[SOLVED] AMD vs. Intel on the level of i7

[Wicket Fot]

I was wondering what is the AMD's counterpart to, say, i7-10700K.

In terms of price, what is the best AMD CPU I can get for the same money? How does that AMD CPU compare to i7? Does it run hotter?

In terms of performance, which AMD CPU performs as well as i7? Again, does it run hotter?


Since the i7 has integrated graphics, I'd like the recommended AMDs ti have it as well.

 

[John Chesterfield]

3700x bit less good, 5800x bit better.

 

[Eximo]

If you want integrated graphics, that would be the Ryzen 7 5700G. 8 core CPU and 8 'core' GPU.

10th gen intel isn't too bad in terms of heat if you leave it alone. Overclocking, you can count on about 200W if you let it run wild (without changing the clocks, just power)
11th gen will hit 250W or so.

AMD CPUs are on a better process node at the moment, a bit more efficient. Not 100% sure of the temps on the 5700G, I believe Gamer's Nexus did a recent review on it and the 5600G if you want more details.

That is going to be a pricey chip at the moment.

Next step down for AMD is a 3400G, a 6 core part.

Correction, 3400G is a quad core. The new 5600G is a six core part.

 

[Bob.B]

I was wondering what is the AMD's counterpart to, say, i7-10700K.

In terms of price, what is the best AMD CPU I can get for the same money? How does that AMD CPU compare to i7? Does it run hotter?

In terms of performance, which AMD CPU performs as well as i7? Again, does it run hotter?


Since the i7 has integrated graphics, I'd like the recommended AMDs ti have it as well.

Ryzen with an igp is limited.
https://www.amd.com/en/processors/ryzen-with-graphics
Start comparing those to the 10700k

 

[SamirD]

I was wondering what is the AMD's counterpart to, say, i7-10700K.

In terms of price, what is the best AMD CPU I can get for the same money? How does that AMD CPU compare to i7? Does it run hotter?

In terms of performance, which AMD CPU performs as well as i7? Again, does it run hotter?


Since the i7 has integrated graphics, I'd like the recommended AMDs ti have it as well.

Prices will depend on your local market, so I'll only address performance.

The following summarizes some of the performance characteristics of the various processors mentioned in this thread:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compar...yzen-5-PRO-3400G/3733vs4323vs4325vs3498vs3569

The amd cpus have a 65w tdp vs 125w for the i7, so they will actually run much cooler with the same load.

In terms of performance, it depends on what you get as some of the amd offerings have less cores and threads than the i7. Also, if you look at the single thread performance, the 5xxx series amds will actually feel a bit faster than the i7, while the 3xxx series will feel considerable slower than the i7.

As far as value, it will come down to how much you can get each of these processors for. Keep in mind that the processor is only one part in a system's overall performance as ram and motherboard choices play a big part as well.

 

[Wicket Fot]

Thanks, everybody.

What I've gathered is that I'd probably prefer Ryzen 5 5600G, although the point of it seems to be better gaming with integrated graphics. I don't use my desktop for games. Maybe I would gladly sacrifice some of that integrated graphics stuff for another core.

I'm wondering how often I would need the extra cores, though. Maybe I should be satisfied with 6.

AMD seems to support Ubuntu, which is a plus for me. Also, 5600G seems to support faster RAM, which is something I'm definitely going for.

 

[mamasan2000]

Thanks, everybody.

What I've gathered is that I'd probably prefer Ryzen 5 5600G, although the point of it seems to be better gaming with integrated graphics. I don't use my desktop for games. Maybe I would gladly sacrifice some of that integrated graphics stuff for another core.

I'm wondering how often I would need the extra cores, though. Maybe I should be satisfied with 6.

AMD seems to support Ubuntu, which is a plus for me. Also, 5600G seems to support faster RAM, which is something I'm definitely going for.

