Pros and cons of Intel (10900k/10700k) and AMD (5900x/5800x)

[well_eek]

To preface this I will say I have a 3080 STRIX OC due soon and I can buy whichever CPU due to circumstances.

 

What are the pros and cons of going with either platform/CPU?

 

First proper rig and new to this, but have read/watched a lot and am stuck and hoping for impartial pros and cons to help me choose. It's feeling like I'll be burnt to varying degrees going with either and would like to make the right choice. Read the smaller text for things I've found if you wanted to know more of where I'm coming from and am stumbling.

 

Bonus question: Will AVX have an advantage on either? More games are using it I'm told and it's quite the draw I'm told.

 

Extra:

 

AMD seems daunting - bios issues, motherboard issues, vrm worries, infinity fabric, settings, either good/alright or terrible temps and countless threads of people reporting their temps and stats (being happy or very not) and settings - it seems like you have to tinker with it from the off and with every bios update, of which there are many more of, often for 'stability'. Possibly more for people who like to play with computers more than play games on them with a fanbase I'd have to deal with if I need help with any update/settings? (been spoken down to by many more AMD users than Intel by far).

 

Intel seems simpler, has integrated graphics just incase, time proven stability in chip and many boards, but people are reporting it runs hotter or fine and draws more power in either single threaded or multi (depending where you look - possibly just at boost) and when it boosts it hits very high wattage (although is said to be awful or very good with the new gen). It also looses out in some games and people are saying (or hoping) it's a sign of things to come, but unsure given the new consoles and they are only going to use so many cores/threads.

 

It may sound like I have a bias to some, but I don't - this is just what I've seen from a lot of looking around as someone new to the space and if AMD isn't the complicated minefield of issues for the sake of some extra frames at times (or a workbench) and is decently better in most gaming and is much cooler as people claim it is(although AMD don't seem to?), I'd prefer to put my investment there. I really don't want to be burnt either way by going into an architecture that will cause me issues in a machine I don't want to have to keep tinkering with and will last for many years without issue due to the choice and end up regretting stepping away from consoles.

[wall03]

Intel pros:

• availability (rn at least)

Intel cons:

• Power draw
• Value

AMD pros

• fastest performance wise
• Value

AMD cons:

• availability
• scalping (higher prices)

[well_eek]

Can the only pro to Intel really be availability (which as mentioned isn't such an issue in my case) and still have people buying it? Of course not. AMD is also the same price or near. 

[porina]

So basically a question of Comet Lake (Intel 10 series) vs Zen 3 (AMD 5000 series).

 

Q1: do you want "the best" gaming performance or just a good high level performance? AMD have claimed the gaming performance crown, but it doesn't rule out Intel there. It's still going to be a high end experience, just not necessarily "the best" any more.

 

Q2: do you do many things other than game? Current Intel offering goes up to 10 cores, AMD goes up to 16. If you have another use case other than games than can use cores, AMD has more headroom to upgrade to.

 

Q3: are you likely to want to upgrade CPU within the life of this system, without changing motherboard? I wouldn't necessarily count on there being another AMD generation, although with their IOD arrangement it is possible there may be one more generation on AM4 before they have to change socket for DDR5. On Intel side, there is Rocket Lake expected early next year offering an IPC improvement to help close the gap to AMD, at the cost of the maximum offering only being 8 cores, so it isn't really going to be an upgrade given the CPUs under consideration, but it would get you PCIe 4.0 support should that be wanted later.

 

The AVX question is a good one, but not really to be concerned about. AMD since Zen 2 have finally caught up with Intel's performance in that area, and Zen 3 improves on it. If a game can use AVX, it shouldn't be held back by AMD CPUs.

 

Quick note on heat vs power. Intel CPUs, on average, will use more power than the roughly equivalent AMD CPUS, however they don't necessarily run hotter. This might sound odd, but because Intel is on an older process, the CPUs have a bigger area to spread the heat over, whereas it is more concentrated on AMD CPUs. In either case, slap on some high end air cooling and you're good anyway (assuming no overclocking).

