Why people choose Intel?

[Hiten Das]

Most of the people still buying Intel, when AMD is giving Processors with double the amount of threads at the same price of Intel processors. Some people say, Intel processors are more power efficient than AMD. But 10/20W is not a big matter. In games, Intel processors perform a little better, but in all other tasks, AMD performs better. I am not a fan of overclocking. So, overclocking is not a matter of interest to me.

Is there anything else what I don't know? Is this matter of durability or reliability? I am not something like a tech expert and in my local area there is no-one who can answer me right. Everyone just say, Intel is far better than AMD. But, why they say this? Please tell me.

Thank you.

[Streetguru]

4 minutes ago, Hiten Das said:

 

They get about 20 more fps on average in the average AAA game, some games like ARMA 3 are broken on Ryzen a bit and get way less fps.

 

Though I generally recommend Ryzen for the better value.

[Guest]

This is because old habits die hard. 

 

about 5 years ago the AMD processors were crap, and they produced much heat, while the intel i7s produced much less heat and performed better.

 

If you think about it, amd ryzen only came out a year ago, so many "normal" people still dont know about it. And in their head AMD is still related to heat and crap.

 

But also the new intel processors(i7 8700k) get a few more fps in games than the ryzen counterparts, whoop-de-doo.

[bellabichon]

For the last time:

 

MORE CORES/THREADS =/= MORE PERFORMANCE 

 

If you're building an only gaming build, the i7 8700K is the best CPU. Period.

[ignorantForager]

I haven't bought a CPU in a few years, but from what I imagine, as stated above, old habits die hard. People have been buying Intel CPUs for quite a while now and don't like the idea of changing something that they've been with for a while. Intel scooped up a bunch of the market and it's going to take a while for AMD to comeback, although they seem to be doing pretty well. Another thing that I've considered is that when Ryzen first came out they were having issues with RAM and you had to be specific on which RAM you could use with them. I know that this is probably mostly a non-issue now (I haven't heard anything lately, but I also haven't really looked into it much) but if I was considering a new CPU purchase and I didn't wanna do a bunch of research (as an average consumer may not want to do) this would turn me away.

[Quadriplegic]

Since you don't care about overclocking, Intel is a better choice for you, since Ryzen needs both CPU and RAM overclock to match the performance of Intel chips.

The thing about Zen chips is that they offer similar or better performance/cost ratio, while Intel tends to offer better overall performance (with the possible exception of server CPUs? If I remember right, Epyc kind of owns Xeon)

[GoldenLag]

The vast amount of CPU sales come from pre-builts. And atm the manufactorers of thos prebuilds dont have a major reason to move from Intel.

 

Things might change with Ryzen 3000/4000, but the pre-build for enviroment changes slowly

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Quadriplegic said:

Since you don't care about overclocking, Intel is a better choice for you, since Ryzen needs both CPU and RAM overclock to match the performance of Intel chips.

The thing about Zen chips is that they offer similar or better performance/cost ratio, while Intel tends to offer better overall performance (with the possible exception of server CPUs? If I remember right, Epyc kind of owns Xeon)

Then new ryzen+ chips or ryzen 2000 series actually dont need overclocking, as the single core turbo is actually higher than what you would get with an overclock.

The first gen ryzens had really slow clockspeeds. And yeah Epic is doing great.

[Streetguru]

19 minutes ago, bellabichon said:

 

Or you could save money and still have pretty good gaming performance with the R5 2600, and not need a 240mm AIO or a potential delid to get the most out of it.

 

4 minutes ago, Some Random Member said:

Then new ryzen+ chips or ryzen 2000 series actually dont need overclocking, as the single core turbo is actually higher than what you would get with an overclock.

The first gen ryzens had really slow clockspeeds. And yeah Epic is doing great.

You can get past the barrier with boost override on some boards, requires lots of voltage though I think
 

 

[Guest]

Just now, Streetguru said:

You can get past the barrier with boost override on some boards, requires lots of voltage though I think
 

 

Well that says it all. 

 

[Dversity]

AMD if you want multi-core performance, Intel if you need single-core performance. Single-core performance is more desirable atm.. Simples. 

 

 

 

[DarkSmith2]

AMD is just slower in about everything but things like 7zip. Reason for this is that ipc and clocks are lower and most applications arent able to use 16threads. 

Compatibility and Stability is also a topic, but the usual PC-Gamer isnt affected by this, content creators are having more trouble with Ryzen though.

 

Overall if you take everything into the equasion Intel just has the better product(s) and vendors are knowing this, thats why you pay below MSRP for Ryzen, thats the only way it can shine.

