News AMD vs Intel 2020: Who Makes the Best CPUs?

[Admin]

We wade into the endless debate: Who makes the best CPU, AMD or Intel?

AMD vs Intel 2020: Who Makes the Best CPUs? : Read more

 

[maestro0428]

Lotsa info and no graphs?! I need my graphs.

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

I disagree with the overclocking section, and I would say it's either a tie or a win for AMD.

Just because Intel sets base speeds so much lower than actually achievable speeds so they can slap on a ridiculously low TDP doesn't mean they're better overclockers, it just means Intel wants a low number to mislead people as to their efficiency.

With AMD and Intel having all core boost speeds within a couple hundred megahertz, depending on cooling, of their single core boosts, and with both able to be manually overclocked to or past their all core boost clocks, often using less voltage than the boost voltage, it's pretty even there.

 

[mangaman]

AMD currently makes the best processor for the value. You can buy a Ryzen 5 1600 on Amazon right now for $85 brand new, which is a 6 core 12 thread processor and fully unlocked. The core i3-9100f for comparison, is $10 less than the 1600 on Amazon, but only has 4 cores, 4 threads.

For the value of the Ryzen 5 1600 and with games and programs using more cores, it's obvious the Ryzen series is a much better value than Intel. However, with Intel finally realizing the competition from AMD, they will be making better and more affordable CPU's for consumers.

In the end, competition is great for us!

 

[tiggers97]

Lotsa info and no graphs?! I need my graphs.

With lots of RGB borders!

 

[Jim90]

I disagree with the overclocking section, and I would say it's either a tie or a win for AMD.

Just because Intel sets base speeds so much lower than actually achievable speeds so they can slap on a ridiculously low TDP doesn't mean they're better overclockers, it just means Intel wants a low number to mislead people as to their efficiency.

With AMD and Intel having all core boost speeds within a couple hundred megahertz, depending on cooling, of their single core boosts, and with both able to be manually overclocked to or past their all core boost clocks, often using less voltage than the boost voltage, it's pretty even there.

Exactly!!!
AMD -now- ships their latest CPU's (Zen2) PRE-OVERCLOCKED.
Intel DOES NOT.
Guess which CPU 'APPARENTLY"!!! has more overclocking headroom???

--> DON'T BUY INTO MARKETING <Mod Edit>

If you do insist on pushing marketing crap, remember to do the following...
Now link Intel's "high" overclock with wall-socket power draw: HOW DOES THAT COMPARE WITH AMD???

 

[Math Geek]

intel is stuck where amd was with its fx series of chips. nothing new to offer, so you just keep cranking up the spped/power and relabel it as something new.


at least what intel is doing it with started out as a much better cpu than the fx series ever was.

but i do agree that their listed speeds and power consumption is downright misleading. to claim "stock" speeds so low just to claim low power usage is outright fraud. they don't need to list them at 5 ghz but obviously closer in speed and power the average user can expect would go along way to not be so misleading.

 

[mattkiss]

You can buy a Ryzen 5 1600 on Amazon right now for $85 brand new, which is a 6 core 12 thread processor and fully unlocked.

Cheapest one I see is $115.

 

[mangaman]

Cheapest one I see is $115.

Try this link: https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Processor-Wraith-Stealth-Cooler/dp/B07XTQZJ28

 

[Walter Smith]

intel is stuck where amd was with its fx series of chips. nothing new to offer, so you just keep cranking up the spped/power and relabel it as something new.


at least what intel is doing it with started out as a much better cpu than the fx series ever was.

but i do agree that their listed speeds and power consumption is downright misleading. to claim "stock" speeds so low just to claim low power usage is outright fraud. they don't need to list them at 5 ghz but obviously closer in speed and power the average user can expect would go along way to not be so misleading.

Intel actually has another reason for what they do with their low base speeds. Ever got an i5 that just wouldn't over clock? If you do one of the cores will crash? They get to sell a certain percentage of silicon this way that otherwise would go to a lower product stack or the garbage bin.

