Intel or AMD

[Bush Badger]

I have been an Intel kinda guy since I can ever remember, from 4790k to 8700k to a 9900k. However, with this current build with the 9900k I have been having a lots of issues with stuttering. My friend suggest me to give AMD a try as I like to do a lot of things on my other monitors while I game. I was going to do a 10900k 3090 build but if I was to go with AMD what would be the equivalent or better? Thanks everyone. 

[Random_Person1234]

5900x would be the AMD equivalent. According to AMD in house benchmarks it should beat the 10900k in gaming by somewhere around 10-20% depending on the game.

[AndreiArgeanu]

3 minutes ago, Bush Badger said:

to go with AMD what would be the equivalent or better?

The 5900X is the equivalent. 5950X is better.

[Bush Badger]

out of curiosity is the 10980xe even worth getting? at the end of the day my objective is just achieving the highest FPS possible 

[Random_Person1234]

21 minutes ago, Bush Badger said:

out of curiosity is the 10980xe even worth getting? at the end of the day my object is just achieving the highest FPS possible 

Not at all. 10900k and 10980xe are both about the same in gaming. If you’re willing to spend that much for a CPU get the 5950x

[SFFDesigns]

1 minute ago, Random_Person1234 said:

10900k and 10980xe are both about the same in gaming

10980XE is worse in many cases, clocks are usually lower under stock (obviously 10900K OC's higher too)

[SFFDesigns]

50 minutes ago, Bush Badger said:

However, with this current build with the 9900k I have been having a lots of issues with stuttering.

That's pretty weird, I don't think you should switch from the 9900K. Try to troubleshoot the issue, that doesn't sound normal.

 

The 9900K is still an awesome CPU, especially when OC'd!

[Bush Badger]

11 minutes ago, Hymenopus_Coronatus said:

That's pretty weird, I don't think you should switch from the 9900K. Try to troubleshoot the issue, that doesn't sound normal.

 

The 9900K is still an awesome CPU, especially when OC'd!

according to other users I got unlucky with my chip and I forced it to 5ghz with 1.4v for a while so I caused permeant damage to it(?) The thermals were fine at 60c underload but according to them the stutter and stuff came from overvolting. I am no expert in OCing my 9900k I only overclocked a 8700k back then but it didnt take anywhere near 1.4v. He also mentioned that since I have 3 monitors and 2 of them are doing other things like discord and have chrome open my 9900k cant handle all those applications at once and an AMD would be a much better choice 

[DarkSmith2]

10 minutes ago, Bush Badger said:

according to other users I got unlucky with my chip and I forced it to 5ghz with 1.4v for a while so I caused permeant damage to it(?) The thermals were fine at 60c underload but according to them the stutter and stuff came from overvolting. I am no expert in OCing my 9900k I only overclocked a 8700k back then but it didnt take anywhere near 1.4v. He also mentioned that since I have 3 monitors and 2 of them are doing other things like discord and have chrome open my 9900k cant handle all those applications at once and an AMD would be a much better choice 

biggest cruel BS ive ever read sorry.
If you have a stutter problem you might investigate what really is causing it. There is no AMD vs Intel is better against stuttering in any noticable manor. And if something the Intel according to gamers nexus measured numbers is a little bit ahead. 

You sir might just have an issue with your OS / some driver or something else. Thats it. Im sure you are well aware of Windows10 Refreshrate bug using multi monitor setups. Aswell as the need of software like Instant Standby List cleaner (ISLC) for fixing certain other bugs within windows10.

 

Start troubleshooting with checking numbers from LatencyMon. 

[DarkSmith2]

1 hour ago, Random_Person1234 said:

5900x would be the AMD equivalent. According to AMD in house benchmarks it should beat the 10900k in gaming by somewhere around 10-20% depending on the game.

while AMD themself claim an average fps increase of 7% in games with the 5800x (vs stock 10900k with slow ram) which is faster in gaming than 5900x because its only using a single chiplet. WoW...

[Bush Badger]

1 hour ago, DarkSmith2 said:

biggest cruel BS ive ever read sorry.
If you have a stutter problem you might investigate what really is causing it. There is no AMD vs Intel is better against stuttering in any noticable manor. And if something the Intel according to gamers nexus measured numbers is a little bit ahead. 

