AMD Vs intel

[Phixsator]

Considering how close Intel and AMD are right now in terms of performance with wins in different apps and games to each company i think the deciding factor should be other factors like security, future proofing(at least theoretically), price and current platform features. To me there is a clear winner when considering all these things.. i'll let you be the guesser of who i think it is.

 

[scritchyrat]

Considering how close Intel and AMD are right now in terms of performance with wins in different apps and games to each company i think the deciding factor should be other factors like security, future proofing(at least theoretically), price and current platform features. To me there is a clear winner when considering all these things.. i'll let you be the guesser of who i think it is.

 

[Jamie Archer]

To me Amd's answer is always to add more cores for a lesser price because they simply cannot compete core for core. Whether it's IPC or clockspeeds (both normally), intel always wins (although this gap has been closing significantly recently).

Sure lots of cores and loads of threads of secondrate is great for workers or people opening 1000 apps at the same time, but for everything else (including gaming), speed is key and intel wins here.

I always look at it with this analogy.... if you like and can afford to have a fast and flashy car that's quite expensive, turns heads and gets you about in style the quickest, then you opt for something like a Ferrari.......
If you work a lot and move large quantities of heavy and bulky items from place to place, then you buy a fleet of vans instead.....
The ferarri could transport your stuff but will take many, many journeys at a faster pace back and forth to move the entire load. The fleet of vans will of course be slower, but will probably fit most of the stuff in one load and do it all in one journey.....
Can the ferrari go back and forth in the same amount of time it takes the van to do it all in one slow trip? Who knows?..... but always the flashier, snappier, head turning option is the Ferrari and whilst the Ferrari stays faster, the van company will maintain sales by adding that extra van or 2 for value.

This post is probably a bit bait with regards to me getting a total verbal bashing from the pro Amd, but in honesty, you will often get money saving, solitary gamers who defend their budget Amd purchases by suddenly claiming to be renderers, animators, editors and all kinds of other work related professionals (having never done any of this previously and likely still have no clue how) just so they can give justification for their purchases.
They will brag how they paid less for their vans than the guy did with his flashy, faster Ferrari and how they can beat the Ferrari in the only situation where their vans are filled to the brim with cargo going from a to b or taking 40 people on one journey at the same time. They will also pounce on any potential flaws that the Ferrari may have such as that it may get caught by a speed camera (if youre not careful) and how their vans dont pose this same risk because they probably dont have the capability to get flagged (spectre/meltdown etc).
They will lastly state how their workhorses go on and on and will keep you working with an 'any mileage' van warranty until 2020, where with the sports car there is a new flashy one released each and every year for those who can afford it (cpu upgrades on same Amd motherboard)

In reality, for most Amd buyers, they probably wish they had the Ferrari because 99.9% of doing anything else in their van is not as comfortable, not as fast and doesnt turn heads with the luxury price associated with the benefits and privileges of owning the Ferrari. If youre going to save money as a gamer (most moneysaving gamers have a 1080p display at 60hz), then you may as well save yourself more and totally lose the enhthusiast traits and go in for a 2nd 3rd or 4th gen intel with a gtx 970/980/1060 and save more cash and still max your monitor.

i'm sure you get my drift but the Ferrari is intel, Amd is the van fleet. The van manufacturer couldnt compete with making a car fast enough so decided to instead offer 32 vans with 64 trailers so you can do some extra loading in one trip.... Ferrari could also offer 32 much faster cars in retalliation but they know they have the faster, more luxurious and sought after vehicle and they arent about to give 32 away for the same price as the 32 slower work vans....

People who work in vans, go to work with dreams of being able to one day own a Ferrari. People who drive and own a ferrari dont go to work as they already own the Ferrari and enjoy the joyride, if you can afford the Ferrari, why go to work?

This will get some AMD fans very salty i'm sure, but on a positive:
Amd has been closing the gap recently and is creating much needed competion, this in turn gives better pricing and innovation for everyone. For now however, Intel is still ahead for the most part.