 

[Walter Smith]

I understand the reasoning of why all reviews are done on a clean install. Only way to compare apples to apples. However, no one games or does anything this way. So, a useless case scenario where someone is going to spend thousands on a top CPU, GPU, Whole system. And pair it with a 1080p monitor. And a clean install everytime they fire up a game, is misleading at best. But, let's assume this system exists. This gamer will be watching youtube and twitch, using discord, probably office, a HW monitoring suite, steam client, maybe streaming his awesomeness. etc. Not to mention all the other crap and registry stuff that happens to windows PC's over time. What happens to the numbers on a dirty system? Impossible to compare apples to apples in this scenario. But, an educated guess says that Ryzen with its multitasking advantages would really shine while intels CPU's would bog down. Taking away Intels one advantage it has left. Other than the one that matters most of all of course. Name recognition, and an unlimited horde of fanboys.

 

[jgraham11]

Pretty misleading article, the reality that with AMD you get 95% of the gaming
performance while almost doubling the performance of every other task at any price point and thermal point. Until Intel gets caught up to 7nm, AMD is a no brainer!

Drivers and software is not right either, AMD graphics drivers have so much more capabilty than Intel. Yet this is not mentioned, If you want to talk Intel software, look at overclocking tools, etc.

Overall AMD's chips are way ahead:
Way Better efficiency,
Way better performance for price,
Way better box coolers
No where near the CPU bugs, especially bad ones that can be executed remotely!
(Intel even released bad chip with known vulnerabilities:Coffee Lake, Commet Lake)

 

[hotaru251]

Just because Intel sets base speeds so much lower than actually achievable speeds so they can slap on a ridiculously low TDP doesn't mean they're better overclockers, it just means Intel wants a low number to mislead people as to their efficiency.

actually i dont think this is true.
even if they postsed similar to AMD's speeds.
a stated base of 4.2ghz would still let them OC to 5ghz.

and nearly all amd chips have a line they cant cross.
intel chips dont have that are are more varied.


but ignoring that and on topic:


didnt we have a similar article a week ago?

everyone knows if all u care about is gaming max fps use 9900k

if you actually care to do anythign else get an amd.


i know you want new stuff, but scraping the bottom of barrel is not helpful for anyone :/

 

[King_V]

actually i dont think this is true.
even if they postsed similar to AMD's speeds.
a stated base of 4.2ghz would still let them OC to 5ghz.

True. But then they would have to report a higher TDP.

 

[hotaru251]

a higher TDP.

yeah, but majority of pc ppl dont care about it.
they would just toss a noctua or put a loop on it.

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

I disagree with the overclocking section, and I would say it's either a tie or a win for AMD.

Just because Intel sets base speeds so much lower than actually achievable speeds so they can slap on a ridiculously low TDP doesn't mean they're better overclockers, it just means Intel wants a low number to mislead people as to their efficiency.

With AMD and Intel having all core boost speeds within a couple hundred megahertz, depending on cooling, of their single core boosts, and with both able to be manually overclocked to or past their all core boost clocks, often using less voltage than the boost voltage, it's pretty even there.

It's not just about base speeds being low. There is literally almost zero headroom on AMD, because once you start overclocking without PBO you're stuck with one clock for all cores. So PBO gives you at most 200MHz, and going manual you typically end up with all-core overclocks that are 200-300MHz lower than the default boost clocks

Intel's unlocked turbo ratios are simply far superior and easier to use. Core i9-9900KS may hit 5.0GHz on all eight cores, but pushing it to 5.2-5.3GHz is possible -- especially if you want to drop back to 5GHz with AVX workloads, or only do 5.3GHz on 2-3 core loads but 5.2GHz on 4-8 core loads. Take it a step further and you have i9-10980XE. You're not going to get all 18 cores running at 4.5GHz without monstrous cooling, but you can do 4.9GHz on two cores, 4.8 on four cores, 4.7 on up to six or even eight cores, and so on down to 4.3 GHz on 14-18 cores. On Threadripper or Ryzen 9 3950X and you just can't do that. Your best shot is to enable PBO and hope for a 200MHz increase, which will typically be more like 50-100MHz.

