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

[Wuznar]

Try clicking through the graphs, lol. There are 8 total gaming graphs.

There may be 8 graphs but why are there any graphs excluding AMD's current processor line, that just slants the comparison toward Intel...it's not a valid comparison to pitch AMD's old stuff against Intel's current and honestly, no amount of debating can make that stunt valid in this comparison. Just for disclosure, my gaming rig is Intel, I like both brands and am less concerned about who wins than it being an honest comparison. I stand by what I said in my first post. Do a better job TH! You don't need to do stunts like this.

 

[larkspur]

There may be 8 graphs but why are there any graphs excluding AMD's current processor line, that just slants the comparison toward Intel...it's not a valid comparison to pitch AMD's old stuff against Intel's current and honestly, no amount of debating can make that stunt valid in this comparison. Just for disclosure, my gaming rig is Intel, I like both brands and am less concerned about who wins than it being an honest comparison. I stand by what I said in my first post. Do a better job TH! You don't need to do stunts like this.

You have to read the article under the graphs where they explain why they give the gaming crown to Intel. It's all explained there. The best part:

You'll need a fire-breathing high-end GPU and high-refresh rate monitor to get the most out of Intel's performance advantage, and you'll need to game at the mundane 1080p resolution, too. Kicking your resolution up to 1440p and beyond typically pushes the bottleneck back to the GPU, so you won't gain as much from your CPU's gaming prowess. However, a bit of extra CPU gaming performance could pay off if you plan on updating your graphics card with a newer generation while keeping the rest of your system intact—AMD's Big Navi and Nvidia's GTX 3080 / Ampere are slated to launch this year.

 

[Wuznar]

Try clicking through the graphs, lol. There are 8 total gaming graphs.

Also, the lack of a level playing field makes the favoritism look even worst. With AMD's top processors missing on some of the graphs where Intel's top chips are present simply looks like cherry-picking the gaming winner. I know Intel still for the most part rules this category but they no longer win every time and anyone can go back and look at the CPU reviews and see that.

 

[saunupe1911]

Also, the lack of a level playing field makes the favoritism look even worst. With AMD's top processors missing on some of the graphs where Intel's top chips are present simply looks like cherry-picking the gaming winner. I know Intel still for the most part rules this category but they no longer win every time and anyone can go back and look at the CPU reviews and see that.

So what top AMD chip would you buy today???

 

[jimmysmitty]

Also, the lack of a level playing field makes the favoritism look even worst. With AMD's top processors missing on some of the graphs where Intel's top chips are present simply looks like cherry-picking the gaming winner. I know Intel still for the most part rules this category but they no longer win every time and anyone can go back and look at the CPU reviews and see that.

Some of the reviews and charts came from before the 3950X was even out.

How does a comparison where 70% of the wins goes to AMD mean they are favoriting Intel just because one or two category's may be their wins?

Gaming: Intel at current has the best gaming performance overall due to their ability to get nearly 1GHz higher clock speed than AMD plus the fact that most games do not need a ton of cores so having more is just a determent to it since more cores means, typically, lower top speeds on the same silicon (minus binning of course).

Overclocking: Intels chips have vastly more headroom and options on how to overclock. There really is no argument.

Software: As I said before Intel does have better drivers and software but that's due to how massive their software/driver team is, it rivals and beats some of the largest software developers in the world. That means more people, more and better experience and being able to work with other hardware and software developers to optimize and bug check.

Everything Else: AMD currently has in the bag.

Seriously though there is no favoritism. Intel has a few advantages. AMD has a few more.

 

[Wuznar]

Some of the reviews and charts came from before the 3950X was even out.

Why am I the only one acknowledging this.....NO 3RD GEN AMD CHIPS ARE ON THE GRAPH!!!!! The Average FPS (Geomean) Entire Test Suite is comparing i9-9900k to the Ryzen 7 2700X as the top chips. This article came out yesterday so it was written very recently meaning more current data was available. While having the AMD 2XXX line represented is fair since the Intel 8XXX is there, why are the AMD 3XXX not present where the Intel 9XXX are? Those chips have been out going on a year now. I would be more than happy to take it a step further and wonder why TH didn't compare the latest top chips since both brands have newer chips benchmarked by Tom's Hardware! Anyone can cut and paste a graph together from multiple sources.

