Torn between AMD and Intel for PC upgrade

[PRXSTIGE]

Budget (including currency): 2K ILS

Country: Israel

Games, programs or workloads that it will be used for: Basic gaming, rendering, recording.. basically average usage nothing hardcore.

Other details (existing parts lists, whether any peripherals are needed, what you're upgrading from, when you're going to buy, what resolution and refresh rate you want to play at, etc): 

I currently have an i7-4790, DDR3 1600Mhz, RTX 2060.
For a while now I noticed the hiccups that happen ever so often, the freeze when exiting a game, the freeze while running a game and alt tabbing to do something else. Pretty much my PC is 8 years old at this stage and it's sad to see an i7 acting up like that, but I think it's time to upgrade.

I drive a 32" Dell Ultrawide monitor for gaming and other stuff, and only lately I noticed that my GPU is utilized 60% most of the times and that there is a bottleneck.

Using Shadowplay or Medal at the same time on CPU intensive games is pretty much non viable.

 

I don't need another case or GPU and I'm good with storage, what I was planning to upgrade are CPU, RAM, motherboard and maybe power supply if needed.

 

Basically I don't want to go below i7 for future proofing and am looking for something with a lot of wiggle room for multitasking and overall big capabilities, while also not going all out on the most expensive CPU there is.

 

For example, I thought about buying a 12th gen i7 but after a bit of research I saw the Ryzen 7 7800X3D. After more research I saw multiple videos claiming the new gens of Intel are just pushed for the sake of having a new product, while I also saw AMD are known for being extra hotter than Intel. You get the point, I'm lost.

 

What I care about also is having an ATX board with modern features (2x M.2, TPM, RAID, customizable BIOS). I currently have a MSI H97 (which is old and lacks all above except its incredible amount of settings there).

 

What do you suggest? AMD or Intel, which and why?

[Zando_]

30 minutes ago, PRXSTIGE said:

After more research I saw multiple videos claiming the new gens of Intel are just pushed for the sake of having a new product, while I also saw AMD are known for being extra hotter than Intel. You get the point, I'm lost.

 

12th-14th gen are roughly similar, but much improved over 11th gen (the ones Intel pushed out just to have something new). 

 

Current Intel chips are hotter than AMD ones due to the wattage they will draw, but it doesn't really matter much as 360mm AIOs are rather cheap now and will handle the top chips from either side of the fence. If you're worried about heat output into your room, then it can be an actual concern. 

32 minutes ago, PRXSTIGE said:

What do you suggest? AMD or Intel, which and why?

AMD's 7800X3D if gaming is the main focus and you don't need more than 8 cores. Otherwise an Intel i7-i9, whichever fits in budget. Intel chips are easier to get with more cores as they throw a bunch of E-cores on them now (Efficiency cores, lower clockspeeds and no hyper-threading, but they contribute well to multicore loads AFAIK). Also Intel QuickSync remains an advantage if you dip into anything Adobe especially, though some other utilities leverage it as well. 

 

TLDR: A 7800X3D system should be a no-brainer, an Intel system *could* be better depending on what exactly you're doing. 

[PRXSTIGE]

4 hours ago, Zando_ said:

12th-14th gen are roughly similar, but much improved over 11th gen (the ones Intel pushed out just to have something new). 

 

Current Intel chips are hotter than AMD ones due to the wattage they will draw, but it doesn't really matter much as 360mm AIOs are rather cheap now and will handle the top chips from either side of the fence. If you're worried about heat output into your room, then it can be an actual concern. 

AMD's 7800X3D if gaming is the main focus and you don't need more than 8 cores. Otherwise an Intel i7-i9, whichever fits in budget. Intel chips are easier to get with more cores as they throw a bunch of E-cores on them now (Efficiency cores, lower clockspeeds and no hyper-threading, but they contribute well to multicore loads AFAIK). Also Intel QuickSync remains an advantage if you dip into anything Adobe especially, though some other utilities leverage it as well. 

 

TLDR: A 7800X3D system should be a no-brainer, an Intel system *could* be better depending on what exactly you're doing. 

I mostly play games and wanna record them at the same time, sometimes I render stuff (once in a while). Basically I just want a chip that can handle everything usage wise, no crazy workloads, and just have as many cores/power the money can buy. 