Intel power use is higher yes. It has lots of other flaws as well. But overclocking and high clock speeds are one of the few areas where it's still clearly ahead of AMD. On most Intel K-series chips, you can get all-core overclocks at least 300MHz higher than stock. On Ryzen, you get all-core overclocks that are maybe 200MHz higher than stock on non-X-series parts, or maybe 100MHz higher on the top X-series parts -- but lower than single core boost clocks.

I've actually never had a K-series Intel chip that couldn't do all-core overclocks at least equal to the maximum boost clock, and usually 100-200MHz higher. So i9-9900K can do 5.0-5.1 GHz all-core. 9700K can do 4.9-5.0 GHz all-core. 8700K could do 4.9-5.0 GHz all-core. Ryzen 9 3950X? All-core OC was 4.3GHz for me and many other reviewers. Ryzen 9 3900X was also 4.3GHz, maybe less on some chips due to binning.

 

[Deicidium369]

intel is stuck where amd was with its fx series of chips. nothing new to offer, so you just keep cranking up the spped/power and relabel it as something new.


at least what intel is doing it with started out as a much better cpu than the fx series ever was.

but i do agree that their listed speeds and power consumption is downright misleading. to claim "stock" speeds so low just to claim low power usage is outright fraud. they don't need to list them at 5 ghz but obviously closer in speed and power the average user can expect would go along way to not be so misleading.

AMD is where it was right before Core dropped - about to happen again.... Enjoy the fleeting time in the Sun, maybe it won't be a decade before AMD comes up with something vable, this time around.

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

Pretty misleading article, the reality that with AMD you get 95% of the gaming
performance while almost doubling the performance of every other task at any price point and thermal point. Until Intel gets caught up to 7nm, AMD is a no brainer!

Drivers and software is not right either, AMD graphics drivers have so much more capabilty than Intel. Yet this is not mentioned, If you want to talk Intel software, look at overclocking tools, etc.

Overall AMD's chips are way ahead:
Way Better efficiency,
Way better performance for price,
Way better box coolers
No where near the CPU bugs, especially bad ones that can be executed remotely!
(Intel even released bad chip with known vulnerabilities:Coffee Lake, Commet Lake)

The article isn't about graphics drivers. Intel GPU drivers aren't really useful when the GPUs are so slow. The drivers and software is about optimizations for applications, overclocking utilities, chipset drivers.

 

[King_V]

yeah, but majority of pc ppl dont care about it.
they would just toss a noctua or put a loop on it.

Given how outrageous their thermals are getting, they most certainly will care, between needing to make sure they have a MB with top-notch VRMs, and needing to get a very hefty cooler.

AMD is where it was right before Core dropped - about to happen again.... Enjoy the fleeting time in the Sun, maybe it won't be a decade before AMD comes up with something vable, this time around.

If I may take a moment to do my best Larry The Cable Guy voice: "That there comment's about as useful as a screen door onna submarine."

 

[DZIrl]

