So I'm a bad guy for not taking someones advice ?

[danny man]

Just another troll pit and why I don't like useing the internet. Good by

 

[crashtech]

An i3-9100F, maybe.

 

[danny man]

delete

 

[Markfw]

If anything you do requires more than 4 cores, the 1600 Ryzen is only $115, and way better than the 8350k

 

[danny man]

delete

 

[crashtech]

I did not think about that one. I did think of the 8350k, used they go for around 115-120$

For what you describe, I don't think it gets any better. It's not at all what most of us here would build, but I think that CPU is the single thread per dollar leader at the moment.

 

[ondma]

If anything you do requires more than 4 cores, the 1600 Ryzen is only $115, and way better than the 8350k

For gaming I seriously doubt it is better or even equal to the 8100, especially older games. 1600 Max turbo is 3.6 (if it hits and sustains it), which is no faster than the base of the 8100. Plus the 1600 is first gen Ryzen, which clock for clock is slower than intel for gaming.

 

[danny man]

delete

 

[UsandThem]

I did not think about that one. I did think of the 8350k, used they go for around 115-120$

Nothing I do needs more then 2 cores. 99.9% of everythign I do only needs one core.
I can get by fine with a pentum 4 aside form mount and blade.

For what you describe, I don't think it gets any better. It's not at all what most of us here would build, but I think that CPU is the single thread per dollar leader at the moment.

Sounds like OP has received the answer to their question.

9100F or 8350k (maybe the 9400F on sale). That or a used Haswell, Skykake, or Kaby Lake CPU.

That was my thought. Hever ever I wonder how much I could get out of a 8350k with overclokcing? but given how hard I end up OCing things its probably best if I get the 9100f of the two as Id like to system to last.

If you could live with a P4, overclocking a 8350k will only make a small difference. If you want the system to "last", you are going about your purchase decision parameters an odd way (looking at minimum components).

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i3-8350k-cpu,5304-9.html

 

[danny man]

delete

 

[Glo.]

I just bought brand new H370-i Asus ROG Strix MoBo for 80€, and used one month Core i5 8400 for 120€.

So you can get what you want and need in this budget.

 

[ondma]

I just bought brand new H370-i Asus ROG Strix MoBo for 80€, and used one month Core i5 8400 for 120€.

So you can get what you want and need in this budget.

Yea, I wanted to suggest the 8400, but it is still over 200.00 new. If the op can find one in his budget that is a good choice: single core turbo to 4ghz and plenty of multi-threaded performance in reserve.

 

[MajinCry]

Ryzen has a couple performance pitfalls, like weak AVX2 performance, and the inter-CCX performance penalty is atrocious. What I'd recommend, if you can hold out, is to buy a Zen 2 APU. Failing that, and you're okay with used, there's i5 6600k's going for £120 on Ebay. Hell, now that I check, i3 8300's go for £90. That's not too bloody shabby.

You might want to go with Skylake, since xLake has around ~25% better draw call performance than Ryzen, which is a huge difference in games like Fallout: New Vegas, Rome Total War, or any game that uses D3D 11 or older and has large numbers of objects, as well as guaranteed Windows 7 support. Windows 10 Is a mess for old games.

 

[lopri]

Zen 2 APU is a year away and it is not going to be faster than a 5.0 GHz i3 in ST workload. It looks like the OP's choice comes down to i3 and (used) i5 CPUs, "K" variants.

P.S. You might think you only need ST performance, but this is year 2019 and a lot of mundane stuff can use more than one thread. Try disabling cores in BIOS so that the system is left with, say, 2 cores. The performance deficit will be painfully obvious. The trend is only going to accelerate.

 

[thor23]

Yes if I were building a basic web browsing facebook type machine for family I would go at least quad core for the improved web browser performance over 2C4T.
But in this situation a 2C4T high clocked i3 should serve best.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Yes if I were building a basic web browsing facebook type machine for family I would go at least quad core for the improved web browser performance over 2C4T.

You want SPEEDY web-browsing? IMHO, Ryzen R5 3600, coupled with an NVMe SSD, and 16GB (or more) running at 3600 (with an fclk of 1800 too), is about the best you're going to get for web browsing. It is SO snappy (with a gigabit FIOS connection plugged into this PC, wired of course), you'll barely be able to believe it.

I having been using Ryzen 6C/12T CPUs for the last 2+ years (since a few months around their introduction), and the 3600 is a NOTICEABLE improvement. (I'm sure that the 32MB of L3 cache helps immensely too.) Especially with NVMe SSDs.

 

[ondma]

You want SPEEDY web-browsing? IMHO, Ryzen R5 3600, coupled with an NVMe SSD, and 16GB (or more) running at 3600 (with an fclk of 1800 too), is about the best you're going to get for web browsing. It is SO snappy (with a gigabit FIOS connection plugged into this PC, wired of course), you'll barely be able to believe it.

I having been using Ryzen 6C/12T CPUs for the last 2+ years (since a few months around their introduction), and the 3600 is a NOTICEABLE improvement. (I'm sure that the 32MB of L3 cache helps immensely too.) Especially with NVMe SSDs.