***IF*** you are genuinely a majority renderer, editor, animator, dev or any other kind of worker who does use programs that COULD POSSIBLY utilise lots of secondrate cores and you do spend 99% of your time doing this and further dont mind having secondrate performance with absolutley anything else, then sure, buy the van fleet..... for anything else however, go intel (if you can afford it).
Of course it does have a touch of expense to the speed and luxury but as with anything in life, premium usually comes at a premium!

 

[Troezar]

Amusing analogy but in a road rage punch up who do you put your money on, white van man or Ferrari poseur? Lol

 

[Pants]

Newsflash: A man with a Ferrari packed for a house move speeds through city with driver rabidly ranting at vans. Witnesses state the rant was something about "more than you can afford, pal", while noticing much of his cargo spilled out onto the road.

 

[Jamie Archer]

Lol I was bored late last night and what was going to be a simple reply turned Into quite an entertaining write up...

It did pass my night of insomnia and it did help but so far the responses have been tame, I really did expect a real defensive mouthful from the AMD workhorse faithful.

Jokes aside etc, I'm an intel fan purely because for a decade or more they have been by far the best in terms of clocks and ipc and if or when that changes i will gladly jump ship with no hesitation. Amd are closing the gap significantly and definitely relevant these days, I mainly game with a bit of editing here and there, so I go for mostly speed over core count, but in honesty Amd does offer good bang for buck and you may see advantages for workloads if that's mostly what you do, however in games Intel wins hands down.

People will argue that at currently high resolutions the cpu becomes less relevant as the gpu becomes more the bottleneck but as cards start to achieve more and more frames at 4k etc, the cpu will start becoming relevant once more (in which case Intel will pull back ahead again).
For now, 1080p or lower resolutions with higher framerates will find a cpu out...this is where intel takes advantage with better ipc and clockspeed. At 1440p or 4k and above (where the gpu can't push or send as many frames or draw calls to the cpu), the difference between amd and intel are currently minimal at most.

The catch 22 is that the budget amd purchase is currently close in gaming at 4k (as above) and people will justify going on the cheap and opting for AMD because of this....but in reality, if you're always one to go for the cheaper option then I'd highly doubt you purchased the 4k panel when the 1080p was so much cheaper and better bang for buck!...That would be kind of counter productive really and if anyone did in fact buy and opt for the van fleet and also bought a luxurious 4k panel...well you just technically put Ferrari wheels and a spolier on your van lmao....

 

[Drollic]

The biggest draw of AMD right now is the price and that an upgrade is probably only a drop in chip plus bios flash away. The upcoming i9 will be silly quick, offer years and years of future proofing but also cost silly money. It's the i7 8 core I'm most interested in as with the solder, 5.0 on all cores with good cooling should be attainable. Price will ultimately decide.

 

[Jamie Archer]

The biggest draw of AMD right now is the price and that an upgrade is probably only a drop in chip plus bios flash away. The upcoming i9 will be silly quick, offer years and years of future proofing but also cost silly money. It's the i7 8 core I'm most interested in as with the solder, 5.0 on all cores with good cooling should be attainable. Price will ultimately decide.

Totally agree but to be fair i was expecting the i9-9900k to be much more than is currently being rumoured (£450-500)???...

We can thank amd for this much as Intel was very much enjoying pumping out 4 cores for years at a huge premium having had no real competition. This amd push has made them innovate and push future releases much sooner and all at a much lesser pricetag.

If intel had their way like a few years ago, this i9 would have been only been available to server grade machines for grands at a time.

If you're buying 9700k or 9900k and you do in fact want to save a bit then id deffo opt for a z370 board. From what ive read they are like for like the same as z390, you just might have to have bios flashed unless the board has an on board bios flashing feature that doesnt require an 8th gen cpu.

