Amd ryzen is a better bang for buck than intel. Change my mind.

[Wolf ~ IRONI]

Some people like to go for Intel processors which I don't get because although they have higher clock speeds and stuff ryzen has more cores and threads. In my opinion ryzen is the better bang for Buck. Change my mind.

[dcgreen2k]

Nope, Ryzen already is the best bang for your buck.

[aezakmi]

do you hear that?

The fanboys are coming.

 

if you're just going to game ryzen is ok

[Mira Yurizaki]

9 minutes ago, Wolfiowww said:

Some people like to go for Intel processors which I don't get because although they have higher clock speeds and stuff ryzen has more cores and threads. In my opinion ryzen is the better bang for Buck. Change my mind.

Not really here to change your mind about what you believe which is a better bang/buck

 

However, more cores/threads doesn't automagically mean the processor is better either.

[DrMacintosh]

Ryzen is a better bang for the buck. 

[Senzelian]

Depends entirely on your use case.
For specificly Lightroom and Photoshop, forget Ryzen.

 

(Which sucks, cause I wanted to build a Ryzen workstation QQ)

 

[TahoeDust]

Ryzen is for the people that want the most bang for the buck.

 

Intel is for the people that want the most performance per core....period.

[Blademaster91]

Buy what you like though Ryzen is fine for gaming, and yes better bang for the buck.

Intel has higher FPS in some games but its really negligible unless you have a high refresh gaming monitor.

[Wolf ~ IRONI]

Finally people here who arent fanboying

[Phentos]

Ryzen is a better bang for the buck especially if you prefer high resolution and/or ultra settings in non-esports games. As well as multi thread dominant workflows.

 

Intel is obviously better for high refresh gaming, esports gaming, and/or other competitive games. Plus single thread dominant workflows. Gotta have the cash to spare and the willingness to delid (voids the hell out of your warranty).

[Wolf ~ IRONI]

5 minutes ago, Phentos said:

Ryzen is a better bang for the buck especially if you prefer high resolution and/or ultra settings in non-esports games. As well as multi thread dominant workflows.

 

Intel is obviously better for high refresh gaming, esports gaming, and/or other competitive games. Plus single thread dominant workflows. Gotta have the cash to spare and the willingness to delid (voids the hell out of your warranty).

How is intel better than ryzen in esports? +5 fps makes no difference

[DarkSmith2]

7 minutes ago, Wolfiowww said:

How is intel better than ryzen in esports? +5 fps makes no difference

what about 150fps in csgo? what about 40fps in pubg? what about 1000fps in Unreal Tournament (1999)

[ColourShift]

intel is generally better for gaming, but ya amd is rlly good on the budget side of things

[Phentos]

16 minutes ago, Wolfiowww said:

How is intel better than ryzen in esports? +5 fps makes no difference

Placebo effect? Jk.

 

From what I've seen, in most games that can be considered esport titles, Intel CPUs have a large advantage. Triple digits margins in CS:GO, 20-40 more fps in PUBG or Fortnite, etc.

 

I personally do not play esports or other competitive games at all myself, with the sole exception of the occasional squad match in PUBG with my RL friends. Reason being that I feel I've outgrown them...

 

However for those that do, especially in a serious context, Intel is the way to go.

 

Apologies for any typos... typing on a Surface Pro touchscreen can be a pain.

[porina]

12 hours ago, Wolfiowww said:

Some people like to go for Intel processors which I don't get because although they have higher clock speeds and stuff ryzen has more cores and threads. In my opinion ryzen is the better bang for Buck. Change my mind.

Depends on use cases. For general or highly threaded workload cases, Ryzen offers more value potential.

 

To me where Ryzen fails is in FPU workloads as they didn't put in as much resource there, about half that of Intel. My i3-8350k is faster than my R7 1700 in that use case. Because I do a lot of that, Ryzen is not optimal.

 

Another consideration is looking at a system level performance. An Intel CPU might cost more than a Ryzen CPU, but you're not only buying that CPU. You need everything else in the system. Is AMD still best value when comparing one system against another? Not necessarily in the same cases when comparing CPU only.

[LAwLz]

You know, summarizing two entire product lines into a single absolute statement is a very bad idea.

You have to specify which programs you will be running, what your budget is, which specific parts you are comparing and where you live (prices differs).

 

Saying that one is better bang for the buck is like saying salt tastes better than sugar, without taking into consideration what you are going to use it on.

There are many scenarios where an Intel processor will offer better bang for your buck than AMD, and vice versa.

 

Also, price:performance is not the only thing that matters. If it was when we'd all be using RX 460s for our GPUs.

[Damascus]

57 minutes ago, Wolfiowww said:

How is intel better than ryzen in esports? +5 fps makes no difference

The margins are much higher, the reason I left Zen is simple - I wanted better pubg performance.  I got a used 6800k + x99 oc formula for less than what I paid for my 1700/budget x370 and then upgraded to a 6950x when I got one super cheap. 

[Wolf ~ IRONI]

1 hour ago, DarkSmith2 said:

what about 150fps in csgo? what about 40fps in pubg? what about 1000fps in Unreal Tournament (1999)

Thats not true that those are the difference

[LienusLateTips]

Not in Canada, Ryzen B350 boards are just as expensive in Canada as cheap Z370.

[LienusLateTips]

Just now, Wolfiowww said:

Thats not true that those are the difference

Proof?

[Wolf ~ IRONI]

Just now, JDE said:

Proof?

The proof is that everyone knows a intel cpu wont give +40fpa in pubg.

[LoganTNZ]

I love me some 60fps on 1080p w/ gtx 1080

[DarkSmith2]

40 minutes ago, Wolfiowww said:

The proof is that everyone knows a intel cpu wont give +40fpa in pubg.

not in average fps but in minimum fps. 8700k @5GHz is hardcapping pubg @144fps with fast enough RAM.

So its 20 to 40FPS difference. Sorry if it was misleading to you.

[epsilon84]

For heavily multi-threaded software, sure. If Cinebench defines your computing experience, definitely.

 

For gamers, it's not better value. In fact, it's significantly worse value IMO.

 

For gaming, an i5 8400 outperforms any Ryzen 5, or even Ryzen 7 CPU, and costs $179, compared to $190 for the Ryzen 1600 (Newegg prices)

 

Now with the cheaper B360 motherboards available, AMD has lost its advantage in motherboard pricing as well. 

 

Finally, Intel plays well with cheaper DDR4-2666 memory. Ryzen is known to run much better on higher spec, DDR4-3200 CL14 rated memory, which is about $50 more expensive when comparing 16GB kits. Sure, you can run AMD with cheaper memory, but performance degradation is more significant compared to Intel, because of the Ryzen architecture and how the IF speed is tied to the memory speed.

[epsilon84]

1 hour ago, JDE said:

Proof?

https://www.techspot.com/article/1532-pubg-cpu-benchmarks/