You sir might just have an issue with your OS / some driver or something else. Thats it. Im sure you are well aware of Windows10 Refreshrate bug using multi monitor setups. Aswell as the need of software like Instant Standby List cleaner (ISLC) for fixing certain other bugs within windows10.

 

Start troubleshooting with checking numbers from LatencyMon. 

I tried multiple windows versions, 1709, 1807 and 2004 and the problems still there. I do have ISLC and did the tweaks and fixes with the HPET and synthetic timers. I also used TCPOptimizer to make sure my packets are not being split. At first I thought oh my rams not enough to I upgraded to a 32GB kit running at 4000mhz andTo ensure the refresh rate bugs i bought two 240hz monitor to make sure they are running fine together, at this point im just pulling my hair out because I tried everything.

[DarkSmith2]

2 hours ago, Bush Badger said:

I tried multiple windows versions, 1709, 1807 and 2004 and the problems still there. I do have ISLC and did the tweaks and fixes with the HPET and synthetic timers. I also used TCPOptimizer to make sure my packets are not being split. At first I thought oh my rams not enough to I upgraded to a 32GB kit running at 4000mhz andTo ensure the refresh rate bugs i bought two 240hz monitor to make sure they are running fine together, at this point im just pulling my hair out because I tried everything.

have you tried windows interrupts filter to set /pin affinitys of your GPU and USB host controller to different threads? What does latencymon say after 30second to 1minute quick test in stats tab?

 

Btw disabling HPET in bios is wrong if you mean "fixing synthetic timer with hpet" there is no fix to the synthetic timer because its the exact same timer just showing up differently because of other metrics additionally added to the value of the old timer. So that you may have screwed up big time. You also should never ever disable hpet in bios, its disabled in Windows by default, but it should be left enabled in BIOS so that some performance counters in windows can take place. And thats also why some Board manufacturer hide the option to disable it in the Bios. (like Asus)

[Bush Badger]

14 hours ago, DarkSmith2 said:

have you tried windows interrupts filter to set /pin affinitys of your GPU and USB host controller to different threads? What does latencymon say after 30second to 1minute quick test in stats tab?

 

Btw disabling HPET in bios is wrong if you mean "fixing synthetic timer with hpet" there is no fix to the synthetic timer because its the exact same timer just showing up differently because of other metrics additionally added to the value of the old timer. So that you may have screwed up big time. You also should never ever disable hpet in bios, its disabled in Windows by default, but it should be left enabled in BIOS so that some performance counters in windows can take place. And thats also why some Board manufacturer hide the option to disable it in the Bios. (like Asus)

Sorry I have explained it wrong, theres no HPET in bios on my board I just disabled it in windows. and here is the latencymon results, does it look okay?

 

[DarkSmith2]

1 hour ago, Bush Badger said:

Sorry I have explained it wrong, theres no HPET in bios on my board I just disabled it in windows. and here is the latencymon results, does it look okay?

 

well it doesnt look like it would stutter. 
thats mine with discord, teamspeak, chrome, notepad++ and battle.net open:
 

Stats tab would help more ...

[Zberg]

Sounds like one of those upgrade if you really want, but a 9900k is more than enough, even for high refresh gaming.  If your CPU was really getting unstable it would more likely be crashing/BSODing and not causing stuttering (more likely a GPU hardware or driver issue.  I would troubleshoot the heck out of it and make sure, theres a good chance it continues to do it on a 10900k/5700x/5900x system too and you will have spent a lot of money for no fix.

 

But if you just really want to upgrade, follow your heart  ; everyone loves a new build

[Bush Badger]

8 hours ago, DarkSmith2 said:

well it doesnt look like it would stutter. 
thats mine with discord, teamspeak, chrome, notepad++ and battle.net open:
 

Stats tab would help more ...

 

[Bush Badger]

Sorry its my first time using the program, let me know if you need anything else @DarkSmith2, Also your numbers are so much lower than mine how did you achieve that?

[Mister Woof]

On 10/18/2020 at 3:16 PM, DarkSmith2 said:

biggest cruel BS ive ever read sorry.
If you have a stutter problem you might investigate what really is causing it. There is no AMD vs Intel is better against stuttering in any noticable manor. And if something the Intel according to gamers nexus measured numbers is a little bit ahead. 

