Which CPU?

[Mr.Muffins]

4 minutes ago, Gareque said:

I think I get where you're coming from.  But realistically, imo at least, loyalty should come from 2 very similar performing and similar priced items.  Then you choose the one you prefer because of it.

 

The problem is when you have people spending £150-200 more on a processor that doesn't do much better 'because'.  I believe that's where the line becomes more in the stupid remit.

I agree with you there.

 

I would say it really depends on the person. If it was me making the decision, I would decide whether if I want more "Bang For My Bucks" or more "Bucks For My Bang". 

[DesolationGod]

16 minutes ago, Gareque said:

Yeah...  I fall very much into the anti-Apple group there lol.

yea see this is one brand war i can get behind, i strongly detest apple and they are almost never the better option IMO or the cheapest for that matter lol

[Gareque]

1 minute ago, DesolationGod said:

yea see this is one brand war i can get behind, i strongly detest apple and they are almost never the better option IMO lol

Exactly.  Every time I've seen an iMac specs, I've seen systems costing £1,500+ which were buildable as a  £900 or less system.  Then when you take in to account their support for $5k systems as shown in the recent LTT videos...

 

Apple imo have the perfect example of blind obeisance.

[Mr.Muffins]

1 minute ago, Gareque said:

Exactly.  Every time I've seen an iMac specs, I've seen systems costing £1,500+ which were buildable as a  £900 or less system.  Then when you take in to account their support for $5k systems as shown in the recent LTT videos...

 

Apple imo have the perfect example of blind obeisance.

Hopefully, Nvidia/AMD/Intel don't go that route...

[DesolationGod]

6 minutes ago, Gareque said:

Exactly.  Every time I've seen an iMac specs, I've seen systems costing £1,500+ which were buildable as a  £900 or less system.  Then when you take in to account their support for $5k systems as shown in the recent LTT videos...

 

Apple imo have the perfect example of blind obeisance.

yup, you pay for the half eaten apple logo and apples dongles Lol

[Gareque]

13 minutes ago, Mr.Muffins said:

Hopefully, Nvidia/AMD/Intel don't go that route...

I kinda believe if they were going to, they would have a long time ago.  As it stands on the grand scale, both have their own market, I just think Ryzen is bridging the gap. 

 

You never want one or the other to be massively ahead though, as happened with Intel a while back, because it stifles progression.

9 minutes ago, DesolationGod said:

yup, you pay for the half eaten apple logo and apples dongles Lol

Apples Dongles sounds like some kind of euphemism lol.

[NelizMastr]

1 hour ago, TeaDrinkingMaximus said:

I went from a Athlon II X4 to a i7 2600 back then, the 2600 was priced lower than the FX 8150 when it first went gold and AMD truly screwed up.

But now i have a Ryzen 1400 which i am very happy with for now.

Reminds me of back in january 2013 when I upgraded from a Athlon II X4 640 to an i5-2500K. That was an insane performance improvement with my HD7770 crossfire setup. The i5 ran comfortably at 4.7GHz all day long.

 

That said, I'm pretty happy with my 2700X now. It's a beast.

[Gareque]

2 minutes ago, NelizMastr said:

Reminds me of back in january 2013 when I upgraded from a Athlon II X4 640 to an i5-2500K. That was an insane performance improvement with my HD7770 crossfire setup. The i5 ran comfortably at 4.7GHz all day long.

 

That said, I'm pretty happy with my 2700X now. It's a beast.

Aye, I know the feeling.  I upgraded from an FX-8350 with a GTX 970 4GB, to a 2600X with a Vega 56.  Plays like a dream for what I play and, as I currently only game at 1080p, it will cover me if/when I upgrade to 1440p.

 

This is why it baffles me when people say "But you 'have' to get x, y or z or it will suck."

 

I went with AMD in the end because it should give an edge in rendering artwork software like PS and Clip Studio Pro, with a minor drop in performance for gaming.  Suits me fine as long as the drop in performance isn't actually something I'd ever notice anyway.

[Ankerson]

2 hours ago, Minibois said:

We still have fanboys around, that will blindly support one brand over another, but nowadays the difference is more nuanced and thus the best choice will depend on your usage.

I can't even broadly say "you choose Intel for gaming, AMD for video editing" or something like that, because you might need a certain sort of technology; or in your price bracket one might be a better option over another.

 

I love the competition there is and I think I would fall more on the "AMD fan"-side of the spectrum; but I try to keep it as objective as possible.

