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

[drea.drechsler]

Why resurrect this thread...and article under a more recent date no less...just days before the launch of Ryzen 5000 is certain to shake up this landscape considerably?

This is old news...ancient history. Let's get ready to move on to modern times.

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

Why resurrect this thread...and article under a more recent date no less...just days before the launch of Ryzen 5000 is certain to shake up this landscape considerably?

This is old news...ancient history. Let's get ready to move on to modern times.

If you'd bother to read the article, you'd notice that it has been updated to include information about Zen 3 and Ryzen 5000. This is an important SEO piece as well, which means it gets routinely (probably monthly at least, possibly twice a month) updated. As soon as Zen 3 launches, it will be updated again, with the same title.

 

[drea.drechsler]

If you'd bother to read the article, you'd notice that it has been updated to include information about Zen 3 and Ryzen 5000. This is an important SEO piece as well, which means it gets routinely (probably monthly at least, possibly twice a month) updated. As soon as Zen 3 launches, it will be updated again, with the same title.

Why bother to read an old article?

I'd think a good idea to put new stuff right up front so a reader would know it's not just re-hashing old stuff. Also, maybe link to a new discussion thread so we wouldn't have to wade through tons of arguments barely relevant even to the old version. Or at least flip the display order so new posts are the top.

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

Why bother to read an old article?

I'd think a good idea to put new stuff right up front so a reader would know it's not just re-hashing old stuff. Also, maybe link to a new discussion thread so we wouldn't have to wade through tons of arguments barely relevant even to the old version. Or at least flip the display order so new posts are the top.

"Best practice" for SEO is that you keep the URL and routinely update it. I have no idea if that's fully correct, but it's what we're basically told to do. Clearing out old comments or creating a new thread is something I'd like to do as well, but I don't have the power to do that short of creating a new URL for an article and redirecting, which potentially loses some "SEO juice" or something.

Back in the old days (pre-2015, say), the normal approach was to just make new articles, and leave all the old stuff in place. I liked that because it meant I didn't have to go look for old stuff to redirect, and all that information was available for historical reference. But times change, and various publications have apparently figured out that updating existing articles and redirecting ends up being better for Google rankings.

Yet another case of Google essentially dumbing down aspects of the Internet. Just like an SEO article like this will say "AMD vs. Intel" a hundred times to make sure Google really knows how invested we are in discussing AMD vs. Intel CPUs. It's pretty much a throwback to the early days of the Internet with meta keyword overloading, and it sucks for writing because you end up sounding like an imbecile. All hail Google, our search overlords!

 

[drea.drechsler]

"...
I liked that because it meant I didn't have to go look for old stuff to redirect, and all that information was available for historical reference.
....

I like that approach too as it makes research into the history of events very straightforward...'when did we actually learn of that' kinds of questions can be answered more accurately.

It sounds like the 'make Google happy' approach is a good way to destroy any sense of modern history as it always appear 'fresh' when its not. Probably a discussion for historical philosophy.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

"Best practice" for SEO is that you keep the URL and routinely update it. I have no idea if that's fully correct, but it's what we're basically told to do. Clearing out old comments or creating a new thread is something I'd like to do as well, but I don't have the power to do that short of creating a new URL for an article and redirecting, which potentially loses some "SEO juice" or something.

Back in the old days (pre-2015, say), the normal approach was to just make new articles, and leave all the old stuff in place. I liked that because it meant I didn't have to go look for old stuff to redirect, and all that information was available for historical reference. But times change, and various publications have apparently figured out that updating existing articles and redirecting ends up being better for Google rankings.

Yet another case of Google essentially dumbing down aspects of the Internet. Just like an SEO article like this will say "AMD vs. Intel" a hundred times to make sure Google really knows how invested we are in discussing AMD vs. Intel CPUs. It's pretty much a throwback to the early days of the Internet with meta keyword overloading, and it sucks for writing because you end up sounding like an imbecile. All hail Google, our search overlords!

Can you at least keep the old results along with new results in your final assessment check box from older years to see how things progress from back in the day to modern day results?

It would be nice to see how things have changed over the years.

 

[nings]

Congrats Toms Hardware first time I read AMD is better than Intel

It's not AMD who do a good job (truth yes but not only) just Intel who give them years for come back. Intel last huge improvement was from Core 2 Duo to Core i5 at this time you can view a real change between these two generation of CPU. Since i5 Intel have a max 20% improve year after year need 3/4 years for can really feel the power. When AMD come back ~5/6 years after their last desktop cpu with a 14nm and so many cores with the first gen Ryzen it was already too late for Intel. Now try to increase core number and keep good 14nm cpu but they are outdated and consumption is too big when increase number of cores for try to keep some advantage. It's sad instead of keep good competition between them Intel seem go worst and worst since 2017
Now AMD continue to improve by decreasing 14,12,7nm and probably already 5nm for next year and may be a 7nm from Intel end of year if it's not for 2022..

