Reasons for deciding on Intel or AMD

[Rroff]

so all the people who talk about power consumption.

do they also turn down graphics settings, resolutions etc because lower settings - less watts consumed by the GPU.

or do people just use it as an excuse to justify one manufacturer over another


Ray tracing alone must be about 100-200 watts

cap the fps at 30 imagine the energy savings

Unfortunately I don't have comparable enough setups to do any serious comparisons but I've measured power consumption at the wall on a few different setups through daily use and it really is quite different and more complicated than it appears in the reviews as to what will actually get meaningful power savings unless you specifically prioritise low power consumption over everything else and buy platforms designed for that (i.e. Intel S series CPUs, AMD 8000 series with Zen4C cores, etc.).

Even just speccing the PSU wrong and getting poor conversion efficiency for your setup and usage can undo much of any power savings from more efficient hardware.

 

[jigger]

The last gen highend cards are pretty much midrange at this point time. Even Intel are due to release new graphics cards.

I wouldn’t say 1440 is highend, definitely not at 16:9, probably even 21:9. I’m looking at a 7680x2160 for my next monitor.

 

[LePhuronn]

when it comes to gaming the 7800x3d and 14900 are high end

Not sure how the 7800x3D can be considered "high end" when there are literally 4 bigger, more powerful and more expensive models above it. It's slap in the middle of the pack, it's not it's fault that it just so happens to be the best gaming CPU of that generation.

And if you take "high end" purely as a description of performance, my point still stands that your inferred "high end = most expensive" is not true.

 

[WARburton]

The last gen highend cards are pretty much midrange at this point time. Even Intel are due to release new graphics cards.

thats right so the 3090, and thats about 4070s, so right at this moment in time 4080+ as to be high end

 

[WARburton]

Not sure how the 7800x3D can be considered "high end" when there are literally 4 bigger, more powerful and more expensive models above it.

and yet it still topping the gaming benchmarks or most games so right now its the king of gaming, what its midrange?
you said 14900 is high end then how can the CPU that wins it be anything's but high end

 

[Gray2233]

Not sure how the 7800x3D can be considered "high end" when there are literally 4 bigger, more powerful and more expensive models above it. It's slap in the middle of the pack, it's not it's fault that it just so happens to be the best gaming CPU of that generation.

And if you take "high end" purely as a description of performance, my point still stands that your inferred "high end = most expensive" is not true.

Because use case needs to be considered, it's pretty much S tier for gaming but would generally be considered a poor choice for someone with a productivity workload lean.

Regardless of use case, higher core count chips are inherently going to be more expensive and be considered higher end, and as of yet we don't have any X3D variants of the 9000 series.

 

[LePhuronn]

and yet it still topping the gaming benchmarks or most games so right now its the king of gaming, what its midrange?
you said 14900 is high end then how can the CPU that wins it be anything's but high end

Either you're misconstruing "high end" to just argue a losing point, or you need to quantify what "high end" actually means, because in actuality that wasn't the point being made.

My original reply to you was borne from @malachi's original point in that high price doesn't automatically mean best performance, a point that you refuted with "it literally does" with nothing to support that claim. I supported his point by citing the 7800X3D which is by no means a "high end" CPU given its price and position in the 7000 series product stack, and the 7900XTX which trades blows with the 4090 in raster performance at 2/3 the price.

These are not top price components, yet deliver class-leading performance. Ergo your claim that top price = top performance is simply not true.

And we've seen this countless times over the years; AMD Thunderbird CPUs absolutely murdering Pentium 3 and Pentium 4 at half the price, Intel Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad being overclocking monsters yet not breaking the bank, ATI putting the hurt on Nvidia at a much lower price point, and so on.

 

[LePhuronn]

Because use case needs to be considered, it's pretty much S tier for gaming but would generally be considered a poor choice for someone with a productivity workload lean.

Regardless of use case, higher core count chips are inherently going to be more expensive and be considered higher end, and as of yet we don't have any X3D variants of the 9000 series.

And whilst all that is true and valid, that's not the point I was refuting. "High end" was a tangent from the original point made that "midrange components can oftentimes outperform top end components, so top price doesn't necessarily mean top performance", a point that was weirdly dismissed with "but it literally does".

 

[Gray2233]

And whilst all that is true and valid, that's not the point I was refuting. "High end" was a tangent from the original point made that "midrange components can oftentimes outperform top end components, so top price doesn't necessarily mean top performance", a point that was weirdly dismissed with "but it literally does".

I was merely adding to the discourse, I feel it's an often overlooked problem in tech. Performance is situational to need, the 7800X3D is the best general gaming CPU on the market right now. However, you might come close for general use with a 14700K and have a better overall experience if you do anything productivity related. There's undoubtedly super niche scenarios out there where a user might be heavily into a very specific game with super odd requirements, and the more cores or IPC the better rather than the L3 offered by X3D setups.

I don't disagree with your point at all in respect to price being relative to use case. I actually see a shocking lack of understanding on a PC tech forum in that regard lately, part of me wonders if it's due to people wanting to retain their members market privs.

