Any Reason to buy intel?

[Jimmy Weirdarms]

thing is if people take bias out of it and just plug in play and the whole factor why people are disregarding intel cpus is a bit daft.

amd new cpus. over priced. heatttttttttttt. balance of memory , tweaking. not much if any difference to a intel counter part in actual daily use. for 99 percent of people.
intel cpu. now mainly cheaper put it in and works with no tweaking. cooler most of the time.

Intel's chips produce more heat, no? AMD CPUs may spike to higher temps, but in terms of sustained heat output, I'm pretty sure AMD are winning. AMD chips also don't need tweaking, in fact there's not much you can do to tweak them these days as they find their own max boosts. Intel are not even really cheaper, we're just in the middle of (yet another) launch supply squeeze at the moment.

That said, if intel are the slightly-worse slightly-cheaper option, then that's fantastically funny.

 

[~>Dg<~]

Intel's chips produce more heat, no? AMD CPUs may spike to higher temps, but in terms of sustained heat output, I'm pretty sure AMD are winning. AMD chips also don't need tweaking, in fact there's not much you can do to tweak them these days as they find their own max boosts. Intel are not even really cheaper, we're just in the middle of (yet another) launch supply squeeze at the moment.

That said, if intel are the slightly-worse slightly-cheaper option, then that's fantastically funny.

amd cpus are pretty hot. on on average hotter than intel cpus. amd chips dont need tweaking i would go read about them on here and people tweaking them. especially with memory coming into the picture. you do deffo need to do more to get the same performance which you dont have to with a intel cpu.the intel cpus at the moment because of gouging low stock are actually mostly cheaper than new amd cpus.

 

[~>Dg<~]

Well lets be honest here.

Intel loses in gaming, productivity and power consumption.

Other than price, i haven't looked recently but i think you can get an overclockable 6 core 12 thread from Intel that is cheaper than the 5600X? but is also in every measurable way worse, other than a budget alternative what are Intel for now?

no lets be real honest with no bias gaming generally there is no difference and often with no amd biased games the top end intel cpus are still faster in games.

productivity work i can agree....but as i said 99 percent of people wont be using them for those features so generally intel still offer the easiest drop in use less heat even price at the moment.

also match cpus price per price.

 

[humbug]

no lets be real honest with no bias gaming generally there is no difference and often with no amd biased games the top end intel cpus are still faster in games.

productivity work i can agree....but as i said 99 percent of people wont be using them for those features so generally intel still offer the easiest drop in use less heat even price at the moment.

also match cpus price per price.

Something that isn't taken into account is the price of the overall platform, Gamers Nexus did a poll, 10600K at $275 or 5600X at $300, 17% went for the 10600K and 87% for the 5600X citing the cost of motherboards on the Intel side. so when you include the motherboard the 10600K is not even any cheaper, and slower.

They haven't done this with the 5950X but "tuning" mainstream gaming CPU's from BOTH vendors results in:

Not one of these games is an "AMD game" and Tuned the 5600X beats a Tuned 10600K and a 10900K at 5.2Ghz.

Shadow of the Tomb Raider.

5600X Tuned: 211 FPS. 109%
10900K: 5.2Ghz: 199 FPS. 103%
10600K Tuned: 193 FPS. 100%


Division 2.

5600X Tuned: 254 FPS. 113%
10900K: 5.2Ghz: 226 FPS. 101%
10600K Tuned: 224 FPS. 100%


F1 2020.

5600X Tuned: 344 FPS. 108%
10900K: 5.2Ghz: 325 FPS. 102%
10600K Tuned: 318 FPS. 100%


Three Kingdoms Campaign.

5600X Tuned: 156 FPS. 119%
10900K: 5.2Ghz: 125 FPS. 96%
10600K Tuned: 131 FPS. 100%


Red Dead 2

5600X Tuned: 166 FPS. 96%
10900K: 5.2Ghz: 180 FPS. 104%
10600K Tuned: 173 FPS. 100%

 

[Jimmy Weirdarms]

amd cpus are pretty hot. on on average hotter than intel cpus.

