[SOLVED] Any reason to still get Intel instead of Ryzen?

chasep255

Honorable
Dec 13, 2014
30
0
10,540
I am looking to build a new system. Right now the only real advantage I can see for Intel is the availability. Ryzen seems like the obvious choice for windows gamers, but are there any other features intel offers that amd does not? Is there any reason I should stay with Intel over Ryzen? I do some gaming on windows, but I am a software engineer and mostly use Linux (dual boot.)
 
Solution
I am looking to build a new system. Right now the only real advantage I can see for Intel is the availability. Ryzen seems like the obvious choice for windows gamers, but are there any other features intel offers that amd does not? Is there any reason I should stay with Intel over Ryzen? I do some gaming on windows, but I am a software engineer and mostly use Linux (dual boot.)
Really depends on the specific programs used. Some are more single core based so it's about a wash unless their more optimized for Intel.

As from above sometimes you buy what you can the 10700K and 10900K are both killer processors and can be bought now.

If your using programs that can actually use a lot of cores then a high end 5XXX processor...

Zerk2012

Titan
Ambassador
I am looking to build a new system. Right now the only real advantage I can see for Intel is the availability. Ryzen seems like the obvious choice for windows gamers, but are there any other features intel offers that amd does not? Is there any reason I should stay with Intel over Ryzen? I do some gaming on windows, but I am a software engineer and mostly use Linux (dual boot.)
Really depends on the specific programs used. Some are more single core based so it's about a wash unless their more optimized for Intel.

As from above sometimes you buy what you can the 10700K and 10900K are both killer processors and can be bought now.

If your using programs that can actually use a lot of cores then a high end 5XXX processor might be better.

10900K 10 cores 20 threads is more than enough for most people and you can buy one today.

I still buy Intel personal thing I guess their hard to beat with their overclocking ability. Pretty much all benchmarks you will see both processors at stock speed and most of the AMD processors have little to no overclocking room left in them.
 
Solution
D

Deleted member 2838871

Guest
As from above sometimes you buy what you can the 10700K and 10900K are both killer processors and can be bought now.

10900K 10 cores 20 threads is more than enough for most people and you can buy one today.

I still buy Intel personal thing I guess their hard to beat with their overclocking ability. Pretty much all benchmarks you will see both processors at stock speed and most of the AMD processors have little to no overclocking room left in them.

My thoughts exactly. I upgraded from a 4 core 8 thread 7700k to the 10900k. Not only for gaming but for things like photo/video processing/encoding as well.

I'm more than happy with the top tier performance and overclockability... benchmarks across the board are super good and this machine will do whatever I want for the next oh... 5 years? I got nearly 4 out of the previous 7700k/1080 Ti system.

So I didn't pay the scalper premium on the upper tier AMD chips... I'll still sleep well at night saving all that money despite possibly missing out on minimal performance gains in some areas that I'd probably never notice anyway.

Availability and value is why I bought Intel. There is no value in high end AMD right now... unless you're a scalper?
 

Rufusw

Distinguished
Dec 15, 2007
18
9
18,515
I'd say Intel are a great choice for gaming just now, because they've slashed their prices to compete!
The new Ryzen 5600 is basically price and performance comparable with the 3700 and at i7 10th gen pricing. (Non k, but AMD processors don't really overclock so that's a fair comparison in my eyes)

The 10400F is hugely underestimated and probably the best 'Value' gaming processor on the market at the moment.

The new Ryzen chips are good but they cost more in pretty much direct proportion to their respective performance gains.

I'm planning a build as soon as the GPU shortages end and prices normalise, if CPU's still look the same I'm going intel mid range, also leaves me breathing room to upgrade to Rocket Lake later on.
 

erifino10

Commendable
Jul 16, 2018
86
9
1,545
intel right now is the best option to go if you are planning to build a $500-$800 since ryzen prices are inflating uncontrollably, since in my country the 10400f is cheaper than the 3500x while being a bit faster
 

Math Geek

Titan
Ambassador
when the FX series was a ton cheaper and almost as good as the intel chips, i often suggested them not from a "best you can get" angle but from a "bang for the buck" type angle.

the script has flipped now and for sure amd offers the "best you can get". but if you can't actually get one, then that's pretty useless. if you can actually buy the intel cpu now and it does what you need at a good price, then why not go for it. i am not a fan of the extreme power used by the newest intel chips and the extra mobo and cooling costs to take advantage of the oc abilities, but if you're willing to deal with it and can handle the cost, then go for it.

