What persuaded you to go Intel?

[AMD A10-9600P]

Fellow Intel Coffee Lake owners, or those thinking of upgrading to 10th gen, I'm curious to know what persuaded you to go blue over red?

 

For me it was the slight single core advantage over Ryzen chips at a similar price, something important to me in Lockheed Martin P3D (flight sim) and also past experiences with AMD (granted, this is just my opinion, please don't rip into me for it), the laptop I was upgrading from has an AMD A10 with obscure discrete graphics, something I had driver issues with every few months (made worse by the fact that, although designed to be convenient, the CPU and GPU drivers were bundled together, and I could never get any later drivers than the original 2016 ones to work), and an issue which caused the CPU to be pinned at 0.79GHz, rendering it unusable for a good month until I discovered DDU. I remember also becoming slightly wiser to the fact that, at the time, Intel laptops for similar prices had astronomically better battery life (at launch mine only claimed to have 4 hours, down to a measly 1 and half ish now...) with both better single core and multi core performance (obviously Ryzen has definitely solved some of those issues though), although the GPU on that laptop was a clear advantage over Intel laptops at the time I bought it

[kelvinhall05]

Didn't really persuade me, but when I built my desktop, I was going to go with first-gen Ryzen, but I found an i7-950, my Sabertooth X58, and my RAM for 120 CAD, and it was local, and he delivered.

 

So yeah, much better deal than Ryzen, although if/when I need to upgrade I will likely go with Ryzen.

 

As for my laptop, I went with Intel because it was basically the only thing my budget would've allowed lol

[Ashleyyyy]

i got good deals lol. my Z370-P was €20 from a friend, and the i3-8100 i have was €80 on the used market. 

[AMD A10-9600P]

1 minute ago, kelvinhall05 said:

Didn't really persuade me, but when I built my desktop, I was going to go with first-gen Ryzen, but I found an i7-950, my Sabertooth X58, and my RAM for 120 CAD, and it was local, and he delivered.

 

So yeah, much better deal than Ryzen, although if/when I need to upgrade I will likely go with Ryzen.

 

As for my laptop, I went with Intel because it was basically the only thing my budget would've allowed lol

Fair enough, seems like a no brainer really, especially for what must've been like $800 cheaper than a new Ryzen system. Ryzen will likely become much more attractive, even more so than it already is, in future, as Intel falls further behind with their endless refreshes.

 

Lol fair enough, to be fair, until recently Intel had a monopoly on laptops, to this day the only AMD laptop I've ever seen has been mine

[minibois]

Quote

What persuaded you to go Intel?

They haven't.

 

With my desktop, AMD just made so much more sense for my purpose.

Double the cores/threads was worth it, over 15% more single core performance (plus AMD was cheaper too).

 

With my laptop, AMD just was not a choice, there were no compelling options when I got my laptop. So Intel it was.

[Guest]

I was really bored.

I wanted insane amounts of OC headroom.

[kelvinhall05]

Just now, bengeoghegan11 said:

Fair enough, seems like a no brainer really, especially for what must've been like $800 cheaper than a new Ryzen system. Ryzen will likely become much more attractive, even more so than it already is, in future, as Intel falls further behind with their endless refreshes.

Yeah, and even if I got all the other same components, Ryzen 5 + average mobo + 16GB of RAM would've easily been triple what I paid.

Just now, bengeoghegan11 said:

Lol fair enough, to be fair, until recently Intel had a monopoly on laptops, to this day the only AMD laptop I've ever seen has been mine

Agreed, when I bought my Thinkpad, Ryzen laptops were just coming out but they were over my budget by quite a bit.

[Kilrah]

The fact that AMD doesn't make any high end CPU with iGPU.

[Mateyyy]

The fact that I was dying for an upgrade and my impatient ass wouldn't wait for the 3900X to release locally lol

[Radium_Angel]

Twin Xeon motherboards.

[porina]

My current gaming system uses 8086k, launched June 2018, although the closely related 8700k was launched September 2017. The AMD offering at the time was Zen+ based (up to Ryzen 2700X) which launched April 2018. It was a no brainer. The 2700X wasn't competitive in performance unless you run nothing but Cinebench. I only went up to 6 cores to help smooth out some gaming use cases where 4 cores were starting to show some cracks in performance. I had a 1080Ti, the top consumer GPU at the time as RTX wasn't out until later in the year.

 

If I had nothing and was buying today, I'd probably go 3700X. I actually own one, but see no reason to switch to using it over the 8086k as it is a sidegrade. We need to see more radical improvement from both red and blue before I rebuild my gaming system CPU. That doesn't necessarily mean more cores.