 

[Wuznar]

So what top AMD chip would you buy today???

not a 2700X

 

[Wuznar]

Some of the reviews and charts came from before the 3950X was even out.

How does a comparison where 70% of the wins goes to AMD mean they are favoriting Intel just because one or two category's may be their wins?

Gaming: Intel at current has the best gaming performance overall due to their ability to get nearly 1GHz higher clock speed than AMD plus the fact that most games do not need a ton of cores so having more is just a determent to it since more cores means, typically, lower top speeds on the same silicon (minus binning of course).

Overclocking: Intels chips have vastly more headroom and options on how to overclock. There really is no argument.

Software: As I said before Intel does have better drivers and software but that's due to how massive their software/driver team is, it rivals and beats some of the largest software developers in the world. That means more people, more and better experience and being able to work with other hardware and software developers to optimize and bug check.

Everything Else: AMD currently has in the bag.

Seriously though there is no favoritism. Intel has a few advantages. AMD has a few more.

I agree with you but comparing a i9-9900k to a 2700x is a bit ridiculous for an article posted yesterday. Cutting and pasting an updated graph with up to date information which by the way is readily available on their own site should be childs play for anyone writing a tech article.

 

[Phaaze88]

They clearly DIDN'T make only one test.

You go to weird lengths to proclaim, somehow, that Intel is the best way to go. Then the caveats.

Yes, it's the BEST - for getting those few extra frames/second. At 1080p. That the human eye can't distinguish. Why do you engage in these contortions?

I was trying to understand TerryLaze's reasoning, as they do the same thing in this thread: https://forums.tomshardware.com/threads/rough-eta-on-10th-gen-intel-desktop.3597018/#post-21704838
That was Witcher 3... What about mass multiplayer titles, or ones that will use AVX? Just that one slide isn't representative of every game.

 

[Gurg]

Also, the lack of a level playing field makes the favoritism look even worst. With AMD's top processors missing on some of the graphs where Intel's top chips are present simply looks like cherry-picking the gaming winner. I know Intel still for the most part rules this category but they no longer win every time and anyone can go back and look at the CPU reviews and see that.

In the 10 games used in the TH gaming comparisons in previous reviews there were just two ( Cilivization and Ashes of Singularity) where an AMD CPU registered more FPS than the top overclocked Intel CPUs. Intel also topped in MS Office benchmark.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-5-3600x-review,6245.html

 

[pudubat]

I'm getting kind of bored to read biased articles that legitimely seems like advertisement paid by AMD. I could literally read somewhere: "Well, intel perform better in low end games (games no one care because it's so old) but on some specific AAA games we carefully picked because they have been optimized for AMD, Team Red crush the numbers like David beat Golitah."

Also, even if AMD have more cache, they can barely use it since their architecture have latency, where intel's ring does not have. AMD have been a bless, since they have created new standards for CPU, which intel now have to follow. But in real world performance (Everyday use, not Cinebench benchmark, since literally no one use applications that would take advantage of this) intel seems to hold the lead for the vast majority of the users, since the majority of the users do not take advantage of 32 core. The tested laptop I had from AMD and Intel (core and ryzen), I have better results with Intel. So saying AMD makes the "best cpu of 2020" is biased, if you only look at the highest end, the cpu with the lowest market share.

 

[Phaaze88]

I was concerned about this the moment I saw the title of this thread... was this really a good idea?
This was BOUND to trigger some people, especially the Intel and AMD shills/fanboys/fangirls, etc, potentially turning this thread into a flamewar.

Make love, not war!

 

[King_V]

I'm getting kind of bored to read biased articles that legitimely seems like advertisement paid by AMD. I could literally read somewhere: "Well, intel perform better in low end games (games no one care because it's so old) but on some specific AAA games we carefully picked because they have been optimized for AMD, Team Red crush the numbers like David beat Golitah."