That's not the same as kicking out more thermal energy. They seem to spike hotter but be more power efficient, therefore kick out less heat overall.

amd chips dont need tweaking i would go read about them on here and people tweaking them

People on here tweak *everything*, it's kinda the point of the place. AFAICT the tweakers and clockers are disappointed by both AMD *and* intel these days, as both companies do a good job of maximising available performance without tweaks. Extreme cooling is about the only way people are getting much more out of any of them.

you do deffo need to do more to get the same performance which you dont have to with a intel cpu

I don't believe that's true at all, especially as the new processors boost themselves out of the box. AMD has the crown now.

the intel cpus at the moment because of gouging low stock are actually mostly cheaper than new amd cpus.

I think that's the only thing we agree on. As stock gets sorted out, this goes away.

 

[Jimmy Weirdarms]

top end intel cpus are still faster in games.

This is just not the case any more.

 

[humbug]

This is just not the case any more.

Yea, it really isn't, there are several of instances where even the current entry level Zen 3 beats the 10900K, the reason Steve Burke did that above video is because a lot of Intel shills complained in the original 10600K vs 5600X review that "he didn't tune the 10600K and that's why it lost"

So he tuned them both and the result was the same. If you can tune one you can tune the other, of course they only ever want one tuned but not the other, his words.

 

[Trustdesa]

Something that isn't taken into account is the price of the overall platform, Gamers Nexus did a poll, 10600K at $275 or 5600X at $300, 17% went for the 10600K and 87% for the 5600X citing the cost of motherboards on the Intel side. so when you include the motherboard the 10600K is not even any cheaper, and slower.

They haven't done this with the 5950X but "tuning" mainstream gaming CPU's from BOTH vendors results in:

Not one of these games is an "AMD game" and Tuned the 5600X beats a Tuned 10600K and a 10900K at 5.2Ghz.

Shadow of the Tomb Raider.

5600X Tuned: 211 FPS. 109%
10900K: 5.2Ghz: 199 FPS. 103%
10600K Tuned: 193 FPS. 100%


Division 2.

5600X Tuned: 254 FPS. 113%
10900K: 5.2Ghz: 226 FPS. 101%
10600K Tuned: 224 FPS. 100%


F1 2020.

5600X Tuned: 344 FPS. 108%
10900K: 5.2Ghz: 325 FPS. 102%
10600K Tuned: 318 FPS. 100%


Three Kingdoms Campaign.

5600X Tuned: 156 FPS. 119%
10900K: 5.2Ghz: 125 FPS. 96%
10600K Tuned: 131 FPS. 100%


Red Dead 2

5600X Tuned: 180 FPS. 104%
10900K: 5.2Ghz: 165 FPS. 96%
10600K Tuned: 173 FPS. 100%

Lord AMD MOTHERBOADS ARE TRASH, really is 2021, motherboards have wifi and sound and most people use only one expansion slot, GPU (GamerNexus poll showed 80% circa), there are more people building itx and matx, what can you get on AMD? Nothing, B550 are pretty average MB and are the only ones with decent variety, x570 has ONE, I mean, ONE single rubbish Asrock... sure the average AMD fanboys is used to cheap stuff but if you want to get more market you also need to offer what your competitor is offering as you decided to be more expensive as not everyone think like a fanboy. So motherboards is a huge factor to take into account. Example if I am in the market for a microATX as it is not 1999 anymore:

• ASRock AM4/X570M Pro4/DDR4/M.2/HDMI/DP/RJ45 that's what about 200 quid gets you on AMD if you want latest chipset
• ASUS ROG Strix Z490-G Gaming (Wi-Fi) Intel Z490 that's what you get on INTEL

Sure PCI 4 is something but zero difference on GPU and even NMVE on daily use at 3.0 vs SATA makes zero differences, I have one as I wanted one but I could not find a bonus besides when I move files, yet by the time 4tb is cheap enough to be used for large files 4.0 will be obsolete anyway as we all know. Thinking futureproof is pointless too, both AMD and Intel will use new socket in second half 2021 as we know so really what you buy today is just for today.

Temp-wise is a non discussion point, even if 5900x gets 80 stock that means nothing if TDP is low is still good, stop talking nerds crap

On some cases made on this thread the answers are trivial, really on price point often is a matter of ecosystem...stability (ehm DDR compatibility)....preferences...familiarity, asking "WHY" is like asking someone why they do not like pizza, they just don't...


