Who is Winning in the CPU Space?

[YoungBlade]

It's been 2 weeks since the release of Alder Lake and, as is typical for the modern news cycle, that means that most of the hype is gone and no one cares anymore.

 

So, I was wondering what the community sentiment regarding the Intel vs AMD battle is at this point. Has Intel pulled ahead? Is AMD still better? Are both equally good options?

 

To me, both seem like reasonable options. Intel seemingly has better performance and pricing, but only with DDR4, and 12th gen has some platform bugs. At the same time, AMD has allowed the price of the 5800X to drop, and in a role reversal, the platform looks more stable. However, the 5600X and both Ryzen 9s are starting to look overpriced.

 

In the end, I feel like the good and bad are comparable, and I have no qualms about recommending either. But what do you think?

[Helpful Tech Witch]

Ahead?
AMD.

Better all round? Intel

 

I wouldnt call teh 12900k better than a 5950x by a long shot

[jaslion]

In x86 land amd honestly. Their cpu's are more efficient with full fledged cores compared to intels hybrid approach and if they just keep going the way they have been I see 12th gen being obsolete the moment ryzen 6000 comes out in all tasks except maybe single core. Intel does seem to have a pricing advantage but that also has to do with how aggressively they lower the prices of their last gen parts. Whilst amds prices stay close to msrp during the products relevancy (not something intel cpu's usually have happen) and steadily get cheaper after being replaced. But due to chip shortage they are keeping their value far longer.

 

But in mobile I see amd dominating in the x86 space.

 

Now if we look at overall apple's m series stuff by a long shot. Highly energy efficient whilst being able to keep up/beat the best offerings in it's market segment whilst consuming next to no power compared to others. Literally no competition basically. Now all they need to do is basically make chips for desktop that are allowed to just go nuts since they more than have the powerbudget for it.

[krakek]

Zen 3D is going to be fun, yes.

[SirWendall]

AMD has found what works now. I'm sure with the adoption of DDR5 and AM5 socket/chipset they'll have a baller CPU lineup soon for us. Now if only they'd apply that to their GPU lineup as far as drivers then AMD would rule both markets.

[Guest]

If I had all the money, I'd go to a DDR5 platform.

 

So Intel leads. 

 

But alas, this is just another AMD vs Intel thread. Apples vs Oranges once again. AMD doesn't share the same innovation as Intel.....

[Jurrunio]

Intel Alder Lake is basically the new gaming king, even though it didnt beat AMD Zen3 by that much. It seemed to have massive power draw, but if you undervolt it while overclocking Zen3 to match their performance you will get similar power draw figures between them. If you do video production, Intel QSV is king and Zen 3 eats dust.

 

On the other hand while CPU prices are close to their competitors, Z690 motherboards cost way more than X570 equivalents. Alder Lake is also limited by available DDR5, either you spend a lot for low end DDR5 that couldnt beat DDR4 all round, or wait for high end DDR5 that once released (not yet today) will cost even more. Lastly in rendering, full proper cores on Zen 3 is still better than a mix of buff and frail cores when competing against Ryzen 9s.

 

So it's back to the old "value for money and average performance" versus "the king in some situations" situation.

 

I would say Ryzen 9s are still looking good but 5600X and 5800X do not. P cores are better than Zen 3 cores and unlike the i9 versus R9, Zen 3 doesnt get core count advantage here.

[Bad5ector]

VIA.

[jones177]

I use Intel and AMD computers and if I had to build now it would be a AMD 5000 computer.

In a few months from now that may change.

[dilpickle]

Who is winning? Ford or Chevy? Coke or Pepsi? Boeing or Airbus? Apple or Android? Visa or MasterCard? PlayStation or Xbox?

[Skiiwee29]

The right answer is the Consumers are winning. Competition breeds innovation and advancements that they may have otherwise held back. 