Raspberry Pi runs ubuntu too. So does Intel. As long as the Linux kernel has support for the hardware, any Linux distro will run on it.
On the AMD side, any CPU that ends with a 'G' is an APU, has built-in graphics. That said, don't you have a GPU now?
In terms of cores, they do come in handy if you run VMs for example. Crosscompiling etc. Linux host is fine with 1 core (the first one). So it depends on how many VMs you would run and how many cores per VM. If that is a concern even.
The 3700x has 2 more cores but is it beating the 5600x? Have you checked benchmarks/workloads?

 

[Wicket Fot]

Raspberry Pi runs ubuntu too. So does Intel. As long as the Linux kernel has support for the hardware, any Linux distro will run on it.
On the AMD side, any CPU that ends with a 'G' is an APU, has built-in graphics. That said, don't you have a GPU now?
In terms of cores, they do come in handy if you run VMs for example. Crosscompiling etc. Linux host is fine with 1 core (the first one). So it depends on how many VMs you would run and how many cores per VM. If that is a concern even.
The 3700x has 2 more cores but is it beating the 5600x? Have you checked benchmarks/workloads?

I was aware that Intel can run Linux – but how well? Would you be able to claim that, on hardware that declares support for Windows 10, Linux will crash the same number of times over a period of time as Windows 10? If it's the same, all the better.

If you mean a graphics card, don't have one, and I don't plan to get one soon.

Do you think that 5600G is a bad choice?

 

[mamasan2000]

I was aware that Intel can run Linux – but how well? Would you be able to claim that, on hardware that declares support for Windows 10, Linux will crash the same number of times over a period of time as Windows 10? If it's the same, all the better.

If you mean a graphics card, don't have one, and I don't plan to get one soon.

Do you think that 5600G is a bad choice?

"I was aware that Intel can run Linux – but how well? "
Just as well. Intel and AMD releases microcode on a steady pace.

Now where AMD separates in Linux is on the GPU side. There's opensource drivers for AMD. Runs great. Not just the binary blob closed source drivers. Nvidia on the other hand...no opensource drivers. Well, there's Nouveau but...ugh. The closed source drivers get tied to the kernel when installing. That can cause issues every time you update the kernel. And that is like a monthly occurrence.

I can't remember Linux crashing on me for the past 3-5 years. Windows? Windows gets so bad I have to reinstall from scratch once a year or so. My advise would be to not run bleeding edge distro as your primary OS. So no Arch for example. Manjaro is fine. Any of the Ubuntus would work. The closest I get is Linux Mint. Sometimes Debian. Because Raspberry Pi kinda is based on Debian. So I like to crosscompile in a VM on Debian for example the linux kernel. That saves me hours of time doing it on my PC in a Virtual Machine instead of doing it on RPI. But Debian is just too old for my taste to run it as daily. It's stable though.

When it comes to Linux, find out what works for you, what desktop environment you like, what flavor, like Ubuntu/Debian-based, Arch-based, RPM-based etc. Tiling window manager or not. You can make anything work but look at distros as presets. What fits you best?
My faves are Manjaro, Fedora and Linux Mint (last one for my laptop, it's light, it's stable, it just works awesome on a weak machine).

 

[SamirD]

I was aware that Intel can run Linux – but how well? Would you be able to claim that, on hardware that declares support for Windows 10, Linux will crash the same number of times over a period of time as Windows 10? If it's the same, all the better.

I actually use linux live cds to test systems and figure out if there's hardware issues--it's that stable.

Generally I find linux can push hardware to its peak performance better than windows unless there's really good windows driver support and the hardware is really optimal.

 

[Wicket Fot]

I'm still trying to figure out if i7-10700K is a better choice than Ryzen 7 5700G and Ryzen 5 5600G. Now I'm leaning towards i7.

This comparison favors the i7: https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-10700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-5600G/4070vsm1553183

Gamers Nexus found it did better in code compile:

View: https://youtu.be/V8MG66Es2Hw?t=1033

Code compiling is important to me. I don't do video rendering or gaming, but I do write and run scripts (in an interpreted language, though). Sometimes it's important for me that they run faster (for the sake of argument, let's suppose my scripts aren't poorly designed).