If 8 AMD cores is better than 12 of Intel's with e-cores than I'd rather have that.

With that in mind, still the 7800X3D?

Or is there an even better one that I missed?

[atxcyclist]

On 12/1/2023 at 11:54 AM, Zando_ said:

12th-14th gen are roughly similar, but much improved over 11th gen (the ones Intel pushed out just to have something new). 

 

 As an aside from this discussion, this is such a bandwagon take about 11th gen. 11th gen in a Z590 board is a huge jump from a 10th gen and Z490 combo.

 

Z590 and 11th gen gains:

• Guaranteed PCIe 4.0 for main X16 and primary M.2 NVMe (this is massive especially with newer cards running 4.0 X8 or X4 that get bottlenecked with 3.0)
• 4 more dedicated lanes off the processor
• 20Gbps 2x2 USB support, along with a significant amount of standard 10Gbps ports
• Twice as much DMI bandwidth for those extra USB and other board controllers

Intel didn't just re-label a bunch of chips either, there's a tangible performance per clock uplift; It's around 19%. It was hardly "pushed out just to have something new", aside from possibly marginal memory controller support improvements, the chips are better in nearly every conceivable way than the previous generation.

 

[PRXSTIGE]

7 hours ago, atxcyclist said:

 As an aside from this discussion, this is such a bandwagon take about 11th gen. 11th gen in a Z590 board is a huge jump from a 10th gen and Z490 combo.

 

Z590 and 11th gen gains:

• Guaranteed PCIe 4.0 for main X16 and primary M.2 NVMe (this is massive especially with newer cards running 4.0 X8 or X4 that get bottlenecked with 3.0)
• 4 more dedicated lanes off the processor
• 20Gbps 2x2 USB support, along with a significant amount of standard 10Gbps ports
• Twice as much DMI bandwidth for those extra USB and other board controllers

Intel didn't just re-label a bunch of chips either, there's a tangible performance per clock uplift; It's around 19%. It was hardly "pushed out just to have something new", aside from memory controller support, the chips are better in nearly every conceivable way than the previous generation.

 

So you think I should have an 11th gen with Z590?

[atxcyclist]

1 hour ago, PRXSTIGE said:

So you think I should have an 11th gen with Z590?

It’s not really at the forefront of what’s available, I’d go for something newer if you can swing it in your budget; The newer platforms are better with DDR5 support, better PCIe connectivity, and better efficiency. Intel 13th and 14th gen seem better with RAM compatibility/speeds than the 7000 series AMD Ryzen stuff, I’d go with Intel if I were building a system right now. Keep in mind with Intel you really need a Z-series board to get a lot of the potential out of an unlocked (k suffix) chip, this isn’t as big an issue with AMD as all B and X chipsets allow these features on AMD.
 

My response to the other poster was just to counter a very comment sentiment, about 11th gen Intel being an ‘afterthought’ or only released to look like they were doing something; It was a big leap over the previous gen, but a prominent tech reviewer called the 11th gen a “waste of sand” while ignoring all the performance and feature uplift, so people just parrot those thoughts and continue to ignore those improvements.

[PRXSTIGE]

3 hours ago, atxcyclist said:

It’s not really at the forefront of what’s available, I’d go for something newer if you can swing it in your budget; The newer platforms are better with DDR5 support, better PCIe connectivity, and better efficiency. Intel 13th and 14th gen seem better with RAM compatibility/speeds than the 7000 series AMD Ryzen stuff, I’d go with Intel if I were building a system right now. Keep in mind with Intel you really need a Z-series board to get a lot of the potential out of an unlocked (k suffix) chip, this isn’t as big an issue with AMD as all B and X chipsets allow these features on AMD.
 

My response to the other poster was just to counter a very comment sentiment, about 11th gen Intel being an ‘afterthought’ or only released to look like they were doing something; It was a big leap over the previous gen, but a prominent tech reviewer called the 11th gen a “waste of sand” while ignoring all the performance and feature uplift, so people just parrot those thoughts and continue to ignore those improvements.

Would you consider the R9 5950X overkill? Or should I just add more and get the 7950X?

[KaitouX]

18 minutes ago, PRXSTIGE said:

Would you consider the R9 5950X overkill? Or should I just add more and get the 7950X?

Ignore any CPU that isn't Intel 13th and 14th gen, and AMD 7000 if your budget allows it.