[Mister Woof]

Just now, Skiiwee29 said:

The right answer is the Consumers are winning. Competition breeds innovation and advancements that they may have otherwise held back. 

Came to post this. Damn you

[freeagent]

They are both doing awesomely well I think. Can’t really go wrong with either.. but if I were buying right now, today.. it would be Intel.

[Mister Woof]

I'll wait for 13th gen Intel before I move on. Not only is what I have enough, but it seems they're having some teething issues with their new architecture and the motherboards. Which is to be expected.

 

If I were buying now, it would likely be a 5900x because its mostly got the bugs ironed out and I suspect heavy discounts.

 

Ah, who am I kiddin'.

 

I'd get a 12700KF because I'm a biased Intel fanboy. But objectively, both are amazing.

[Derigueur]

5 hours ago, jones177 said:

I use Intel and AMD computers and if I had to build now it would be a AMD 5000 computer.

In a few months from now that may change.

What are the reasons behind you saying this?

[Derigueur]

1 hour ago, freeagent said:

They are both doing awesomely well I think. Can’t really go wrong with either.. but if I were buying right now, today.. it would be Intel.

Give the reason/s, why?

[freeagent]

22 minutes ago, Derigueur said:

Give the reason/s, why?

Because I don’t have one

 

but the comfort and security of a properly functioning system, as well as an empty wallet are all contributing factors as to why I will be sitting out for ADL. What comes after ADL is what you want to wait for..

[Mister Woof]

@Derigueur

 

Basically, all the 12th gen systems punch above their weight class in performance, but need more energy and cost a bit more with some bugs.

 

AMD 5000 systems perform well, and are cheaper with less bugs.

Both choices are rational.

[DarkSmith2]

Intel just won this round till zen4. Dont even think that zen3d will do anything..

e-core tech is awesome to push multicore performance, while intel now matches IPC with AMD and is able to push clocks higher, also alder lakes performance isnt even at its peak yet with slow ddr5.

 

Power consumption while gaming is almost identical to AMD too. Just benches eat alot of power.

8 minutes ago, Mister Woof said:

AMD chips perform well, and are cheaper with less bugs.

nope, prices are quite competitive for what you get. Sure a 5900x is cheaper than a 12900k. But its performing inbetween 5900x and 5950x while cheaper than the 5950x and not quite that much slower. Intel managed to undercut AMDs offering by 100€ each tier, while being marginally slower in multicore performance. And faster in Single Core.

[Mister Woof]

6 minutes ago, DarkSmith2 said:

Intel just won this round till zen4.

e-core tech is awesome to push multicore performance, while intel now matches IPC with AMD and is able to push clocks higher, also alder lakes performance isnt even at its peak yet with slow ddr5.

 

Power consumption while gaming is almost identical to AMD too. Just benches eat alot of power.

nope, prices are quite competitive for what you get. Sure a 5900x is cheaper than a 12900k. But its performing inbetween 5900x and 5950x while cheaper than the 5950x and not quite that much slower. Intel managed to undercut AMDs offering by 100€ each tier, while being marginally slower in multicore performance.

Don't forget the motherboard costs, and the DDR5 if you want to go that route.

 

But this is a generalization; mainly that was aimed at 5600x vs 12600k, which is probably the biggest demographic for LTT users. They'll both game about the same, and both are competent with non-gaming tasks, but you can get away with a 5600x for much less with a motherboard that costs half as much.

 

That will probably all change once the non-K SKU's and B660s come out, though.

 

Note: Edited language to cover systems, not just chips.

[DarkSmith2]

1 minute ago, Mister Woof said:

Don't forget the motherboard costs, and the DDR5 if you want to go that route.

 

But this is a generalization; mainly that was aimed at 5600x vs 12600k. They'll both game about the same but you can get away with a 5600x for much less with a motherboard that costs half as much.

