I dont think we need a bunch of graphs to know that in a bang for buck comparison AMD will win, but yeah there are plenty of people for whom price is less of a consideration and there are certainly cases where Intel still dominate AMD so I guess its horses for courses.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Any Intel fans that have switched back to AMD?
- Thread starter Whiffle
- Start date
I dont think we need a bunch of graphs to know that in a bang for buck comparison AMD will win, but yeah there are plenty of people for whom price is less of a consideration and there are certainly cases where Intel still dominate AMD so I guess its horses for courses.
Deleted member 66701
D
Deleted member 66701
Yup, I switched from a 4770k to Threadripper because Intel had nothing price/perf comparable (and still don't).
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2018
- Posts
- 2,715
Thank you to all the loyal AMD fans who bought FX chips and AMD GPUs. Otherwise AMD wouldn't have had enough R&D for Ryzen and Intel would still be pushing 4 cores on most of their line up.
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2011
- Posts
- 3,598
Soldato
It's depressing to think that if not for AMD, that's precisely what Intel would be doing, and which is why they'll never see a penny more from me.
Mind you, they haven't since I bought a Pentium 200, years ago, so I don't think they'll be bothered much.
Soldato
I've been Intel since I swapped my '97/'98 era AMD K6-2 450Mhz for an Intel Slot 1 800Mhz CPU and it's taken over 20 years for AMD to finally get their act together and make me want to swap. So later this year, should all the hype be real, I'll be swapping my 2011 i7 [email protected] system for something like an 8c/16t (or 12c/24t) at around 4.5Ghz or more.
E8400 and 2500k, ended up with first AMD cou with r5 2600.
Didn't want to support intel any longer after that massive 6-7 year stagnation in CPUs and having zero upgrade options from the 2500k at the same price point I paid in 2011 until after ryzen launched, even then AMD was still cheaper and gave you hyperthreading.
Didn't want to support intel any longer after that massive 6-7 year stagnation in CPUs and having zero upgrade options from the 2500k at the same price point I paid in 2011 until after ryzen launched, even then AMD was still cheaper and gave you hyperthreading.
I`ve owned AMD and Intel over the years. Had a 2500K for quite a while, but a couple of years ago it started to show it's age. Had no hesitation in switching to AMD (R5 1600), and happy that I did. Not too fussed if a game running ~80fps would run ~90fps with a more expensive CPU. For £200 at the time it was a no-brainer.
Associate
I've always been an AMD fan (first PC had an Athlon XP 2600+ in it) but have been using Intel since an E6400 back in 2006. About a year ago I bought an 8700K purely because my usage involves gaming only (in terms of intensive stuff) and it had an IPC advantage which would help with high refresh rates. I managed to get it for around £300 back then but since the prices have gone insane I wouldn't recommend it over a 2700X. With Ryzen 3 series if they can match IPC and keep prices reasonable while offering more cores than Intel then they will be a no-brainer.
Permabanned
I have used both systems over the years. Up to date Intel has had the clear advantage. Though honestly i think this has come to an end now. There is very minimal differences between them and i would say the way you use your cpu mostly would dictate which way you should go.
As mentioned single core IPC is ahead on Intel. But it is a lot closer than previous generations. Mild usage probably no visual difference. Only synthetic benchmarks.
The Multicore is both very strong. Looking like AMD will have more cores available then for heavy duty computing this maybe the way to go.
But rest assured that either choice will be a good one.
As mentioned single core IPC is ahead on Intel. But it is a lot closer than previous generations. Mild usage probably no visual difference. Only synthetic benchmarks.
The Multicore is both very strong. Looking like AMD will have more cores available then for heavy duty computing this maybe the way to go.
But rest assured that either choice will be a good one.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2015
- Posts
- 18,514
I think its more thanking MS and Sony with PS4 and Xbox X owners ... Soon we'll also be thanking Console gamers for better ports or optimised Games for 6 plus core Intel/AMD chips ....
look forward to finally seeing some bunny hoping in performance now , Zen2 should overtake - then intel 10 core 14nm then Zen3 and then Intel finally getting 10nm out... though pricing not favour that root
, but only silver lining for AMD is, if Intel release better products at higher prices, mean then can increase their own to further R&D funds whilst still being the chip for budget to performance to buy
Associate
It's depressing to think that if not for AMD, that's precisely what Intel would be doing, and which is why they'll never see a penny more from me.
Mind you, they haven't since I bought a Pentium 200, years ago, so I don't think they'll be bothered much.
