Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
MG240

Why are People Still Using Intel... at all?

Recommended Posts

Posted · Original PosterOP

Please help me understand, with all the Hype and superiority of Ryzen chips (i.e. factory unlocked for OC, more cores, cheaper price, better benchmark scores); even with endorsement from Linus and pretty much every YouTuber; why are people still using Intel processors at all? I mean isn't Ryzen the best right now and there's very little point on using Intel? Or am I missing something about Intel?

Case 1, I've was watching a YouTuber do mine craft and they were using an Intel Processor. (8 cores only like come on)

spacer.png


Case 2. PC Gamer is using an Intel chip to review Doom Eternal.
spacer.png

 

Case 3. Lastly, according to Steam there are still more people using Intel rather than AMD (but AMD is rapidly gaining).
spacer.png

 


P.S. AMD fanboys, please be objective and not subjective because all people already know that AMD is in, Intel is out. Fanboying is not appreciated on this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In many cases, more cores isn't better. It's worse. AMD started becoming a favorite for the majority of the community because it was "good enough" and offered plenty of upgrade paths, not because it was best at everything.   There are still plenty of cases where Intel still wins out. It's just not usually the best choice when you consider price or that you're locked to a platform.

 

On top of that, many people buy prebuilts, which are primarily Intel.

 


Make sure to quote or tag me (@JoostinOnline) or I won't see your response!

PSU Tier List  |  The Real Reason Delidding Improves Temperatures"2K" does not mean 2560×1440 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MG240 said:

Please help me understand, with all the Hype and superiority of Ryzen chips (i.e. factory unlocked for OC, more cores, cheaper price, better benchmark scores); even with endorsement from Linus and pretty much every YouTuber; why are people still using Intel processors at all? I mean isn't Ryzen the best right now and there's very little point on using Intel? Or am I missing something about Intel?

few possibilities:

  1. they already have it. 9th gen coffee lake was released a bit earlier than Ryzen 3K
    • 9600k/9700k/9900k: Q4 2018
    • 3600X/3700X/3800X/3900X: H2 2019
  2. the 9900K is still the highest performing CPU when it comes to lightly-threaded tasks and even like-for-like core counts. sure it costs more, but when people wants just the best, intel CPUs tend to be the choice at that aspect
    • also when testing GPUs, you generally want the most headroom possible on the CPU, to not affect GPU tests. multiple parts of the system contribute to framerate
  3. intel quicksync with programs that takes advantage of it. AMD hasn't have that many opportunities for this kind of utility by software developers, and even so the APUs still contain kinda weaksauce Vega GPUs (just focus on the 3400G's results)
    Premiere.png

this is all not considering:

  • price efficiency
  • highly-specific security (most smeltdown stuff depends on needing access to the PC, but that's another topic)

 

as of now, intel CPUs (the desktop ones anyway) are kinda considered the higher end for now, and most people could get by with current Ryzen 3K stuff, but saying something like "supercars don't make sense; why do people still recommend them" is a kinda weird sentence for enthusiasts to hear ._.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s a relatively simple answer: ease of use. I speak from personal experience when I say that Ryzen has been somewhat of a pain in the ass to set up optimally. Intel has had a decade to get to the point where their shit just works a lot easier. 

Also, overclocking. 


Local dickhead and VHS collector. Less than avid Team Fortress 2 player.

Volume / Normalized 100% / 75% (content loudness 2.6dB)

 

 

@handymanshandle x @pinksnowbirdie | Jake x Brendan :^

moo floof enthusiast, pm me moo rabbit pics

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MG240 said:

factory unlocked for OC

Which is mostly pointless on both sides, but especially so with Zen 2. Zen 2 is pretty close to its limit already out of the box. About the only thing you need to do is replace the cooler with a half decent one and you'll have most of its potential already. If you also turn on PBO, you're practically done. Manual overclockers just don't get much more unless you are willing to sacrifice stability in some conditions, or implement extreme cooling. 

 

1 hour ago, MG240 said:

more cores

Which only helps up to a point for most people's needs. 

 

1 hour ago, MG240 said:

cheaper price

Price isn't the whole thing, but if you mean value, then that has been AMD's play for a while. This really impacts tighter budget builds which does cover a large part of the market, but certainly not all of it.