[TrigrH]

i won the 8086k

[jones177]

Way back in 2008 I was using all AMD. My main 3D program that I used at the time had a major upgrade and after it I got nothing but crashes. I contacted the company and they told me that they did not support AMD. 

I had to convert two of my computers literally overnight to E8400s. I have not used AMD since.

 

Now my computer's performance is for my modded/building games and they like frequency. 

 

[Kisai]

3 hours ago, bengeoghegan11 said:

Fellow Intel Coffee Lake owners, or those thinking of upgrading to 10th gen, I'm curious to know what persuaded you to go blue over red?

 

 

 

Historically, AMD's CPU parts were not a good deal. From the K-6/Athlon to the A-series APU parts. AMD's CPU's were for the junky PC's that were sold at 20% discounts to Intel's with a 50% performance penalty.

 

This didn't really change until relatively recently. Look at passmark's CPU list. AMD is on TOP of the list for once.

 

Those two at the far right of the graph are the Ryzen 5 3600X, 3600 and ThreadRipper 1900X. The next closest Intel parts are all Intel Xeon E5 parts. The first non-Xeon part on that graph closest to the right is i3-9100F, at the cross between 6000 and about 75 on the Y axis. Anyway look at where all the rest of the AMD parts are.

 

The AMD parts may be cheaper, but they were rarely ever a better deal. In particular, laptops based on AMD parts were often significantly inferior to an Intel-based one because the AMD parts would always consume more power. It doesn't matter if AMD's had more cores for longer when the cores only hit half the performance of an intel core. This is one of those things you have to consider what your use case is.

 

This graph, using only available CPU's looks really interesting because Intel's CPU's stop right in the middle.

The Threadripper 3960X and 3970X are the ones at the farthest to the right.

At the 23300 mark on the graph where the spread between Intel and AMD is the greatest, is the Intel 10900X vs the Ryzen 7 3800. So if you draw a line here, the ThreadRipper parts are the same trajectory as the Intel parts. The Ryzen (x) 3xxx parts are all lower (by almost 2/3rds) priced for the same performance.

 

One reason that some people can not switch to AMD is that their business software relies on the AVX instructions that Intel uses and AMD doesn't have. But you're not likely to run into this on 64-bit software since the compilers tend to only permit intrinsics (which use assembly or C replacements on CPU's without the instructions) 

 

[bondoao1]

I used to love AMD back in the Athlon days, loved my Athlon 64. Years ago I picked up an HD 4670, which I used for quite a while, but it never performed as well as I expected but it was all I had. 
My dislike for AMD started about 6 years ago when I picked up a laptop for my wife.
It is a HP Notebook, with an AMD A10-9600P cpu, and an AMD R5 graphics adapter. 

Everything was great at first, but then the first round of windows updates installed and boom, dead laptop.
It would just give beep codes, no display no nothing.

I took it back to best buy and was given another one, which right out of the box started windows updates and boom, killed that one too. 
I didn't want to drive another 2hrs to the closest best buy (1 hr each way), so I did some research and found how to get to the recovery mode.
Once the recovery mode started I had display and I did the factory restart, which worked fine till the next windows update, then rinse and repeat.

I was able to postpone and keep windows updates from happening for quite a while, then boom dead again and then again rinse and repeat.

I read in several HP forums that this was a driver issue but no one could find a permanent fix for it.
Finally about a year and a half ago, AMD came out with Adrenalin 18.5.1 which finally fixed the driver issues and I could do windows updates without killing the CPU and GPU drivers. 

After that debacle, AMD is dead to me. 

 

 

[AMD A10-9600P]

49 minutes ago, bondoao1 said:

I used to love AMD back in the Athlon days, loved my Athlon 64. Years ago I picked up an HD 4670, which I used for quite a while, but it never performed as well as I expected but it was all I had. 
My dislike for AMD started about 6 years ago when I picked up a laptop for my wife.
It is a HP Notebook, with an AMD A10-9600P cpu, and an AMD R5 graphics adapter. 

Everything was great at first, but then the first round of windows updates installed and boom, dead laptop.
It would just give beep codes, no display no nothing.

I took it back to best buy and was given another one, which right out of the box started windows updates and boom, killed that one too. 
I didn't want to drive another 2hrs to the closest best buy (1 hr each way), so I did some research and found how to get to the recovery mode.
Once the recovery mode started I had display and I did the factory restart, which worked fine till the next windows update, then rinse and repeat.

I was able to postpone and keep windows updates from happening for quite a while, then boom dead again and then again rinse and repeat.