[well_eek]

Q1: Near the best performance (or the best given both are around the same price), but without buying into an architecture I'd regret with settings/mobo or much higher thermals e.t.c. 

 

Q2: I'd be gaming and multitasking things such as streaming media, browsing, discord (and photoshop at times and possible video editing on occasion, but not to a huge degree). Looking to be set for quite some time.

 

Q3: Probably not if there isn't a significant reason to - from my understanding 4.0 isn't of much use with GPUs and will remain that way for some years to come? I wonder how Intel will bridge the gap with an 8 core and didn't know AMD might stay on this socket longer - really thought this was it.

 

That's where I was running into problems with people's logic of power=heat as the numbers weren't stacking up. Looking to have a quiet system, so is part of why I'm looking to see if one really is easier to cool and worth the possible trade offs. So Intel is boosting at all times with an OC, or just sometimes stock (that big sudden power draw) and AMD is boosting when it can at all times from my understanding - OC'd by default almost, so more tinkering and issues because of it - is this right too?

 

Thank you for your help 

[-rascal-]

2 hours ago, well_eek said:

Q1: Near the best performance (or the best given both are around the same price), but without buying into an architecture I'd regret with settings/mobo or much higher thermals e.t.c. 

 

Q2: I'd be gaming and multitasking things such as streaming media, browsing, discord (and photoshop at times and possible video editing on occasion, but not to a huge degree). Looking to be set for quite some time.

 

Q3: Probably not if there isn't a significant reason to - from my understanding 4.0 isn't of much use with GPUs and will remain that way for some years to come? I wonder how Intel will bridge the gap with an 8 core and didn't know AMD might stay on this socket longer - really thought this was it.

 

That's where I was running into problems with people's logic of power=heat as the numbers weren't stacking up. Looking to have a quiet system, so is part of why I'm looking to see if one really is easier to cool and worth the possible trade offs. So Intel is boosting at all times with an OC, or just sometimes stock (that big sudden power draw) and AMD is boosting when it can at all times from my understanding - OC'd by default almost, so more tinkering and issues because of it - is this right too?

 

Thank you for your help 

 

I haven't heard too much issues with the Ryzen 3000 and 5000 series.

Ryzen 1000 series was painful, and so-so with 2000 series ....

That was from first-hand experience (haven't personally worked with a Ryzen 5000 series CPU, just 1000 ~ 3000 series).

 

With Ryzen 3000 series, the IPC already surpassed Intel, but they didn't have the CPU frequency to be ahead.

Ryzen 3000 series was capped at 4.2 ~ 4.4 GHz, while Intel could do 5.2GHz+.

The introduction of the Ryzen 5000 series, IPC improved some more, AND this time, they can run at 4.8GHz+.

That is why in certain games Ryzen 5600x AT STOCK beats a i9-10900K @ 5.2 GHz, and just steps on the Intel chip when the 5600x is then overclocked to 4.8GHz.

 

If you are just going to be streaming media, browsing, gaming, Discord, basic Photoshop, and video editing, a 6-core / 12-thread, or 8-core / 16-thread should be plenty.
There is no need for a 10+ core CPU..... unless you WANT it.

In that case, a Ryzen 5600x (6-core / 12-thread), or Ryzen 5800x (8-core / 16-threads) will suite your needs.

 

I guess because Intel is still stuck on 14nm (++++), when you overclock a 10-core chip like the i9-10900K, or even the previous Gen i9-9900K, they suck A LOT of power, and generate a lot of heat. The 95W i9-10900K rating is if it is single core boost, or all-core boost for ~20 seconds.

You run Turbo Boost for longer, and you violate the "95W" TDP rating. 

 

It doesn't matter if it is an AMD 10-core, or a Intel 10-core, once you overclock and push the CPU frequency, it is no longer the cool and quiet "95W" or "105W" chip.

Both AMD and Intel CPUs "auto boost" themselves; this is on by default.

 

 

 

[xg32]

3 hours ago, well_eek said:

.

