I don't use AMD. CHANGE MY MIND

[Axeonelite]

Hello!

 

I am Axeonelite, I used to be very active here but have since fallen off, so hello to users new and old! 

 

When I built my first PC it was hot off the heels of the GTX 10 series Lineup. So with the hype I acquired myself a EVGA 1070 for under MSRP somehow. I paired this with a Intel i7-6700k and 16 gigs of ram. 

 

To this day I have NEVER used a AMD processor in my daily driver. (I did have a AMD APU in my Laptop at one point in time but I am not counting that since it was not my primary system, I rarely used it.) Even when I am spec-ing out my builds I never consider AMD +/- Radeon products. It is always Intel + Nvidia. I don't know what but it's my nature and I have this uneasy feeling whenever I consider anything AMD

 

I have since sold my primary PC and with my busy season at work coming up and looking into building a new one, but am unsure currently what my budget will be able to be (especially with my new and first wife in the mix) I am hearing great things about new Ryzen processors and RX series graphics. But despite that I can't convince myself to stare into the red void VS the Blue and Green haven I've been residing in. 

 

 

**EDIT for Information.**

 

I use my PC primarily for gaming. I play just about everything from E-Sports titles such as  League of Legends to Modern AAA games such as Jedi Fallen Order, Kingdom Come, and Remnant.  I currently use a LG Ultrawide running at 2560x1080 so you know the resolution I'm pushing. I also do light video editing in Adobe Premiere Pro, and some music in Ableton Live. 

 

Anyone care to share some thoughts? Let me know!

 

Thank y'all very much in advance for interesting topic 

[m0oble]

i mean you've never used it and all you know is that intel and nvidia hasnt made your computer explode therefore your rational thinking is sticking with it and not changing it out for a different company. i dont blame you but if you wanna save 500 dollars and have a pc ready for the next 5 years and not 2 then i'd switch

[Bombastinator]

The advantage of AMD currently is pure price/performance and it’s pretty thorough.  Anything 8 core or below AMD has faster stuff for cheaper.  Anything 12 core or above AMD has faster stuff for cheaper.  At 8 core and 8 core only, AMD does not have faster stuff for cheaper.  It DOES have slower stuff for cheaper though.  So unless you’re building a high end gaming specific rig, or you really really need specifically single thread performance and cost is unimportant, AMD is kinda just winning right now.  
Except in that one specific catagory if you go intel you will spend more and get less.  Unless you specifically need single thread performance.

[Slottr]

What do you use your pc for? There are certain applications for each side that tend to be more dependent on certain architectures 

[Giganthrax]

AMD is more bang for your buck. Also, if money is a concern, the AM4 slot also enables you to get a cheaper CPU now and replace it with a far more powerful CPU at a later date.

[Axeonelite]

3 minutes ago, Slottr said:

What do you use your pc for? There are certain applications for each side that tend to be more dependent on certain architectures 

Very good! My apologies. Check updated main post. 

[dizmo]

If you're going for a midrange CPU, AMD beats Intel even when it comes to games. Intel only really rules the top end.

[Samfisher]

LoL can be played on a toaster, a modern toaster but a toaster nonetheless.  Radeon GPUs....just ignore them.  Even rabid fans are avoiding those cos of massive driver issues.  You can just go to the AMD subreddit and sort by top, there's a thread with almost 4k upvotes about refunding his Radeon GPU cos of driver instability.  Everything else you play won't care whether it's Intel or AMD.

[Bombastinator]

1 minute ago, dizmo said:

If you're going for a midrange CPU, AMD beats Intel even when it comes to games. Intel only really rules the top end.

I would say it kind of rules a somewhat narrow band near the top.  There is an argument that intel does faster single core in general.  The intel 6/12 unlocked is the 8700k which will kick the pants off a 3600x in single core.  The problem is it’s literally twice the cost, and for the price difference you can get an 8/16 AMD chip that is simultaneously all round faster and cheaper.

 

Intel actually has some better stuff which gets weaker and weaker as chips get bigger. The problem is they’re charging way way too much for it compared to AMD.  A 3600 is basically a not very good 8700 for a whole lot less money.  So much less that it goes against 4/8s from intel and it beats them.