 

 

Yeah they are still around for sure.

 

And when they are a Moderator on a forum and force their own options and thoughts on others it's bad.

 

I made an AMD fan boy Moderator go run to his safe place just by telling the truth, then was openly threatened on the public forum by the said AMD fan boy moderator. 

 

The truth was something everyone knows who really knows anything, but it was just too much, you know facts....

 

I personally don't use AMD, and never will for my personal machines for various reasons, but then I have been around the tech field for a very long time. (Decades)

 

But I don't blindly recommend Intel to others. I recommend either one depending.

 

 

[Ankerson]

9 minutes ago, ActuallyMediocreOC said:

I'll be honest I read the title and was expecting a flame war, pleasantly surprised. Good goin guys! This kinda thread is what my morning needed.

As for the topic (bear in mind I got into computers about three years ago so I think I missed what people seem to discredit AMD for) I view AMD as a strong alternative for Intel, I am still kinda more Intel skewed with my builds but thats probably because alot of my builds revolve around ddr3 based systems on the used market where Intel reigns supreme (at least in the US). Definitely seems to be a mutual respect between boths sides though, I know my best friend is alot more AMD focused and we do go back and forth for fun be understand both sides stack up fairly well 

 

The flame war days were back in mid 90's for the most part that I remember.

 

Today, well lately now that AMD actually has CPU's that actually matter things have calmed down.

 

It's about time AMD made some mainstream CPU's that are actually worth buying, it only took them forever to finally come up with some.

[Gareque]

15 minutes ago, ActuallyMediocreOC said:

I'll be honest I read the title and was expecting a flame war, pleasantly surprised. Good goin guys! This kinda thread is what my morning needed.

As for the topic (bear in mind I got into computers about three years ago so I think I missed what people seem to discredit AMD for) I view AMD as a strong alternative for Intel, I am still kinda more Intel skewed with my builds but thats probably because alot of my builds revolve around ddr3 based systems on the used market where Intel reigns supreme (at least in the US). Definitely seems to be a mutual respect between boths sides though, I know my best friend is alot more AMD focused and we do go back and forth for fun be understand both sides stack up fairly well 

To be completely honest, for me it was always a case of I use AMD because they were the best I could afford without compromising things like GPU.

 

With Ryzen however, the prices were much higher than previous cpu's and this in itself almost pushed me to buying an Intel for the first time.  I figured "If I'm already thinking about spending nearly £350 on a cpu (was looking at the 2700X initially), I may as well look at getting a newer gen Intel one.

 

It was only when I looked in to it and found the 2600X rated pretty similar the the regular 2700 and significantly higher than roughly equal Intel chips at multi-core use, plus a much cheaper cost lol, that I went with that in the end.

 

I did think at first that AMD sacrificed their own audience when their main cpu's were costing over £300.

[bloodthirster]

I've always preferred AMD over Intel due to pricing (much rather put money into things like the GPU etc).  Intel isn't bad, mind you, just  not my cup of tea.  Especially with all of the recent Intel only security issues, I'm even more leery of buying or even recommending them.  Not saying that AMD is perfect by any means, it's just Intel's security track record and their perf/dollar ratio is making buying Intel not nearly as appealing to me.  Intel does do some things better though, I'll be the first at admit that.   I'm really hoping AMD will catch up on IPC (they aren't too far off now) and clock speeds (maybe Zen2 or Zen3 will fix this?).

[GoldenLag]

2 hours ago, NineEyeRon said:

I won’t buy anything made by EA after 2008...

I can with certainty guess why.

 

Would recommend Respawn though. One of the studios that sadly have to work under EA.........

[jones177]

Going by my Newegg order history I bought a Athlon 64 4000+ in 2006 and a AMD Opteron 185 in 2007.

In 2008 I bought two Core 2 Duo E8400 with motherboards to replace the AMD chips. 

In 2009 I replaced one of the E8400s with a Core 2 Quad Q9550 and in 2011 I replaced my the other E8400 with a i7 2600k.

 

I ran the Q9550 until 2016 and the i7 2600k until 2018.

 

I ran AMD chips from about 1999 to 2008. I used them because I did not like what Intel had to offer in the price range. Also I have not liked what AMD has to offer since 2007.

 

Since 1998 my main computer entertainment has been playing games or simulations that have dedicated web sites with user created free content(mods). These games/sims are on an order of magnitude harder on hardware than vanilla games/sims. What all the games/sims also have in common is that they mainly run on 1 or 2 cores so the more powerful the individual cores are the more content I can add. There is no AMD consumer chip that can run my modded games/sims unless I remove content and I don't like to do that. It is not fun.    