 

In two or three month from now the 9900k will be released, then AMD isnt even king of Cinebench on Mainstream anymore. 2700x prices will fall by another 50bucks.. Good for poeple that cant afford the better stuff.

[michaelbelgium]

2 hours ago, Quadriplegic said:

Since you don't care about overclocking, Intel is a better choice for you, since Ryzen needs both CPU and RAM overclock to match the performance of Intel chips.

Ryzen has XFR (2) and precision boost. Where the cpu overclocks itself depending on your cooling solution. If people don't care about overclocking, they probably mean manually overclocking. Ryzen is a good choice either if ppl don't care overclocking. With intel you always have to manually overclock

[Quadriplegic]

1 minute ago, michaelbelgium said:

Ryzen has XFR (2) and precision boost. Where the cpu overclocks itself depending on your cooling solution. If people don't care about overclocking, they probably mean manually overclocking. Ryzen is a good choice either if ppl don't care overclocking. With intel you always have to manually overclock

But that's pretty similar to Intel's turbo boosting, set value of boost to 1 or 2 cores as long as temperatures allow it. 


However, you kind of need overclocking (XMP profiles) for RAM if you use Ryzen, because Ryzen with slow RAM is a no bueno.

[Peskanova]

3 hours ago, Hiten Das said:

Most of the people still buying Intel, when AMD is giving Processors with double the amount of threads at the same price of Intel processors. Some people say, Intel processors are more power efficient than AMD. But 10/20W is not a big matter. In games, Intel processors perform a little better, but in all other tasks, AMD performs better. I am not a fan of overclocking. So, overclocking is not a matter of interest to me.

Is there anything else what I don't know? Is this matter of durability or reliability? I am not something like a tech expert and in my local area there is no-one who can answer me right. Everyone just say, Intel is far better than AMD. But, why they say this? Please tell me.

Thank you.

Making a lot of builds for gaming, Intels cpu are better bang for buck, for workload take amd but for gaming Intel keeps the lead, I allways start with a ryzen 1600-2600 to make a build and end with a 8400-8600k 

Ram prices matter and 3000mhz ram is a must on ryzen gaming.... I love ryzen but for now Intel wins.

[O9B0666]

Compare any Intel cpu with its comparable amd cpu ie 8700k 2700x(keeo in mind bad pairing as one has more cores) and Intel will still do better in more categories in benchmarks go ahead and Google your favorite pair for yourself even Intel with less cores. Ryzen is cheaper just because if they weren't amd would not sell. Amd only does better with render times and 7-zip and who uses 7-zip? Pound for pound (core/thread count the same) Intel absolutely dominates. Check benchmarks this isn't just opinion. We got 3rd-4th gen i7's better then ryzens. So if ryzen wasn't cheaper no one in their right mind would be amd. Ryzens are still very good due to their price only 

[Mira Yurizaki]

7 hours ago, bellabichon said:

For the last time:

 

MORE CORES/THREADS =/= MORE PERFORMANCE 

 

If you're building an only gaming build, the i7 8700K is the best CPU. Period.

This reminded me of a conversation where someone was utterly convinced you could get more performance out of a word processor if it was "coded right" for multiple cores.

[pyrojoe34]

They still have a better performance per thread than AMD does. It's as simple as that. Unless your workloads almost exclusively consist of multi-threaded operations (still fairly uncommon, most uses are a mix of single and multithreaded tasks and the parallel computations may still have to regularly wait on sequential tasks before continuing) then you're better off with faster single cores.

 

I do some bioinformatics work and although many steps are easily parallelized, my scripts still contain many bottlenecks where only one thread must to finish a task before it can distribute the workload cluster and benefit from more threads. I'll often run some of these parts on my OCed home rig independently before sending it to the HPC since the HPC has a ton of cores (24c/48t in total I think) but they're all 7yo, 3.0-3.6Ghz, Xeons they are slow at single threaded tasks. This is the same thing as AMD vs Intel at the moment. AMD leads in raw performance per $ but Intel still leads in performance per thread.

 

Don't get too caught up in raw performance numbers not linked to the real world performance. If those were accurate then you would see Vega GPUs destroying the Nvidia lineup based purely on FLOPs but that is far from the case.

[Jon Jon]

It really all depends on your work flow and use case.

 

I feel that a lot of people focus too much on benchmark graphs and regurgitating what they are told and less actual understanding.