[Arika]

Use what ever does want you want at what ever price your comfortable paying. Ignore brand always 

[mr moose]

I don't know anyone who has bought A CPU and then said they wished they'd gone with the other brand.  Many have said they wished they had bought something cheaper or something more powerful, but for everyday use and most gaming you as the end user won't be able to tell if the CPU is AMD or Intel.  

 

My advice when it comes to this sort of thing is always the same,  buy the best performing product in your price range.

[Jurrunio]

Intel vs AMD: Few cases where Intel wins tbh, I can only recall faster boot times (Ryzen has to go through AGESA initialization, basically an extra period of time used to start up the CPU), AVX-512 support on X299 (missing even on Threadripper), higher single core performance on Z390 platform with an unlocked CPU when overclocked and that the high core count ones on Z390 are available with an iGPU, just in case you have to run without the graphics card for some reason.

 

Nvidia vs AMD: Now this is the tougher choice. AMD offers cheaper hardware that's faster in the real world, but then it does worse in features (e.g. no hardware realtime raytracing components, worse video encoding capability), drivers @Zando Bob that tends to not work as intended (they managed to break fan speed control on Navi during launch... how tf can they fail something this simple) and power draw (7nm instead of Turing's 12nm, but still draws more power and kicks out more heat).

38 minutes ago, Axeonelite said:

 I currently use a LG Ultrawide running at 2560x1080 so you know the resolution I'm pushing.

which means GPU bottleneck a lot of the time? Depends on how high your budget goes really, but below $1300-1500 for everything in the PC case it's always better spend less on the CPU (which means going for Zen 2 Ryzen) and more on the graphics card.

[dizmo]

13 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

I would say it kind of rules a somewhat narrow band near the top.  There is an argument that intel does faster single core in general.  The intel 6/12 unlocked is the 8700k which will kick the pants off a 3600x in single core.  The problem is it’s literally twice the cost, and for the price difference you can get an 8/16 AMD chip that is simultaneously all round faster and cheaper.

 

Intel actually has some better stuff which gets weaker and weaker as chips get bigger. The problem is they’re charging way way too much for it compared to AMD.  A 3600 is basically a not very good 8700 for a whole lot less money.  So much less that it goes against 4/8s from intel and it beats them.

No, it won't. The 8700k only beats the 3600x at the odd title here and there, and it's by about 3-4%. Hardly anything to write home about. Newer titles, ones using DX12 etc, the 3600x will pull ahead.

[KaitouX]

18 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

...

3700X is faster than the 9700k on everything that doesn't need the better clock/latency of the 9700K.

Also Intel single core isn't faster, it does have higher clocks, but lower IPC, in the end it's pretty much the same.

[WereCatf]

52 minutes ago, Axeonelite said:

I don't use AMD. CHANGE MY MIND

No.

[Bombastinator]

2 minutes ago, WereCatf said:

No.

Gotta have some respect for the stance. 

[BigDamn]

If you've been out of the game for a bit that would explain it. If you're familiar with the terms AMD FX, Bulldozer, R9 390x, Fury X, or Vega64 you might just have a skewed view. The days of FX and Opteron are lonnnnnnng gone. AMD was a laughing stock for high power consumption, heat output, subpar performance (to put it nicely) but at least at a low cost. Nobody wanted to run what was known as a "poor mans" CPU. But today? Ryzen CPU's consume less power than their competition, thus putting out less heat and shredding multi threaded workloads, still at an affordable price. They're no slouch with single threaded performance either, and in some cases are better than Intel. AMD CPU's aren't what they were 5 years ago, in a good way.

 

As for GPU's, AMD has made progress. Gone are the days of the GCN architecture, as RDNA is the new thing. It's still fairly new and AMD hasn't yet shown off it's full capabilities, but that's rumored to be coming. AMD's Radeon drivers are (apparently) not working so well but I haven't personally seen this. Radeon hasn't yet made the jump that Ryzen has but it certainly could be coming. Buy what performs well for your price range.

[Guest]

Waiting......

