I don't use AMD. CHANGE MY MIND

[Bombastinator]

1 minute ago, Zando Bob said:

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.
 

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:

 

^^^ 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.

Which CPUs though?  The newest stuff like the 3950, sure.  Not so much real world gaming stuff though.  The 3950 costs more than a whole low/mid gaming rig by itself.  They’re a ton closer than they used to be single core wise.  Close enough.  They are getting similar performance with lower clocks.  The problem is they can’t reach the same clocks.  Zen has a lot more headroom in it than 14++ or return of son of zombie haswell or whatever the SSDD stuff intel has been putting out for the last ten years can be called. 

[Damascus]

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

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.

Meh on the 8700k trouncing anything lol.  I had an 8086k, honestly not much better than a clocked up 3600x.  Not exactly a relevant chip in any discussion about current tech.  Please refer to this absolutely monstrous guru3d article, and for comparison against a heavily overclocked and current i7, the tomshardware article.

 

https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_5_3600x_review (pages 22-> for perf. results and summary)

 

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-5-3600x-review,6245-4.html

 

The TLDR on both is that the 3600x holds NO punches, and strongly competes at the highest level on gaming loads, even beating out it's more premium HCC brethren due to an emphasis on high single core and multithreaded clocks

[Zando_]

9 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Which CPUs though?  The newest stuff like the 3950, sure.  Not so much real world gaming stuff though.  The 3950 costs more than a whole low/mid gaming rig by itself.  They’re a ton closer than they used to be single core wise.  Close enough.  They are getting similar performance with lower clocks.  The problem is they can’t reach the same clocks.  Zen has a lot more headroom in it than 14++ or return of son of zombie haswell or whatever the SSDD stuff intel has been putting out for the last ten years can be called. 

I know what the problems are. I know the single core is similar, I know they can't clock as well. I like Intel better, I prefer it, buuut: Intel chips are mostly faster in games due to (we assume) the much lower core to core latency with ringbus or a tuned mesh chip, and the much lower RAM latency inherent on chips with those base arches. Not sheer single core power.

Raw single core performance they're very comparable, a very well tuned and binned Intel chip may pull ahead due to clockspeed advantages but overall they're very close, a good Ryzen is going to be a bit faster AFAIK. The fact that the Intel CPUs, internally, are basically more "snappy" is what gives them the edge in gaming. I don't know of any other workloads with a similar demand but I assume an Intel chip would be better there. Most rendering tasks, be that 3D or video or what have you, seem to not care about that, which is why same core/thread count Ryzens can beat Intel chips in those workloads.

So basically: Intel isn't winning on single core power, if they have any lead there it's pretty slight from everything I've seen (although to be fair many reviewers aren't the best at fine tuning their chips), they're winning on latencies comboed with a high single core. Ryzen has the high single core, not the low latencies though. That's what holds it back in specifically gaming. Even then it's not a massive difference, but it's noticeable enough that I don't think we should just totally dismiss Intel like a lot of people seem to believe.

[oeci]

What puzzles me is the fact that very often when people ask about switching from an Intel - Nvidia system to an AMD one they somehow assume they have to switch for CPU and GPU. But this is not true as a Nvidia GPU works just as well in combination with an AMD CPU as it does with an Intel one. I've never been a fan of AMDs GPUs, in my opinion they've always been behind Nvidia both as far as performance is concerned as well as when it comes to the quality/ stability of their drivers. So I would not recommend an AMD GPU no matter what CPU but I can definitely recommend an AMD CPU with a Nvidia GPU. In my opinion that's currently the most powerful combination.

[GDRRiley]

3 minutes ago, Zando Bob said:

I know what the problems are. I know the single core is similar, I know they can't clock as well. I like Intel better, I prefer it, buuut: Intel chips are mostly faster in games due to (we assume) the much lower core to core latency with ringbus or a tuned mesh chip, and the much lower RAM latency inherent on chips with those base arches. Not sheer single core power.