Also, even if AMD have more cache, they can barely use it since their architecture have latency, where intel's ring does not have. AMD have been a bless, since they have created new standards for CPU, which intel now have to follow. But in real world performance (Everyday use, not Cinebench benchmark, since literally no one use applications that would take advantage of this) intel seems to hold the lead for the vast majority of the users, since the majority of the users do not take advantage of 32 core. The tested laptop I had from AMD and Intel (core and ryzen), I have better results with Intel. So saying AMD makes the "best cpu of 2020" is biased, if you only look at the highest end, the cpu with the lowest market share.

Please see my earlier comment about screen doors and submarines.

 

[jimmysmitty]

I was concerned about this the moment I saw the title of this thread... was this really a good idea?
This was BOUND to trigger some people, especially the Intel and AMD shills/fanboys/fangirls, etc, potentially turning this thread into a flamewar.

Make love, not war!

Yea it needs to not be done. Especially because this doesn't help when buying a CPU. CPU is one part. The platform is a major part as well. Intel has some advantageous features that AMD has yet to match which can pull people to them instead even if AMD offers more cores per $/watt.

 

[pudubat]

Please see my earlier comment about screen doors and submarines.

Hahahaha funny hahahahha rolling on floor laughing thanks me lol so much hahaha thanks hahaha

 

[sxk1277]

https://forums.tomshardware.com/thr...ormance-with-new-epyc-rome-7fx2-cpus.3593142/

 

[Gurg]

Also, the lack of a level playing field makes the favoritism look even worst. With AMD's top processors missing on some of the graphs where Intel's top chips are present simply looks like cherry-picking the gaming winner. I know Intel still for the most part rules this category but they no longer win every time and anyone can go back and look at the CPU reviews and see that.

Legit Review ran the top 50 most played Steam games on top comparable/same component 9900K and 3950x builds. 9900k was faster in 40 of the 46 games with benchmarks by an average of 5.5% more frames. The 9900k build was 7.5% less expensive.

https://www.legitreviews.com/best-cpu-for-gaming-top-50-steam-games-benchmarked_218261/4

The numbers don't lie, but AMD fan boys do!

 

[zx128k]

The issue with the AMD Ryzen 3000 cpu's is the need to overclock the RAM to 3800 with the best B-die so you can have the tightest timings possible. With the EDC bug my 3800x will perform like a 9900ks. Not as fast but so close it does not matter. The same can be done with the 3950x and this makes it the faster CPU money can buy. The issue with the 3950x is its not a gaming cpu really but with the EDC bug it becomes a monster. With the EDC bug you can have multi thread clock of 4.6GHz with the 3800x in games. https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-amd-general/1741052-edc-1-pbo-turbo-boost.html

The 3800x is not slow in games, https://www.3dmark.com/spy/11658604 with RAM overclock. 11550
3800x 4.45GHz all cores, https://www.3dmark.com/spy/9573602 11800
With the edc bug 11700 time spy cpu.

Only with a 2080 ti and a top overclock does the 9900k pull away from the 3800x. You have to spend a lot of money on cooling and RAM just to be faster with the 9900k. Basically many 9900ks builds can be equalled with a good 3800x RAM and core overclock. The 9900ks will be faster in things like time spy cpu extreme but it wont matter much in games were the gpu is max'ed out like with a 2080 super.


You can see from this bar chart that my 3800x matches the 9900ks closely. The 9900ks is 11452 and with just a well cofigured on the 3800x I am 11500. If I overclock to all cores 4.4GHz then I am 11700 and the overclocked 9900ks is 11880. To overclockers the performance is a lot closer than ppl think. If you get a really good 9900ks, very expensive RAM and overclock everything like a boss. Then the 9900ks will destory a 3800x and be number one. It will only set you back £1,804.39 or so for a 9900ks cpu. Also not all 9900k cpu's will hit 5GHz and then most will need an avx offset. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Intel-i9-9900KS-Processor-All-Core-Unlocked/dp/B07YP3J7ZM The main issue with the 3800x is the time and research to overclock the RAM to the maximum possible to get your cpu into the 11k+ performance level.