 

1 hour ago, MG240 said:

better benchmark scores

In some classes of benchmarks that can use more cores. Which doesn't represent a lot of software out there. Cinebench is about the worst offender since it is near ideal scaling with cores and clocks, which doesn't represent most stuff out there.

 

 

People also don't replace their systems that frequently. How long do you keep a main system before a major upgrade? I think I'm pretty fast even at 2 to 4 years. Many stretch it longer than that. It is only with Zen 2 that AMD could have arguable leadership over Intel. Zen/+ was a good catch up, but still had many weaknesses, and was primarily selling on price, not performance outside of certain niches. I'm still running a 6 core Intel in my main system. I also have an 8 core Zen 2 system, as well as 12 core Intel systems. Why not switch to those over the 6 core? Because that 6 core is still the "best" CPU I have for gaming.


Main system: Asus Maximus VIII Hero, i7-6700k stock, Noctua D14, G.Skill Ripjaws V 3200 2x8GB, Gigabyte GTX 1650, Corsair HX750i, In Win 303 NVIDIA, Samsung SM951 512GB, WD Blue 1TB, HP LP2475W 1200p wide gamut

Gaming system: Asrock Z370 Pro4, i7-8086k stock, Noctua D15, Corsair Vengeance Pro RGB 3200 4x16GB, Asus Strix 1080Ti, Fractal Edison 550W PSU, GameMax Silent, Optane 900p 280GB, Crucial MX200 1TB, Sandisk 960GB, Acer Predator XB241YU 1440p 144Hz G-sync

Gaming system 2: Asus X299 TUF mark 2, 7920X, Noctua D15, Corsair Vengeance RGB 8x8GB, Gigabyte RTX 2070, Corsair HX1000i, Gamemax Abyss, Samsung 960 Evo 512GB, LG OLED55B9PLA

VR system: Asus Z170I Pro Gaming, i7-6700T stock, Scythe Kozuti, Kingston Hyper-X 2666 2x8GB, Zotac 1070 FE, Corsair CX450M, Silverstone SG13, Samsung PM951 256GB, Crucial BX500 1TB, HTC Vive

Gaming laptop: Asus FX503VD, i5-7300HQ, 2x8GB DDR4, GTX 1050, Sandisk 256GB + 480GB SSD

Link to post
Share on other sites

AMD started it's business cloning Intel chips and making them ever so slightly better in some cases. Without Intel there would be no AMD but without AMD, Intel would be adhering to Moore's law and making innovations at a snail's pace. And Windows is better optimised for Intel chips. And AMD is just packing more cores and clocking their chips higher than it's counterparts. GO BLUE TEAM!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have three simple reasons.

 

1. I already had my CPU before AMD got big again. (3770k)

2. It was given to me for free. (6770k)

3. It was the only option in the laptops I could get heavily discounted through my university. (8750h)

 

If I'd buy new right now... I don't know what I'd do because I wouldn't buy a new cpu. I would get something second hand. Fortunately, there is no need for that right now as I still have plenty of horsepower left. :)


PC SPECS: CPU: Intel Core i7 3770k @4.4GHz - Mobo: Asrock Extreme 4 (Z77) - GPU: MSI GeForce GTX 680 Twin Frozr 2GB - RAM: Crucial Ballistix 2x4GB (8GB) 1600MHz CL8 + 1x8GB - Storage: SSD: Sandisk Extreme II 120GB. HDD: Seagate Barracuda 1TB - PSU: be quiet! Pure Power L8 630W semi modular  - Case: Corsair Obsidian 450D  - OS: Windows 7

Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoy using server chips (Xeons) in my system builds, and especially using mobos with dual Xeons cpus. Is it faster? Probably not, but damn it's sexy.


So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MG240 said:

 

 

37 minutes ago, handymanshandle said:

Here’s a relatively simple answer: ease of use. I speak from personal experience when I say that Ryzen has been somewhat of a pain in the ass to set up optimally. Intel has had a decade to get to the point where their shit just works a lot easier. 

Also, overclocking. 