 

Ignoring costs i would recommend the below based on real world experience and understanding with explanations:

 

• Gaming - Intel
  • There's no contest here. Gaming is not that thread heavy, and  a 4C/8T Intel CPU in a streamlined PC will net you the best performance. The 8700K is just icing on the cake as you can hit 5Ghz with a de-lid and you will get the best high refresh rate gaming money can buy. You can even achieve this on an i5-8600K for less money, if you so choose.
• Virtualization - AMD
  • If you are running virtual machines, you need threads. There are also many applications that only support physical cores, so logical cores don't cut it. You want the most cores possible, and AMD gets that for you.
• Video Editing - Mixed
  • This is all dependent on the applications that you run. More Cores and threads DOES NOT equal performance in this case because some major applications are poorly optimized and do not scale with cores and require high IPC and clockspeed to get the most out of them. For example, an i5-8600K will outperform a Threadripper in Adobe After Effects due to poor core scaling. The perfect world doesn't exist and the fact is this application is poorly optimized and is widely used, so you need to build for the application need. However, if you are running applications that scale well with cores, then I would say AMD is the better buy because Threadripper exists.
• Streaming
  • Same System - AMD
    • on a Non-HEDT system, Ryzen 2700X beats the 8700K for this. Fact is, those additional cores matter, and once you crank up the stream quality, your viewer side will get a more choppy experience on an 8700K versus a 2700X/1800X. The cores here matter, and if you are streaming, your audience experience is your number one priority. I don't do hardware acceleration here, because the quality just looks like slop. This was a big reason why I went with Ryzen over Intel last year, and even with gaming and streaming in room scale VR I have no performance hiccups or issues with the stream.
  • Different systems - Doesn't matter.
    • If you have a dedicated PC for streaming, you can get by as your capture card more than likely has dedicated hardware to process everything. I would say that a strong 6C/12T CPU is overkill here for the best experience possible, and you could probably even stream/record here without much issue from a CPU perspective.

 

[ChernobilChuck]

For the average person gaming is the only task that requires powerful hardware, and let's say that amd is better at everything else(which isn't mostly because of optimalization for intel but let's say), what else do people really use their computer where you will see a difference between a few years old i5 and even the ryzen 7 2700x? How many people run multiple virtual machines at the same time, do streaming or video editing? And even than it's not like the intel CPUs can't handle those tasks but what would you choose 5minutes now and than for a render or 10extra fps in game? To be fair it seems im hating on AMD but ryzen is really good, mainly because of the price/performance they have.

 

TL;DR: most people buy powerful CPUs for gaming

[Devastator24]

On 7/30/2018 at 2:35 PM, Hiten Das said:

Most of the people still buying Intel, when AMD is giving Processors with double the amount of threads at the same price of Intel processors. Some people say, Intel processors are more power efficient than AMD. But 10/20W is not a big matter. In games, Intel processors perform a little better, but in all other tasks, AMD performs better. I am not a fan of overclocking. So, overclocking is not a matter of interest to me.

Is there anything else what I don't know? Is this matter of durability or reliability? I am not something like a tech expert and in my local area there is no-one who can answer me right. Everyone just say, Intel is far better than AMD. But, why they say this? Please tell me.

Thank you.

well, i'm reading this on 2020 and lemme give the answer. Yeah, since someone already spell it and it's correct, it was an old habbit. Intel already wins people hearts with their ads and persentation on their new processor. E V E R Y   T I M E !!!.

The only problem for amd was the technique to convience people, and they were weak at there. Well, at least they done it on epyc, but they need to consider to the casual consumer. B.T.W i like how amd made the epyc commercial, and i'm hoping they do the same technique on ryzen cpu.

At the end of the day, AMD wins in performance, but less in commercials. the only thing amd need to do was their commercial.

[Milos Sladic]

2 hours ago, Devastator24 said:

well, i'm reading this on 2020 and lemme give the answer. Yeah, since someone already spell it and it's correct, it was an old habbit. Intel already wins people hearts with their ads and persentation on their new processor. E V E R Y   T I M E !!!.

The only problem for amd was the technique to convience people, and they were weak at there. Well, at least they done it on epyc, but they need to consider to the casual consumer. B.T.W i like how amd made the epyc commercial, and i'm hoping they do the same technique on ryzen cpu.

At the end of the day, AMD wins in performance, but less in commercials. the only thing amd need to do was their commercial.

lol nonsense

Name a ryzen that comes even close to fully OC 10600k in the cpu super demanding multiplayer games like pubg,  Battlefield, Warzone, etc...

[HD1 star wars]

2 hours ago, MS1993 said:

lol nonsense

Name a ryzen that comes even close to fully OC 10600k in the cpu super demanding multiplayer games like pubg,  Battlefield, Warzone, etc...

the ryzen 5 5600x lol. But in all seriousness we will see on November 5 

[Mick Naughty]

Because I play games and dont wonna make a new rig every time something comes out thats supposedly better. Also dont need to change my cooler.