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

[handymanshandle]

4 minutes ago, handymanshandle said:

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.

ayup lol
and fuck yeah Ryzen has some stupidly annoying quirks lol

 

I can't speak to the later editions but man that first gen stuff had some stuff that needed to be ironed out lol

 

To the thread topic: It's been said already, but preferences are everything! Not everyone likes the same things, not everyone feels AMD is the best choice for them. They might some very specific things that Intel works better for their situation.

That's one thing, personally that has turned me off over these last few years from getting hugely into the hardware side of things with computers because a lot of the newer people to this type of stuff are generally speaking not all that understanding of the concept of preference and use-case scenarios. Contrary to what some might suggest a Ryzen 9 3900X and a GTX 2080ti isn't the be all end all for everyone. It'd be a fine set up for gaming sure, but for non-gaming purposes it's either not enough or it's excessive.

[Beerzerker]

Have to agree with the above, what's right for one isn't for another.

Unless you're a hardcore gamer or wanting to score 2 million+ PPD folding, a 2080 isn't for everyone. Many can satisfy their needs with less, sometimes much less and for way cheaper too.

Preference is just that, I've yet to see anything from either that would make me want to go exclusively with one or the other (Except for price... Maybe) and I do have both.

 

At the end of the day both will do the same thing, difference is in how you want it done and how much you're willing to pay for it.

[Kilrah]

I bought a 9900K after Ryzen 3x launch because I wanted a high performance CPU with integrated graphics as a backup for my SFF build and AMD has nothing in that department, the APUs are all low/mid end stuff. 

Also I occasionally run stuff that benefits from QuickSync.

[JoostinOnline]

9 hours ago, pinksnowbirdie said:

I can't speak to the later editions but man that first gen stuff had some stuff that needed to be ironed out lol

I've built a few Ryzen systems and it's ironed out now with Zen 2, but even Zen+ still had some problems. I've never had to worry about whether a motherboard and RAM module were compatible (aside from the type or if it was unusually high frequency) until Zen. With Zen 2 you're mostly safe with any RAM, but anything earlier and you'd better check the QVL.

 

Ryzen is super exciting if you're building a budget system and know what you're doing, but if you're loaded or don't mind paying extra for the simplicity, then Intel has made more sense.

[handymanshandle]

5 hours ago, JoostinOnline said:

I've built a few Ryzen systems and it's ironed out now with Zen 2, but even Zen+ still had some problems. I've never had to worry about whether a motherboard and RAM module were compatible (aside from the type or if it was unusually high frequency) until Zen. With Zen 2 you're mostly safe with any RAM, but anything earlier and you'd better check the QVL.

 

Ryzen is super exciting if you're building a budget system and know what you're doing, but if you're loaded or don't mind paying extra for the simplicity, then Intel has made more sense.

I’m sure a lot of the issues especially in the Zen 2 chips were ironed out, it’d be moderately interesting to see if the PCIe stuff my boyfriend has issues with his capture card and how at least OG Ryzen handled if that’s something AMD fixed either in Zen+ or Zen2 or if that’s just the nature of Ryzen. 
 

 

[mr moose]

I always buy/build the cheapest that meets my minimum requirements.  Sometimes that's Intel and sometimes that's AMD.

[dappy10]

• intel performs better in single-core processes versus amd and reflects via fps for games
• ppl still have lga mobos so some will opt to just upgrade their cpu
• intel offers a lot of rebates (via retail edge or similar platforms) that offer better incentives

 

 

[Lord Vile]

18 hours ago, dappy10 said:

• intel performs better in single-core processes versus amd and reflects via fps for games
• ppl still have lga mobos so some will opt to just upgrade their cpu
• intel offers a lot of rebates (via retail edge or similar platforms) that offer better incentives

 

 

Issues:

 

AMD actually outperforms intel in some games now, especially out of box and sure you can OC to 5Ghz + but then you’re buying a pricier chip, cooling solution and motherboard and praying on the Si lottery which is enough to just upgrade the GPU which will net you better performance.
 

The 9th gen chips only work on Z370 and Z390 and not on Z270 meaning unless you’re upgrading from 8th gen you’re upgrading platform anyway. 

Rebates and incentives still put it pricier than Zen2

[NumLock21]

People still get Intel because of stability and compatibility, without having to worry about, parts they got, is it going to work together or not. AMD is better in terms of core count and price compare to Intel, but they still need to improve on their stability and compatibility.

[Letgomyleghoe]

On 3/24/2020 at 6:23 AM, porina said:

Zen 2 is pretty close to its limit already out of the box.