 

as an intel user that's been trashing amd before zen 3 (i still think zen 2 sucked) theres absolutely no reason to buy intel right now if you can get a 5600x for gaming, and from there it depends on how much you value video editing it's amd all the way. My current rig only serves as a stopgap for amd supply issues,

 

zen 3 has no problem with power draw at all, i think the 5900x stock draws around 135w, the 10900k is at least 180w (for some boards it's higher), amd's stock is faster than intel with a max oc on the same cooling.

[OrdinaryPhil]

If your primary use case is gaming, go with Intel. They are a better value at this point. With the Ryzen 5000 series AMD is really offering great performance, but they are also more expensive now, and value is a balance of both cost and performance. 

There is absolutely no need for anything with more than 8 cores when it comes to gaming. The best way to extract value from a CPU For this purpose is to find the highest sustainable clock frequency - at the lowest possible temp, without bottlenecking your GPU (which should be a non-issue with your 3090). For this, I think the best value is probably the i7-10700KF. It's under $400, and has everything your going to need. I'd recommend disabling HT, and letting the 8 physical cores handle the logic-balancing of time shares, while keeping it cool enough that the max turbo of 5.1GHz doesn't resulting in throttling. (If it does, you can always limit the turbo to 5.0 - it should make a meaningful difference).

The 5800X is very similar, but is nearly $100 USD more, IF you can get one in stock. It doesn't turbo boost as high, or as efficiently. The Zen 3 cores are much more power efficient at lower clock speeds, so it should idle at lower temps, but it actually performs worse at higher clocks and runs a bit warmer (still well under the 100c limit though - my wife's 5800x typically hits the 85c mark after about 15 minutes of her work in Lightroom). Temps and clock speed are a loss here for AMD, but that's not a reason to dismiss them. You do get other things from AMD that Intel isn't going to give you. You'll get PCI 4.0 support so if you want to run a 4.0 speed NVMe SSD, that's an option. You get 24 (20 usable) PCI lanes. This means your 3090 could use all 16x lanes from your primary PCI-E slot and you'd still have 4x lanes left for some high speed storage.

Intel only gives you 16 PCI lanes, so you'll have to manage those differently. They are also 3.0 lanes instead of 4.0.

AMD is making some great strides. They still run warm despite their BS "7nm" claims that mean nothing since that standard isn't even a standard, lol. And unless you are going up a CPU class into the i9-XXXX or the 5960X category, than they are still outpaced in clockspeed by their Intel counterparts. What you get from AMD now is a more modern offering of PCI lanes and speed.

In gaming, Intel is still the better value - perhaps more than before since they are also the cheaper option now (2020 eh?).

All of this assumes gaming is your only interest. If you have productivity needs or aspirations, this dramatically changes the landscape and AMD becomes the more viable of the two.

[well_eek]

Differing takes on here too, even down to who runs hotter dang it. AMD reviews don't seem to focus so much on heat, which I always felt strange with such focus on Intel heat. 

 

I was thinking of going for the best/near the best now so I don't need to upgrade for quite some time and don't plan to OC right now (to keep the quiet), so that's why I was staying away from lower end units. I still don't get how two CPUs with the same base frequency, but one with a higher boost (Intel) could loose out ever in a mathematical sense.

 

So AMD runs cooler according to some, but reading here too that it runs hotter - AMD speeds being more based on heat than Intel would mean I'd be having to run louder fans to get the clock speeds than with Intel?

 

Would running stock mean Intel just gets it 20-60 second boost and be within wattage/power limits? Then OC would be running it at a higher clock at base indefinitely (running say 5.0 at all times rather than 3.7) (and needing more cooling) or is the OC just the boost can be 5.1 but unless you enable it the chip won't boost that high for the period? AMD from what I understand is always trying to boost (OC-ing effectively) based on thermal headroom at stock - is this true?

 

It seems many leave Intel stock and many OC to something like 5-5.1 but almost everyone on AMD is chasing higher clocks at all times (an OC?) which the chip seems to want to do as default behaviour. Then people undervolt and do other things I don't really get.