Raw single core performance they're very comparable, a very well tuned and binned Intel chip may pull ahead due to clockspeed advantages but overall they're very close, a good Ryzen is going to be a bit faster AFAIK. The fact that the Intel CPUs, internally, are basically more "snappy" is what gives them the edge in gaming. I don't know of any other workloads with a similar demand but I assume an Intel chip would be better there. Most rendering tasks, be that 3D or video or what have you, seem to not care about that, which is why same core/thread count Ryzens can beat Intel chips in those workloads.

So basically: Intel isn't winning on single core power, if they have any lead there it's pretty slight from everything I've seen (although to be fair many reviewers aren't the best at fine tuning their chips), they're winning on latencies comboed with a high single core. Ryzen has the high single core, not the low latencies though. That's what holds it back in specifically gaming. Even then it's not a massive difference, but it's noticeable enough that I don't think we should just totally dismiss Intel like a lot of people seem to believe.

Intel are only faster because of clock speed nothing else. amd has better IPC

game by game. Some games intel gets wrecked on.

 

many dismiss intel because they are bad value for the money

7 price points, intel loses ether overall or in single threaded wins but only by 10% or less

 

125 2600 vs 9100

6/12 vs 4/4 locked

 

150    2600x/2700 vs 9400

6/12 or 8/16 vs 6/6 locked

 

200    9600KF vs 3600X

6/6 vs 6/12

 

300   9700 vs 3700x/3800x

8/8 locked vs 8/16

 

475 9900kf vs 3900x

8/16  vs 12/24

 

750 10940x vs 3950x

14/28 vs 16/32

 

(ryzen 2nd gen is usually 4-4.1ghz) (ryzen 3rd is 4.1-4.2)

[Zando_]

14 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

Intel are only faster because of clock speed nothing else. amd has better IPC

game by game. Some games intel gets wrecked on.

Did you read a thing I said? You probably think uncore means nothing and core clocks are all there is

 

15 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

many dismiss intel because they are bad value for the money

Yeah. I didn't address that much because frankly I don't give a fuck. I have $2600 sunk in a rig running a platform from 2014 with first gen oofies DDR4 IMC because I enjoy it. 

If we're arguing price, yeah that's why Ryzens are so hyped. They're very hard to beat on price/performance unless you're getting deals on used Intel HEDT (which I did, the only disadvantage for my use that my rig currently poses is temps, and maybe power consumption but power doesn't cost much). Sadly them being cheap = the popular conception being they were super fast because all core score compared to the price somehow = better in regular workloads which are rarely using 100% all core. They used to not compete on performance, but now they do, so now the hyping them up is much more deserved. 

[GDRRiley]

10 minutes ago, Zando Bob said:

Did you read a thing I said? You probably think uncore means nothing and core clocks are all there is

 

Yeah. I didn't address that much because frankly I don't give a fuck. I have $2600 sunk in a rig running a platform from 2014 with first gen oofies DDR4 IMC because I enjoy it. 

If we're arguing price, yeah that's why Ryzens are so hyped. They're very hard to beat on price/performance unless you're getting deals on used Intel HEDT (which I did, the only disadvantage for my use that my rig currently poses is temps, and maybe power consumption but power doesn't cost much). Sadly them being cheap = the popular conception being they were super fast because all core score compared to the price somehow = better in regular workloads which are rarely using 100% all core. They used to not compete on performance, but now they do, so now the hyping them up is much more deserved. 

yes I did. you talk about latency. most of which zen 3 has majory improved on. yes intel may have slightly faster cache buy amd has usually 2x the L2 and 3-4x the L3

uncore is the older name intels used for the same sh*t its just an IO/ power die, now its called system adgent.

 

that is you but most people won't drop 2 or 2.5k on a build.

I originally did but now I barley felt like a 300$ upgrade was worth it.