 

 

AMD Zen 4 [updated]

• Release Date: 2021
• "In Design" as of Nov 2018
• "On Track" for 2021 launch as of Dec 9, 2019
• 5 nm TSMC process
• DDR5 memory support
• PCI-Express Gen 5
• More cores per chiplet
• Server platform codenamed "Genoa"
• Uses Socket SP5 for EPYC, new mainstream socket expected (AMD Socket AM5)

Sources

 

[Letgomyleghoe]

1 hour ago, dizmo said:

Intel only really rules the top end.

For gaming? Yes

for workstation? Helll nooo

[handymanshandle]

hot take and the fanboys of both sides are gonna probably hate on me for this. it's a bit of a long read, but the tl;dr is the first line that's underlined

 

 

But use whatever the hell pleases you, Intel and Nvidia works great for you? Perfect! Keep on keeping on and have a great day.

 

FAAR too often I think people get way to entangled in tribalism and the mentality believing of this thing is superior to other similar thing if you have different opinion you are bad and I must attack bad and perhaps it's no fault of their own but I think it'd be wise to consider a position before you blast it and get passionate about it.

 

I've mostly used AMD stuff and continue to mostly use AMD stuff while I dislike the new fanbase that AMD has gained from the rise of Ryzen, I don't know if it's enough to entirely keep me away, sometimes I absolutely consider straying away from AMD for an Intel/Nvidia system the next go around I have with hardware upgrades.
Which I think would be fair, Im running first generation Ryzen on a mid grade Asus B350 mATX board (it was like $100) and I don't feel these revisions of Ryzen outside of maybe the Ryzen 9 are *enough* to wanna drop $250+ on a new CPU since I hardly even make the most use of my R7 1700 as is. I'd get more benefit from dropping $250+ on a GPU which I think AMD is still been very stagnant on that they don't really have an option that makes sense to upgrade from an RX 470 yet. Something like a GTX 1070 or RTX 2060 Super would be a far better choice for me to get the best value in all honesty.

and that's what I think the focus should be on like screw the whole "oh this brand I think is a better value" and give personal reasons why they're a better value.

AMD is a value leader sort of by necessity, they know their place in the market and that's what they honed in on and have done it very well, especially with Ryzen.

 

I have nothing against Intel or Nvidia, I have no reason to either.
 

just yeah I think for how cliché pc building has become and how practically everyone and their dog is building PCs these days that like it really doesn't matter what you use lmao

I would love to make an Ivy bridge i3 or i5 rig running Windows 7 Professional or something just to mess around with lol

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, dizmo said:

No, it won't. The 8700k only beats the 3600x at the odd title here and there, and it's by about 3-4%. Hardly anything to write home about. Newer titles, ones using DX12 etc, the 3600x will pull ahead.

8700not 8700k.  An 8700k at stock is an 8700.  8700ks can be clocked a lot harder than 3600s can though.  The 3600 seems to me to be mostly an autoclocking 2600 with fast memory and better heat characteristics.  An 8700k@.4.5+ has better single core.  Wasn’t the thing though.  A 3750 has better single core than a 9900k, which I why I say there is a band.  AMD does multi core better than Intel.  When they get into the workstation and big iron stuff AMD it trouncing all over intel. Hard.  And the bigger the chip the harder the trouncing.

[atxcyclist]

Ryzen is pretty good. I built an R5 1600 system as a CAD/building modelling workstation when the chips just came out, and aside from a few teething problems with RAM speeds, it's been completely solid. I was foolish and bought a 7600k for my home system, but that was a disaster with the microcode (or whatever it was) updates that nerfed my performance. I just moved to a 2700x and I couldn't be happier, everything is smoother and while I may not get a few of those frames in some older games, the overall experience is better. 

 

I'm not really a fan of Radeon GPUs, but they do work. Drivers are just not as good, but I ran an HD 5750 for a while and it did fine. I have an OEM RX 460 in a work computer that's a little weird, but it's not unstable. At home everything I have with discrete graphics is an nvidia GPU of some sort; 750 Ti, 950, 960, 1060, even an old Quadro 4000. I'll probably stick with the green team unless Radeon can provide a hardware-raytracing-capable card next generation that has either price or feature benefits over nvidia.

[imreloadin]

1 hour ago, WereCatf said:

No.