Nvidia react a lot better than Intel to the AMD strike by pushing performance of their RTX 30x0 for not to get caught.
Probably a more hard job for AMD to caught Nvidia but can still be good with price/performance ratio. It's good for end consumer graphic card reach too high price without any reason these latest years.
AMD have done an excellent job by pushing Mantle and Vulkan instead of DX who is limited to Microsoft only.

 

[cryoburner]

It's sad instead of keep good competition between them Intel seem go worst and worst since 2017

While Intel's desktop architecture is still much the same as it's been for the last half-decade, they've definitely been increasing the core and thread counts of their processors at any given price point in response to competition from AMD. For the majority of 2017, 4-core, 8-thread processors were still the norm for i7s in the $300+ range. Now, just three years later, those are relegated to being budget i3s, while the i7s have moved to offering 8-cores with 16-threads. That makes for a doubling of multithreaded performance across the product stack, in addition to some smaller increases in clock rates that at least so far have generally kept Intel slightly ahead in many light to moderately-threaded applications, and the 10-series brought them relatively close at heavily-multithreaded tasks.

That may change soon with AMD's 5000-series potentially offering better performance all-around, combined with even better efficiency, but with the initial lineup focused on targeting premium price points for that extra performance, many of Intel's current processors will likely still remain quite relevant, even without price adjustments. And while more value-oriented 5000-series processors will undoubtedly be coming eventually, it might not be too much later that Intel will follow up with Rocket Lake.

It's pretty much a throwback to the early days of the Internet with meta keyword overloading, and it sucks for writing because you end up sounding like an imbecile.

Do you like BEST GRAPHICS CARDS? Then check out these ELECTION 2020 BEST GRAPHICS CARDS for SOCIAL DISTANCING now, and WHERE TO BUY RTX 2080 BABY YODA!

 

[Awev]

Time to update the article that this thread is based on. The king is dead (Untel), long live the king (ADM). AMD is able to deal a royal smackdown onto Untel, all the while using less power. The nerd has beaten the big kid on the block. And educated guesses suggest that the new Rocket Lake (last estimate was some time first quarter of 2021 [1Q 21]) is that it will still be an average of 8% slower than the 5600, while using even more power.

Where to buy the best CPUs. The best CPUs tested. Zen 5 RyZen 9 5950X. What other keywords do we need to stuff, push, add, promote, SEO (google bot) bait?

 

[King_V]

Does overclocking as a category count anymore when it still leaves Intel behind AMD?

What good is a greater increase in Intel's CPU clock speed if it still underperforms AMD?

 

[spongiemaster]

Does overclocking as a category count anymore when it still leaves Intel behind AMD?

What good is a greater increase in Intel's CPU clock speed if it still underperforms AMD?

Do any of these categories count any more when you can't buy AMD's 5000 CPU's? Intel wins by default because you can actually buy all of their offerings.

 

[Conahl]

even so spongie, i bet those that can wait, or arent intel fans, will wait for what is still clearly the better performing cpu, in stock or not. a few friends are doing just that. waiting till stock is better, as they knew it would be like this, and will be updating to zen 3. the bad part, instead of getting the cpu that were going to get, but the time they can get it, they might have saved a little more, and can go up a tier on the cpu, or get a better board.

 

[spongiemaster]

even so spungie, i bet those that can wait, or arent intel fans, will wait for what is still clearly the better performing cpu, in stock or not. a few friends are doing just that. waiting till stock is better, as they knew it would be like this, and will be updating to zen 3. the bad part, instead of getting the cpu that were going to get, but the time they can get it, they might have saved a little more, and can go up a tier on the cpu, or get a better board.

If you don't have the common courtesy to spell my name right, you don't deserve a relevant response.

 

[Conahl]

oops, sorry

but what ever, the smart people will just wait for Zen 3 to have stock in stores, and get the better performaning cpu vs what intel has currently. let the intel fans support their beloved cpu maker.

 

[spongiemaster]

Some of the dumbest things in history have been done by very smart people. Not everyone has the option of waiting for some unknown length of time. Especially during the holiday seasons. A $319 9900k is a significantly better deal than the 5000 series CPU's even if they were available. The 5800X is definitely going to be faster, but $130 faster (40%), yea, no chance. You're not going to find a 5800X for MSRP any time in the near future either. The 5000 series is the end of the line for the current platform, so you can't use the argument you can upgrade to something better later.

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

Some of the dumbest things in history have been done by very smart people. Not everyone has the option of waiting for some unknown length of time. Especially during the holiday seasons. A $319 9900k is a significantly better deal than the 5000 series CPU's even if they were available. The 5800X is definitely going to be faster, but $130 faster (40%), yea, no chance. You're not going to find a 5800X for MSRP any time in the near future either. The 5000 series is the end of the line for the current platform, so you can't use the argument you can upgrade to something better later.

The interesting thing is that the choice of motherboard, memory, and cooler will definitely have an impact on performance as well. I tested the five latest and greatest GPUs on 10900K, 9900K, and 5900X. In most cases, in my testing, Intel actually came out slightly ahead. A newer BIOS might change things, or different RAM / mobo / BIOS settings could improve performance on the various boards. Realistically, no one is really going to notice the difference between any of those CPUs with any current GPU in most games. 5% might be measurable, but it's not noticeable in gaming fps outside of benchmarks.

