Best CPU for coding?

[Blasty Blosty]

Would an Intel-based system or a Ryzen-based system be better for a developer? I will be building a new pc for my job (paid for by work - no worry about budget), and I am wondering what the best CPU would be for performance. My coworker went with a 14900K for his, but with the recent release of the 9950x, is this a better choice? Or something like a 7950X3D?

 

I am using Visual Studio, currently developing in C# Windows Forms, ASP.NET Core web development, and looking to move towards Android development (this will be using an emulator).

[Haswellx86]

AMD offers AVX-512 on consumer SKUs. Only beneficial if you working at that low level or doing something advanced like maybe AI.

 

AMD also has more full power cores than Intel. Intel has still physically more cores, but 16 out of 24 are E cores, so I thing they are more suited for general multitasking, but AMD might be better for raw multi-threaded performance.

 

And oh yeah, the AMD Ryzen™ 9 9950X does beat the Intel® Core™ i9 processor 14900KS. But Arrow Lake, Zen 5's actual competitor probably takes the lead.

 

If you have the money and really want all the cores possible, then the AMD Ryzen™ Threadripper™ series of processors are suited.

 

I don't think X3D chips are great for programming. The extra cache isn't particularly helpful. Maybe in AI. But a major downside of X3D is lower clock speeds.

[monopoly_hater]

The 9950X is better for multithreading, which improves compile times. Also will make emulators more bearable (I tried running it on a quad core once, big mistake, now I just use my phone for the little Android dev I do). I would highly suggest waiting for the u9-285k to see how that turns out.

[monopoly_hater]

1 minute ago, Haswellx86 said:

AMD offers AVX-512 on consumer SKUs. Only beneficial if you working at that low level or doing something advanced like maybe AI.

 

AMD also has more full power cores than Intel. Intel has still physically more cores, but 16 out of 24 are E cores, so I thing they are more suited for general multitasking, but AMD might be better for raw multi-threaded performance.

 

And oh yeah, the AMD Ryzen™ 9 9950X does beat the Intel® Core™ i9 processor 14900KS. But Arrow Lake, Zen 5's actual competitor probably takes the lead.

 

If you have the money and really want all the cores possible, then the AMD Ryzen™ Threadripper™ series of processors are suited.

 

I don't think X3D chips are great for programming. The extra cache isn't particularly helpful. Maybe in AI. But a major downside of X3D is lower clock speeds.

Damn it, you beat me to the punch!

[Blasty Blosty]

7 minutes ago, Haswellx86 said:

AMD offers AVX-512 on consumer SKUs. Only beneficial if you working at that low level or doing something advanced like maybe AI.

 

AMD also has more full power cores than Intel. Intel has still physically more cores, but 16 out of 24 are E cores, so I thing they are more suited for general multitasking, but AMD might be better for raw multi-threaded performance.

 

And oh yeah, the AMD Ryzen™ 9 9950X does beat the Intel® Core™ i9 processor 14900KS. But Arrow Lake, Zen 5's actual competitor probably takes the lead.

 

If you have the money and really want all the cores possible, then the AMD Ryzen™ Threadripper™ series of processors are suited.

 

I don't think X3D chips are great for programming. The extra cache isn't particularly helpful. Maybe in AI. But a major downside of X3D is lower clock speeds.

 

6 minutes ago, anirudthelinuxwIzard said:

The 9950X is better for multithreading, which improves compile times. Also will make emulators more bearable (I tried running it on a quad core once, big mistake, now I just use my phone for the little Android dev I do). I would highly suggest waiting for the u9-285k to see how that turns out.

So go with the 9950X instead of the 14900K?

 

Especially with the new issues with Intel I assume

[monopoly_hater]

Just now, Blasty Blosty said:

 

So go with the 9950X instead of the 14900K?

 

Especially with the new issues with Intel I assume

Yes. Or you could take @Average Nerd and @Haswellx86s advice and get Threadripper 7980X. It will be a monster, but good luck getting work to sign off on that unless w a great smooth talker.

[Haswellx86]

2 minutes ago, Blasty Blosty said:

So go with the 9950X instead of the 14900K?

Also forgot to mention that Arrow Lake will be dropping support for Hyper-threading. Leaked benchmarks show that 285K does beat the 9950X in single threaded, but also I think sometimes in multi-threaded as well somehow. But I still think that the 9950X is better for multi-threaded workloads.

 

Plus, the benefits of AM5. Upgradeability. 

 

AMD also offers more PCIe lanes than Intel. Maybe a second GPU if you are hardcore rich enough? And don't forget about AVX-512 as I mentioned.

 

First of all, I should mention that all this time I am referring as "Intel" and not the 14900K. Actually choose one right now is a horrible mistake. You will be upgrading to a dead platform, who's current competitor already beats it. They thermal throttle like heck and sip tons of power. Maybe if you are going for Zen 4 based processors, then you might consider the 14900K, but with the attitude you are showing, I doubt budget is an issue to go for older hardware.

[monopoly_hater]

1 hour ago, Haswellx86 said:

Also forgot to mention that Arrow Lake will be dropping support for Hyper-threading. Leaked benchmarks show that 285K does beat the 9950X in single threaded, but also I think sometimes in multi-threaded as well somehow. But I still think that the 9950X is better for multi-threaded workloads.

 

Plus, the benefits of AM5. Upgradeability. 