Literally came here to say this same thing

[Zando_]

2 hours ago, Jurrunio said:

Nvidia vs AMD: Now this is the tougher choice. AMD offers cheaper hardware that's faster in the real world, but then it does worse in features (e.g. no hardware realtime raytracing components, worse video encoding capability), drivers @Zando Bob that tends to not work as intended (they managed to break fan speed control on Navi during launch... how tf can they fail something this simple) and power draw (7nm instead of Turing's 12nm, but still draws more power and kicks out more heat).

Drivers are oof. Not faster, pretty sure the Nvidia cards are often overall faster. Navis are cheaper but don't have a good competitor for RTX ray-tracing, NVENC, or CUDA, so they should cost less anyways since they have less features (you already went over that though). They're actually very good on power compared to older cards, just yeah the drivers, again, are pretty shitty right now.
 

2 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

There is an argument that intel does faster single core in general.  The intel 6/12 unlocked is the 8700k which will kick the pants off a 3600x in single core.

Not reeaaaally. IIRC Zen 2 chips have kicked the pants off Intel chips in CB20 single core scores due to a much better IPC.

Intel's ringbus and well tuned mesh chips have massively lower core to core and RAM latency, thus they do well in games. And should in any other workload that needs that, but IDK what that would be other than games.

 

In the end it's just this:

1 hour ago, pinksnowbirdie said:

hot take and the fanboys of both sides are gonna probably hate on me for this. it's a bit of a long read, but the tl;dr is the first line that's underlined

 

 

But use whatever the hell pleases you, Intel and Nvidia works great for you? Perfect! Keep on keeping on and have a great day.

 

1 hour ago, pinksnowbirdie said:

it really doesn't matter what you use lmao

^^^ 110% this. Intel's options still kick ass, AMD's options still kick ass (their GPUs with current drivers, less so), Nvidia stuff still kicks ass. At the end of the day so long as you get a well rounded setup from any of these guys you should have a good experience (again unless it's their GPUs with current drivers reeeeeeeee*).

Ryzen is a great platform for many people, I just run Intel because for specifically what I do, Ryzen was shitty (literally just all core OCing, Ryzen is terrible at that and I don't find the tweaking it will do very fun so I personally do not like it, especially for a main rig). If you don't insist on high all core clocks then you'll have a good time, I did any time I stopped caring about OCs and just ran my 2700X stock. Just couldn't do that very long because goddammit I gotta have muh c l o c k s. I do believe Ryzen has been extremely overhyped purely due to being cheap, but it's not a bad platform overall, and the Zen 2 chips finally actually compete performance wise (Zen and Zen+ can't beat my i7 that's 4 years older than them, if a single 3DMark bench compare to a friend with a 3700X means anything, it'll keep up with those as well).


*Going off my personal experience with my RVII, it was just fine driver wise until after November 2019 where the drivers went to shit (mostly constant blackscreens at stock, fucky OCing if you like to push the card), have mostly remained shit on Vega II/Vega 7nm/Vega 7/whatever you call the arch the RVII is on, and Navi. Polaris cards have been fine AFAIK. If they do fix the drivers in a reasonable timeframe like they said they would, then AMD cards will be an option I'd reccomend again.

[Bombastinator]

There are fanboi on both sides.  I honestly could care.  Duolopoly sucks.  Both companies are making it clear this is not really a cost issue.     This rise of AMD recently is the first move that evenvaguely approaches competition in years.  AMD is a fraction of the size of intel.  It’s not even a question of will they take them out.  They can’t.  It’s a question of can they even hit them hard enough to force a price reaction.  My hope is actually at the very high end for AMD.  Their big iron epyc stuff has some pretty strong Kung fu. I’m actually kind of rooting for VIA atm.  A third player would make a big big difference, even if it’s only at the low end.  Slow 8/16 has a whole lot going for it.

Right now AMD is offering more performance for less money, and the level they are doing it at is high enough to game on.  Game pretty hard even.  The only any possible downside to AMD right now is in GPU space, and that’s mostly has nothing to do with the hardware so much as that they’re having trouble getting their drivers together.  That kind of thing gets better with time and has been.  Intel is actually going to have to do some work for a change and I don’t have a problem with it at all.