715x585px

>>59602611
the latest one :)

>>59603076
This so much. If I didn't get a 5960X for $500 I'd still be rolling with that beast.

>>59602611
The fact that that the 2500k is still relevant today is really amazing. The 2600k obviously would be a close runner up and is of course even more relevant today given that more programs than ever can utilize its 4c/8t status but that transition has been fairly recent so it made the 2600k a harder sell back then.

I think if you move forward a few years the 5820k stands out as what could be the heir apparent to take the 2500k's long-term price/performance crown, the only knock against it being its TDP.

K-series Sandy Bridge, especially 2500K

>>59604974
5820k itself had decent price/performance, but the motherboards were expensive.

>>59602611
prob between the 1700, 2500k, 4790k and 5820k

File: Me101115c.jpg (24KB, 418x438px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 418x438px

Intel Xeon E5-2687W v4 3.0 GHz 12-Core / 24-Thread

>>59602925
what autistimos like you dont understand is i dont game or produce media in a sterile cleanroom. i often have other apps or videos in the background that each take up precious few cpu cycles that actually add up to a significant drain.

>>59605449
My E5-2696v3 is more fun desu.

>>59605603
>2.30GHz
I don't think so.

Still using 2500k, it's incredible how well it's held up.

>>59604625
>G4560
Muh nigga

>>59605657
>MUH GHZ

gaymerfags and intel shills are cancer

>>59604387
I second the i7 6700k.
Cheap for the performance now.

>>59605695
that thing is fucking trash, slower than the i7 4790k, that things only saving grace is that it has DDR4

>>59605691
This

>>59605691
I'm not a gamer you fucking retard. Do expect me to compile chromium with a puny 2.30GHz processor?

>>59605740
Plus M.2 x4 support.

>>59605755
>Compiling botnet

2xxk certainly.

Whether you like it or not, still relevant and defining of the current era.

>>59605769
doesn't matter that much, anything that can saturate sata 3 isn't really much of a improvement

>>59604696
Of course.

>>59605755
>needing to compile
you have autism, linux on desktop is useless

>>59602611
> 2500k
This.

>>59605848
Good you know

>>59605856
>Not gaming
>Not compiling
>Not rendering
What exactly do you need a Xeon for then?

ive got 2500k running 4.5 should I upgrade or ride into the sunset with it for a while longer?

2500K/2600K

r7 1700

>>59605657
I'm the guy who has the 2696v3.

The CPU has turbo boost, so on 1-2 threaded apps it goes up to 3.8GHz, and if used on 100%, all 18 cores will turbo to 2.8GHz. I think that is pretty ok for my use case, which is running a few servers (sql, sharepoint) and a few VMs on it.

>>59602611
6700K.