[SOLVED] AMD and Intel

[Imposted]

Why am I seeing like everyone go with the ryzen 9 3900x? Did intel mess up again?

 

[logainofhades]

For those that need that many cores/threads, it's the best cpu price/performance right now.

 

[punkncat]

Your post is presumptive and leading IMO. Who is the "everybody" you are referring to?
Intel is still strongly in the game, even without the newer process. In spite of the value that AMD has brought to the table, by and large Intel still remains the best gaming CPU, and is traditionally speaking far more stable and forgiving as far as combinations within it's chipset and RAM selections.

I do feel like AMD is going to continue putting the hurt to Intel on that value proposition at some point today, with their announcement.

 

[logainofhades]

Your post is presumptive and leading IMO. Who is the "everybody" you are referring to?
Intel is still strongly in the game, even without the newer process. In spite of the value that AMD has brought to the table, by and large Intel still remains the best gaming CPU, and is traditionally speaking far more stable and forgiving as far as combinations within it's chipset and RAM selections.

I do feel like AMD is going to continue putting the hurt to Intel on that value proposition at some point today, with their announcement.

Gaming, yea Intel is still king. They have lost their edge, in productivity tasks, though, which is really what the 3900x is meant for.

 

[punkncat]

Gaming, yea Intel is still king. They have lost their edge, in productivity tasks, though, which is really what the 3900x is meant for.

I think if I were going to make assumptions about "what everyone is going to" I would mention the 3600 variant. It's my understanding that it has sold more than Intels entire line as of late. It would "fit" that narrative.

I am using a 'zen, and I did it because of that value. I built the main office computer on Intel. It is by FAR the more stable and trouble free of my systems. IF I were going to be in a position to buy or suggest a build for someone doing office tasking, things such as that I would far more recommend going with an Intel based machine because of it. Just the same though, I do and have suggested zen, in particular the mentioned 3600, for people that don't mind tinkering.

Just my .02

 

[hotaru.hino]

Gaming, yea Intel is still king. They have lost their edge, in productivity tasks, though, which is really what the 3900x is meant for.

I'd argue that depends on what you mean by "productivity" Your typical office user isn't running Adobe After Effects or Blender.

I think if I were going to make assumptions about "what everyone is going to" I would mention the 3600 variant. It's my understanding that it has sold more than Intels entire line as of late. It would "fit" that narrative.

I am using a 'zen, and I did it because of that value. I built the main office computer on Intel. It is by FAR the more stable and trouble free of my systems. IF I were going to be in a position to buy or suggest a build for someone doing office tasking, things such as that I would far more recommend going with an Intel based machine because of it. Just the same though, I do and have suggested zen, in particular the mentioned 3600, for people that don't mind tinkering.

Just my .02

This makes me really wonder about what both companies do in terms of reliability and support. It's starting to feel like Intel is more of a plug-and-play solution whereas you need to wrench on an AMD system to get the most of it. And to me the way AMD handles it's software side feels more hands-off than Intel, which rubs me the wrong way if I were a system integrator. On top of this, AMD doesn't seem to have a history of making complete systems. Intel has experience in basically every necessary aspect of a computer system. Or rather, AMD is simply a parts manufacturer, whereas Intel is a systems manufacturer that happens to sell the parts it makes.

 

[punkncat]

I'd argue that depends on what you mean by "productivity" Your typical office user isn't running Adobe After Effects or Blender.


This makes me really wonder about what both companies do in terms of reliability and support.

There is absolutely a case to be made for the fact that Intel is on it's 8 billionth refresh of the 14nm process. Those bugs were worked out long ago. Additionally Intel runs fine at slower RAM speeds which eliminates troublesome issues that crop up (sometimes) when running at that ragged hot rod edge.
AMD came out with an all new architecture and has been absolutely pushing to to the limits with every release.
As a for instance, it's almost commonplace to take a "K" series Intel chip and OC it well beyond a whole GHz over it's "rated" speed. They are leaving overhead on the table in order to gain stability.

 

[logainofhades]

My 3700x has been pretty trouble free. My system issues have been due to graphics cards giving up after years of hard F@H use. The 3900x has become quite the popular chip, as of late. The price has dropped a bit, and it's multitasking ability is stellar, at its price point.

Intel has had its share of screw ups as well as any other company. Intel's biggest problem is they are stubborn, and slow, when it come to change. Their pricing structure is still too high, and their segmentation is terrible. Hence why a R3 3300x, on a B450/B550 board, with DDR4 3200 ram, can beat an I5 10400, in gaming, because B and H Intel chipsets won't allow further than 2666, with said CPU. Just unlocking said chipsets to allow for faster ram, would be a massive improvement. GN's review of the 10400 showed this. They even did a follow up video with highly tuned ram, at 2666, and still didn't improve its situation.

 

[Eric Baker]

Im using my Ryzen in work mostly. But in games its good too

 

[dimtodim]

Why am I seeing like everyone go with the ryzen 9 3900x? Did intel mess up again?

is cheaper and have 12/24...its really fast and probably best value for $$$...only need great cooler and ready to fly

 

[hotaru.hino]

There is absolutely a case to be made for the fact that Intel is on it's 8 billionth refresh of the 14nm process. Those bugs were worked out long ago. Additionally Intel runs fine at slower RAM speeds which eliminates troublesome issues that crop up (sometimes) when running at that ragged hot rod edge.

Even removing the fact they're stuck on 14nm (or at least what they call 14nm since the number has lost its meaning ages ago), I have more confidence in an Intel system working because they make systems and seem more invested in making sure to create something resembling stable software. Seeing how Intel's dominated the workplace environment, having an unreliable baseline is grounds for trouble. I'm sure AMD is getting there, but they're not winning enough points for me change my mind yet.

Granted I'm not ignoring Intel's missteps, but I'd argue there's a lot of executive meddling going on that offsets the quality of their engineering.

(obligatory disclaimer: my current and last computer were running on an AMD platform, I'm willing to deal with its quirks)

 

[punkncat]

My 3700x has been pretty trouble free.

I have to admit that my experience with everything beyond first gen had been "interesting" to say the least.
I bought a 1200 on release and liked it a lot. Super trouble free, no issues...I was paying close attention to QVL and such. I decided to chase overclocking and that rabbit hole sent me down a road of trouble and expense that has been unprecedented in my computer experience.
By and large up until a short while ago my 2700X has been almost nothing but trouble and expense. I guess the plus side being that I have a whole other complete build that (up to three weeks ago) has been a superb performer. I finally got the 2700X running mostly trouble free and now the "spare parts 1700" build is doing dumb stuff.

Along this same time frame I have built two Intel systems and one other 3600 build for a friend and all of them have been almost completely devoid of issue.