Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Hello everyone, recently i have seen a lot of people saying that AMD is better than Intel, but i what to know what exactly both CPUs are good for, their pros and cons, etc...

Link to post
Share on other sites

once the ryzen 5000 cpus launch in early november amd will be pretty much better than intel in everything

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

once the ryzen 5000 cpus launch in early november amd will be pretty much better than intel in everything

Or so we expect. We still need independent performance numbers to verify this.

It gets a little more complex than "intel gaming | AMD workstation" because you have consumer, prosumer, and enterprise solutions that all differ in what they excel at.

With that said, AMD has been rapidly closing the gap that Intel has held for over a decade as the de-facto standard. Historically, Intel has excelled at single-core, AMD has been the go-to for super budget systems with their APU's, and more recently, with the Ryzen family and it's generations, they've put pressure on Intel for single core performance. The 'leaks' that we've seen from Ryzen 5000 put their numbers on a very competitive level single and multi core with Intel at a lower price point, but again, these need to be verified by independent reviewers.

~Remember to quote posts to continue support on your thread~
-Don't be this kind of person-

CPU:  Intel  i7-4790k | RAM: 4x4GB G.Skill Ripjaws Z | Cooling: XSPC/EK/Bitspower loop | MOBO: MSI Z97-G45 | PSU: Seasonic Prime 750 Titanium  

SSD: 250GB Crucial MX200 (OS) | 1TB Crucial MX500 | Case: Phanteks Evolv X | GPU: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti FTW3 (with EK Block) | HDD: 1x Seagate Barracuda 2TB

Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends a lot on which specific CPU you buy, but in broad strokes:

 

Intel CPUs (at the high end of their price range) tend to have very fast single-core speeds. This means that in games which don't take advantage of many cores, an Intel CPU will be the smallest bottleneck on whatever GPU you choose.

 

AMD CPUs (at both the high end and mid-range level) tend to have many cores with decent single-core speeds. This means that they're greatly favored for productivity workloads, such as video editing and CAD work, because those workloads can take advantage of scaling over many cores. This doesn't mean they're bad for gaming, but at the highest end, Intel CPUs typically give the most FPS in the majority of modern games.

 

However, when it comes to value and sentiment, AMD is leagues ahead of Intel. Their mid-range offerings for the past generation have been fantastic. The Ryzen 5 3600 is an amazing CPU for the price, and in price-to-performance metrics, AMD kills it.

 

If you have infinite money and you want the best CPU you can possibly get that won't bottleneck your RTX 3090 (or other ludicrously fast and expensive GPU), and you do absolutely no productivity work whatsoever, you're probably better off going with an Intel chip. For the rest of us, there's AMD. 

 

That being said, Intel's title of 'fastest gaming CPU', which they've held by a thread for a long time, could be ripped away from them by Zen 3 in a few months. In my opinion, it's worth it to wait and see.

 

Always remember the 80/80 rule of project management. That is, the first 80% of the project takes 80% of the time, and the last 20% of the project takes the other 80% of the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bellabichon said:

However, when it comes to value and sentiment, AMD is leagues ahead of Intel.

Now now, I wouldn't say AMD is leagues ahead. This is no where near as bad as AMD was when they still had FX and Intel was steamrolling ahead with their Core series. FX literally had no place at any price point because they were marginally better than CPUs that came 5 years before it. Intel while not leading the best "bang for the buck" or performance crown depending which workloads you're looking at, they are still right in the slipstream of AMD right now. With FX, well AMD was basically getting lapped by Intel constantly. 

AMD FX™ 6300 @ 4.20 GHz | ASUS M5A97 R2.0 | MSI GTX 550Ti | 16GB Kingston DDR3 | Samsung 850 EVO 250GB WD 750GB | Antec 300 | ASUS Xonar DG | CoolerMaster Hyper 212 Evo | OCZ 600W | Windows 10 Pro

Sony MDR-V250 | Logitech G610 Orion Brown | Logitech G402 | Samsung C27JG5 

Intel Core™ i5-8520U | WD Blue M.2 250GB / 1TB Seagate FireCuda | 8GB DDR4 | Windows 10 Home | ASUS Vivobook 15 

Intel Core™ i7-3520M | GT 630M | 16 GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3 | Samsung 850 EVO 250GB | macOS Catalina  Lenovo IdeaPad P580

iPhone 6s (iOS 13.6.1) | iPad Mini (iOS 9.3.5) | Samsung Galaxy S5e (Android 10)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BlueChinchillaEatingDorito said:

Now now, I wouldn't say AMD is leagues ahead. This is no where near as bad as AMD was when they still had FX and Intel was steamrolling ahead with their Core series. FX literally had no place at any price point because they were marginally better than CPUs that came 5 years before it. Intel while not leading the best "bang for the buck" or performance crown depending which workloads you're looking at, they are still right in the slipstream of AMD right now. With FX, well AMD was getting lapped.  

I disagree. I seriously can't imagine a situation where I'd recommend someone a modern Core i5 over a Ryzen 5. Gaming is so incredibly GPU-bound these days that any CPU with a decent single-core speed will work just fine, and when you take into account that AMD performs significantly better in productivity, the deal gets even sweeter. If you do any hobby streaming, video editing, CAD for your 3D printer, photo editing, rendering, etc, go with AMD. 

Always remember the 80/80 rule of project management. That is, the first 80% of the project takes 80% of the time, and the last 20% of the project takes the other 80% of the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bellabichon said:

I disagree. I seriously can't imagine a situation where I'd recommend someone a modern Core i5 over a Ryzen 5. Gaming is so incredibly GPU-bound these days that any CPU with a decent single-core speed will work just fine, and when you take into account that AMD performs significantly better in productivity, the deal gets even sweeter. If you do any hobby streaming, video editing, CAD for your 3D printer, photo editing, rendering, etc, go with AMD. 