 

[JordonB]

We all win. Chips are better then ever and prices are competitive. I used Intel before they started ignoring malware vunerabilities and will use AMD as long as they are more competitive. My loyalty is to my PC, not a company.

 

[hotaru251]

Some of the dumbest things in history have been done by very smart people. Not everyone has the option of waiting for some unknown length of time. Especially during the holiday seasons. A $319 9900k is a significantly better deal than the 5000 series CPU's even if they were available. The 5800X is definitely going to be faster, but $130 faster (40%), yea, no chance. You're not going to find a 5800X for MSRP any time in the near future either. The 5000 series is the end of the line for the current platform, so you can't use the argument you can upgrade to something better later.

depends.
if you use it to make ur $ and the tiem saved DOES add up.

for most ppl its not best deal, but for the few who WOULD use it fully for their job it would easily be worth it.

 

[Gurg]

The interesting thing is that the choice of motherboard, memory, and cooler will definitely have an impact on performance as well. I tested the five latest and greatest GPUs on 10900K, 9900K, and 5900X. In most cases, in my testing, Intel actually came out slightly ahead. A newer BIOS might change things, or different RAM / mobo / BIOS settings could improve performance on the various boards. Realistically, no one is really going to notice the difference between any of those CPUs with any current GPU in most games. 5% might be measurable, but it's not noticeable in gaming fps outside of benchmarks.

If you desire to build a new PC with a new top CPU from either brand you will have a real tough time actually finding a GPU ranked higher than a 5700xt in stock. Better have at least a 1080ti or above in your old rig to move over if you desire reasonable performance.

 

[Conahl]

The 5800X is definitely going to be faster, but $130 faster (40%), yea, no chance. You're not going to find a 5800X for MSRP any time in the near future either

maybe, but NO ONE had many issues paying intel for their chips for the performance they had, did they ?? people crying and whining about what amd is charging for the Ryzen 5000 cpus is getting old, and just plain stupid. give it a rest already. you dont like what amd is charging, then go buy intels cpus.

 

[barryv88]

5800X with negative curve tweaks on all cores have 7 out of the 8 cores boosting just past 5Ghz with the remaining one at 4.975. An absolute beast in gaming plus Farcry6 free. Every penny worth.

 

[M42]

maybe, but NO ONE had many issues paying intel for their chips for the performance they had, did they ?? people crying and whining about what amd is charging for the Ryzen 5000 cpus is getting old, and just plain stupid. give it a rest already. you dont like what amd is charging, then go buy intels cpus.

Currently, Intel may hold the lead on "bang for the buck" since you can't find the AMD 5000 series CPUs in stock anywhere at MSRP, but you can find Intel CPUS readily (e.g. 9700k for $269 at Newegg).

And maybe someone has mentioned this before, but I find it amusing that despite Intel is still using a 14-micron process, AMD has only just caught up on single-threading performance... at least until the 11000-series Intel desktop CPUs come out.

 

[Awev]

I am just wondering, what will the naming be for the next three or four CPU architects from Until? Falling Lake, Shallow Lake, Empty Lake, and Dry Lake(bed)?

As to the best bang for the buck on widely available CPUs, the article answered that as well - the AMD 3000 series of chips. Nice going AMD.

And since you cover the High End DeskTop (HEDT) chips why not the server chips, like the Epyc and Xeon chip families, where Until is getting their behind handed to them as well. Or do we talk about laptops, opps, AMD is winning there as well, yet not to many people can build their own laptops or ultralights, so it comes down to the manufacture.

I am glad to see that AMD is not only back in the fight, they are winning. As other people have noted this should force Until to rethink things and become better. At that point you can just run to a Micro Center and ask what is on sale today - I'll take it, and not have to worry about who manufactured it.

I am glad to see that the article is being updated a little bit at a time. I did skip reading the last update, sorry I did. It mentioned that Until's best chip, overclocked, still could not beat AMD's at stock settings.

 

[Conahl]

M42, thats not the point though. in stock or not, there are some that are whining about amd charging what they do for the ryzen 5000 series. when intel had the performance advantage, they charged quite a bit for them, no one complained then. most of those that i know that are looking at a cpu upgrade, are waiting till they are in stock, not even considering intel now.

im considering a 5900x ( after i upgrade my strix 1060 ) and i just upgraded to a 3800x in feb/march

 

[M42]

As to the best bang for the buck on widely available CPUs, the article answered that as well - the AMD 3000 series of chips. Nice going AMD.

The article is obviously wrong on Intel Core i7 pricing, which it says is $300-370. The i7-9700K is $269 at Newegg and is better than anything in the AMD 3000 series for gaming, especially when overclocked. Even if there are cheaper 3000 series CPUs, by the time you weigh in the cost of the entire computer, a 9700k system will likely win on best bang for the buck. You need to be able to balance all the components in a system to achieve great performance.