AMD vs Intel. Gaming top dog?

[humbug]

Just out of interest, what’s your past CPU history? Would you buy Intel if it were cheaper?

There must be some bad points to AMD surely. I’ve heard people that have ditched Intel and regretted it.

Skt 478 Pentium VI 3.2Ghz HT
AlthlonXP 3800+
Althlon64 X2 5200+
Phenome II X6 1090T
FX-9590
Core i7 930
Core i5 4690K
Ryzen 1600
Ryzen 3600
Ryzen 5800X

I regretted the Pentium IV, i regretted the FX-9590.

Yes i would buy Intel again if they offered what i wanted for the right price.

The 1600 had teething issues, the 3600 was good, as is the 5800X, no problems with either.

 

[RipGroove]

Fair enough, but it’s probably worth keeping in mind that Intel are massively behind AMD in every way. I literally can’t think of a single situation that I would pick Intel or Nvidia on the graphics front ,come to think of it over AMD. The 3050 could change my mind if that is PCI-E powerd and single slot.

Maybe so but my 3440x1440 Ultrawide monitor is pinned at 100 FPS (it's refresh rate) with any game I throw at my system with max graphics settings so what more do I need? It's very rare I render any videos and when I do, it doesn't really take that long. I'm not at all very wealthy but I've never been motivated by money or really think of it as the be all and end all of everything. The only reason I'd go AMD is if I really cared about the cost or if I rendered a lot of videos, neither of which I do.

 

[chroniclard]

lol, I've just stuck with green/blue for a long time for whatever reason and it's not something I regret really.

Whats cool is that currently you can get a great experience with both teams.

 

[RipGroove]

Whats cool is that currently you can get a great experience with both teams.

Exactly this.

 

[humbug]

Interesting. Did you not think about jumping back to Intel after the 1600?

I just can’t be arsed, is the only reason I’ve not given AMD a chance yet. I’ve heard so many heat issues, ram issues etc it’s always put me off, and seemed a bit more of a muck on. I’ve never had any issues with Intel either touch wood.

Im waiting until the 4000 series GPU’s then a full new system. I will consider my options then. Maybe I’ll give AMD a go for once, if they carry on the way it’s been recently.

Well, the 8700K was clearly a faster CPU than the 3600, but £150 more expensive and i had the Motherboard ready in the form of the one the 1600 sat in, the 3600 was a good CPU in its own right and all together £250 cheaper for me to upgrade.

I seriously considered a 9900K after the 3600 as at that point i was going to switch the board out anyway, i almost bough one but the Zen 3 rumours just had me hanging on for a bit longer.

Post the Pentium IV i never has any issues with Intel, i really liked the 4690K but it was starting to show its age, bottlenecking a 1070 in one or two games.

All i can tell you about the 5800X is this, i turn my computer on in the morning, i do some work on it which includes high load rendering ecte.... in the afternoon around 6 or 7PM , sometime earlier i turn the computer off and go do stuff for a few hours, in the evening i come back and play games with friends.

I do that day in day out and have done for as long as i have had it, nearly a year, in that time its never put a foot wrong, nothing, it just does what it does flawlessly without complaint, that really is it, it just does its thing, kind of boring but after initially messing about with it getting stable overclocks and such i have never been back in the BIOS.

 

[jigger]

Well, the 8700K was clearly a faster CPU than the 3600, but £150 more expensive and i had the Motherboard ready in the form of the one the 1600 sat in, the 3600 was a good CPU in its own right and all together £250 cheaper for me to upgrade.

I seriously considered a 9900K after the 3600 as at that point i was going to switch the board out anyway, i almost bough one but the Zen 3 rumours just had me hanging on for a bit longer.

Post the Pentium IV i never has any issues with Intel, i really liked the 4690K but it was starting to show its age, bottlenecking a 1070 in one or two games.

All i can tell you about the 5800X is this, i turn my computer on in the morning, i do some work on it which includes high load rendering ecte.... in the afternoon around 6 or 7PM , sometime earlier i turn the computer off and go do stuff for a few hours, in the evening i come back and play games with friends.

I do that day in day out and have done for as long as i have had it, nearly a year, in that time its never put a foot wrong, nothing, it just does what it does flawlessly without complaint, that really is it, it just does its thing, kind of boring but after initially messing about with it getting stable overclocks and such i have never been back in the BIOS.

Yeah, Intel had quad cores down to fine art, they just milked them to point of pointless and milked a litter harder all the time taking away from enthusiasts and forcing chipset upgrades for no reason. The writing was on the wall after haswell.

 

[Minstadave]

There is no difference betwen Intel 11th gen and AMD's Ryzen 5000 series

You've changed your tune!

Can't we go back to quality posts like:

This means Zen3 will easily get beaten across the board in games, leaving Intel back on #1 for gaming.

The fact that even the engineering sample on 14nm has higher single thread performance than Ryzen 5000 paper launch on 7nm, is absolutely hilarious.

It will be the same for CPU's, as long as Intel beats AMD in gaming (which they absolutely will, based on this leak and others)

I believe Intel will price 11th gen rocket lake very competitively vs Ryzen 5000, as they know TSMC has increased the prices of the wafers AMD is buying. Intel have a good opportunity to twist the knife here.

Lets assume i9 11900k is priced similarly to the 5900x.

I almost miss those days.

 

[RipGroove]

You've changed your tune!

Can't we go back to quality posts like:







I almost miss those days.