 

If AMD can destroy the i9 9900k in single core performance this next gen I will replace one of my Intel rigs this year and the other next year. If they meet the performance of the i9  9900k I will not. They have to win.

 

I did not mind being called an AMD fanboy when I used them and I don't mind being called an Intel fanboy now. All either company has to do to get my money is to win the IPC race.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Gareque]

2 minutes ago, jones177 said:

If AMD can destroy the i9 9900k in single core performance this next gen I will replace one of my Intel rigs this year and the other next year. If they meet the performance of the i9  9900k I will not. They have to win.

But, if they equal performance of the 9900K but at half the price, is that not winning?

 

Would you be willing to pay considerably more for cpu just because it equals and not bests it?

[Mira Yurizaki]

3 hours ago, Gareque said:

Is the rift still there and do people feel a pull to buy a certain brand purely 'because' it's Intel or AMD?

I've read some people only buy AMD because they want to support "the underdog," because competition or something. Others have a more practical reason, like Intel's recent security gaffes.

 

3 hours ago, Gareque said:

I kinda get the feeling that the FX series started a trend of making AMD more known, but Ryzen seems to really be hitting Intel hard, so where do you folks stand on it?

I'd say AMD has had surges of recognition, some bad, some good. 15 some years ago when AMD was killing it with the Athlon 64, people were weary of them still because AMD left a bad taste in their mouth with the K-6.

 

Where I stand? Whatever gets me what I need/want for the moment.

[PlayStation 2]

Personally I consider myself an AMD enthusiast. I've dicked around with AMD hardware for the past decade and I've gotten used to the quirks and features of AMD hardware.

That being said, I try to separate what I like from what would be ideal for that person in question. If someone's gonna be using something like Adobe Premiere often (or really the Adobe suite) or want the absolute best for gaming? Maybe Intel and Nvidia would be the better choice for them. They want a video capturing beast for cheap? Maybe AMD would be the better choice for them. It's all situational.

[jones177]

1 minute ago, Gareque said:

But, if they equal performance of the 9900K but at half the price, is that not winning?

 

Would you be willing to pay considerably more for cpu just because it equals and not bests it?

Not for me since my i7 8086k is equal to a i9 9900k.

There is a i9 9900k computer in my household that does not belong to me but I have run the tests.

 

It would be a win for anybody that does not have a 5ghz chip and would force Intel to do a lot better so win, win. 

 

What AMD did with Radeon 7 scares me. They matched Nvidia's price performance. They did not beat it, so it will be interesting what they do against Intel. 

[Aimi]

Purely looking at hardware, I still have preference for AMD. I used Intel CPUs in pre-built machines, and they were fine.

I chose a Ryzen 7 for the higher core count and better pricing compared to Intel. It's way better for my VMs and video/3D rendering than an i7-7700HQ.

I don't really hate Intel though, the single core performance is nice, and they've done a lot to innovate in the CPU market.

[Gareque]

One thing I've heard with Intel chips is that it can (this is likely more a m/board quality thing than anything though) be easy to misalign the CPU and bend/break the pins and permanently mess up the board when you secure the level.  Is this true?  Or does it take a pretty strong amount of dedication to bent them seeing as they are built in to the board?

 

And further if you 'do' manage to somehow do that, can the pins be fixed with a credit card like with an AMD CPU?

[Zando_]

I like to tweak my stuff and OC and all sorts of things so I like AMD's GPUs and Intel's CPUs. AMD GPUs are more tweakable and you can push them farther than Nvidia's GPUs in my experience, and Intel's CPUs rule for OCing still. Ryzen so far has a hard cap around 4.3Ghz unless you have LN2 (I don't) and throw horrific voltages at them, whereas I can slap my X5670 on water and hit 4.5Ghz pretty easily, if I give it some nasty voltages they can go higher, some to 5Ghz or so (and it's $14 to replace if I burn it out). My 5820K does 4.5Ghz ezpz as well, may push it farther or just drop voltages for better. On my 2700X no matter what I did it wouldn't go above 4.25-4.3Ghz and that was throwing max voltage at it (1.4v IIRC). 

 

As far as advising people on price/performance rigs I'll usually go with Ryzen unless they're looking at high refresh rate gaming, AMD is killing it on value.  I just do this for fun so I don't really bother with price/perf, if I can afford it and it's fun to tinker with I yoink it.