My Intel VS AMD thoughts (What do you think?) (Unbiased as I can be)

[GarbageCompactor]

One thing I don't understand is, why do so many people shit on Intel? I see so many people recommending AMD processors for strictly gaming builds. I've heard people say, 5 more frames for 80% more cost. Though, there are so many Intel processors that outperform AMD in games. Also, I get it, If you do tasks like editing and other multi core workstation things, go for AMD, cause they outshine Intel in that regard, but right now I'm talking pure games, which is what many people build custom computers for (Note I'm saying many and not all). Take the i3-9100F in consideration. Its only $70 (US), comparing that to a Ryzen 5 3600 which is $167 (US), and they compare within a couple frames on games. Not to mention the i5-9600k which outperforms the Ryzen 9 3900X in games by a dozen or more frames, with being less than half the cost. Another thing that I hear is when a new Intel CPU comes out, its barely faster than its predecessor. The i5-9600 is 5% faster compared to its predecessor (I5-8600), while on Ryzen, The Ryzen 5 3600 is 8% faster than its predecessor (Ryzen 5 2600). Its a small difference in performance across generations for each brand. I used non-overclockable processors to help get base performance and not have the results skewed by overclocks. While Intel does do some shitty things like making you buy a new motherboard when a new series of processors come out even if its the same socket (though if you are upgrading, most of the time you can flash the bios to support newer ones, or some motherboards support USB bios flashing). I can agree, that is an annoying thing, and I get why people complain about that. Intel should allow newer processors to work with older boards on the same socket. One thing that I keep seeing, is people fanboying companies and shitting on everything that isn't made by their preferred company (Applies to both Intel and AMD), when you should buy a product based on how good it is for your needs, and not what brand manufactured it. I try not to be biased about this stuff. I prefer Intel, but that's cause it suits my workload well, and my i5-9600k gives me insane performance when overclocked to 5.2GHz. Something that we can all agree on though, is that Intel needs to retire 14nm and move on to 10nm. I noticed people really like to argue about how AMD is on a smaller architecture, like it makes an insane different on the performance of the processor, but it doesn't make that big of a deal. Yes, an improvement is still an improvement that AMD is doing better on, and I agree with that, but its not a deal-breaker. That's all and my rant is over now. Whats your opinion on this subject?

 

[Haro]

I'm sorry 

I'm not going to read this 

It's not structured well and there is no spaces between anything lmao 

[Oshino Shinobu]

Holy paragraphing, Batman!

[SavageNeo]

14 minutes ago, GarbageCompactor said:

Take the i3-9100F in consideration.

ryzen 3 3100 or 3300x will outperform it by miles.

14 minutes ago, GarbageCompactor said:

. Not to mention the i5-9600k which outperforms the Ryzen 9 3900X in games by a dozen or more frames, with being less than half the cost

usually people like to stream too not only game. ryzen 5 3600 is better streamer than 9600k cause it has more threads to use. and ryzen 5 3600 has better 1% and 0.1% lows than 9600k since it has 6 more threads again.

14 minutes ago, GarbageCompactor said:

The Ryzen 5 3600 is 8% faster than its predecessor

?? it is much faster than that.

 

 

ther intel 10th gen is pretty good. the 10600k is the best cpu for gamign right now.

 

ryzen 3 3100 and 3300x have 4c/8t while intel offering in similar price are 4c/4t ot 6c/6t. yes 3300x beats 9400f and 9500 but loses to overclockable intel cpus.

3300x is the best value for budget/low mid range gaming builds. 

 

ryzen 5 3600 is pretty nice if you do other than game. if you plan to stream or work and game i prefer 3600 over 9600k/9700 since it has much more threads. if your plan is to oinyl game 10600k is the best cpu you can get. but if you plan to stream with budget that you cant get 10600k then you should get the ryzen 5 3600.

 

now ryzen 7 3700x is one of the best bang for the buck cpus for gaming and streaming. i would take it over 9700k if i would stream and game at the same time. if i only plan to game i would get the 10600k

 

ryzen 9 3900x is very good for the price 400-430 dollars. it has 12c/24t making it one of the best rendering/treaming/working and gaming cpus out there. but with the budget for onyl gaming i would get 10900k otherwise i owuld get the 3900x

 

 

Yes, i have dyslexia please pardon me.

3850x is not meant for gaming. it has 16c/32t. but it is grat cpu for working etc for only 700 dollars.