 

even used HEDT doesn't make sense. I'd bet my 2700 at 4ghz will be close to your 5960x and I got it with a board for 250$

 

Used servers/ dual socket workstations can make sense but 99.9% wouldn't game on that

[Zando_]

27 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

yes I did. you talk about latency. most of which zen 3 has majory improved on.

Oh yeah I love Zen... 3... the chips that aren't released yet... they're so... non-existent... their bench numbers are such... 0 because they haven't been benched. 

 

27 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

that is you but most people won't drop 2 or 2.5k on a build.

I originally did but now I barley felt like a 300$ upgrade was worth it.

I was stating why I didn't address price/performance heavily. 
 

27 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

even used HEDT doesn't make sense. I'd bet my 2700 at 4ghz will be close to your 5960x and I got it with a board for 250$

If Cinebench R20 is anything to go off of, my 5960X isn't far behind a stock 9900K, which is much faster than a 2700. An 1680v2 from 2013 can bitchslap a 2700X at 100Mhz lower clocks than my 5960X, the slight IPC hike with Haswell + higher clocks = RIP any Zen/Zen+ chip. A Threadripper would beat it in multicore but that's about it.

If TimeSpy is anything to go off of, my 5960X will still beat a 3700X by 4% in CPU score. Though to be fair that is one single example. 

Pretty sure my 5960X will dunk on the 2700 in single core, multicore, RAM bandwidth (even though I literally haven't touched RAM beyond XMP, and according to other X99s I'm way behind the curve on that front), and latency. Sporting about twice the PCIe lanes too. 

I should be able to dab all over an R5 2600 once I get my hands on X79, assuming the chip I'm looking at clocks well. 

Zen/Zen+ compete with same core count X79/X99 chips, until you bring decent to good bins into the question, then they're pretty much stomped. 

[Sir0Tek]

If I had an 6700K actually I'd sell it and the motherboard asap, in order to get at least the Ryzen 3600 if not better. Why? It's due to the price you can get for the 6700K still, and for the very money you can get the new - and usually more powerful - cpu with a good mainboard. It's at least a 4c/8t to 6c/12t switch, I wouldn't even think twice about it. Wait, on a second thought I'd put the 1070 into the sell as well, getting the 2060S instead - So, you can have the Ryzen 5 3600 with 2060S for next to nothing...

 

On the other side of the table: I just have bought 2x Haswell (4570, 4590) I5 to use for a low-spec gaming system (minecraft, fortnite and so on) and a multi-media setup, cpu and mainboard was less than $40 each. I wouldn't have paid more anyway, and I think Skylake will soon have to drop hard in price as well.

[mr moose]

25 minutes ago, Zando Bob said:

Oh yeah I love Zen... 3... the chips that aren't released yet... they're so... non-existent... their bench numbers are such... 0 because they haven't been benched. 

 

 

He clearly meant the 3000 series.

 

[Sir0Tek]

2 hours ago, Damascus said:

Meh on the 8700k trouncing anything lol.  I had an 8086k, honestly not much better than a clocked up 3600x.  Not exactly a relevant chip in any discussion about current tech.  Please refer to this absolutely monstrous guru3d article, and for comparison against a heavily overclocked and current i7, the tomshardware article.

 

https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_5_3600x_review (pages 22-> for perf. results and summary)

 

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-5-3600x-review,6245-4.html

 

The TLDR on both is that the 3600x holds NO punches, and strongly competes at the highest level on gaming loads, even beating out it's more premium HCC brethren due to an emphasis on high single core and multithreaded clocks.

 

Hmm... Guru3d used the traditional oc-path on the 3600(x), that's a big bummer, and it doesn't work, explaining their low gain. They should have tried to lower the volts instead (-0.05 to -0.1, trial and error) and use a better cooler. Disappointing.

Tom's did better, although they are calling Phoronix 'phornix' (pornix?) - I don't know if it's intentional.