I'm proud AMD 3950X owner since its first day but HW is not everything, more important is SW.
My story is: last time I built my own PC was 25 years ago - Pentium era. There were always some problems with HW and I continued with notebooks (HP, Dell) Intel based. In mean time bought my wife Toshiba notebook with AMD and even today I here stories and blames how slow, hot and awful it is (was). Back to Intel.
And last year I insisted to be a man and made a decision to buy Ryzen 3900 or 3950. Of course wife mentioned her Toshiba billion times
We started with 1500 Eur but ended up on above 2500 Eur. Gigabyte Ultra MB, 3466 DRAMs, RTX 2060...
It works really fast, Task manager is great with all those cores but software! Oh my God! Gigabyte MB software is crap, AMD software is crap! I was not able to run Handbrake cause of BSoDs. Today after 7 BIOS updates PC works without BSoDs, Handbrake works and other benchmarks too.
But AMD software... oh my God once again. Not only SW is crap but AMD support does not care at all!
RAID update prevented booting and I lost days detecting what problem is. Asked AMD support... ha ha ha. Finally I found problem, wrote an encyclopedia about and how to fix it and told everything AMD support. Did they care? No!

On other, blue, side my MB has Intel Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and Ethernet. Intel update app installed without any problem, detects everything and tells me about updates. Installs updates without any problem! It is still in my tray and when dbl clicked opens new tab in browser and tells me there are no updates!
At work I have Dell with Intel and also no problem at all!

We could discuss is AMD better/faster or Intel but only what matters is software quality. I could have Cray under my desk but if it crashes every now and then... If I have to think 10 times before installing an update and then loose days fixing it... it's not worth.

But I must mention Gigabyte support - great! Thanks guys!

 

[st379]

I'm proud AMD 3950X owner since its first day but HW is not everything, more important is SW.
My story is: last time I built my own PC was 25 years ago - Pentium era. There were always some problems with HW and I continued with notebooks (HP, Dell) Intel based. In mean time bought my wife Toshiba notebook with AMD and even today I here stories and blames how slow, hot and awful it is (was). Back to Intel.
And last year I insisted to be a man and made a decision to buy Ryzen 3900 or 3950. Of course wife mentioned her Toshiba billion times
We started with 1500 Eur but ended up on above 2500 Eur. Gigabyte Ultra MB, 3466 DRAMs, RTX 2060...
It works really fast, Task manager is great with all those cores but software! Oh my God! Gigabyte MB software is crap, AMD software is crap! I was not able to run Handbrake cause of BSoDs. Today after 7 BIOS updates PC works without BSoDs, Handbrake works and other benchmarks too.
But AMD software... oh my God once again. Not only SW is crap but AMD support does not care at all!
RAID update prevented booting and I lost days detecting what problem is. Asked AMD support... ha ha ha. Finally I found problem, wrote an encyclopedia about and how to fix it and told everything AMD support. Did they care? No!

On other, blue, side my MB has Intel Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and Ethernet. Intel update app installed without any problem, detects everything and tells me about updates. Installs updates without any problem! It is still in my tray and when dbl clicked opens new tab in browser and tells me there are no updates!
At work I have Dell with Intel and also no problem at all!

We could discuss is AMD better/faster or Intel but only what matters is software quality. I could have Cray under my desk but if it crashes every now and then... If I have to think 10 times before installing an update and then loose days fixing it... it's not worth.

But I must mention Gigabyte support - great! Thanks guys!

A troll or an Intel empolyee?
I have a gigabyte b450 with ryzen 3600.
I doubt it is the latest drivers/chipset/bios..... with no problems. Maybe it is the ram or some other thing like psu/gpu.... and you blame the cpu.
I don't understand how all the reviewers that used handbrake did not mention that handbrake does not work with Amd cpu and only works with Intel.
If I am not mistaken Tomshardware used handbrake in their review of the 3950x.

 

[cfbcfb]

Perhaps its worthwhile to bring up the recent "bugs" in AMD's chipset software and power plans. Which on my non OC'd 3700x started pumping 1.55v and overboosting like crazy, leading to 95C cpu temps utilizing a properly installed Wraith cooler. Many others finding the same thermal issues and haywire cpu overvolting/clock boost.

AMD blamed it on "bugs" in their chipset drivers that apparently have been around for about a year. I forced the system to the AMD published voltage and boost limits according to the 3700x's spec and lost 17% of my overall cpu power, but did get back to a normal temp of <80C at full load.