 

[LePhuronn]

part of me wonders if it's due to people wanting to retain their members market privs.

The powers that be were warned about this possibility, but they stubbornly stuck to a bad implementation of an overly complex solution to a problem that only existed in their own minds, but that's a digression for another time and place.

For sure yes, use case is top priority when speccing things out. You're not beating a 7800X3D for purely gaming, despite it not being the top SKU or the most expensive, but I sure as hell am not buying one for a boat load of VMs, video editing or CAD.

 

[Gray2233]

The powers that be were warned about this possibility, but they stubbornly stuck to a bad implementation of an overly complex solution to a problem that only existed in their own minds, but that's a digression for another time and place.

It's unfortunate, I saw it happening from the get go. We even have people that don't actually use the MM much if at all suddenly posting very poor takes in tech threads, there's a sense of loss involved there I believe but it's not healthy to the forum in my mind. There has been an uptick in engagement, and if that's key to OCUK I get it, but I also think it's lowered the quality of posting and information in the tech sections.

Anyhow, I agree but felt the need to add my penny. Definitely a conversation for another thread and time.

 

[malachi]

And we've seen this countless times over the years; AMD Thunderbird CPUs absolutely murdering Pentium 3 and Pentium 4 at half the price, Intel Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad being overclocking monsters yet not breaking the bank, ATI putting the hurt on Nvidia at a much lower price point, and so on.

Yes, this was my point from before.

I was building PC's on the side back then for customers. They all wanted Intel because of the Pentium brand name. They all went AMD, including me. When the Thunderbird CPU's where cheaper and better.

 

[arknor]

The last gen highend cards are pretty much midrange at this point time. Even Intel are due to release new graphics cards.

by last gen you mean what the 3000 series etc?

4090 will still be the second fastest card probably with the 5000 series release.

I wouldn’t say 1440 is highend, definitely not at 16:9, probably even 21:9. I’m looking at a 7680x2160 for my next monitor.

steam states probably says 3440x1440 is extremely high and a minority unless you meant the peon aspect ratio

Wow Chinese is more common on steam than English and I guess has been for around a year.


Simplified Chinese
36.57%
+1.54%

English
30.91%
-0.26%

 

[jigger]

by last gen you mean what the 3000 series etc?

4090 will still be the second fastest card probably with the 5000 series release.

steam states probably says 3440x1440 is extremely high and a minority unless you meant the peon aspect ratio

Wow Chinese is more common on steam than English and I guess has been for around a year.


Simplified Chinese
36.57%
+1.54%

English
30.91%
-0.26%

No I mean very soon the current high end will be very much mid range. The steam hardware lists are pretty much just reflect the Chinese used/cyber cafe hardware market now.

 

[WARburton]

No I mean very soon the current high end will be very much mid range. The steam hardware lists are pretty much just reflect the Chinese used/cyber cafe hardware market now.

did you take a second to look at anything. you should good look at the info on steam and look at what people in the real-world are gaming with.

the sort of systems your talking about 14900k and 4090 are not high end, there classed as elite tear.
right now just the CPU and GPU new will set you back £2200.
so by what time frame are was talking about them been classed as midrange?

out of interest what system do you have? the one in yoursig?

 

[jigger]

did you take a second to look at anything. you should good look at the info on steam and look at what people in the real-world are gaming with.

the sort of systems your talking about 14900k and 4090 are not high end, there classed as elite tear.
right now just the CPU and GPU new will set you back £2200.
so by what time frame are was talking about them been classed as midrange?

out of interest what system do you have? the one in yoursig?

There is nothing really elite about the 4090 or 14900k. Both are outdated hardware and very overpriced.

 

[WARburton]

There is nothing really elite about the 4090 or 14900k. Both are outdated hardware and very overpriced.

that said, there still classed as, as good as it gets

getting no reply the question i assume you sig rig is your current system.
this is a system that can do light 1080 and 1440, where would you put your system in terms for ranking.
AMD Ryzen 1800X - Radeon RX 5700 XT

if like you said my system is mid at best (not saying your wrong)
AMD Ryzen 5700x3d - Radeon RX 7800 XT

and this is only high end not elite
14900k - RTX 4090

so what would be an elite system right now
?????

 

[jigger]

that said, there still classed as, as good as it gets

Maybe you have that impression because of the marketing, but the reality is neither are particularly good.

 

[Mr Jack]

Like most everyone else has said I look at what currently offers the better price/cost at the level I'm looking at. Same as nVidia vs AMD. If they come up about equal I tend to go for Intel and nVidia since they have the larger market share and are likely to be used by people in their testing and development and thus better supported.

Right now, I'd be going for AMD, although my current set up is running Intel.

 

[Game]

Not sure how the 7800x3D can be considered "high end" when there are literally 4 bigger, more powerful and more expensive models above it. It's slap in the middle of the pack, it's not it's fault that it just so happens to be the best gaming CPU of that generation.

And if you take "high end" purely as a description of performance, my point still stands that your inferred "high end = most expensive" is not true.

£400+ on a cpu is highend for 95% of users anything sub £200 is midrange under £100 budget