I read in several HP forums that this was a driver issue but no one could find a permanent fix for it.
Finally about a year and a half ago, AMD came out with Adrenalin 18.5.1 which finally fixed the driver issues and I could do windows updates without killing the CPU and GPU drivers. 

After that debacle, AMD is dead to me. 

 

 

AMD driver issues were one of the main things that persuaded me to go Intel and Nvidia on my first desktop that I got last month; my laptop is an HP with some funny R5 graphics and an A10-9600P, just like the one you're talking about, Windows updates screw with the drivers so badly, and I can never get anything newer than the original 2016 drivers to work! I'm surprised you to had to factory reset after every Windows update though, I just have to reinstall the drivers without too much issue. Obviously I'm sure not all AMD drivers have these issues and they're much better implemented now that they're much more widespread, but that was a big issue for me too.

 

Edit: Just want to clarify, that aside from issues with shorter battery life and being slightly underpowered compared to Intel options at the time, I was and still am very pleased with that A10-9600P laptop to this day, the discrete graphics were what sold it for me, and the GPU still comes in useful today for a little bit of light CAD work, although newer iGPUs make light work of CAD in comparison, and don't die after 2 hours...

[Guest]

Decided to try my hand at Legacy PCIE competitive overclocking and benchmarking. 

A lot of older 3D benches love Intel IMC and high end memory bandwidth and low latency. Faster the Mhz the higher the scores. 

 

But also have AMD and generally have used AMD through the years for daily drivers generally being cheaper to purchase and worked fine for many builds.

Lots of overclocking on AMD but mainly concentrated on 2D benching as AMD has never really been great at 3D even to this day. They simply lack the frequency.

 

I have and enjoy both AMD and Intel and I try to keep a clear mind and favortism off to the side.

 

Both AMD and Intel bring great offerings to the table and I always try to take that into consideration. 

Since mostly a bencher over being a gamer, I have seemingly different views than most people.

 

Looking back at it all, I find it amusing the same AMD haters now have jumped to team Red. But for me its totally unclear as to why!! 

Perhaps there's just a lot of misinformed maybe underinformed people but also have different goals with their hardware as well. Everyone is different and so is their tastes and preferences.

 

A lot of setups suffer from the above. The lack of know how and proper parts shoping. Sure you can get 3600mhz memory. Its awful slow at cl 18-22-22. Why do people buy this crap?? Oh. Underinformed. 

 

Anyhow

Amd is fast.

Intel is fast.

Just buy what you like and go with it.

 

Love em' both if the above is tldr.

[Zando_]

I'm not on Coffee Lake rn, have had two 8700Ks and an 8600K for a bit in the past though, but I never did much with those. I currently run a 5960X (6950X on the way), and have 4930K and X5675 powered alt rigs. My stint on Ryzen ended in disappointment due to horrible OC headroom (performing worse in games when manually pushed is oofies) so I moved back to X58, then hopped to X99, eventually picked up the X79 rig to get closer to completing the collection. At this point I just like Intel HEDT for reasons even I don't really understand, and as tempting as some new mainstream stuff may be, I really don't want to move off. Need to get X299 at some point, but CPUs that are an actual upgrade over mine are still extremely expensive. That + needing hardware for another custom loop makes the cost of entry still too high. 

[AMD A10-9600P]

8 minutes ago, ShrimpBrime said:

Decided to try my hand at Legacy PCIE competitive overclocking and benchmarking. 

A lot of older 3D benches love Intel IMC and high end memory bandwidth and low latency. Faster the Mhz the higher the scores. 

 

But also have AMD and generally have used AMD through the years for daily drivers generally being cheaper to purchase and worked fine for many builds.

Lots of overclocking on AMD but mainly concentrated on 2D benching as AMD has never really been great at 3D even to this day. They simply lack the frequency.

 

I have and enjoy both AMD and Intel and I try to keep a clear mind and favortism off to the side.

 

Both AMD and Intel bring great offerings to the table and I always try to take that into consideration. 

Since mostly a bencher over being a gamer, I have seemingly different views than most people.

 

Looking back at it all, I find it amusing the same AMD haters now have jumped to team Red. But for me its totally unclear as to why!! 

Perhaps there's just a lot of misinformed maybe underinformed people but also have different goals with their hardware as well. Everyone is different and so is their tastes and preferences.

 

A lot of setups suffer from the above. The lack of know how and proper parts shoping. Sure you can get 3600mhz memory. Its awful slow at cl 18-22-22. Why do people buy this crap?? Oh. Underinformed. 