 

If i would only game i would get 3300x (lower budget) or 10600k (higher budget). otherwise i prefer AMD

Edited June 7, 2020 by SavageNeo

[jtmoseley]

11 minutes ago, GarbageCompactor said:

One thing I don't understand is, why do so many people shit on Intel? I see so many people recommending AMD processors for strictly gaming builds. I've heard people say, 5 more frames for 80% more cost. Though, there are so many Intel processors that outperform AMD in games. Also, I get it, If you do tasks like editing and other multi core workstation things, go for AMD, cause they outshine Intel in that regard, but right now I'm talking pure games, which is what many people build custom computers for (Note I'm saying many and not all). Take the i3-9100F in consideration. Its only $70 (US), comparing that to a Ryzen 5 3600 which is $167 (US), and they compare within a couple frames on games. Not to mention the i5-9600k which outperforms the Ryzen 9 3900X in games by a dozen or more frames, with being less than half the cost. Another thing that I hear is when a new Intel CPU comes out, its barely faster than its predecessor. The i5-9600 is 5% faster compared to its predecessor (I5-8600), while on Ryzen, The Ryzen 5 3600 is 8% faster than its predecessor (Ryzen 5 2600). Its a small difference in performance across generations for each brand. I used non-overclockable processors to help get base performance and not have the results skewed by overclocks. While Intel does do some shitty things like making you buy a new motherboard when a new series of processors come out even if its the same socket (though if you are upgrading, most of the time you can flash the bios to support newer ones, or some motherboards support USB bios flashing). I can agree, that is an annoying thing, and I get why people complain about that. Intel should allow newer processors to work with older boards on the same socket. One thing that I keep seeing, is people fanboying companies and shitting on everything that isn't made by their preferred company (Applies to both Intel and AMD), when you should buy a product based on how good it is for your needs, and not what brand manufactured it. I try not to be biased about this stuff. I prefer Intel, but that's cause it suits my workload well, and my i5-9600k gives me insane performance when overclocked to 5.2GHz. Something that we can all agree on though, is that Intel needs to retire 14nm and move on to 10nm. I noticed people really like to argue about how AMD is on a smaller architecture, like it makes an insane different on the performance of the processor, but it doesn't make that big of a deal. Yes, an improvement is still an improvement that AMD is doing better on, and I agree with that, but its not a deal-breaker. That's all and my rant is over now. Whats your opinion on this subject?

 

People love to shit on intel because it it is the popular thing to do right now. There's a lot of bandwagon love for AMD, and a lot of people see them as the savior of affordable PC's. They think that AMD brought back competition within the market (which is true), and as such want to buy their products.

 

The PC community as a whole doesn't have much love for intel, as they have had issues with stagnation. Quad cores were the high end products for a decade. When AMD showed up, suddenly consumer grade processors were skyrocketing in core count. 

 

However, I agree with you. AMD's processors are geared towards content creation, not necessarily gaming. Intel still beats them at that. Considering most people don't utilize any multi-threaded workloads, the logical thing to do is recommend intel. But again, people are fanboying over AMD right now.

[Haro]

1 minute ago, jtmoseley said:

people are fanboying over AMD right now.

That's not necessarily true lmao 

People recommend AMD because even in single threaded latency got to the point where it got minimized and it's not a problem any more

The imc got better 

THE FCLK is alot better 

The ipc count is just BETTER in every way in AMD

And it's cheaper that's something compelling to everyone

It makes sense that people LOVE amd today and hate Intel 

 

[jtmoseley]

3 minutes ago, SavageNeo said:

ryzen 3 3100 or 3300x will outperform it by miles.

usually people like to stream too not only game. ryzen 5 3600 is better streamer than 9600k cause it has more threads to use. and ryzen 5 3600 has better 1% and 0.1% lows than 9600k since it has 6 more threads again.

?? it is much faster than that.

 

 

ther intel 10th gen is pretty good. the 10600k is the best cpu for gamign right now.

 

ryzen 3 3100 and 3300x have 4c/8t while intel offering in similar price are 4c/4t ot 6c/6t. yes 3300x beats 9400f and 9500 but loses to overclockable intel cpus.

3300x is the best value for budget/low mid range gaming builds. 

 

ryzen 5 3600 is pretty nice if you do other than game. if you plan to stream or work and game i prefer 3600 over 9600k/9700 since it has much more threads. if your plan is to oinyl game 10600k is the best cpu you can get. but if you plan to stream with budget that you cant get 10600k then you should get the ryzen 5 3600.

 

now ryzen 7 3700x is one of the best bang for the buck cpus for gaming and streaming. i would take it over 9700k if i would stream and game at the same time. if i only plan to game i would get the 10600k

 

ryzen 9 3900x is very good for the price 400-430 dollars. it has 12c/24t making it one of the best rendering/treaming/working and gaming cpus out there. but with the budget for onyl gaming i would get 10900k otherwise i owuld get the 3900x

 

 

Yes, i have dyslexia please pardon me.