How is this relevant, except as another chance to recommend AMD?

 

[VirtualLarry]

How is this relevant, except as another chance to recommend AMD?

I build a "lot" of "browser boxes", and while I have yet to build a 9900K rig, the R5 3600 browsing experience, when coupled with fast RAM (3600), and an NVMe SSD, is the best that I've ever experienced, on a Gigabit FIOS connection.

However, I now see this his budget for a CPU was $120, so in that case, I recommend an i3-9100F.

 

[DrMrLordX]

I build a "lot" of "browser boxes",

I don't think he's even going to be running modern browser software very often. It's strictly an OG gaming rig. 8350k actually makes a lot of sense, though I don't see any for below $170 right now so bleh. I don't think I would recommend anything AMD in the $120 range. Zen2 starts at $199 anyway.

 

[Kenmitch]

I only use use my PC to play very old games from the early 00s and back. I have one new game I play, mount and blade.
M&B is not all to well made and it racks up one core to the point that even some less recent I7's can be bogged down once you mod it or up the battle size count.

With your fetish for the older game I was wondering if you're going to move on to the next one that's supposed to release sometime in the future? If so you might want to either choose wisely now or at least leave yourself a upgrade path. Not sure how many cores it'll utilize in the end, but it looks like it's moving beyond hitting 1 core really heavy.

 

[crashtech]

The mainstream Coffeelake platform should leave options wide open for more cores in the future. I personally no longer buy Intel mainstream platforms, but the OP's use case and budget pretty much demands it.

If this was mine to do I would spec a Ryzen 5 3600 or a CFL i5, but those blow the budget by at least $80.

 

[thor23]

You want SPEEDY web-browsing? IMHO, Ryzen R5 3600, coupled with an NVMe SSD, and 16GB (or more) running at 3600 (with an fclk of 1800 too), is about the best you're going to get for web browsing. It is SO snappy (with a gigabit FIOS connection plugged into this PC, wired of course), you'll barely be able to believe it.

I having been using Ryzen 6C/12T CPUs for the last 2+ years (since a few months around their introduction), and the 3600 is a NOTICEABLE improvement. (I'm sure that the 32MB of L3 cache helps immensely too.) Especially with NVMe SSDs.

I'm using a 2600@3.8ghz with an 8Gb ramdisk cache for my os(basically all of windows disk reads come from a ram disk instead of ssd) and I'm sure that's quiet fast, the faster disk access more than makes up for any deficiency in processor speed. Browser caches are full of sub 4kb files 100's-1000's of them.

 

[VirtualLarry]

RAMDisk/Cache works too. In olden days, you could direct Firefox to cache everything to RAM, and not to disk. That was an advantage, until the RAM cache exceeded the runtime working-set of the process in RAM (generally a number smaller than the actual physical RAM total present in the PC).

 

[potato masher]

You got a microcenter nearby? If all you do is play old pre 2000 games, who cares if you have extra cores that you never use? Core performance isn't even a concern.. slower of the modern cores are still way faster than you need them to be. You can get a R5 2600 combo deal for 165$ with an acceptable mobo. Just have the extra cores and don't use them.

Or if you don't have the budget for ddr4 ram, just find a used dell box with a sandy bridge i7 (or newer if you need newer) and stick in a psu. I have done it. Still run it. Swap over your stuff, then with the money you saved take the girl out to a fancy dinner.

 

[fleshconsumed]

I asked this on another site, but it turned out to be a troll pit and I was chewed and and had to delete my account.
Anyway my budget for the CPU is around 120$ and around 75$ for a mATX or ITX motherboard.
I have a GPU, and alot of high end cooling parts.
I only use use my PC to play very old games from the early 00s and back. I have one new game I play, mount and blade.
M&B is not all to well made and it racks up one core to the point that even some less recent I7's can be bogged down once you mod it or up the battle size count.

Anyway given what my budget is what would you say is the best single threaded performance CPU?
I don't want to skimp there as everything else I do can be done on a rather old CPU. I don't need a good upgrade path as I intend to keep the pc untill it brakes nor do I intend to change my uses.

Thanks.

I know you only care about single thread performance, but system/background tasks can be a big performance killer. I would not advise any 2c4t CPUs. I just upgraded my HTPC from 2c4t to 4c8t CPU because it was getting bogged down waking up from sleep by windows system/background processes. I would only recommend 4c4t and above.

Since you have a dedicated GPU but are on a $195 budget I would recommend either i3-9100f or i5-9400f. Zen2 made huge performance gains and now outperforms 9400f in games and is more future proof, but it is a bit out of your price range. If you live near microcenter I would advise to stretch your budget a little and get AM4 3600 cpu/motherboard combo, it's going to be your best bet. Otherwise just go for 9100f/9400f.

So in the order of preference around your $195 price budget:
1. AMD Ryzen 3600 + MB
2. Intel i5-9400f + MB
3. Intel i3-9100f + MB

Buy the best one from that list that you can afford.