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

i was you 4 years ago, am still using 4790k, loved to shit on AMD and their incompetence, but then Intel kept releasing nonsensical CPU's for high and higher price, and then i started to recommend friends to get AMD's Zen cpu's then over the last 2 years AMD has been kicking intel to the ground in almost every possible way, my next build is definitely gonna be AMD, why pay for something so mediocre by expensive when you can buy a better CPU for less price and more cores from AMD? 

it's not just me, the entire PC community has turned against Intel over the last 2 years, look at Linus Alone 

 

< moved hella lotta videos to spoiler >
 

Spoiler

 

Now for Contrast here's Intel over the last 3 years 
< another hella lotta videos in spoiler >

Spoiler

 

Intel Clearly has lost its way in the last 2 years and still stuck in 10 nm or was it 14? idk while the competition is headed to 7 nm. and expensive for no reason 

and STOP changing chipset every year and making upgradability impossible. my next build is gonna be AMD for sure, i've recommended people to steer away from intel, competition is good, now if only AMD can get their asses up and get good on GPU and include Ray Tracing and compete with nvidia, i wouldn't have to spend a years worth of fortune just to buy a damn 2080ti which is 3 times as expensive in India 

Edited February 12, 2020 by LogicalDrm
Love, moderation

[dizmo]

@Rohith_Kumar_Sp Linking all of those was...extremely unnecessary.

 

Quote

Intel Clearly has lost its way in the last 2 years and still stuck in 10 nm or was it 14? idk while the competition is headed to 7 nm. and expensive for no reason 

and STOP changing chipset every year and making upgradability impossible. my next build is gonna be AMD for sure, i've recommended people to steer away from intel, competition is good, now if only AMD can get their asses up and get good on GPU and include Ray Tracing and compete with nvidia, i wouldn't have to spend a years worth of fortune just to buy a damn 2080ti which is 3 times as expensive in India

You're aware that Intel 14nm and AMD 14nm aren't the same thing, right?

Both sides change the chipset every year.

Intel changes its socket every 2 years. Sure, that sucks, yet no one complained when AMD did the same thing to TR.

If you think AMD isn't going to aim for a high price with it's flagship card, you're dreaming

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

9 minutes ago, dizmo said:

@Rohith_Kumar_Sp Linking all of those was...extremely unnecessary.

 

You're aware that Intel 14nm and AMD 14nm aren't the same thing, right?

Both sides change the chipset every year.

Intel changes its socket every 2 years. Sure, that sucks, yet no one complained when AMD did the same thing to TR.

If you think AMD isn't going to aim for a high price with it's flagship card, you're dreaming

unnecessary to you maybe lol, put had to post them to show it's the general perception of literally everyone who's not an intel fanboy, like i was, it's not the chipset alone that's the issue, it's their constant lack luster CPU's that offer less even though you're spending more, simple doesn't make sense in 2020 to get an intel CPU anymore, who the FUCK cares if AMD is pricing things high? the point is for the prices they are selling there's actual value unlink intel who's not only asking you way more money than intel, also offering less cores and performance.

turn off your intel goggles and see it with the big picture, my company just upgraded all 50-50 CPU workstation and Student CPU's with either Ryzen 5's and Thread ripper for Production, i know MPC/Technicolor/Weta in my own city just this month sifted to AMD, all major hollywood production pipelines are switching to thread ripper as they offer way more performance regardless of how expensive they are, but even if you pay exorbitant price on the itel you;re stuck with low cores that offer way less performance, not everyone buys CPU's just for gaming, i'd say AMD in 2020 has caught up to that as well. 