I couldn't agree less. Setting up multiple Ryzen systems has been as easy as it could be. No additional headaches whatsoever. Memory on my 1600 was a bit of a crap time, but nowadays it's extremely easy as I have seen on a 3600.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I can tell, mainly brand trust and misinformation when it comes to current sales. It is unhelpful when people say the 9900k is the fastest gaming CPU, as it IS, but only by a few percent. Unless you have a 2080ti/Titan RTX, the most you probably want to spend on a CPU in a system meant for purely gaming, or mainly gaming is a 3700x. It is only slightly behind the 9900k, and yet is often close to half the price, which frees up more budget to go to the GPU in a build, which would be far more beneficial for gaming. The main reason Intel is so far ahead overall is the years of AMD being so far behind, with so few customers that it will take them generations of being ahead of Intel to even catch up to Intel, i.e there have been many years where AMD is significantly slower across the board, and Intel had complete market dominance. However, I see this changing relatively quickly with the higher and higher core counts AMD is pushing, and specifically the 8 ( or 7 depending how you look at it) cores in the new consoles meaning developers should start optimising for more cores finally, which would probably lead to a massive amount of people upgrading from older quad-core Intel chips, and if Zen 3 is as fast as AMD have claimed then these people looking for upgrades will have a company that is faster at everything at a lower price to go to over Intel. I see the consoles as a way for AMD to showcase their new GPU architecture, but also as a way to enhance their gaming CPUs even more, and I think they've been playing this game since the first generation of Ryzen with 8 cores, establishing themselves as the high core count company, knowing that it would become important later on when the consoles launched. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of boost clocks and overclocking, AMD is still quite far behind Intel. 

 

My 8700K runs at 5GHz on all cores and that's barely even pushing it. I'm not aware of any Ryzen chip that can even come close to that. Clock speed isn't everything but it is the most universal performance improvement whereas more cores must be utilized in an effective way by software.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still use Intel because I just enjoy it more. Didn't have fun with my Ryzen stuff, in fact it was incredibly disappointing because it didn't do what I wanted it to, and I paid more for that hardware than I did for my current stuff (to be fair, said current stuff was used/on sale). 

That and I'm mainly on an HEDT flick, and 1st/2nd gen TR performance is meh, while 3rd gen TR costs make X299 look budget. 


X58-X79-X99-X299 lads: Intel HEDT Xeon/i7 Megathread - Murica (But International) Parrot Gang

 

Big Rig (Archived) - (Current Main) - i7 6950X @ 4.2/3.5 1.24v/1.2v core/uncore - 80C max under P95 load - Custom Loop (CPU only): 2x 360GTS with EK-ZMT/Stubbies and EK D5 pump/res combo - EVGA X99 Classified - 48GB RAM [4x8GB HyperX Predator DDR4 + 4x4GB EVGA SSC DDR4] @3200Mhz CL16-18-18-36 CR2 - Nvidia FE 2060 Super - 1TB 970 Evo + 250GB 960 Evo - Corsair RM1000i - Phanteks Enthoo Evolv ATX TG - 6x iPPC NF-F12 2000 
 

X79 Rig (Done) - (Alt Rig 1)- i7 4930K @ 4.5GHz - EVGA CLC 280 w/NF-P14s fans - EVGA X79 Dark - 16GBGB (4x4GB) Corsair Vengeance DDR3 @ 1600Mhz CL9 XMP - EVGA XC Ultra 1660 Ti - MX500 1TB + 2x Seagate Barracuda Compute 2TB - EVGA 1000W G3 w/CableMod PRO Carbon cables - Phanteks P400 (White) - NF-P12

 

X58 Rig (Mostly Done) - (Alt Rig 2) - Xeon X5675 @ 4.4/3.7 core/uncore- NH-D15S - EVGA X58 Classified SLI 4-Way - 24GB (3x8GB) HyperX Savage Red DDR3 @ 1750Mhz CL9-10-10-27 - 2x EVGA Classified 780s - 120GB HyperX SSD - ASUS or Liteon DVD-RW drive, forget which - EVGA 1600W T2 - Corsair 750D - 5x iPPC NF-A14 3000 PWM

 

2019 13" rMBP (i5/8GB/256GB) {work} - 2012 13" MBP (i5/16GB/525GB) {mine} - iPhone 11 Pro Max + Apple Watch S3 42mm - iPod Classic 6G 80GB running Rockbox + iPod Classic 5.5G Enhanced 30GB also on Rockbox - iPhone X - iPhone 4S on iOS 6.1.3

 

whip and nae nae

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, harryk said:

In terms of boost clocks and overclocking, AMD is still quite far behind Intel. 