3850x is not meant for gaming. it has 16c/32t. but it is grat cpu for working etc for only 700 dollars.

 

If i would only game i would get 3300x (lower budget) or 10600k (higher budget). otherwise i prefer AMD

Intel's 10th gen is looking really good. Its a shame the OP ignored it. Every 10th gen intel processor from i3 to i9 uses hyperthreading. 

[jtmoseley]

Just now, TofuHaroto said:

That's not necessarily true lmao 

People recommend AMD because even in single threaded latency got to the point where it got minimized and it's not a problem any more

The imc got better 

THE FCLK is alot better 

The ipc count is just BETTER in every way in AMD

And it's cheaper that's something compelling to everyone

It makes sense that people LOVE amd today and hate Intel 

 

The i3-10100 is $120, same as the ryzen 3300x. And for all intents and purposes it performs effectively the same in the benchmarks I saw.

 

You're kinda fanboying if you can't see that they are more or less the same now that 10th gen has released. IPC count might be better, but intel still wins in clock speed. It evens it out.

 

Anyways I have an AMD processor so you *shouldn't* get that mad at me. I'm just saying that it is kinda dumb to act like AMD is some sort of godlike company. 

[Haro]

1 minute ago, jtmoseley said:

You're kinda fanboying

I am ? Lmao 

I'm not saying Intel makes bad cpu's

I'm saying they make bad value cpu's 

 

[GarbageCompactor]

3 minutes ago, jtmoseley said:

Intel's 10th gen is looking really good. Its a shame the OP ignored it. Every 10th gen intel processor from i3 to i9 uses hyperthreading. 

I ignored it because there aren't too many benchmarks of them out right now, and I figured it'd be best to since the benchmarks wouldn't be that accurate on performance.

[jtmoseley]

Just now, TofuHaroto said:

I am ? Lmao 

I'm not saying Intel makes bad cpu's

I'm saying they make bad value cpu's 

 

And I just said that for all intents and purposes they are equivalent now. The 3300x = i3-10100. Both are $120. Both are 4 core 8 threads. You're acting like AMD is somehow better when in reality they offer *very* similar products. For *very* similar prices. And high end intel still beats high end amd in gaming.

[jtmoseley]

1 minute ago, GarbageCompactor said:

I ignored it because there aren't too many benchmarks of them out right now, and I figured it'd be best to since the benchmarks wouldn't be that accurate on performance.

That's fair, but you aren't giving intel credit for their current processors by only counting last gen. Full lineup hyperthreading is a big deal.

But anyways I agree with your final opinion.

[Haro]

Just now, jtmoseley said:

For *very* similar prices. And high end intel still beats high end amd in gaming.

By what 5% at best ? Lmao 

People use their PC's for more than "gAMIng" also no not very similar price 

The 3600 is 175 it's competition is the 10600k and that's what like 225 or so ?

And don't you fucking dare say that the 10400 is the competitor to the 3600 because it literally is so close to the 3300x 

And the 3900x is around 350ish compared to the 10900k which is 200 dollars more expensive

Check your numbers again

[KarathKasun]

2 minutes ago, jtmoseley said:

And I just said that for all intents and purposes they are equivalent now. The 3300x = i3-10100. Both are $120. Both are 4 core 8 threads. You're acting like AMD is somehow better when in reality they offer *very* similar products. For *very* similar prices. And high end intel still beats high end amd in gaming.

i3 is locked.

[Haro]

Just now, KarathKasun said:

i3 is locked.

YES 

[jtmoseley]

2 minutes ago, KarathKasun said:

i3 is locked.

...

How does that impact anything? AMD processors are effectively locked. The auto overclocking software on motherboards pushes them to their limits anyways. I personally was unable to get any more performance out of my 3900x from overclocking because the motherboard does it well anyways.

 

Intel pushes their CPU's similarly. You just can't expect to get 10% more performance from overclocking anymore. Especially on budget parts with cheaper silicon.

[Mister Woof]

My 2c:

 

Intel pros:

Better gaming

Better overclocking

Generally more mature technology

Generally more stable

Better resale

 

Intel cons:

Slower at multithreading 

Locked chips not great

More expensive

More heat

More security flaws

Less upgradability

 

AMD pros:

Better multithreading

Lower price and almost as good at gaming

Upgradability

Comes with decent cooling

Less security flaws

 

AMD cons:

Slower at gaming

Limited overclocking

Generally less mature technology

Generally less stable

Users often upgrades more frequently than needed

[KarathKasun]

Just now, jtmoseley said:

...

How does that impact anything? AMD processors are effectively locked. The auto overclocking software on motherboards pushes them to their limits anyways. I personally was unable to get any more performance out of my 3900x from overclocking because the motherboard does it well anyways.