*laughs in 4.4ghz*
 

you mostly correct, Although if you ram voltage up ryzen 3000’s ass they do overclock well, but die quick.

 

i was quite lucky and am maintaining 4.4 ghz at 1.35v (I know, still pretty high) but I know I will be replacing this cpu by 2021

[Letgomyleghoe]

On 3/24/2020 at 9:31 PM, pinksnowbirdie said:

Contrary to what some might suggest a Ryzen 9 3900X and a GTX 2080ti isn't the be all end all for everyone. It'd be a fine set up for gaming sure, but for non-gaming purposes it's either not enough or it's excessive.

Amd mostly wins in the non-gaming department due to the higher core count in most scenarios, however i do acknowledge that there are some applications that benefit

from the higher clock speed, and excessive is not “excessive” in my book, it’s future proofing.

[porina]

6 hours ago, scuff gang said:

*laughs in 4.4ghz*
 

you mostly correct, Although if you ram voltage up ryzen 3000’s ass they do overclock well, but die quick.

 

i was quite lucky and am maintaining 4.4 ghz at 1.35v (I know, still pretty high) but I know I will be replacing this cpu by 2021

What's stable at 4.4 GHz though? I'd bet if you put prime95 on that'll crash. That's the difficulty with Zen 2 and fix clock/voltage type overclocks, and power limit relaxation is the best compromise. Looking at my 3700X right now it's crunching a mix of Rosetta/World Community Grid at 4.2 GHz stock. Not even PBO. An extra 200 MHz is really insignificant for loss in power efficiency and potential instability.

[williamcll]

A lot of games still favors Intel over AMD. 

 

Rust being a lethal example.

 

Special mention to borderlands 3 despite explicitly stated to work better on AMD but a i5-9600K has been shown to be toe to toe with a R7 3700X

[SavageNeo]

Many reasons. One of the biggest; people have not upgraded yet, people want the extra 1-10% fps increase when price is increased by 25-50%

 

But for midrange and budget AMD has some great offers. Ryzen 5 3600 for example. Yeah it does not beat i5 9600k when it is overclocked. But in order to really beat ryzen 5 3600 you need to put more money on the cooling. You are fine with the stock cooler on ryzen 5 3600. i5 9600k at 4.8ghz wins ryzen 5 3600 by very small margin in many games, but cpu bpund and new games it actually loses. CSGO uses more than 6 threads. In new or modern games the i5 9600k can get stutter cause it only has 6 threads.

 

i7 9700k has no hyperthreading (8c,8t) but it really does not stutter (yet). No games use more than 8 threads, but when the new consoles come out it can change and then i7 9700k can get stutters.

 

i9 9900k (or ks or kf) is still the best for gaming. Sure you cant get r9 3900x, disable 4 cores and oc to 48-4.9ghz to almost match i9 9900k.

 

When ryzen 4th gen comes out it can (or cannot) change all.

 

[GreyestGoat]

Intel are still ahead for what most of us here do "gaming"

[Dedayog]

OP - You 100% miss everything going on right now.

 

On 3/24/2020 at 7:36 AM, 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?

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

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

 

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

 

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.

All you're doing is regurgitating the very select aspects of AMD chips. 

 

Are you intentionally not looking at the performance numbers at all>?

[cyberphy]

because its all I have, and I dont have the money to buy anything else

[urmoshin]

Let people use what they want. It ain't that deep.

[manikyath]

to make this answer REALLY short:

 

each person is a different unique use case, if one product would work best for all of them, all other products would simply not exist.

[joeygreco1985]

Intel CPUs are still beating Ryzen 3 in gaming benchmarks, why wouldnt they show up in gaming videos and reviews?

[Letgomyleghoe]

7 hours ago, porina said:

What's stable at 4.4 GHz though?

It’s a ryzen 5 3600, it’s stable while folding, which is the most cpu intensive thing i do on a day to day basis, so I don’t really worry about it

[Guest]

The answer is simple: people just happen to have intel as they haven’t upgraded yet, they have a laptop or bought intel as it is equivalent, still seen as higher single-core speed. 

[Zando_]

3 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

The answer is simple: people just happen to have intel as they haven’t upgraded yet, they have a laptop or bought intel as it is equivalent, still seen as higher single-core speed. 

^^^ Exactly. Reason for it being in reviews, they already have a 9900K and there's very, very, very few titles that can actually scale performance past 16 threads, no need to replace it. Same for end users, what they have works, something new being faster only matters if they're buying new. Also people develop preferences, if they just trust Intel more they'll stick with it unless it somehow gets so slow it's unusable.