In short, AMD is either ridiculously incompetent or they've been cheating to get better performance numbers by humping the cpu into temps and voltages that will not lead to a long product life, they got caught and...are looking fairly ordinary when playing by the rules.

 

[cfbcfb]

A troll or an Intel empolyee?
I have a gigabyte b450 with ryzen 3600.
I doubt it is the latest drivers/chipset/bios..... with no problems. Maybe it is the ram or some other thing like psu/gpu.... and you blame the cpu.
I don't understand how all the reviewers that used handbrake did not mention that handbrake does not work with Amd cpu and only works with Intel.
If I am not mistaken Tomshardware used handbrake in their review of the 3950x.

Or we could go way out on a limb and suggest he's got a legit issue and rather than de-fanboi you suggest its just him?

Lets see. First off, handbrake works perfectly well with AMD cpu's and GPU's, I run it on my 3700x with RX570.

Next, AMD has recently announced that their last two chipset drivers for ryzen boards are buggier than hell and advised people to downgrade to -3 versions to get something that works. This also for my system eliminated B550/3700x issues with overvolting and overboosting the cpu to 95C.

AMD's graphics drivers have had nothing but problems, leading to repeated rapid releases to fix bugs they readily admit to.

Ryzenmaster has also had some issues with hyper-v and other virtualization s/w that it didn't have before, does have now and AMD can't explain the issue.

So if you didn't know that AMD has had some serious issues, including the gen 4 PCIE support on my b550 STILL not working, especially around software and drivers....now you know.

 

[mdd1963]

We wade into the endless debate: Who makes the best CPU, AMD or Intel?
"...AMD's modern processors tend to offer either more cores or threads and faster PCIe 4.0 connectivity at every single price point "

The Ryzen processors do indeed offer more cores for a great price, and, have excellent performance. But regarding PCI-e 4.0...

PCI-e 4.0 is currently really only impressive for sounding great in CrystalDIskMark sequential reads and writes, as only one GPU has been released that uses PCI-e 4.0, and it's a starter/entry-level card at best, and, the 12 cards that sold were likely to beginners. Will PCI-e 3.0 vs. 4.0 mean more the next batch of GPUs that arrives? We'll see when some 3080Ti cards are compared in assorted systems.

As for the PCI-e 4.0 translating into actual measured gains for NVME storage, X570 boards when tested with the mega-fast PCI-e 4.0 NVME M.2 drives occasionally took 1/4 sec longer to boot, launch applications, transfer a batch of large files, load a game level , etc, relative to the 970 EVO Plus. (Looking forward so Samsung's PCI-e 980 EVO/Pro PCI-e 4.0 efforts!)

Now in the server world, PCI-e 4.0 could do more, if more businesses perhaps tried Epyc-equipped servers. Epyc does so well , I find myself making excuses for needing a server at home.

 

[st379]

Or we could go way out on a limb and suggest he's got a legit issue and rather than de-fanboi you suggest its just him?

Lets see. First off, handbrake works perfectly well with AMD cpu's and GPU's, I run it on my 3700x with RX570.

Next, AMD has recently announced that their last two chipset drivers for ryzen boards are buggier than hell and advised people to downgrade to -3 versions to get something that works. This also for my system eliminated B550/3700x issues with overvolting and overboosting the cpu to 95C.

AMD's graphics drivers have had nothing but problems, leading to repeated rapid releases to fix bugs they readily admit to.

Ryzenmaster has also had some issues with hyper-v and other virtualization s/w that it didn't have before, does have now and AMD can't explain the issue.

So if you didn't know that AMD has had some serious issues, including the gen 4 PCIE support on my b550 STILL not working, especially around software and drivers....now you know.

Is you reply related to mine? Or you don't know how to read?

1. I talked about bsod that you also don't have.
2. I have a gtx 1660 ti so no problem here. Very stable .
3. Did not update chipset or bios but I read that it has problems.