 

Intel pushes their CPU's similarly.

3300x has plenty of legs left for overclocking, especially with FCLK.  It can pick up something like 20% performance from basic tuning.

[GarbageCompactor]

16 minutes ago, SavageNeo said:

ryzen 3 3100 or 3300x will outperform it by miles.

usually people like to stream too not only game. ryzen 5 3600 is better streamer than 9600k cause it has more threads to use. and ryzen 5 3600 has better 1% and 0.1% lows than 9600k since it has 6 more threads again.

?? it is much faster than that.

 

 

ther intel 10th gen is pretty good. the 10600k is the best cpu for gamign right now.

 

ryzen 3 3100 and 3300x have 4c/8t while intel offering in similar price are 4c/4t ot 6c/6t. yes 3300x beats 9400f and 9500 but loses to overclockable intel cpus.

3300x is the best value for budget/low mid range gaming builds. 

 

ryzen 5 3600 is pretty nice if you do other than game. if you plan to stream or work and game i prefer 3600 over 9600k/9700 since it has much more threads. if your plan is to oinyl game 10600k is the best cpu you can get. but if you plan to stream with budget that you cant get 10600k then you should get the ryzen 5 3600.

 

now ryzen 7 3700x is one of the best bang for the buck cpus for gaming and streaming. i would take it over 9700k if i would stream and game at the same time. if i only plan to game i would get the 10600k

 

ryzen 9 3900x is very good for the price 400-430 dollars. it has 12c/24t making it one of the best rendering/treaming/working and gaming cpus out there. but with the budget for onyl gaming i would get 10900k otherwise i owuld get the 3900x

 

 

Yes, i have dyslexia please pardon me.

3850x is not meant for gaming. it has 16c/32t. but it is grat cpu for working etc for only 700 dollars.

 

If i would only game i would get 3300x (lower budget) or 10600k (higher budget). otherwise i prefer AMD

it'd make sense that the 3300x would outperform the 9100F since its a $50 price difference. Though the i3-9100F still outperforms the Ryzen 3 3100 gaming wise. I agree with the streaming part. If you stream and game, AMD would be a good option. But most people I see/know don't stream, though people that I know are only a tiny fraction of everyone that plays games on a computer.

[Haro]

Just now, jtmoseley said:

AMD processors are effectively locked.

Well you clearly don't know anything about ocing 

 

1 minute ago, jtmoseley said:

The auto overclocking software on motherboards pushes them to their limits anyways. I personally was unable to get any more performance out of my 3900x from overclocking because the motherboard does it well anyways.

 

Pbo is shit 

Manual oc is better 

1 minute ago, jtmoseley said:

Intel pushes their CPU's similarly.

Mce doesn't work with locked skus they only change the BCLK

[Haro]

Just now, GarbageCompactor said:

Though the i3-9100F still outperforms the Ryzen 3 3100 gaming wise.

No it doesn't ?

[GarbageCompactor]

4 minutes ago, TofuHaroto said:

By what 5% at best ? Lmao 

People use their PC's for more than "gAMIng" also no not very similar price 

The 3600 is 175 it's competition is the 10600k and that's what like 225 or so ?

And don't you fucking dare say that the 10400 is the competitor to the 3600 because it literally is so close to the 3300x 

And the 3900x is around 350ish compared to the 10900k which is 200 dollars more expensive

Check your numbers again

 

9 minutes ago, TofuHaroto said:

I am ? Lmao 

I'm not saying Intel makes bad cpu's

I'm saying they make bad value cpu's 

 

 

16 minutes ago, TofuHaroto said:

That's not necessarily true lmao 

People recommend AMD because even in single threaded latency got to the point where it got minimized and it's not a problem any more

The imc got better 

THE FCLK is alot better 

The ipc count is just BETTER in every way in AMD

And it's cheaper that's something compelling to everyone

It makes sense that people LOVE amd today and hate Intel 

 

Holy shit. You sound like a toxic, fanboying 12 year old.

[Haro]

Just now, GarbageCompactor said:

 

 

Holy shit. You sound like a toxic, fanboying 12 year old.

Wow that's yea 

If I'm fanboy ing  I would deny every thing that's good about Intel lmao

[jtmoseley]

1 minute ago, KarathKasun said:

3300x has plenty of legs left for overclocking, especially with FCLK.  It can pick up something like 20% performance from basic tuning.

Can you link an example of this 20% increase over stock? I've never seen that before.

 

Just now, TofuHaroto said:

No it doesn't ?

Yes it does. It also has a higher single core score on R20.

[Haro]

1 minute ago, jtmoseley said:

Yes it does. It also has a higher single core score on R20.

Real world performance is the actual thing to look at