[xg32]

15 minutes ago, well_eek said:

Differing takes on here too, even down to who runs hotter dang it. AMD reviews don't seem to focus so much on heat, which I always felt strange with such focus on Intel heat. 

 

I was thinking of going for the best/near the best now so I don't need to upgrade for quite some time and don't plan to OC right now (to keep the quiet), so that's why I was staying away from lower end units. I still don't get how two CPUs with the same base frequency, but one with a higher boost (Intel) could loose out ever in a mathematical sense.

 

So AMD runs cooler according to some, but reading here too that it runs hotter - AMD speeds being more based on heat than Intel would mean I'd be having to run louder fans to get the clock speeds than with Intel?

 

Would running stock mean Intel just gets it 20-60 second boost and be within wattage/power limits? Then OC would be running it at a higher clock at base indefinitely (running say 5.0 at all times rather than 3.7) (and needing more cooling) or is the OC just the boost can be 5.1 but unless you enable it the chip won't boost that high for the period? AMD from what I understand is always trying to boost (OC-ing effectively) based on thermal headroom at stock - is this true?

 

It seems many leave Intel stock and many OC to something like 5-5.1 but almost everyone on AMD is chasing higher clocks at all times (an OC?) which the chip seems to want to do as default behaviour. Then people undervolt and do other things I don't really get.

i can say the following definitively

 

intel runs hotter, amd is faster under all situations, a 4.7 amd cpu is equivalent to ~6.25ghz intel (thats why people are chasing), and a certain mobo will boost 1-2cores to 5.2ghz for a bit while all core stays at 4.6-4.7. a 5600x running at 4.8 (due to having less cores on air beats everything at gaming due to having less cores, for 300dollars.

 

I oc'd my 9900k to 5.2 recently to close the gap, it is slow and about to be retired. It's not even close.

[well_eek]

Do you possibly have the numbers showing this for heat in gaming and standard multitasking loads? I've seen things differing greatly in write ups and then people linking AMDs own slide saying 86+is fine and expected even with cooling at base (no OC). Hot is still hot and all that.

 

Ahh this is very confusing - isn't 3.7 still 3.7 on both? I saw people saying AMD needed to up their base clocks to compete for best gaming, which they did - but their boost numbers are lower and I still don't get how they'd be cooler if they always boost vs intel just sometimes from my understanding above.

 

There's even someone in this thread also saying AMD runs hotter and why.

[xg32]

23 minutes ago, well_eek said:

Do you possibly have the numbers showing this for heat in gaming and standard multitasking loads? I've seen things differing greatly in write ups and then people linking AMDs own slide saying 86+is fine and expected even with cooling at base (no OC). Hot is still hot and all that.

 

Ahh this is very confusing - isn't 3.7 still 3.7 on both? I saw people saying AMD needed to up their base clocks to compete for best gaming, which they did - but their boost numbers are lower and I still don't get how they'd be cooler if they always boost vs intel just sometimes from my understanding above.

 

There's even someone in this thread also saying AMD runs hotter and why.

intel has a better IHS on the cpu, it can take more heat, but the heat just gets transfered away from the cpu, whether it's in the case or the room around it. The standard comparison i use is 200w (5.2) intel and 150w (4.6~) on amd (on a gaming/R20/blender load, not prime95).

 

Now let say in a scenario where the intel cpu is running at 5.2, to match that 5.2, the amd cpu needs to be around 4.1, then there's no question the amd cpu runs cooler no matter, now in terms of max oc of 5.2 vs 4.6-4.7, they might both read 80C, but the amd will be drawing less power and be faster. intel is stuck on 14nm while amd is on 7 moving to 5, they have a huge ipc advantage and faster single core performance (that's all that will matter from now on cause 8-16 core is all you need in a desktop)

 

Saying amd runs hotter is just wrong. It's faster, cooler, and i'll take a 5600x over a 10700k if they were both 300usd, if the core count's the same, intel's no longer in the discussion.