 

AMD also offers more PCIe lanes than Intel. Maybe a second GPU if you are hardcore rich enough? And don't forget about AVX-512 as I mentioned.

 

First of all, I should mention that all this time I am referring as "Intel" and not the 14900K. Actually choose one right now is a horrible mistake. You will be upgrading to a dead platform, who's current competitor already beats it. They thermal throttle like heck and sip tons of power. Maybe if you are going for Zen 4 based processors, then you might consider the 14900K, but with the attitude you are showing, I doubt budget is an issue to go for older hardware.

I mean if budget is not a issue he could always go for a 7980X and be set for decades right?

[Bagzie]

6 minutes ago, anirudthelinuxwIzard said:

I mean if budget is not a issue he could always go for a 7980X and be set for decades right?

I think when it comes to work budget is always an issue..... atleast in every place I've worked.

[monopoly_hater]

Just now, Bagzie said:

I think when it comes to work budget is always an issue..... atleast in every place I've worked.

Sure, but @Blasty Blosty mentioned not to bother about budget, so I encourage him to go for it if he can... I would kill to run Cinebench on that

[Haswellx86]

12 minutes ago, anirudthelinuxwIzard said:

I mean if budget is not a issue he could always go for a 7980X and be set for decades right?

"Budget is not an issue" is a statement that works very differently between $650 and $5000. And also I think AMD is soon going to launch Threadripper 9000.

[monopoly_hater]

Just now, Haswellx86 said:

"Budget is not an issue" is a statement that works very differently between $650 and $5000. And also I think AMD is soon going to launch Threadripper 9000.

Intel is also soon gonna annouce Arrow Lake; October 10 to be precise.

[podkall]

2 hours ago, Blasty Blosty said:

Would an Intel-based system or a Ryzen-based system be better for a developer? I will be building a new pc for my job (paid for by work - no worry about budget), and I am wondering what the best CPU would be for performance. My coworker went with a 14900K for his, but with the recent release of the 9950x, is this a better choice? Or something like a 7950X3D?

 

I am using Visual Studio, currently developing in C# Windows Forms, ASP.NET Core web development, and looking to move towards Android development (this will be using an emulator).

AMD has recently almost always had higher "brrrt" of performance,

 

mainly because Intel was creeping up with power consumption and didn't bother as much with efficiency,

 

then sort of fixed it, but they started using E-cores,

 

so mostly, at least recently, Ryzen vs Intel gives Ryzen an easy win each time the core count is the same, as we can see in new 9000 series,..

 

 

 

 

[Blasty Blosty]

3 minutes ago, podkall said:

AMD has recently almost always had higher "brrrt" of performance,

 

mainly because Intel was creeping up with power consumption and didn't bother as much with efficiency,

 

then sort of fixed it, but they started using E-cores,

 

so mostly, at least recently, Ryzen vs Intel gives Ryzen an easy win each time the core count is the same, as we can see in new 9000 series,..

 

 

 

 

Did not expect the difference to be that much, 14900K is a beast so these must be godlike

[Haswellx86]

25 minutes ago, Blasty Blosty said:

Did not expect the difference to be that much, 14900K is a beast so these must be godlike

9950x and 14900K don't match. Compare the 14900K with 7950X. They both do trade blows, but the 14900K is generally a little bit faster in multi-threaded, and especially more if you allow higher power limits. And quite a bit faster in single threaded. Compare the 9950X with the upcoming 285K, and Intel also beats the 9950X in some areas, but the actual results are not known. But at the end of the day, I would consider the 9950X to be still better than Intel's offerings at multi-threaded power. 

[podkall]

50 minutes ago, Blasty Blosty said:

Did not expect the difference to be that much, 14900K is a beast so these must be godlike

yeah, that's what happens when the 9000 series are just released while 14th gen Intel is almost if not already one year old, and more or less a refresh of 13th gen,

 

remember how people recommended just buying 13th gen instead of more expensive 14th gen?

 

21 minutes ago, Haswellx86 said:

9950x and 14900K don't match. Compare the 14900K with 7950X. They both do trade blows, but the 14900K is generally a little bit faster in multi-threaded, and especially more if you allow higher power limits. And quite a bit faster in single threaded. Compare the 9950X with the upcoming 285K, and Intel also beats the 9950X in some areas, but the actual results are not known. But at the end of the day, I would consider the 9950X to be still better than Intel's offerings at multi-threaded power. 

Yeah, not to mention, there's one big reason to go Ryzen when you're on budget:

 

[Blasty Blosty]

27 minutes ago, Haswellx86 said:

9950x and 14900K don't match. Compare the 14900K with 7950X. They both do trade blows, but the 14900K is generally a little bit faster in multi-threaded, and especially more if you allow higher power limits. And quite a bit faster in single threaded. Compare the 9950X with the upcoming 285K, and Intel also beats the 9950X in some areas, but the actual results are not known. But at the end of the day, I would consider the 9950X to be still better than Intel's offerings at multi-threaded power. 

 

2 minutes ago, podkall said:

yeah, that's what happens when the 9000 series are just released while 14th gen Intel is almost if not already one year old, and more or less a refresh of 13th gen,

 

remember how people recommended just buying 13th gen instead of more expensive 14th gen?

 

Yeah, not to mention, there's one big reason to go Ryzen when you're on budget:

 

 

 

Thanks for the help everyone, AMD it is