Intel Core i9-10900X Review | bit-tech.net

Intel's latest 10-core has received a hefty price cut, but is it worth the cash?

bit-tech.net

The 9900k is more expensive, you have to buy faster RAM and better cooling. More expensive PSU and motherboard because of the power draw when overclocking. A big experence case for the 360 rad. The second you cheap out on the RAM then the 3800x is faster when overclocked. You can overclock the 3800x on the B450 Tomahawk Max which is approx $100.

A 3800x you can get a cheap AIO and good 3600MT/s b-die RAM (which can have very tight timings https://www.amazon.com/Viper-Steel-...ld=1&keywords=4400+ddr4&qid=1587836926&sr=8-1 $129 for 3800 CL14).

Sure it will take forever tuning the RAM but its far cheaper than buying an Intel 9900k. Delidding it and direct cooling the die with water cooling. As you can see if you just buy the 9900k overclock it a bit and just buy cheap 32GB of 3466 RAM you get 11316 which means a 3800x can match you in games.

At stock, with stock RAM. Both the 9900k and 3800x are close performance wise. Once you start overclocking and getting faster RAM kits it becomes a different story. The 9900ks will win in the overclocking performance but not all 9900k cpu's can beat the 3800x. Also not all 3800x will beat the 9900k. It's a bit of a lottery and with the 9900k cost comes into it as well.

 

[Gurg]

Once you start overclocking and getting faster RAM kits it becomes a different story. ... but not all 9900k cpu's can beat the 3800x. ...Also not all 3800x will beat the 9900k. ...It's a bit of a lottery and with the 9900k cost comes into it as well.

TS 9900k/2080ti #750 fastest run
Overall 16126 Graphics 16825 CPU 13126

TS 3800x/2080ti #1 fastest
Overall 15829 Graphics 17008 CPU 11366

Real close?

 

[zx128k]

TS 9900k/2080ti #750 fastest run
Overall 16126 Graphics 16825 CPU 13126

TS 3800x/2080ti #1 fastest
Overall 15829 Graphics 17008 CPU 11366

Real close?

Extreme overclocking 3D Mark Time Spy CPU
3700x TS cpu #1 https://www.3dmark.com/spy/8418587 13 988 4,291 MHz AIO/Custom Water cooling RAM 3,192 MHz
9900k TS cpu #100 https://www.3dmark.com/spy/5013921 13 996 5,503 MHz Chiller/LN2 RAM 4,000 MHz

 

[cat1092]

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.

Exactly, Intel has been talking 10 nm since the Skylake series was released & that was before Windows 10. AMD brought in new leadership and Ryzen owners now has 7 nm chips.

Intel needs a similar shakeup to move over the hump. It's sad when one can take Intel's first real 4.0 GHz chip, the i7-4790K & with tuning, can push it past i7-6700 easily & very close to 7700K (Kaby Lake) specs, released several years & two gens later, along with heat spikes out of the box. With my 4790K, don't have overheating, all is fine. No, it's not like the best of the 9th/10th gen Intel, yet for being halfway there (4th gen), am still in the mid 90% of ratings, according to Passmark benchmark suite. Not bad for an early 2014 CPU & EVGA GTX 1070 FTW.

And was still in the 99th percentile 2-3 years back in time (around Kaby Lake release)!

If I'm going to upgrade, will go with the team who's staying ahead of the game at an affordable price. Even if I 'lose' 5% on synthetic benchmarks, can have an otherwise equal CPU for a third of the price.

Not being a gamer, processing video, anything which requires all of the juice a CPU can deliver, can get a top level Ryzen & no matter how many Google tabs are open plus an hourly Malware scan, no freezing. Same as with this 4790K, only I'll not have to delid & try to do what Intel could had for $10 extra per CPU, at least all of my FX series CPU's has soldered IHS to die. Any enthusiast would pay the extra $10, or even $20, to have a cooler running CPU. With their infrastructure & cheap labor force outside of the US, no excuse to include eventual built in death by using substandard thermal paste that we wouldn't use between cooler & top of IHS. This is sorry of Intel on many levels, plus the security issues. No, I'll never buy Intel again, unless have no other choice, speaking of which, the future of AMD is looking bright.