[AlfaProto]

Intel, since you are going with video editing and stuff. Get the one with iGPU, and not the 'F'-variant. Example, Davinci Resolve Studio utilised Intel UHD graphics (QuickSync).

AMD's support with their VCN is pretty much on and off, and no commitment, unlike Nvidia and Intel. AMD's offer is merely 'it's just there'.

 

And no, that kind of power draw ONLY HAPPENS if you are doing something intensive, like video/3D rendering using CPU.

 

I would recommend getting i7 12700K or 13700K, and pair it with decent Z-series motherboard. If you wanna save some money, you would get the 13600K---although normally, I don't recommend downgrading a tier, Core i7 to Core i5, but since you are 8 generational gap, it's fine to downgrade.

 

Weirdly, if you upgrade from Intel to Intel, it's pretty much plug-n-play (Windows detect the correct drivers and install), requiring no re-installation of Windows---unless Windows is not installed as UEFI mode.

 

[KaitouX]

13 minutes ago, AlfaProto said:

And no, that kind of power draw ONLY HAPPENS if you are doing something intensive, like video/3D rendering using CPU.

 

I would recommend getting i7 12700K or 13700K, and pair it with decent Z-series motherboard. If you wanna save some money, you would get the 13600K---although normally, I don't recommend downgrading a tier, Core i7 to Core i5, but since you are 8 generational gap, it's fine to downgrade.

You can also lower the power target without losing too much performance.

 

The 13600K is faster than the 12700K though.

[PRXSTIGE]

13 hours ago, AlfaProto said:

Intel, since you are going with video editing and stuff. Get the one with iGPU, and not the 'F'-variant. Example, Davinci Resolve Studio utilised Intel UHD graphics (QuickSync).

AMD's support with their VCN is pretty much on and off, and no commitment, unlike Nvidia and Intel. AMD's offer is merely 'it's just there'.

 

And no, that kind of power draw ONLY HAPPENS if you are doing something intensive, like video/3D rendering using CPU.

 

I would recommend getting i7 12700K or 13700K, and pair it with decent Z-series motherboard. If you wanna save some money, you would get the 13600K---although normally, I don't recommend downgrading a tier, Core i7 to Core i5, but since you are 8 generational gap, it's fine to downgrade.

 

Weirdly, if you upgrade from Intel to Intel, it's pretty much plug-n-play (Windows detect the correct drivers and install), requiring no re-installation of Windows---unless Windows is not installed as UEFI mode.

 

I'm mostly gaming, but like I said I prefer a strong CPU so it would last a long long time. After doing a bit of research I saw that the i9 14900k is the same price as the Ryzen 7950X, and looking up some benchmarks I saw that AMD won most of them and is extremely efficient.

 

Another reason why I wanted AMD in the first place was that I don't want to run into the same issue I have now which is the need to replace my entire motherboard and RAM if I need to upgrade again, it's also why I use my current CPU for a long time. 

 

I don't mind blowing money on my next build but I want to make sure that if I do spend the money I get the absolute MOST for my money, that means PCIE Gen 5, M.2, DDR4/5, fast USB and Sata speeds.. etc etc. Pretty much entirely futureproofing for whatever I would like in the future. (I also plan running M.2 OS in RAID 1)

 

I've been "out of the game" for a while and I have no clue what are the real world uses of the E-cores found in the i9, and I also saw that they had some pretty big issues which Intel has yet to fix. As far as AMD, I've been against them for a long time because of their unstable CPUs back in the day and the lack of support in some programs and peripherals, but now every tech youtuber recommends them for being efficient and mind blowingly fast.

[AlfaProto]

5 hours ago, PRXSTIGE said:

I'm mostly gaming, but like I said I prefer a strong CPU so it would last a long long time. After doing a bit of research I saw that the i9 14900k is the same price as the Ryzen 7950X, and looking up some benchmarks I saw that AMD won most of them and is extremely efficient.

 

Another reason why I wanted AMD in the first place was that I don't want to run into the same issue I have now which is the need to replace my entire motherboard and RAM if I need to upgrade again, it's also why I use my current CPU for a long time. 