however, i would personally go with a 3600/3700x ryzen over any intel chip right now. still best bang for the buck and you can still upgrade to the 5000 series down the line when they are more available.

i have not priced it out recently, but do look though for total cost after factoring in the "z" mobo, and high end cooling needed and see if it is worth it to you. i am willing to bet the ryzen 3600/3700x is still a better deal over the intel chip and you can get those pretty easily.
 

kanewolf

Titan
Moderator
I am looking to build a new system. Right now the only real advantage I can see for Intel is the availability. Ryzen seems like the obvious choice for windows gamers, but are there any other features intel offers that amd does not? Is there any reason I should stay with Intel over Ryzen? I do some gaming on windows, but I am a software engineer and mostly use Linux (dual boot.)
As a software engineer, the biggest advantage is the Intel compiler and the Intel Math Kernel Library.
 

xravenxdota

Reputable
Aug 26, 2017
435
66
4,990
Barring some of the aforementioned 5000-series availability issues, and some very good sale prices on 9900K ($250?) or 10900K $329?), it becomes hard to intentionally choose a slower CPU... (although AMD fans did it for years, so...) :)
Depends on country.The 5900x are 1k cheaper than the 10900k and in benchmark its proven that the 5900x is faster But...doesn't really matter as you don't buy any of those cpu's for 1080p gaming.Just if you play competitively
For me it's a hard pill to swallow at the moment.If i absolutely had to get an intel.I would most prob go for the 8700k or the 10400F.Bad part is amd's infront for now and they can charge whatever they want and people will buy it.The 5600x are more than double the price of my 2600 and even the 3600 is a lot cheaper.We have the 5xxx series in stock because no1 will buy it for that price.
 

Math Geek

Titan
Ambassador
amd themselves did not raise the price very much at all. what you are seeing is price gouging from the scalpers and whatever legit seller can get their hands on some stock. other factors also raise prices such as this pandemic the wolrd is currently suffering from. it has effected supply lines, manufactuering and every place in between. pcies have gone up for every step of the process which means, that gets passed on to the consumer. amd only raising the price by $50 is actually pretty good all things considered.

supply and demand is the name of the game. low supply + high demand = high prices
 

Rufusw

Distinguished
Dec 15, 2007
18
9
18,515
Just my opinion, from what I've seen the 10400F is better value than the 3600 for gaming, especially considering that most people buying in that price range are probably gaming at 1080p.

It's generally a little ahead of the 3600 and in the he UK it's £50 cheaper.

On ebuyer the 10400F is £143 where the 3600 is £189.

The 10400F is amazing value at the moment! Even the 10600F is only slightly more expensive than the 3600 at £210.

The reality is that for mid-range systems you're probably going to be GPU bound anyways, so I'm coming round to the idea of a cheap CPU and a better GPU (3070 or maybe 3080 instead of 3060ti)

Just my thoughts though, still haven't really made my mind up
 

Math Geek

Titan
Ambassador
in general the cpu limits the fps and the gpu limits resolution and eye candy. the usual theory is to spend about 3x as much on the gpu as you do on the cpu. that tells you how strong cpu's really are.

that's why something like a 3600 or that rough performance range is such a great choice for most users. around the $200 range for the cpu and then about $600 on a gpu, though most likely cheaper for the average spender, hits around that $1000 system range many seem to be able to budget.
 

kanewolf

Titan
Moderator
Just my opinion, from what I've seen the 10400F is better value than the 3600 for gaming, especially considering that most people buying in that price range are probably gaming at 1080p.

It's generally a little ahead of the 3600 and in the he UK it's £50 cheaper.

On ebuyer the 10400F is £143 where the 3600 is £189.

The 10400F is amazing value at the moment! Even the 10600F is only slightly more expensive than the 3600 at £210.

The reality is that for mid-range systems you're probably going to be GPU bound anyways, so I'm coming round to the idea of a cheap CPU and a better GPU (3070 or maybe 3080 instead of 3060ti)

Just my thoughts though, still haven't really made my mind up
Except that the OP is primarily a software developer in Linux. "GPU bound" is not a thing for that use case.

The "Linux software dev" use case is very different. IF you get too new a motherboard, then you may have to use a different version of Linux than desired, because your "stable" version doesn't support your latest hardware. Usually you want lots of RAM for VMs. Possibly ECC RAM for stability. Lots of monitor ports for screen real estate. Large, fast primary storage. Secondary and tertiary storage for configuration management.

The OP did say "some gaming on windows" so the question really is where to compromise or spend extra ?
Only the original author can answer that.