 

Anyhow

Amd is fast.

Intel is fast.

Just buy what you like and go with it.

 

Love em' both if the above is tldr.

My good man, I agree, it has got to be said that it is not as simple as just red or blue, or red or green for that matter. People need to buy the CPU that's right for their workload and do their own proper research into the benefits and pitfalls of each option, rather than just looking at the general opinion and basing their choice off that (to be fair though, the average consumer won't know where to begin with that and will likely end up just as happy with either). And despite Intel's apparent "laziness" as some huge AMD fans would say, from either side we're getting yearly improvements in performance, whether it's 7nm or 14nm++++++++++++++++++++++++++++. The competition is healthy for us as consumers, as we all get much more for our money year on year, whether you pay a certain manufacturer a premium or not

[bondoao1]

1 hour ago, bengeoghegan11 said:

AMD driver issues were one of the main things that persuaded me to go Intel and Nvidia on my first desktop that I got last month; my laptop is an HP with some funny R5 graphics and an A10-9600P, just like the one you're talking about, Windows updates screw with the drivers so badly, and I can never get anything newer than the original 2016 drivers to work! I'm surprised you to had to factory reset after every Windows update though, I just have to reinstall the drivers without too much issue. Obviously I'm sure not all AMD drivers have these issues and they're much better implemented now that they're much more widespread, but that was a big issue for me too.

 

Edit: Just want to clarify, that aside from issues with shorter battery life and being slightly underpowered compared to Intel options at the time, I was and still am very pleased with that A10-9600P laptop to this day, the discrete graphics were what sold it for me, and the GPU still comes in useful today for a little bit of light CAD work, although newer iGPUs make light work of CAD in comparison, and don't die after 2 hours...

The reason I couldn't reinstall drivers was because there was no display. 
I couldn't get to BIOS, I could only get to the recovery partition by holding F11 while powering up, otherwise it would just beep and not boot.

This laptop is the hp notebook 15-ba079dx, and it worked great when it worked and now that AMD published drivers that worked, it is still a decent laptop for everyday general use and video streaming. 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, bengeoghegan11 said:

My good man, I agree, it has got to be said that it is not as simple as just red or blue, or red or green for that matter. People need to buy the CPU that's right for their workload and do their own proper research into the benefits and pitfalls of each option, rather than just looking at the general opinion and basing their choice off that (to be fair though, the average consumer won't know where to begin with that and will likely end up just as happy with either). And despite Intel's apparent "laziness" as some huge AMD fans would say, from either side we're getting yearly improvements in performance, whether it's 7nm or 14nm++++++++++++++++++++++++++++. The competition is healthy for us as consumers, as we all get much more for our money year on year, whether you pay a certain manufacturer a premium or not

Intel is a little bigger than AMD. There's quite a few differences to look at. Company wise I should say.

 

The average joe needs to save money. Buy smart. This is good way to live.

Spending thousands on a gaming PC that's dated in 2 years might not be most people's choice to throw money at it.

So that's why consoles are so popular..... and Run on AMD. The budget is right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Kilrah]

2 minutes ago, ShrimpBrime said:

The average joe needs to save money. Buy smart.

Buying smart is not always (often not?) buying cheap. Marketing does its best to make you believe it is though.

[Guest]

Just now, Kilrah said:

Buying smart is not always (often not?) buying cheap. Marketing does its best to make you believe it is though.

Can't do anything about that for I am also a consumer

[Mister Woof]

1. In 2017, when I upgraded from my i5-4570, it was the 8700k or the 1600 for less money or the 1700 for around the same. I knew the 8700k was about 30-40% faster in single core performance, and I wanted a CPU that would last me several years before upgrading. I could have saved some money on the 1600 or got more cores for the 1700. I chose the 8700k.

 

2. This turned out to be the correct choice, as nearly three years later, Ryzen 3000 still can't really touch me in gaming, the new chips by Intel aren't really better outside of a benchmark, and it doesn't seem like I'll need to upgrade for another 3-5 years.

 

3. There is nothing outside of my system dying, me needing another system anyway, or my itch needing to be scratched that would convince me to upgrade to ANYTHING, let alone an intel 10th gen. Maybe a Ryzen 9 3900x for shits and giggles if it gets cheap enough, or maybe a Ryzen 4000 if I get the itch. 

 

4. Even if Ryzen 4000 or 11th gen Intel provider 20% IPC improvement over what I've got, I still won't feel the need to upgrade for performance reasons. I only upgraded out of the 4570 because 4/4 SUCKS, and because....the itch.