 

My 8700K runs at 5GHz on all cores and that's barely even pushing it. I'm not aware of any Ryzen chip that can even come close to that. Clock speed isn't everything but it is the most universal performance improvement whereas more cores must be utilized in an effective way by software.

I would say IPC is more important than clockspeed, as Ryzen's IPC is far superior to 'Coffee' lake, which is why in artificial benchmarks similar core count ryzen CPUs match or beat higher clocked Intel parts. In fact, if Intel was on 10nm right now they would likely face a clockspeed degredation due to years of tuning the 14nm silicon, and it would truly be a war of IPC. Intel would still probably win, however, in games, due to Ryzen's CCX design adding latency in any game that uses potentially more than 1 core, as it assigns random cores in a CCD, not CCX. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The tone of the question is the same as "why does anyone buy a non-gaming PC?" or "why doesn't Android have a total monopoly?"

 

That is, it acts as if the criteria that pleases a subset of people should apply to absolutely everyone, that there couldn't possibly be valid reasons for using the alternative, and that the 'ideal' is a homogenous market where competition is non-existent.  Intel still does some things better than AMD, particularly in laptops; and as we've seen before, just because AMD has some advantages now doesn't mean it'll remain that way.  It was just a few years ago that you would only buy an AMD system because it was cheap.

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, BotBret said:

I would say IPC is more important than clockspeed, as Ryzen's IPC is far superior to 'Coffee' lake, which is why in artificial benchmarks similar core count ryzen CPUs match or beat higher clocked Intel parts. In fact, if Intel was on 10nm right now they would likely face a clockspeed degredation due to years of tuning the 14nm silicon, and it would truly be a war of IPC. Intel would still probably win, however, in games, due to Ryzen's CCX design adding latency in any game that uses potentially more than 1 core, as it assigns random cores in a CCD, not CCX. 

Keep in mind, you can't just say one has better IPC than the other without discussing the first part of it, "instructions". Depending on what instruction set/s you are dealing with could vary heavily. For example, if I'm running heavy AVX2 or any AVX-512, any intel CPU with two 512 FMA units is going to be a better choice. In other instances it may be worthwhile to go with Zen or if you can take advantage of quick sync then you might want something compatible with that, like coffee lake.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JoostinOnline said:

On top of that, many people buy prebuilts, which are primarily Intel.

I’m one of those. Got mine at Best Buy during Black Friday sales last year with some custom additions. Only game that gave me problems was AC Origins. i7 9700K always runs at 100% for some reason.


CPU: i7 9700K GPU: MSI RTX 2080S VENTUS 8G Motherboard: ASRock Z390 Phantom Gaming 4 RAM: 16GB ADATA XPG GAMMIX D10 3000MHz Storage: ADATA SU630 480GB + Samsung 860 EVO 1TB + Samsung 970 EVO Plus NVMe 1TB + WD Blue 1TB PSU: 80+ Gold Certified 650W Case: Slate MR Mirror Finish OS: Windows 10 Pro x64 Monitor: Dell S2716DGR Mouse: Logitech G300s Keyboard: Corsair K70 Cherry MX Brown Speakers: Bose Companion 2 Series III Headset: HyperX Cloud Revolver Phone: iPhone 11 64GB Black

Link to post
Share on other sites

AMD hasn't been a strong competitor against Intel for many years, before the Ryzen 3000 series came out (imo), so many people probably just stuck to Intel out of habit.

 

From what I see on posts discussing builds, I've seen many cases where people defend their choice in an Intel CPU when others are suggesting a Ryzen instead not because of performance reasons, but because of things like:

  • "I trust Intel more"
  • "AMD CPUs are spaceheaters"
  • "I've had problems with AMD CPUs in the past and I don't trust them anymore"

 


2019 Build - AMD Ryzen 9 3900X | Noctua NH-D15S | Gigabyte X570 AORUS ELITE | Crucial Ballistix Sport LT 16 GB (2 x 8 GB @ CL16 3533 MHz 1.35V) | EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 GAMING ACX 3.0 | Fractal Design Design Define R6 USB-C Blackout | Samsung 840 Pro 256GB | Samsung 840 EVO 500GB | Seagate Barracuda 2TB | Dell S2716DG + Asus MX259H  | Ducky Shine 5 with Cherry MX Browns