I personally would wait on benchmarks on the 9700k. it is 8 cores, sure...but it comes without hyperthreading and I'm wondering if the 8700k maybe the better option. I know its a bonus that for once Intel is finally losing that pigeon poop thermal paste and soldering the IHS, but the 8700k (or even 8086k) is known to hit 5ghz with decent cooling anyway (youd be quite unlucky if it didnt, especially if delidded) and this 9th gen has basically the same IPC as 8th gen as far as ive read.
It looks like its basically 8th gen coffee lake with a couple more cores and when gaming, it's always suggested by people that most current games utilise no more than 4 cores/threads and even those that do (or future games that will), you'd actually still have 6 cores and 12 threads anyway and it probably does just as well in any game as the 9th gen 9700k.

If you look at work focused tasks, yes the 9700k has 8 cores vs the 6 of the 8700k, but the 6 core also has hyperthreading where the 9700k doesnt and therefore has 12 threads.
I'm not sure if those 4 extra threads may beat the 2 extra cores in work related tasks as well???..
it really needs benchtesting, but it'll be an interesting one for sure.

 

[Troezar]

I think the big question is once developers start multithreading their software better will it scale with more cores? If so then a six or eight core chip will soon get overtaken by the higher core count chips. If future software only scales to six or eight cores or less then the higher clocked 8700K and 9XXX chips will last much longer.

Any developers that can comment on the future of multithreading? All I know is it is quite hard to do and make it scale linearly.

 

[Jamie Archer]

I think the big question is once developers start multithreading their software better will it scale with more cores? If so then a six or eight core chip will soon get overtaken by the higher core count chips. If future software only scales to six or eight cores or less then the higher clocked 8700K and 9XXX chips will last much longer.

Any developers that can comment on the future of multithreading? All I know is it is quite hard to do and make it scale linearly.

That's very true but it has taken a very long time for them to even utilise 4 cores properly (in games at least).
It isn't often (unless a very new release) that a game uses more than 4 cores.
There are a good few work related softwares that utilise 8 cores and above but even some of those dont see or use over 8. I think it's only natural to say that if amd continue to flood the market with mass cores, then the devs will surely begin to code to utilise them all.

The future will likely be more about an entirely different style of processor, probably quantum computing with chips that use an array of expansive numbers or code that goes beyond the basic strings of 0s and 1s we have become accustomed to for so many years..

For now, speed is better for me personally but it is each to their own and what is best for each individual depends on many factors such as budget and what their intended main use would be.

 

[Destination]

You seem to have gone on a journey, first taking fast cars, then inappropriate speed trap anaologies, and onwards to suggesting anyone is skimping by chosing the cheaper amd option, especially at 4k. Before finally coming to rest to suggest that the previous generation might be a better deal than what is to come.
Also suggesting motherboards might work with a bios update.

We shall see in six months how ryzen v2 is looking against intel non tim and non security patched processors.
I do wonder now if intel had prior knowledge of the most recent foreshadow issues, thus are making a processor without hyperthreading. So it doesn’t need it disabled, and might generate less heat, thus be pushed further in clockspeed.

How much ipc gains are we expecting from the grand new gen of intel 4%? More/less?
They’ll have to push clockspeed to make the processors worth anything.

I personally hope ryzen2 destroys anything intel have, I doubt it will, but I hope it does, so the next batch of intel will be much better. This is coming from a house filled with intel machines.
I want the competition, and for a while i want amd supercompetetive, to give them public appeal.

 

[beany_bot]

I personally hope ryzen2 destroys anything intel have, I doubt it will, but I hope it does

But what if that means less funds / more funds diverted away from Intels DGPU adventure?
Who is the bigger evil, Intel or Nvidia?

 

[Destination]

Frankly with nvidia the issue is manufacturers will limit the production of games, due to what hardware is available.
I am hoping amd can come with something on that score too.
Not convinced intel will manage it, do they have a proven track record of moving into other sectors and being competetive?