You sir might just have an issue with your OS / some driver or something else. Thats it. Im sure you are well aware of Windows10 Refreshrate bug using multi monitor setups. Aswell as the need of software like Instant Standby List cleaner (ISLC) for fixing certain other bugs within windows10.

 

Start troubleshooting with checking numbers from LatencyMon. 

Had similar issues with mixed refresh multi monitors and 8700k - windows 2004 update fixed it.

[DarkSmith2]

5 hours ago, Bush Badger said:

Sorry its my first time using the program, let me know if you need anything else @DarkSmith2, Also your numbers are so much lower than mine how did you achieve that?

Debloating and Tweaking.

This is your problem, thats quite high on Intel even for Stock Install.

 

 

This is mine:

 

This is how my Taskmanager looks like after restart:

[DarkSmith2]

3 hours ago, Mister Woof said:

Had similar issues with mixed refresh multi monitors and 8700k - windows 2004 update fixed it.

yes 2004 has a fix for it thats working on 1:3 ratio's 

so if you have a 60hz monitor highest possible refreshrate of the second monitor would be 180hz.

[BTGbullseye]

On 10/18/2020 at 3:01 PM, Bush Badger said:

I was going to do a 10900k 3090 build but if I was to go with AMD what would be the equivalent or better? 

The 5800X is supposed to be the equivalent of the 10900K in gaming. The 5900X will be slightly better, and the 5600X should be slightly better than the 10700K. You can still use the 3090 if you want, but I'd recommend waiting for reviews of the RX 6000 series first, as there is a possibility that it may be able to give both the 3080 and 3090 a run for their money. (depending on how well the 6900XT, nice, overclocks)

[DarkSmith2]

10 minutes ago, BTGbullseye said:

The 5800X is supposed to be the equivalent of the 10900K in gaming. The 5900X will be slightly better, and the 5600X should be slightly better than the 10700K. You can still use the 3090 if you want, but I'd recommend waiting for reviews of the RX 6000 series first, as there is a possibility that it may be able to give both the 3080 and 3090 a run for their money. (depending on how well the 6900XT, nice, overclocks)

The thing is, upgrading from a 9900k to the 10900k or new gen Ryzen is really crazy.

AMD claims only +7% performance on average compared to a stock 10900k with its new gen. 

AFAIK there isnt a huge difference in gaming performance since coffeelake (8700k) when clocks are adjusted. 

So at 5GHZ 8700k, 9700k, 9900k, 10600k and 10900k should all be in the same ballpark. Unless you play one of the ~5 games that actually benefit from a higher core count.
 

[BTGbullseye]

1 minute ago, DarkSmith2 said:

The thing is, upgrading from a 9900k to the 10900k or new gen Ryzen is really crazy.

I agree, but that really doesn't matter. After all, he's not really worried about budget since he's looking to get a 3090. (the price difference from the 3080 could cover a 5800X, X570 motherboard, and the best RAM for the system)

3 minutes ago, DarkSmith2 said:

AMD claims only +7% performance on average compared to a stock 10900k with its new gen. 

Stock to stock comparisons are the only way CPUs should be compared, as no overclocks are EVER guaranteed, for either platform. Also, 7% is enough of a difference for many, especially if they plan to sell the old system, or give it to family.

5 minutes ago, DarkSmith2 said:

AFAIK there isnt a huge difference in gaming performance since coffeelake (8700k) when clocks are adjusted. 

So at 5GHZ 8700k, 9700k, 9900k, 10600k and 10900k should all be in the same ballpark. Unless you play one of the ~5 games that actually benefit from a higher core count.