Assuming the competition will be similar by the time of my next CPU upgrade I'll be going AMD all the way for similar reasons. It was only once Ryzen launched and Intel responded with more cores that I realised quite how badly they'd been holding everyone back.
Simply not true. Enthusiasts have been using Xeon’s with higher core counts in desktop boards for years before Ryzen, x79/x99 in particular.
In general this whole thread is littered with opinions that seem to forget actual history. For example AMD have been ahead on several occasions, the Athlon hit 1Ghz before the P3 and could achieve a 40-50%+ overclock with decent cooling, or the Athlon 64 which did as its name suggests and ran 64bit and obliterated anything intel were offering at the time.
I buy whatever is the best option at the time for the given task, sometimes that had to be intel, other times it was AMD, currently it’s a mix of x99 Xeon’s and Ryzen - I would love to consolidate 3-4 boxes into a single TR or Zen2 build though.
Caporegime
Been running a 1600x / 1080ti combo in a second rig for over a year now as a test, been impressed, will be switching my main rig (7700k / 1080ti in sli) over to AMD later this year.
Associate
But those Xeons were priced well beyond typical consumer offerings. The fact remains Intel kept those to 4 cores (adding only hyperthreading) for a period of about 9 years.
And as for the historical amnesia Intel dominated for over a decade prior to the arrival of the Zen architecture and during the latter stages of that period they took full advantage of that and were subsequently caught off guard.
Soldato
This.
When I bought my X5650 rig from the MM two or three years ago, OCUK still had a couple of X5650 chips for sale at £800.
Permabanned
what more is needed. there is still many people playing games on high setting at 1440/120hz on 2600k's
But those Xeons were priced well beyond typical consumer offerings.
i bet my X99 rig cost less then your sig rig?
Associate
Yes, you can play at 144hz on those processors but will see lower frame rates but the higher the better and newer CPUs offer significant improvements there. More importantly developers produce engines with the current hardware in mind and wouldn't have pushed parallelism as much when 4 cores/8 threads was the most common target.
Also the Xeons with more than 4 cores at default ran at lower frequencies than their consumer counterparts until a few years ago.
My 8700K was £285 and the mobo £130, X99 mobos generally started at much higher prices for a start so the total platform cost was high. And the price of my rig is irrelevant, which Xeon did you buy at what price and which i7 was the too end consumer part at the time and what was it's cost?
Last edited:
HT was in the P4 in 2002, it's been 17+ years, almost twice what you state and nothing to do with the i series of chips, intel removed it from lower end variants, but that's not the issue here. Also intel weren't caught off guard, they gambled on being able to transition to 10nm and lost, that's why refresh after refresh has taken place recently. It just so happened that AMD was able to be competitive at the same time, not only on price, but on performance and supply. Zen2 looks set to move the goalposts completely if it moves to the rumoured 16c/32t top end as that's well into Xeon/TR territory. That's not ground intel wants to compete on, ever, as that's where the money is. Intel have history (x58/79/99) for dropping Xeon chipsets in consumer boards for HEDT and charging a premium, it didn't need to improve on 4c/8t for the masses - most of them have little to gain and those that do were a tiny percentage of the market - they were supposed to buy HEDT.
At face value your Xeon cost point is correct, but this is OCUK, so look a little deeper, the critical part of Xeon ownership for enthusiasts has always come down to 2 letters, the last was always an S, the first was either an E or a Q. With a little knowledge, 8C/16t CPU's were inexpensive for x99, in some cases you could buy the retail stepping for peanuts vs. the retail price, 24c/48t was possible. My 2630 v3 set-up (board, CPU, RAM) cost less than my Ryzen set-up, even with the latter enjoying some very significant discounts. Also remember OCUK sold x99 boards for as little as £99 new (Gigabyte EATX from memory).
Also no amnesia here, you seem to be assuming something I neither said nor implied - obviously intel were ahead for a significant period of time, obviously they resold the same processors with the same core count and minor IPC/clock improvements because they didn't need to innovate in the desktop market, it was so stupidly obvious that I wasn't aware it needed to be pointed out to anyone, you obviously do for some reason. However the balance has shifted multiple times over the years, many people either were oblivious to that or seemingly had forgotten. AMD gained a world record in clock speed for a microprocessor (still holds it iirc - 8+ Ghz), beat intel to single die multicore processors, hit 5Ghz at stock years before intel, set the standard in the mobile sector APU and even desktop APU's, pretty much took over the console gaming market, they also did quite well at GPU mining. So again, buy what's best for the task, if it's AMD then good for you, if your workload suits intel then great, but before making sweeping generalisations about either company, remember the history is long and not quite as clear cut as some of your points would suggest.