 

[Jamie Archer]

You seem to have gone on a journey, first taking fast cars, then inappropriate speed trap anaologies, and onwards to suggesting anyone is skimping by chosing the cheaper amd option, especially at 4k. Before finally coming to rest to suggest that the previous generation might be a better deal than what is to come.
Also suggesting motherboards might work with a bios update.

We shall see in six months how ryzen v2 is looking against intel non tim and non security patched processors.
I do wonder now if intel had prior knowledge of the most recent foreshadow issues, thus are making a processor without hyperthreading. So it doesn’t need it disabled, and might generate less heat, thus be pushed further in clockspeed.

How much ipc gains are we expecting from the grand new gen of intel 4%? More/less?
They’ll have to push clockspeed to make the processors worth anything.

I personally hope ryzen2 destroys anything intel have, I doubt it will, but I hope it does, so the next batch of intel will be much better. This is coming from a house filled with intel machines.
I want the competition, and for a while i want amd supercompetetive, to give them public appeal.

So you dont think amd boards will require a bios update for each new cpu that fits the same socket until 2020?

And yes there is an analogy and a lot of info in there, I am an enthusiast and 20 years an I.T technician. When I get into a debate this tends to be the result.

The i9-9900k is indeed hyperthreaded so if they had concerns about disabling hyperthreading, then why on earth would they add hyperthreading on their top most expensive mainstream i9 chip?

There are benchmarks of rumoured pre release chips and once again amd is simply adding a lot more of whats second best for better value for money in order to compete.

As above im pretty honest and I've stated that I don't even feel i7/i9 9th gen will have much (if any) IPC improvement, it's just tweaking, altering clocks and adding extra cores to coffee lake, but really who's to complain when amd are still stuck at 0.5 to 1ghz slower clockspeeds with a lesser IPC?

I also agreed in part that amd are good competition for Intel as it forces innovation and keeps prices competitive.

Lastly I also said at 4k, the skimpy option maybe not so bad right now (until fps improves) and you'll actually get worse results for being at 1080p or less and then going for the budget option (presuming the buyer would also be using a pretty decent gpu).

That's also another thing I notice a lot...
99.9% of AMD owners also try to back their claims of the amd being great by stating they also have made substantial comparisons having Intel machines all over the place. This is totally against their morals and also contradictory with Intel previously being the more expensive option in the last generations as well. One of the amd owner's main points of going for amd was that they were the cheaper and better bang for buck option...So what on earth happened to your mindset last term when you invested in all of those Intel machines ypu claim to have? Recently swap personality traits and morals i guess.?..
Anyway, because they claim they have extensively tested both, they then claim to have ditched blue for red and further suggest amd is superior, thus backing their investment Into the budget option.....Hmmmm, i'd almost guarantee most of these people had fx cpus and radeon gpus before upgrading to Ryzen, if not that then likely secondhand Intel chipsets and cpus from yesteryear that were probably already obsolete at point of purchase anyway.

 

[humbug]

So you dont think amd boards will require a bios update for each new cpu that fits the same socket until 2020?

And yes there is an analogy and a lot of info in there, I am an enthusiast and 20 years an I.T technician. When I get into a debate this tends to be the result.

The i9-9900k is indeed hyperthreaded so if they had concerns about disabling hyperthreading, then why on earth would they add hyperthreading on their top most expensive mainstream i9 chip?

There are benchmarks of rumoured pre release chips and once again amd is simply adding a lot more of whats second best for better value for money in order to compete.

As above im pretty honest and I've stated that I don't even feel i7/i9 9th gen will have much (if any) IPC improvement, it's just tweaking, altering clocks and adding extra cores to coffee lake, but really who's to complain when amd are still stuck at 0.5 to 1ghz slower clockspeeds with a lesser IPC?

I also agreed in part that amd are good competition for Intel as it forces innovation and keeps prices competitive.