 

I don't mind blowing money on my next build but I want to make sure that if I do spend the money I get the absolute MOST for my money, that means PCIE Gen 5, M.2, DDR4/5, fast USB and Sata speeds.. etc etc. Pretty much entirely futureproofing for whatever I would like in the future. (I also plan running M.2 OS in RAID 1)

 

I've been "out of the game" for a while and I have no clue what are the real world uses of the E-cores found in the i9, and I also saw that they had some pretty big issues which Intel has yet to fix. As far as AMD, I've been against them for a long time because of their unstable CPUs back in the day and the lack of support in some programs and peripherals, but now every tech youtuber recommends them for being efficient and mind blowingly fast.

You are already from 4th gen Intel to anything brand new already requires a complete platform upgrade (CPU+MOBO+RAM). I highly doubt you are going to follow AMD+PCMR mentality of upgrading annually/whatever the latest--you have no rights to complain anything though if you go this route.

I mean, I also had the same issue when I upgrade 6700K to 10850K, my CPU+MOBO requires a complete swap. Heck, I could even reused by 2x8GB 2.4GHz RAM kit, to 'cut corners', but I decided to go full 2x16GB Kit (later upgrade to 4x32GB), and PSU upgrade (my GXII 650W lack the power).

For me, it's literally CPU+MOBO+RAM+PSU.

And no, get X3D variant, the larger cache helps in overall performance.

19 hours ago, KaitouX said:

You can also lower the power target without losing too much performance.

 

The 13600K is faster than the 12700K though.

Yes, 12th-14th gen power target seems a bit too loose, maybe Intel was being 'conservative', or playing safe by salvaging enough silicon to meet the demands.

This is why I stated he can downgrade a tier from Core i7 to Core i5.

[PRXSTIGE]

6 minutes ago, AlfaProto said:

You are already from 4th gen Intel to anything brand new already requires a complete platform upgrade (CPU+MOBO+RAM). I highly doubt you are going to follow AMD+PCMR mentality of upgrading annually/whatever the latest--you have no rights to complain anything though if you go this route.

I mean, I also had the same issue when I upgrade 6700K to 10850K, my CPU+MOBO requires a complete swap. Heck, I could even reused by 2x8GB 2.4GHz RAM kit, to 'cut corners', but I decided to go full 2x16GB Kit (later upgrade to 4x32GB), and PSU upgrade (my GXII 650W lack the power).

For me, it's literally CPU+MOBO+RAM+PSU.

And no, get X3D variant, the larger cache helps in overall performance.

Yes, 12th-14th gen power target seems a bit too loose, maybe Intel was being 'conservative', or playing safe by salvaging enough silicon to meet the demands.

This is why I stated he can downgrade a tier from Core i7 to Core i5.

I know, but if I upgrade I want to upgrade, Skimming on money now will cost me later on. And I don't complain I know that moving to newer stuff requires even more than what you said, for example more cooling, and unfortunately I never had anything "powerful" and "brand new" like what I want to buy. I could also decide I don't wan't to blow a ton of money, but I don't know for sure becuase I don't know how well these CPUs perform in the real world, benchmarks are not true representatives of actual use cases. All I know is how my PC performs now. 

[AlfaProto]

1 hour ago, PRXSTIGE said:

I know, but if I upgrade I want to upgrade, Skimming on money now will cost me later on. And I don't complain I know that moving to newer stuff requires even more than what you said, for example more cooling, and unfortunately I never had anything "powerful" and "brand new" like what I want to buy. I could also decide I don't wan't to blow a ton of money, but I don't know for sure becuase I don't know how well these CPUs perform in the real world, benchmarks are not true representatives of actual use cases. All I know is how my PC performs now. 

I mean, I understand, but hey, you stretched your 4790K for 8 years, and I stretched my 6700K for 6 years (with 1 mobo swap, since the original died in 2019). Now with 10850K, I think the only fail part in the foreseeable future is my motherboard (even though I don't OC).

 

It's better to blow your money, overspec your system, rather than waiting for the next upgrade to upgrade a tier, take it from me; I've used ALL of the Intel Core i series, I owned i3-2100, i5-3330, i7 6700K and now i9-10850K. As for GPU, I've also used and played around with their tier, from GTX 550 Ti, 960 (loaned for a while), 1070 and now 3080.
 

Because the next upgrade (assuming you stretch it for 4 years), you can more or less gauge which kind of system you should spend on.