 

That will probably all change once the non-K SKU's and B660s come out, though.

yea platform cost are a huge deal, but also the boards are so extremely overkill for anything. Its like you paying alot of unnecessary stuff with your board. But thats a thing Intel isnt at fault, its the board manufacturers doing that stuff, trying to resell components.. You watched the buildzoid video yourself, even the cheapest z690 ddr4 MSI-A PRO is a 6layer PCB board with 60A powerstages... its just higher quality stuff built into those boards and manufacturers trying to make huge profit with it. You surely cant compare that to b550 where they try to safe costs on each and every component and make it just work. You are paying for features and higher quality components if you need them or not, thats the reason the prices for boards are hiked. 

DDR5 on the other hand for sure was clear that it will cost alot more.. its every RAM gen that way.

[Mister Woof]

4 minutes ago, DarkSmith2 said:

yea platform cost are a huge deal, but also the boards are so extremely overkill for anything. Its like you paying alot of unnecessary stuff with your board. But thats a thing Intel isnt at fault, its the board manufacturers doing that stuff, trying to resell components.. You watched the buildzoid video yourself, even the cheapest z690 ddr4 MSI-A PRO is a 6layer PCB board with 60A powerstages... its just higher quality stuff built into those boards and manufacturers trying to make huge profit with it. You surely cant compare that to b550 where they try to safe costs on each and every component and make it just work. You are paying for features and higher quality components if you need them or not, thats the reason the prices for boards are hiked. 

DDR5 on the other hand for sure was clear that it will cost alot more.. its every RAM gen that way.

Yeah, but still either way, overbuilt or not, the cheapest Z690 is $200 whereas you can plop a 5600x on even an $60 B450 and it'll work well enough for gaming.

 

B660 will change this, though.

[DarkSmith2]

1 minute ago, Mister Woof said:

Yeah, but still either way, overbuilt or not, the cheapest Z690 is $200 whereas you can plop a 5600x on even an $60 A520 and it'll work well enough for gaming.

 

B660 will change this, though.

yea but its comparing apples with pears. the X570 Dark Hero isnt exactly cheap either, sure the z690 hero is quite a bit more expansive but also has Thunderbolt, has pci-e 5.0, has 20+1 105A powerstages vs 14+1 90A on the x570 board, not that it will do anything for you but u pay for it, you see where this is going right? Its not that its just more expansive bc its "intel" or something, those are just more expansive boards overall..

[Mister Woof]

1 minute ago, DarkSmith2 said:

yea but its comparing apples with pears. the X570 Dark Hero isnt exactly cheap either, sure the z690 hero is quite a bit more expansive but also has Thunderbolt, has pci-e 5.0, has 20+1 105A powerstages vs 14+1 90A on the x570 board, not that it will do anything for you but u pay for it, you see where this is going right? Its not that its just more expansive bc its "intel" or something, those are just more expansive boards overall..

I get it, but the fact is cheap Intel boards don't yet exist.

 

It's not that the stuff they put in there are worthless, it's just from a price/performance perspective someone on the lower budget won't really need any of that stuff.

 

Again, B660 and H610 will address this probably. And same with non K chips.

[YoungBlade]

2 minutes ago, DarkSmith2 said:

yea but its comparing apples with pears. the X570 Dark Hero isnt exactly cheap either, sure the z690 hero is quite a bit more expansive but also has Thunderbolt, has pci-e 5.0, has 20+1 105A powerstages vs 14+1 90A on the x570 board, not that it will do anything for you but u pay for it, you see where this is going right? Its not that its just more expansive bc its "intel" or something, those are just more expansive boards overall..

At the moment, B660 doesn't exist and B550 does. Whether or not you think that comparison is fair is irrelevant. That's like saying that it wasn't fair to compare Rocket Lake to Zen 3 because Alder Lake was around the corner, or that the 12400F is the chip to get because it has the same gaming performance as the 12600K while costing way less than the 5600X.

 

Until those things exist, we're going to have to compare the apples with pears.