I too have some FX systems, mostly setting, today serving me as a reminder of two things. Where Intel is today & at least they recently paid me back some cash recently for a FX-8370 & two 8350's (making one free!). When's Intel going to pay us for their cover-ups that preceded the 'i' series chips?& has caused us much pain in infections? I suspect never, sadly, have purchased 4x as many of their chips (retail boxed ones) & not the first email in regards to a partial refund.😠

Cat

 

[CerianK]

I have a simple question fellas. I'm a gamer with a 2080 Super that loves to play Call of Duty. My PC also serves as a Home Theater PC. What CPU would you buy today based on what we know today???

Currently I have 6700K...which was one of he top dogs in its day...and still is very capable since it's overclocked to 4.8mhz.

With your current CPU overclocked to 4.8GHz and your current GPU being top-of-the-line, there is no pressing need to upgrade your CPU right now for CoD / HTPC use cases. However, looking forward, your next CPU should probably have at least 8 cores, and current offerings from Intel/AMD can only increase cores without significantly improving upon your current 6700K single-thread speed. I would wait 6 months and see what new offerings AMD/Intel have... by then you may have more uses for your PC, or decide that even your current 2080 Super is old news (since it doesn't reach 4K@120Hz with real-time-ray-tracing enabled in CoD).

 

[Ronald_31]

Terrible comparison IMHO. Not enough benchmarking of the 3990X, which I trust would've trounced every Intel chip mentioned--and isn't performance what counts most? I've had the opportunity to compare a 64-core/128-thread 3990X vs. 28-core/56-thread W-3275M. The AMD is typically 3X or more faster on compute-intensive loads, whether running multithreaded or multiple single threads. With PBO, the 3990X is another ~15-20% faster still. (CPU power consumption however soars to around 500W !)

Overclock-ability is a complete distraction. Somehow through its marketing Intel has managed to make this important to people, rather than out-right delivering a superior product. I neither have time for that nor need to with the 3990X. Oh, and I don't play games. No time for that either.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Terrible comparison IMHO. Not enough benchmarking of the 3990X, which I trust would've trounced every Intel chip mentioned--and isn't performance what counts most? I've had the opportunity to compare a 64-core/128-thread 3990X vs. 28-core/56-thread W-3275M. The AMD is typically 3X or more faster on compute-intensive loads, whether running multithreaded or multiple single threads. With PBO, the 3990X is another ~15-20% faster still. (CPU power consumption however soars to around 500W !)

Overclock-ability is a complete distraction. Somehow through its marketing Intel has managed to make this important to people, rather than out-right delivering a superior product. I neither have time for that nor need to with the 3990X. Oh, and I don't play games. No time for that either.

You realize this is an enthusiast site, correct? Enthusiasts overclock. A lot. Enthusiasts also play games. A lot.

Overclocking is very important to enthusiasts of which this is a site that caters to them. Intel pushed it because thats what people wanted not because they made it important.

I feel you would be better off over at Phoronix which tends to focus more on enterprise than TH does.

 

[Ronald_31]

You realize this is an enthusiast site, correct? Enthusiasts overclock. A lot. Enthusiasts also play games. A lot.

Overclocking is very important to enthusiasts of which this is a site that caters to them. Intel pushed it because thats what people wanted not because they made it important.

I feel you would be better off over at Phoronix which tends to focus more on enterprise than TH does.

I consider myself an enthusiast, but I'm a developer that doesn't have time to experiment with hardware and worry if it's going to fail. For instance, I've used PBO and been impressed but disabled it to help ensure there aren't problems in the future.
If simply comparing silicon from the two biggest players, which the present article says it does, then to be fair, the 3970X and 3990X should have been included along with benchmarks that don't rely on graphics.
IMHO Intel has clearly made overclocking more of a thing, because they have to.
btw: my only regret with the 3990X is that I didn't trust AMD enough to go all the way to Epyc for increased memory support. tomshardware.com has covered Epyc quite a bit. How many gamers use Epyc processors?