 

[well_eek]

By your own logic saying that AMD only need to be at 4.1 to beat Intel overclocked 5.2 how is it then that until now AMD couldn't beat Intel when they could run at 4.3? By that logic it would have been said using stock for gaming Intel wins, but if you boost a 3900 then it's 4.3 would outdo not only Intel's newer chips, but beat or at least match what they come out with next. Even a slightly OCd chip would have beaten the 9900k and the 10900k by that logic.

 

You said you trashed AMD until now, but by your maths and logic the 3900 (which you would have trashed) is better than a 10900k and possibly whatever comes next - do you see how this is confusing?

 

People were saying AMD needed more clock speed to try to match or best Intel, but if this was the case people wouldn't have said that and AMD would have gotten the best for gaming title a long time ago with Zen 2. 5.0 is 5.0 and 3.7 is 3.7 unless you know something I've never heard even from the likes of Gamers Nexus or from AMD fanboys (that's have had a field say with such info!)

[BTGbullseye]

6 hours ago, well_eek said:

By your own logic saying that AMD only need to be at 4.1 to beat Intel overclocked 5.2 how is it then that until now AMD couldn't beat Intel when they could run at 4.3?

Because IPC is a metric constantly overlooked by the advertisers. 4.1GHz on a Zen 3 CPU processes more data in the same time that 4.1GHz on a Zen 2 CPU does. (about 20% more)

[Mister Woof]

Intel pros: you can get it, less expensive

Intel cons: slightly slower at gaming, significantly worse at other stuff

AMD pros: they are good if you can get it

AMD cons: you can't get it, and if you can, it's expensive.

[atm0706]

If you are going to leave it stock you shouldn't be looking at K sku intel CPUs. Get the best non k, a cheap motherboard and call it a day.

 

If you do want to overclock, and you want more than 8 cores, get zen 3. But maybe just turn on pbo and leave it alone if you are mostly just gaming. You can get better muticore performance on zen 3 with an all core overclock, but at the expense of single core heavy tasks. Example: my 5900x can oc to 4.7-4.8ghz all core, but single core boost with pbo turned on will often slightly exceed 5.0ghz. 

 

Thermals will generally be lower on amd from what I've seen, given a similar core count. A 10900k at 5.1 will be well over 200w full load. A 5900x with two more cores at 4.7 will be under 200w. My 5900x with max pbo settings gets to about 185w in cb r20 with 4.5-4.6ghz all core boost.

 

Remember ipc (instruction per clock) is more important than raw clock speed. Zen 3 has better performance here. With clocks equal, zen 3 kills intel at the same tasks. Heck, zen 3 at several hundred mhz lower than intel still beats it.

 

The only place intel still makes any sense is gaming. A 10900k is still a chart topper in many games, but not all of them. The ones it does still win are only by a few frames at best. Not something you would notice.

 

When I made my decision it came down to this: Intel Z490 motherboards are more expensive generally than amd X570. They are both a relative dead end in terms of future cpu compatibility so it's a wash there. Amd has more cores at basically the same price (if looking at 10900k and 5900x). Amd is also faster right now. To me, if I were going to keep this setup for the next 5 years, AMD makes the most sense. 

 

Edit regarding heat: I have an evga clc 240 front mounted in a meshify c. At stock cpu settings in cb r20 looping for 10 minutes, my 5900x stays at about 68-70c in a 20-21c room. With max pbo it will get up to around 85c. With an undervolt multiplayer of about -100mv it will be back around 75c, with the same mc scores, bit lower single core scores. Soon we should be seeing agesa 1.1.8.0 bios updates with the new "curve optimizer" setting which will enable a smarter way to dynamically undervolt the cpu for better thermals and performance at the same time. My gigabyte x570 elite technically already had these settings, but it's buggy at best and still on agesa 1.1.0.0

 

 

[atm0706]

Amd also boosts all the time as long as there is thermal headroom. There's no timer. You are only ever at base clock if you are idling, or have a terrible cooling solution.