Buuuuuuuuuurn (Jk)

 

[Perfect_Chaos]

Well, the 8700K was clearly a faster CPU than the 3600, but £150 more expensive and i had the Motherboard ready in the form of the one the 1600 sat in, the 3600 was a good CPU in its own right and all together £250 cheaper for me to upgrade.

The 8700k embarrassed AMD in terms of ST and game performance for a while IMO, outclassed both 2xxx and 3xxx chips in games. And for upgrades AMD usually allow what 1-2 upgrades on a given board? Intel allow 1 upgrade, so not much difference. It will be interesting to see how the next lot of stuff goes, for me it will be either Zen 4 or Meteor Lake, i don't want to go Alder because it will lock me into expensive and slower DDR5 at first, and only allow an upgrade to Raptor Lake.

 

[sy-core]

I thought it was the speed of the processor that was an issue for gaming, where Intel could outperform, but Ryzen was trying to steal a bit of the work performance sector, for developers and designers etc.

 

[jigger]

Maybe so but my 3440x1440 Ultrawide monitor is pinned at 100 FPS (it's refresh rate) with any game I throw at my system with max graphics settings so what more do I need? It's very rare I render any videos and when I do, it doesn't really take that long. I'm not at all very wealthy but I've never been motivated by money or really think of it as the be all and end all of everything. The only reason I'd go AMD is if I really cared about the cost or if I rendered a lot of videos, neither of which I do.

This is primarily an enthusiast forum for people interested in the technology driving the performance. The points that become topical are the various bands business strategies (good and bad) and the effects on the industry.

 

[RipGroove]

This is primarily an enthusiast forum for people interested in the technology driving the performance. The points that become topical are the various bands business strategies (good and bad) and the effects on the industry.

I must be in the minority then as my interest in the brands and hardware is driven simply by what kit I can put together to give me good solid gaming performance. From a purely gamers point of view the whole argument is somewhat pointless because a mid/top tier machine built from either brand will both deliver great gaming performance.

 

[LtMatt]

The 5950X is the top dog, easily. And the 5000 series in general are better than the current Intel equivalents in terms of performance (gaming and content work), draw less power and they generate less heat. However there are still some games and benchmarks that favour Intel and give them the win. Overall though, AND is on top - for now.

 

[humbug]

I thought you might have maybe wished you’d stuck with Intel after the 4690k. I had one also. Especially since you had issues with the 1600.

That’s what I do, and why I’ve just sort of settled with Intel over the years. I can overclock them without any issues, just set XMP for ram, and I’m good. I’ve never really looked into the AMD side of overclocking, because most people have told me that they don’t bother, it’s pointless, now clearly that’s not entirely true, as I’ve seen a few on here that claim to get pretty decent gains.

The 1600 had teething issues, mainly ram stability, but after a few BIOS updates those issues were solved, after that the platform was solid, I'm not too concerned if a vendor has a few issues on a brand new platform, as long as they fix those problems in good time, which AMD did, beyond that there is no reason for that to be a consideration. The platform is every bit as stable as Intel's.

I thought it was the speed of the processor that was an issue for gaming, where Intel could outperform, but Ryzen was trying to steal a bit of the work performance sector, for developers and designers etc.

You're talking about Mhz? Its not as simple as that, the Mhz is not what defines the performance of a CPU, its how much it can do for every one of those Mhz, Instructions Per Clock (IPC) and the IPC on Zen 3 is higher than Rocket Lake (11### series), its a lot higher than Comet Lake (10### series)
My 8 core 16 thread 5800X can do more work at 4.8Ghz than an 8 core 16 thread 11700K / 11900K can do at 5.0Ghz.

It's particularly good in games that are light weight on the GPU, like the eSports video i posted a few pages back, i'll post a few more below.
However, there is something about the Intel CPU's that just seems to get that extra 1 to 3% out of a GPU that is very heavily loaded, like Cyberpunk 2077 for example, in this the game is entirely GPU locked and consistently across multiple reviewers the Intel CPU has those extra 2 or 3 FPS.
But as soon as the CPU needs to work for it Ryzen 5000 runs away from Intel.

https://www.techspot.com/review/2260-amd-ryzen-5800x-vs-core-i7-11700k/

Cyberpunk first. you see the same thing across multiple reviewers.

And the rest.

 

[jigger]

I must be in the minority then as my interest in the brands and hardware is driven simply by what kit I can put together to give me good solid gaming performance. From a purely gamers point of view the whole argument is somewhat pointless because a mid/top tier machine built from either brand will both deliver great gaming performance.

It is pointless to overpay for second rate performance and tech.

 

[RipGroove]

It is pointless to overpay for second rate performance and tech.

Not really, I could argue that you paid more for your car than I did for my Audi and that my Audi performs better so therefore your car purchase was pointless.

 

[jigger]

Not really, I could argue that you paid more for your car than I did for my Audi and that my Audi performs better so therefore your car purchase was pointless.

You you should think that statement through.

 

[RipGroove]

You you should think that statement through.

You know what I'm getting at. It's personal preference at the end of the day.

 

[RipGroove]

FYI in that analogy my Audi = AMD, your car = Intel.

Just because something costs less and performs better it doesn't mean every other choice is 'idiotic'.

 

[jigger]

You know what I'm getting at. It's personal preference at the end of the day.

TBH I don’t. I think you’re arguing the point of pointlessness.