 

2014 Build (Retired)- Intel Core i5-4690S | CM Hyper 212 EVO | MSI Z97-G45 Gaming | Corsair Vengeance Pro 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3 | EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 GAMING ACX 3.0 | Fractal Design Define R4 | Samsung 840 Pro 256GB | Samsung 840 EVO 500GB | Seagate Barracuda 2TB | Dell S2716DG + Asus MX259H  | Ducky Shine 5 with Cherry MX Browns

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MG240 said:

-snip-

I built my system back when AMD was not at all competitive, so I went with a Haswell chip from Intel as the best bang for my buck. And honestly, even though I'm like six or seven generations behind the current one, this CPU has been a complete beast. Ryzen does have some tempting numbers but realistically, I don't need to 'upgrade'; I'd LIKE to of course, but my needs are being met as of now. When it is time though, AMD may make the cut for price to performance. Till then, I'll ride out my Intel chip until it dies or it stops meeting my demands.


CPU: Intel Core i7 4790k | RAM: Crucial 16GB @ 1866MHz |

GPU: EVGA GTX 980Ti Hybrid | Motherboard: ASUS Maximus Formula VII | 

Monitor: ROG Swift P278Q | Case: Phanteks Enthoo EVOLV ATX | PSU: Seasonic 860W

Link to post
Share on other sites

NB4 thread lock. 😁

 

The same question by the OP could have been (And actually was - Repeatedly) asked 10 years ago and today we have our answer.
Intel isn't going anywhere, anytime soon.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, handymanshandle said:

Here’s a relatively simple answer: ease of use. I speak from personal experience when I say that Ryzen has been somewhat of a pain in the ass to set up optimally. Intel has had a decade to get to the point where their shit just works a lot easier. 

Also, overclocking. 

Agreed for the most part, Intel drivers for me have been historically less finicky. The R5 1600 build I did for my office was fairly smooth, but it took some driver work and a BIOS update to get everything sorted including the memory speed. However, my B450/2700x at home was pretty easy, memory got to the right frequency with no fuss, and the drivers worked immediately. AMD has put some effort in here.

 

Overclocking potential is still an Intel win, so that’s a personal decision. AMD lets you overclock nearly every chip they make though, and you don’t have to buy the highest-end chipset for it, so that favors AMD a little.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because my HTPC was free to me and it makes sense to just upgrade parts.

 


Main Rig:

Ryzen 2600, ASUS Corsshair Hero VII Wi-Fi, 16 GB Geil DDR4 3000 @ 3200, XFX RX 580 @ 1425/2250, Corsair H115i Pro AIO cooler, Soundblaster Z, ADATA SX8200 1tb, Samsung 850 EVO 500gb, Corsair CX850M PSU, Coolermaster Stryker case, ROG ARGB strips (most important thing)

 

HTPC:

Dell SFF Optiplex 990, i7 2600, 8gb of random ddr3, GTX 1650 LP, ADATA 240gb SSD, 1tb random spinny HDD (no RGB 😭)

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, atxcyclist said:

Agreed for the most part, Intel drivers for me have been historically less finicky. The R5 1600 build I did for my office was fairly smooth, but it took some driver work and a BIOS update to get everything sorted including the memory speed. However, my B450/2700x at home was pretty easy, memory got to the right frequency with no fuss, and the drivers worked immediately. AMD has put some effort in here.

 

Overclocking potential is still an Intel win, so that’s a personal decision. AMD lets you overclock nearly every chip they make though, and you don’t have to buy the highest-end chipset for it, so that favors AMD a little.

I had actually helped out @pinksnowbirdie with an issue with RAM and his motherboard (he has a Ryzen 7 1700 and a B350 board, not unlike me) a few months ago as it would just instantly crash when trying to boot into Windows. Turns out the BIOS just needed to be updated. Which, easy enough, but still, one of the weird quirks that can make Ryzen annoying. 

My own issues go directly to how capture cards really don't work well with Ryzen because of how it handles PCI-E lanes.


Local dickhead and VHS collector. Less than avid Team Fortress 2 player.

Volume / Normalized 100% / 75% (content loudness 2.6dB)

 

 

@handymanshandle x @pinksnowbirdie | Jake x Brendan :^

moo floof enthusiast, pm me moo rabbit pics

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Newegg

×