[xg32]

12 hours ago, well_eek said:

By your own logic saying that AMD only need to be at 4.1 to beat Intel overclocked 5.2 how is it then that until now AMD couldn't beat Intel when they could run at 4.3? By that logic it would have been said using stock for gaming Intel wins, but if you boost a 3900 then it's 4.3 would outdo not only Intel's newer chips, but beat or at least match what they come out with next. Even a slightly OCd chip would have beaten the 9900k and the 10900k by that logic.

 

You said you trashed AMD until now, but by your maths and logic the 3900 (which you would have trashed) is better than a 10900k and possibly whatever comes next - do you see how this is confusing?

 

People were saying AMD needed more clock speed to try to match or best Intel, but if this was the case people wouldn't have said that and AMD would have gotten the best for gaming title a long time ago with Zen 2. 5.0 is 5.0 and 3.7 is 3.7 unless you know something I've never heard even from the likes of Gamers Nexus or from AMD fanboys (that's have had a field say with such info!)

i was talking about zen 3 ipc, not zen 2, obviously the 3900x is slower, but a 5600x, 5900x (zen 3) is faster, (zen 3's 4.1 is like zen 2's 4.9) the reason i use flat numbers is for ease of comprehension, another way to put it is, zen 3's single core performance is 15-20% faster than comet lake on max oc (forget about the actual clock speed)

 

It's just an IPC advantage from AMD (if you don't know what that is, just google it).

 

Fun fact, i'm getting a decent cpu bottleneck in cyberpunk 2077 on a 9900k at, while that game is unoptimized, it's a glimpse of what future games can be, that's why i can only recommend zen 3 cpus atm.

 

 

[BTGbullseye]

1 hour ago, xg32 said:

Fun fact, i'm getting a decent cpu bottleneck in cyberpunk 2077 on a 9900k at, while that game is unoptimized, it's a glimpse of what future games can be, that's why i can only recommend zen 3 cpus atm.

I'm running 1080p maxed, and nowhere near maximum CPU usage...

[xg32]

2 hours ago, BTGbullseye said:

I'm running 1080p maxed, and nowhere near maximum CPU usage...

i'm trying to run 100fps on 4k dlss performance, seeing some spikes to 100% usage in the city, 60%-80% indoors, nothing too insane, it does change depending on the cpu clock speed, hows the actual numbers on ur 5800x, too early to even find them on youtube.

 

Edit: found some for 5600x, that kinda usage is actually what im seeing around 100fps

 

Cyberpunk 2077 RTX 3080 OC & Ryzen 5 5600X | 1080p - 1440p - 2160p RayTracing/DLSS | FRAME RATE TEST - YouTube

 

5800x looking much better

 

Cyberpunk 2077 | RX 6800 XT | Ryzen 7 5800X | 4K - 1440p - 1080p | Ultra & Low Settings - YouTube

[BTGbullseye]

4 hours ago, xg32 said:

i'm trying to run 100fps on 4k dlss performance, seeing some spikes to 100% usage in the city, 60%-80% indoors, nothing too insane, it does change depending on the cpu clock speed

That's normal for every game ever... Just an FYI.

4 hours ago, xg32 said:

hows the actual numbers on ur 5800x, too early to even find them on youtube.

Each individual core reaches 100% usage at some point during gameplay, meaning only that it is very well optimized to properly utilize all cores and threads evenly. It averaged about 65% usage though.

 

Considering the PBO settings I have targets 4.95GHz, the cores are ramping up nicely to 4.9GHz in-game, and averaging 4.4-4.7GHz. Temps are staying well below the target temp of 90°c, (max of 85°c) so there is no throttling of any sort to slow the speeds.

 

Biggest limitation is my GPU. Since it's a reference blower 5700XT, it naturally runs at the upper threshold of temps. Since that has in the past presented as a crashing problem due to exceeding thermal limits, I have significantly undervolted and moderately underclocked it. I'm averaging 50FPS at 1080p max. I could probably easily gain another 15FPS by removing the undervolt and underclock without losing stability in Cyberpunk, but that's not the only game I play, and I sometimes forget to change the settings. (and am unwilling to devote the time to setting up automated profiles)

[Mister Woof]

12 hours ago, BTGbullseye said:

I'm running 1080p maxed, and nowhere near maximum CPU usage...