Lastly I also said at 4k, the skimpy option maybe not so bad right now (until fps improves) and you'll actually get worse results for being at 1080p or less and then going for the budget option (presuming the buyer would also be using a pretty decent gpu).

That's also another thing I notice a lot...
99.9% of AMD owners also try to back their claims of the amd being great by stating they also have made substantial comparisons having Intel machines all over the place. This is totally against their morals and also contradictory with Intel previously being the more expensive option in the last generations as well. One of the amd owner's main points of going for amd was that they were the cheaper and better bang for buck option...So what on earth happened to your mindset last term when you invested in all of those Intel machines ypu claim to have? Recently swap personality traits and morals i guess.?..
Anyway, because they claim they have extensively tested both, they then claim to have ditched blue for red and further suggest amd is superior, thus backing their investment Into the budget option.....Hmmmm, i'd almost guarantee most of these people had fx cpus and radeon gpus before upgrading to Ryzen, if not that then likely secondhand Intel chipsets and cpus from yesteryear that were probably already obsolete at point of purchase anyway.

That's a lot of rambling

I upgraded from a 4.5Ghz 4690K to what you see in my signature, in most but not all games my FPS have improved, sometime by a lot, double in fact, a lot of the productivity work i do has also doubled in performance.

That is not me defending my position, the fact is it is a lot faster than similar priced Intel chips, when they are presented with this what do you think people are supposed to do?

I had £150 to spend on a CPU, what should i have done? bought an i3? why would i do that? the Ryzen 1600 i have now is at its best faster than a 5Ghz 8600K.

What's your problem?

BTW the IPC is similar to Coffeelake.

 

[Pants]

@Jamie Archer You have some very odd views about amd owners

I have an amd rig because I could get more performance at a given price point. I have an Intel rig for the same reason when amd weren't competative.

 

[Jamie Archer]

That's a lot of rambling

I upgraded from a 4.5Ghz 4690K to what you see in my signature, in most but not all games my FPS have improved, sometime by a lot, double in fact, a lot of the productivity work i do has also doubled in performance.

That is not me defending my position, the fact is it is a lot faster than similar priced Intel chips, when they are presented with this what do you think people are supposed to do?

I had £150 to spend on a CPU, what should i have done? bought an i3? why would i do that? the Ryzen 1600 i have now is at its best faster than a 5Ghz 8600K.

What's your problem?

BTW the IPC is similar to Coffeelake.

Ive not got a problem at all, and sure, comparing amd's latest chips to Intel chips of the 4th generation (where at the time and in that era there was no compeition or need for innovation) you will of course see improvements...Amd do offer good value as ive insinuated, but my point still remains the same...core for core amd are second best at this time and because of this they therefore offer more cores for less or competitive pricing. That's my point.

There's nothing wrong with buying Amd, it's each to their own and is relevant of late but my point was that to buy the best of anything comes at a premium, that's why it costs a premium for an i9.

Amd have this argument about multicore workloads and if that's solely what you do and you have a budget or want to save, then sure, go amd...
If you want the latest and greatest and want the fastest (no matter how marginal) and you also do more than editing or opening 4000 apps at the same time and also don't mind or care about pricing, then go intel.

I made my point based on opinion backed by research and facts, I wasnt debating about how best to save money, i was giving my opinion on what is the best current tech regardless of price/cost.

Amd have a lesser ipc when comparing to current Intel releases from the same generation, that is fact, no matter how little you claim it to be, but it doesnt stop at IPC, it also has significantly lower clockspeeds and struggles to come anywhere near to intels recent 5ghz+ clocks..

I wasnt singling you out and clearly you have your reasons for going for an amd chip, you've stated why and with your budget it was a very good / sensible choice.

This is not my debate.

 

[Panos]

@Jamie Archer why all that rambling? You keep writing the same drivel without a single proof to prove your points.

 

[Lokken86]

To me Amd's answer is always to add more cores for a lesser price because they simply cannot compete core for core. Whether it's IPC or clockspeeds (both normally), intel always wins (although this gap has been closing significantly recently).