I agree. The only exception would maybe be an i5-10400f, but then you lose overclocking support and have to buy a more expensive motherboard, so it's still probably worth it to go with AMD.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bellabichon said:

I disagree. I seriously can't imagine a situation where I'd recommend someone a modern Core i5 over a Ryzen 5. Gaming is so incredibly GPU-bound these days that any CPU with a decent single-core speed will work just fine, and when you take into account that AMD performs significantly better in productivity, the deal gets even sweeter. If you do any hobby streaming, video editing, CAD for your 3D printer, photo editing, rendering, etc, go with AMD. 

This difference is still not as bad as the FX days. FX was literal garbage. It was years outdated the moment it was released and got smacked around by its own predecessor the Phenom II. 

AMD FX™ 6300 @ 4.20 GHz | ASUS M5A97 R2.0 | MSI GTX 550Ti | 16GB Kingston DDR3 | Samsung 850 EVO 250GB WD 750GB | Antec 300 | ASUS Xonar DG | CoolerMaster Hyper 212 Evo | OCZ 600W | Windows 10 Pro

Sony MDR-V250 | Logitech G610 Orion Brown | Logitech G402 | Samsung C27JG5 

Intel Core™ i5-8520U | WD Blue M.2 250GB / 1TB Seagate FireCuda | 8GB DDR4 | Windows 10 Home | ASUS Vivobook 15 

Intel Core™ i7-3520M | GT 630M | 16 GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3 | Samsung 850 EVO 250GB | macOS Catalina  Lenovo IdeaPad P580

iPhone 6s (iOS 13.6.1) | iPad Mini (iOS 9.3.5) | Samsung Galaxy S5e (Android 10)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BlueChinchillaEatingDorito said:

This difference is still not as bad as the FX days. FX was literal garbage. It was years outdated the moment it was released and got smacked around by its own predecessor the Phenom II. 

I never said it was as bad as FX. If AMD is 'leagues ahead' now, then I'd gladly agree that Intel was 'miles ahead' back then.

Always remember the 80/80 rule of project management. That is, the first 80% of the project takes 80% of the time, and the last 20% of the project takes the other 80% of the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, IchigoKeki said:

Hello everyone, recently i have seen a lot of people saying that AMD is better than Intel, but i what to know what exactly both CPUs are good for, their pros and cons, etc...

The truth is, the difference is small and mostly in pricing. 

RYZEN 5 3600 | EVGA GTX 1070 FTW2 | 16GB CORSAIR VENGEANCE LPX 3200 DDR4 | MSI B350M MORTAR | 250GB SAMSUNG EVO 860 | 4TB TOSHIBA X 300 | 1TB TOSHIBA SSHD | 120GB KINGSTON SSD | WINDOWS 10 PRO | INWIN 301| BEQUIET PURE POWER 10 500W 80+ SILVER | ASUS 279H | LOGITECH Z906 | DELL KB216T | LOGITECH M185 | SONY DUALSHOCK 4

 

LENOVO IDEAPAD 510 | i5 7200U | 8GB DDR4 | NVIDIA GEFORCE 940MX | 1TB WD | WINDOWS 10 GO HOME 

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, BlueChinchillaEatingDorito said:

FX

Space heater daze (days).

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

The truth is, the difference is small and mostly in pricing. 

Mostly fanboyism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Orange1 said:

Mostly fanboyism.

It's not fanboyying if it's actually a better value

ENCRYPTION IS NOT A CRIME

Either @piratemonkey or quote me when responding to me. I won't see otherwise

Put a reaction on my post if I helped

My privacy guide | Why my name is piratemonkey

What I say is from experience and the internet, and may not be 100% correct

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, piratemonkey said:

It's not fanboyying if it's actually a better value

I agree that AMDis a better value, but looking at it from the side of an Intel person, would be more along the lines of fanboyism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very generally speaking gaming leans towards single threaded performance, rather Intel vs AMD I would say it’s single vs multithreaded workloads.

 

Certain CPUs are better for single, some for multiple. As a gamer I look for the best single threaded performance for my money when buying games, I still need 6+ cores but things like hyper threading etc are less useful to me.

i5 8600 - RX580 - Fractal Nano S - 1080p 144Hz

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bellabichon said:

I disagree. I seriously can't imagine a situation where I'd recommend someone a modern Core i5 over a Ryzen 5. Gaming is so incredibly GPU-bound these days that any CPU with a decent single-core speed will work just fine, and when you take into account that AMD performs significantly better in productivity, the deal gets even sweeter. If you do any hobby streaming, video editing, CAD for your 3D printer, photo editing, rendering, etc, go with AMD. 

Same. AMD is just better in every other way other than single core witch doesnt even matter that much so the only thing that intel was known for being better than AMD is now just gone

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given amds price increase intel might have slightly better high end price to performance for gaming, at least until ryzen 5000 prices drop. Already cheap Ryzen 3000 should steadily drop in price tho so amd should still be better for budget gamers. 

CPU: Ryzen 7 3700x,  MOBO: ASUS TUF X570 Gaming Plus wifi, CPU cooler: Noctua D15S, RAM: Gskill Ripjaws V @3600mhz,  GPU: Asus Strix 1070ti, PSU: Corsair CXM 750 CASE: Corsair 450D Storage: 500 GB Inland Premium M.2,  Sandisk Ultra Plus II 256 GB & 120 GB

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×