I'm playing at 1440p Ray Tracing Ultra and DLSS Quality

 

Game runs between 65-90fps generally, lows sometimes in the high 50s. 

 

CPU usage bounces around between 45-75%, but GPU is usually around 96-99%.

 

edit, read wrong reading. CPU usage adjusted.

[well_eek]

If I didn't want to OC right now to save noise/heat and to leave it as an option for later if needed.

 

When people, like some here are talking about AMD beating Intel for gaming is it with PBO on, which is (like?) overlocking? I've seen people say these chips are OC'd out of the factory or set to be that way. Wondering if it's an effectively OC'd boosting AMD is what's besting Intel at times - like if Intel's short boost is considered stock this could be too?

 

If AMD boots as long as there is thermal headroom will that make for more noise as it boosts and boosts until my cooler can't go faster?

 

I thought of the 5800x due to people saying it had better die spacing, but it's also hotter by several accounts and that's not something I want to deal with.

 

Is Ciniebenech r20 anyway representative of a heavy gaming load? Like a maxed AA title running a 1440p with all the bells and whistles my 3080 will afford e.t.c. 

 

It was also mentioned updates for mobos and there's where I stumble with AMD a little further - it seems some are good and some are really really bad depending on VRMs, Bios e.t.c. and that can change with each update, needing new settings per update/game. With Intel it's more ASUS keep to power limits and there are also other good boards if you turn off enhancements, but VRMs and bios aren't an issue from what I've seen in general.

 

It was mentioned Intel didn't have update headroom on this socket but iirc Intel has one more on this socket and this was the last for AM4 (there was also that backlash when some AM4 boards wouldn't support the CPUs for a while and people turned on them).

 

As a newcomer I'm worried I'd get carried away in the AMD hype and end up on unstable bios updates, mobos, endless tinkering, minor at time gains in some games and end up worrying about my settings and VRM temps like I see people posting about on Reddit a lot for the sake of a little bit of a cooler at times according to some chip vs Intel that seems more plug and play for a bit more of a power draw? A powerful but quiet system was the aim so I didn't have to upgrade for a long time - with bias updates being often I wonder if AMD boards will stop supporting the chip properly too vs Intel's stable updates.

 

It's hard not knowing how games will go - they may favour Intel all of the time with the next launch or AMD might best them with their next update - right now it's pretty neck and neck depending on title it seems. Someone here said AVX wasn't an issue for AMD anymore, but I can't find numbers about issues. The just go old faithful and mentioned things in me is pulling me to Intel, but I don't want to make the wrong choice on a £800 (gpu+mobo) purchase.

 

I'm finding reports of AMD drawing more power in multithread, so am worries again about heat. I'd love it to be the easier to cool, cooler running chip I've heard of but sadly Intel reviews always show temps, but AMD ones not nearly as much...

 

Has anyone here gone AMD and regretted it over Intel or would change if they could/plan to?

[atm0706]

Look man, you're just going to have to make a choice and be happy. Dont overthink it so much. If you are worried about temps, don't overclock. If you aren't overclocking, don't get an intel K series cpu either because it's a waste. Intel has rocket lake coming sometime in 2021, but if it does come back and beat amd in single thread, it will still lose in multi. The 11900k is going back to 8/16.

 

My 5900x at stock setting stays cool at under 70c fully loaded. In game, it's 55-60c. Less cores will be less heat generally.

 

Also cinebench puts a much higher load on the CPU than gaming does. Temps will be much lower in a game, even a taxing one.

[well_eek]

Look man, I know that and don't need you taking a tone when asking questions, some of which came up because of things said here. Not everyone wants to or can throw a lot of money at possibly the wrong choice for them, especially when opinion is divided and solid numbers are missing.

 

That doesn't tell me much as I don't even know at the bare minimum what cooler you're running and with what kind of fan curve - you could be running 45-60db jet engines for all I know with max fans/max pump.

 

Good to know with cinie, thanks.