Sure lots of cores and loads of threads of secondrate is great for workers or people opening 1000 apps at the same time, but for everything else (including gaming), speed is key and intel wins here.

I always look at it with this analogy.... if you like and can afford to have a fast and flashy car that's quite expensive, turns heads and gets you about in style the quickest, then you opt for something like a Ferrari.......
If you work a lot and move large quantities of heavy and bulky items from place to place, then you buy a fleet of vans instead.....
The ferarri could transport your stuff but will take many, many journeys at a faster pace back and forth to move the entire load. The fleet of vans will of course be slower, but will probably fit most of the stuff in one load and do it all in one journey.....
Can the ferrari go back and forth in the same amount of time it takes the van to do it all in one slow trip? Who knows?..... but always the flashier, snappier, head turning option is the Ferrari and whilst the Ferrari stays faster, the van company will maintain sales by adding that extra van or 2 for value.

This post is probably a bit bait with regards to me getting a total verbal bashing from the pro Amd, but in honesty, you will often get money saving, solitary gamers who defend their budget Amd purchases by suddenly claiming to be renderers, animators, editors and all kinds of other work related professionals (having never done any of this previously and likely still have no clue how) just so they can give justification for their purchases.
They will brag how they paid less for their vans than the guy did with his flashy, faster Ferrari and how they can beat the Ferrari in the only situation where their vans are filled to the brim with cargo going from a to b or taking 40 people on one journey at the same time. They will also pounce on any potential flaws that the Ferrari may have such as that it may get caught by a speed camera (if youre not careful) and how their vans dont pose this same risk because they probably dont have the capability to get flagged (spectre/meltdown etc).
They will lastly state how their workhorses go on and on and will keep you working with an 'any mileage' van warranty until 2020, where with the sports car there is a new flashy one released each and every year for those who can afford it (cpu upgrades on same Amd motherboard)

In reality, for most Amd buyers, they probably wish they had the Ferrari because 99.9% of doing anything else in their van is not as comfortable, not as fast and doesnt turn heads with the luxury price associated with the benefits and privileges of owning the Ferrari. If youre going to save money as a gamer (most moneysaving gamers have a 1080p display at 60hz), then you may as well save yourself more and totally lose the enhthusiast traits and go in for a 2nd 3rd or 4th gen intel with a gtx 970/980/1060 and save more cash and still max your monitor.

i'm sure you get my drift but the Ferrari is intel, Amd is the van fleet. The van manufacturer couldnt compete with making a car fast enough so decided to instead offer 32 vans with 64 trailers so you can do some extra loading in one trip.... Ferrari could also offer 32 much faster cars in retalliation but they know they have the faster, more luxurious and sought after vehicle and they arent about to give 32 away for the same price as the 32 slower work vans....


People who work in vans, go to work with dreams of being able to one day own a Ferrari. People who drive and own a ferrari dont go to work as they already own the Ferrari and enjoy the joyride, if you can afford the Ferrari, why go to work?

This will get some AMD fans very salty i'm sure, but on a positive:
Amd has been closing the gap recently and is creating much needed competion, this in turn gives better pricing and innovation for everyone. For now however, Intel is still ahead for the most part.

***IF*** you are genuinely a majority renderer, editor, animator, dev or any other kind of worker who does use programs that COULD POSSIBLY utilise lots of secondrate cores and you do spend 99% of your time doing this and further dont mind having secondrate performance with absolutley anything else, then sure, buy the van fleet..... for anything else however, go intel (if you can afford it).
Of course it does have a touch of expense to the speed and luxury but as with anything in life, premium usually comes at a premium!

 

[Jamie Archer]

@Jamie Archer why all that rambling? You keep writing the same drivel without a single proof to prove your points.

If i need proof to prove what is all over the web then you can't call yourself an enthusiast, therefore your opinion is null and void.