As I mentioned, overclocks are never guaranteed. Intel's best (which is at the limit of its overclocking ability unless you run exotic cooling, or don't care about destroying the CPU) is on-par with AMD's second best, but for $50-$100 more, and requires a much more expensive motherboard (full feature boards = AMD $80, Intel $120) to even support overclocking. (AMD supports it on all compatible boards) If you have to build a new system entirely, AMD is ~$90 less expensive for the same performance as you'd get out of Intel's best. (comparing lowest prices of both, and MSRP prices)

[DarkSmith2]

41 minutes ago, BTGbullseye said:

I agree, but that really doesn't matter. After all, he's not really worried about budget since he's looking to get a 3090. (the price difference from the 3080 could cover a 5800X, X570 motherboard, and the best RAM for the system)

Stock to stock comparisons are the only way CPUs should be compared, as no overclocks are EVER guaranteed, for either platform. Also, 7% is enough of a difference for many, especially if they plan to sell the old system, or give it to family.

As I mentioned, overclocks are never guaranteed. Intel's best (which is at the limit of its overclocking ability unless you run exotic cooling, or don't care about destroying the CPU) is on-par with AMD's second best, but for $50-$100 more, and requires a much more expensive motherboard (full feature boards = AMD $80, Intel $120) to even support overclocking. (AMD supports it on all compatible boards) If you have to build a new system entirely, AMD is ~$90 less expensive for the same performance as you'd get out of Intel's best. (comparing lowest prices of both, and MSRP prices)

well if i would buy AMD i wouldnt buy the cheapest board and cooling solution either. Its certainly nice that you have the option to cheap out on parts but its no selling point to me personally. I mean even though you are forced to buy the more expansive boards with Intel you are also getting the stuff that comes with it, right.. features like more USB ports/pci-e slots, more PCB layers, funkier RGB and all the other stupid features that nobody needs or wants and so on, same as you also would get on AMD for a little bit more money.. but i get the point. Intel boards are more expansive.

Every PC build i do, i learn something for myself, and the lesson ive learned with my current PC, is that i want to have a Overclocking Board preferably one with only 2RAM slots, because i actually want to go for the high ram frequency, a feature that didnt worked out on the AMD plattform yet, but they are getting there its fine.. it will be great on the next Ryzen gens compared to the already excisting Ryzen Gens.

 

But when looking at 2dimm slot only / OC boards.. there arent that many options, when we look at the current Intel plattform, there is the Asus APEX XII for 500€, the MSI MEG Z490I UNIFY (ITX) for 250€ and the EVGA z490 DARK/Kingpin for 550€+  Those are afaik the only boards i would consider to buy at all.

 

Overall the trend is that Intel is for Enthusiasts who want more than just having a Stock out of the box experience,

AMD on the other hand is the far better option for people that want the best out of the box experience possible.

 

Sure Overclocks arent ever guaranteed, but if i want the really best low latency experience with high framerates combined id either buy a binned Intel CPU or buy it more than once and resell, if im not happy with it. As for the 10900k f.e. i wouldnt really bother, the thing i would do with this is to watercool it (atleast arctic liquid freezer II 360mm aio), disable HT and overclock it, with HT disabled chances are quite big that you get atleast 5GHz out of it. (100mhz OC to all core boost compared to stock).

 

But i kinda won the Silicon lottery anyways, so upgrades are far far away for me, if it isnt even 25% faster on stock than my current 24/7 doable OC i dont bother.

[BTGbullseye]

9 minutes ago, DarkSmith2 said:

a feature that didnt worked out on the AMD plattform yet, but they are getting there its fine.. it will be great on the next Ryzen gens compared to the already excisting Ryzen Gens.

Well, the 5000 series uses the same memory controller as the 3000 series, and it's not hurting the performance in any notable way. Once we get to DDR5 it'll be a different situation I'm sure, but for DDR4, it really doesn't need to go above 3600 on either platform. (diminishing performance returns in the neighborhood of <1% actual improvement from 3600-4400 speeds, and much higher prices above the 3600 speeds)

15 minutes ago, DarkSmith2 said:

Overall the trend is that Intel is for Enthusiasts who want more than just having a Stock out of the box experience,

AMD on the other hand is the far better option for people that want the best out of the box experience possible.

Except that Intel restricts any overclocking to exclusively enthusiast grade boards, which means they think overclocking should only be usable by people willing to spend more $$$ on parts than their better performing competitor. AMD has always been designed for people that want to tweak their system, with far more options available at all price points than Intel. Intel even voids the warranty if you use XMP or overclock on an overclocking motherboard, AMD does not on any motherboard.