We could spend the rest of our lives here talking cr**p, fact is we need to support both Intel 14+++ was in par with TSMC 10nm as efficiency but you get most fanboys not even knowing what a nanometre is turning up talking like electrical engineers, AMD showed very little consumer care in two instances for me this past month:

• No pedigree on graphic card, yet they come out with a first decently made to compete high end in years and years and their asking price is premium
• CPU are top notch, great series 5000 is but they spend more time slamming Ngreedia on GPU for then sending like 300cpu to OCuk main competitor in weeks, really? With 50 plus on previous gen which is mostly a joke as actual selling price is way way more expensive, in fact using same MSRP game Nvidia is playing.

So there are several reasons why one should be a zombie fanboy and just buy reading and being informed, both have something to offer, what I find funny is people who really do not need CPU, i.e. anyone gaming will be fine with an i7 8700k for years and years to come (or AMD equivalent of course).

If you ask me situation was the same before, people always had a choice, when AMD was 100 points back on a benchmark wasn't making them any bad if you are in a decent standard deviation range

 

[humbug]

What are you talking about? i just spent 5 minutes looking and found 8 small form factor 500 series boards ranging from £70 to £300 and i'm sure there's plenty more...

 

[~>Dg<~]

the problem is amd biased games in benchmarks. codie games work with amd. tombraider same. division same. you get the picture.

 

[Jimmy Weirdarms]

the problem is amd biased games in benchmarks. codie games work with amd. tombraider same. division same. you get the picture.

You're starting to sound a little trumpy here...

 

[Allattar1]

As someone pointed out earlier. You can currently buy an Intel chip. I’m losing hope of seeing my 5900. If I hadn’t have bought and constructed the case motherboard ram and hard drive, I would be weighing up swapping the order to the 10900 so I could actually replace my positively ancient 2700k.

 

[woppy101]

the problem is amd biased games in benchmarks. codie games work with amd. tombraider same. division same. you get the picture.

Did you really just say AMD bias games???? Are you drunk, Intel has make back handers left right and Center for years to developers to make AMD chips run poorly and prioritise intel chips, you really should take your intel fanboy glasses off every now and then

 

[Jacky60]

The savings from buying Intel will be eaten by your electricity bill relatively quickly. I'd get a 5900X if at all possible and certainly wait. We are seeing constrained supply atmo because we have incredibly compelling new GPUs and CPUs that really do pi$$ all over previous AMD, Intel and Nvidia offerings. If you're daft enough not to be patient and buy last gen because you're too silly to wait then good luck to you.

 

[Jimmy Weirdarms]

As someone pointed out earlier. You can currently buy an Intel chip. I’m losing hope of seeing my 5900. If I hadn’t have bought and constructed the case motherboard ram and hard drive, I would be weighing up swapping the order to the 10900 so I could actually replace my positively ancient 2700k.

The 5900 was crazy popular, the queues are really huge :/

AFAICT, from another supplier, I should be getting my 5950x within two or three weeks, but the 5900 has longer queues and less incoming stock... I hope that changes for you soon!

 

[Minstadave]

the problem is amd biased games in benchmarks. codie games work with amd. tombraider same. division same. you get the picture.

Not sure if serious.......

 

[LtMatt]

No reason at all to buy Intel these days, for now at least.

 

[Joxeon]

No reason at all to buy Intel these days, for now at least.

No reason to buy Intel and AMD is constantly out of stock with about 50 CPUs arriving in the whole of the uk in the last 3 weeks so may aswell forget building a PC.

 

[~>Dg<~]

Did you really just say AMD bias games???? Are you drunk, Intel has make back handers left right and Center for years to developers to make AMD chips run poorly and prioritise intel chips, you really should take your intel fanboy glasses off every now and then

think what you posted then think if amd are doing the same what is the difference ? the difference is you favour a side. dont favour a side realize that most of the game benchmarks being shown by people are mainly when amd are in the lead amd games or games amd who work closely with them. people here actually know this but this forums is a pro amd forum. i actually prefer amd as a company over intel. the problem is being bias. which many are and cant be truthfully honest.

reality is at games just slot in buy play intel generally still are better. the performance is literally the same. intel counterparts because of retailers gouging are dearer as well.

so people who are pro amd scream intel done. yet you can buy that intel chip right now no gouge and be the same performance. for 99 percent of all people who will use their pc.

 

[Jimmy Weirdarms]

reality is at games just slot in buy play intel generally still are better

Except that's no longer the reality.