This comparison favors the AMDs: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compar...-10700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-5600G/4323vs3733vs4325
– but I notice that the number of samples is much higher for the i7 than for the AMDs. Doesn't that mean that the data is a bit skewed?
Also, I don't know how much the AMDs will cost.

AMDs do support faster RAM (up to 3200 MHz, compared to i7's 2933 MHz), but I'm not sure that makes too much of a difference.

Having done some research on AMDs, I think that AMD handles integrated graphics in a very different way. Suddenly there are tradeoffs and whatnots. And I feel there aren't as many AMD CPUs with integrated graphics to choose from.

 

[Why_Me]

I'm still trying to figure out if i7-10700K is a better choice than Ryzen 7 5700G and Ryzen 5 5600G. Now I'm leaning towards i7.

This comparison favors the i7: https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-10700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-5600G/4070vsm1553183

Gamers Nexus found it did better in code compile:

View: https://youtu.be/V8MG66Es2Hw?t=1033

Code compiling is important to me. I don't do video rendering or gaming, but I do write and run scripts (in an interpreted language, though). Sometimes it's important for me that they run faster (for the sake of argument, let's suppose my scripts aren't poorly designed).

This comparison favors the AMDs: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compar...-10700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-5600G/4323vs3733vs4325
– but I notice that the number of samples is much higher for the i7 than for the AMDs. Doesn't that mean that the data is a bit skewed?
Also, I don't know how much the AMDs will cost.

AMDs do support faster RAM (up to 3200 MHz, compared to i7's 2933 MHz), but I'm not sure that makes too much of a difference.

Having done some research on AMDs, I think that AMD handles integrated graphics in a very different way. Suddenly there are tradeoffs and whatnots. And I feel there aren't as many AMD CPUs with integrated graphics to choose from.

There's your native support of 3200Mhz RAM. Pair it up with an H570/B560 board along with an aftermarket cpu cooler.

https://www.bestbuy.com/site/intel-...ked-desktop-processor/6452219.p?skuId=6452219
Intel Core i7-11700 $339.99

 

[mamasan2000]

Does the situation change if you get a cheap GPU? Like a 50 $ GT710 or similar. It's got outputs.
What AMD CPU would you go for then? 5800X?

Official RAM speed support and what works, 2 different things. In general, you can run faster memory on Intel i7 and up (paired with a Z590-motherboard IIRC). Doesn't benefit that much from it, compared to Ryzen. But that higher end RAM is not worth the asking price. 3 times the cost for maybe 3% performance gain overall. 4400 Mhz with nice timings and better.

With Ryzen, either you stick to 3600 Mhz or you go overboard with 4400+ Mhz. In between, there is usually a performance regression = worse perf. Because of how Infinity fabric works and is tied to RAM clock. The F-clock. And the ratio of it. You want to stick to 1:1.

 

[Wicket Fot]

Does the situation change if you get a cheap GPU? Like a 50 $ GT710 or similar. It's got outputs.
What AMD CPU would you go for then? 5800X?

When I add up the cost of the 5800X and the GPU which I would only buy because I would want the 5800X, I get the price of over 600 dollars. That's way more than I planned to spend on the CPU. I'd be willing to part with 400 bucks, and even that reluctantly.

Based on https://www.cpubenchmark.net, if I did decide to spend 600 dollars on the CPU, I think I'd get the 5800X. It has impressive scores.

So basically it would take an AMD that costs around 400 dollars (together with the graphics card) and consistently outperforms i7 to change my mind, I think.

 

[SamirD]

The Intel simply has more samples like data sampling so there's less skew with more samples versus more.

The 5800X definitely is a fast processor with a single thread performance almost breaking 3500 on passmark, which is probably the first I've ever seen this fast.

But you really do need to ask yourself whether cores and reliability matter as well. Because you're getting into the area where a dual cpu workstation with ecc reg ram would have much more consistent performance for a similar workload, even if it's slower.