[dizmo]

Just now, Rohith_Kumar_Sp said:

unnecessary to you maybe lol, put had to post them to show it's the general perception of literally everyone who's not an intel fanboy, like i was, it's not the chipset alone that's the issue, it's their constant lack luster CPU's that offer less even though you're spending more, simple doesn't make sense in 2020 to get an intel CPU anymore, who the FUCK cares if AMD is pricing things high? the point is for the prices they are selling there's actual value unlink intel who's not only asking you way more money than intel, also offering less cores and performance.

turn off your intel goggles and see it with the big picture, my company just upgraded all 50-50 CPU workstation and Student CPU's with either Ryzen 5's and Thread ripper for Production, i know MPC/Technicolor/Weta in my own city just this month sifted to AMD, all major hollywood production pipelines are switching to thread ripper as they offer way more performance regardless of how expensive they are, but even if you pay exorbitant price on the itel you;re stuck with low cores that offer way less performance, not everyone buys CPU's just for gaming, i'd say AMD in 2020 has caught up to that as well. 

....not sure how you figure showing repeatedly what one person thinks would show a "general perception of literally everyone." Not really what you were aiming for at all.

You're looking at it like someone's upgrading every year. That's not why they release CPUs every year, it's for the people that are building fresh.

If the roles were reversed, AMD would be doing the exact same thing as Intel. Don't try to white knight them.

I didn't once say Intel is better, they both have issues, nor did I say people are buying CPUs just for gaming.

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

4 minutes ago, dizmo said:

....not sure how you figure showing repeatedly what one person thinks would show a "general perception of literally everyone." Not really what you were aiming for at all.

You're looking at it like someone's upgrading every year. That's not why they release CPUs every year, it's for the people that are building fresh.

If the roles were reversed, AMD would be doing the exact same thing as Intel. Don't try to white knight them.

I didn't once say Intel is better, they both have issues, nor did I say people are buying CPUs just for gaming.

not sure what you're trying to disprove here, i simply responded to the OP about his question "change my mind", i pitched in all the things i've noticed and laid out the general perception of Intel is really bad right now and AMD is beating out Intel on all fronts, i simply don't have time to respond to your grievances on my opinion. those are just that, my opinion, you can formulate your own on why op is right and how he shouldn't still continue not to use it, feel free mate. 

[KNG_HOLDY]

i always was that intel fanboy

 

after seeing the first ryzen cpu's hit the market i slowly was rethinking

now im using my first amd processor and im loving it (3700x)

 

i can open so many programms at once  only drawback the cpu cooler is fucking loud but it will get watercooled soon :3 already cleaned my 240 360 radiators

i will silence that mofu'er

[BecauseICanTBH]

I've never used an AMD CPU either. Had loads of Intel ones throughout my life. But after threadripper 3 came out, I upgraded my 8700k to a TR 3960X. 

 

It was either that for $1,400 or Intel's "comparable" W-3175X for $3,000. I have this thing PPT limited and it scores 13k in cinebench. Pretty incredible.

[handymanshandle]

6 hours ago, Zando Bob said:

^^^ 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.

Oh yeah and for the most part Ryzen has been overhyped. For what I need it’s been fine. But that’s it just fine lol

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

also you need to realize if you want to just game or work on it, if work, AMD all the way, intel even if you spend on the highest end still can't compete with AMD's high end despite being similarly priced or even less. for example take a look at recent upload by Jayz2cents 
 

 

[Bombastinator]

the Issue is basically everything with CPUs is cost/performance.  Both companies make CPUs that cost between $50 and tens of thousands.

 

What do you get for what cost?  Right now there’s only one point where intel is even breaking even or ahead, and that is the top end of regular home gaming with the 9900k.  Everything else is more money for less performance.  The top end is even worse than the bottom end because intel isn’t CAPABLE of making stuff as fast as AMD, completely ignoring the cost issue.

[CreativeName6426]

Which is better depends on what you want to do with it, and what your budget is. If you want a workstation and are okay with spending 3k, get a new threadripper. If you want a balance between gaming and workstation performance while also staying within any reasonable budget, go with a 3600.

[WkdPaul]

* Thread locked *

 

Thread has ran it's course, also, this is exactly why we don't allow X vs Y threads on the forum.

 

Quote

• No trolling or flame-bait.
  • This includes topics such as AMD vs NVIDIA, "company X sucks", and political or religious debates.