[SOLVED] Are AMD Ryzen CPUs better than intel?

[Jacob 51]

I've never used an AMD processor, I didn't feel the need for it. Can someone explain how they are classified into generations? Do they have ivy and sandy bridges too? What is the alternative AMD processor to a Core i5 3570?
And lastly, are they more cost effective?

 

[USAFRet]

Yes.
No.
Sometimes.

There is no universal 'One is better than the other'.
Different uses, different models, different price points...

What is the alternative AMD processor to a Core i5 3570?

Seeing as the i5-3570 is many years old, no.
There are current AMD Ryzen CPUs that are much better. As there are current Intel CPUs that are much better.

 

[Eximo]

Simplified:

Desktop CPUs:
Ryzen 1000 series Zen 1
Ryzen 2000 series Zen 2
Ryzen 3000 series Zen 2+
Ryzen 5000 series Zen 3

Exceptions:
Ryzen 2000 APUs contain Zen1 cores equivalent to the 1000 series
Ryzen 3000 APUs contain Zen2 cores equivalent to the 2000 series
Ryzen 5000 APUs will be Zen 3

Zen ~= Ivy Bridge/Haswell 3rd/4th
Zen2/Zen2+ ~= Skylake/Kabylake 6th/7th
Zen 3 > Coffeelake 8th/9th
Zen 3 >= Cometlake 10th (Games is a toss up, AMD almost always wins in productivity)
Zen 3 ~= Rocketlake 11th (For games, and most productivity tasks)

AMD has a significant advantage in core count. Zen 2 and Zen 3 having 16 core CPUs available. Intel 10th gen peaks at 10 cores. 8th, 9th, and 11th gen peak at 8 cores.

As of right now, only high end AMD Zen3 CPUs are available, so they are quite expensive on average. Midrange 10th and 11th generation Intel chips can be a bargain by comparison.
AMD Motherboards and CPUs are more relaxed on restrictions, overclocking available on all B and X class boards and across the entire CPU stack. Intel limits true overclocking to their K CPUs and Z class boards. Memory overclocking is limited on some CPUs and platforms.

As above, it depends on what you are trying to do.

 

[DSzymborski]

Yeah, as others state, this is impossible to answer in general terms.

Like Intel chips, AMD chips have different generations, though they don't share names with them.

One of the reasons AMD was in trouble pre-Ryzen was that they didn't truly have something comparable to an i5-3570 (or 2500K or 4670K) for gaming.

 

[geofelt]

Is your question just of academic interest, or are you interested is some sort of an upgrade?
To answer your question, I might guess that the amd r3-2200g might be the closest equivalent to a I5-3570.

If you want a stronger processor, you could upgrade using your current motherboard, but more likely a upgrade to current gen would be more satisfying.
That will include not only the processor, but a new motherboard as well as ddr4 ram.

 

[Amddefector]

Which one is best I honestly can't answer, a few years ago I would have said intel all the way! But now I can't say that. Neither can I say amd all the way. I recently defected to amd from intel. I'm happy with the amd processor but I can't compare it to a intel equivalent because I don't own a intel equivalent. You will find most people that argue intel over amd or vice versa are in the same position. You either have a intel rig or a amd rig, not both.

 

[palladin9479]

Currently AMD Ryzen CPU's are generally "better" then Intel CPU's, this is due to the process node advantage TSMC has over Intel. AMD Ryzen Desktop 3K/5K CPU's are using TSMC's 7nm node while Intel's latest CPU is on 10nm with most being 14nm. That kind of node advantage is extremely hard for Intel to beat though Intel is supposed to have 7nm out in 2022 and TSMC is already at 5nm with the Apple M1 and supposedly Ryzen 7K's in two years.

 

[punkncat]

The single biggest current 'issue' with AMD/Ryzen ownership is tied to the GPU stock and price issues. Ryzen is a great CPU but most of them require dedicated graphics. The G skew Ryzen chips are currently well overpriced or unavailable.

Intel made some sort of deal with the Devil and have honestly pulled impressive IPC out of the 11th gen chip. The tradeoff is they are power hungry and hot. "All" but the F skew chips have onboard graphics. Where they are not as powerful as the Ryzen G series graphics, they are far more available and in a script flip, are also less expensive.

The high end of the stack shuffle is in AMD's court right now, but by no means is Intel out of the game.

 

[geofelt]

One should not assess "goodness" to computer processors based on specs such as manufacturing node or cache sizes.
It turns out that what Intel calls 10nm is functionally similar to 7nm due to packaging.
Base decisions on performance as it applies to your workload.
Today, the ryzen 5000 chips have equivalent performance per clock as intel 11th gen i5 and higher.
Pick the number of threads your workload requires.
One negative to amd for me is the close tie to ram performance and compatibility.
I constantly read about such issues where there are very litle for intel in tht department.

 

[zero_l0gic]

short answer: AMD for workloads (blender, modeling, calcualtions, work stuff) and Intel for gaming
long answer : read other comments.

 

[Jacob 51]

short answer: AMD for workloads (blender, modeling, calcualtions, work stuff) and Intel for gaming
long answer : read other comments.

But most of the gaming PCs I see use AMD processors

 

[USAFRet]

But most of the gaming PCs I see use AMD processors

In any of the above use cases, there are only tiny differences between Intel and AMD.
It's not like - "OMG Gaming with this AMD thing is totally unusable!!"
Or
"You can't do ANY CAD operations with an Intel CPU!"

 

[drea.drechsler]

In any of the above use cases, there are only tiny differences between Intel and AMD.
It's not like - "OMG Gaming with this AMD thing is totally unusable!!"
Or
"You can't do ANY CAD operations with an Intel CPU!"

I also think the performance contribution of the CPU for gaming is vastly overstated in most conversations. Speaking generally, it's the GPU that limits gaming performance with CPU's being any sort of significant limiter only in very specific types of gaming scenarios that most people don't even engage in nor would they like if they did try to. That's extremely high FPS gaming that entails reduced details and often at lower resolutions in order to gain competitive advantage in e-sports type games. That leads to people expending excessive effort and resources on something that doesn't matter when they like to play triple-A type games that depend on the GPU to render the lush details and immense open worlds that dazzle.

And one other point always left out is to consider the entire platform in the analysis, especially when looking at cost-performance ratios. That means motherboards and memory. Even with the higher cost points of Ryzen 5000 CPU's the low cost of B550 boards that allow full-band overclocking of memory can make for unbeatable cost-performance ratios.

 

[Redneck5439]

Right now with desktop processors AMD has the distinct advantage. On the high end (HEDT) Intel has basically thrown in the towel and AMD has yet to release Zen 3 powered Threadripper processors mainly due to the fact that there is no competition to their existing Zen 2 based Threadripper processors. In the desktop realm Intel's highest performing options are a toss up between the year old i9 10900K and their freshly released i9 11900K (along with their SKUs variants). The 10900K from last year outperforms the 11900K (in multi core applications) because the top tier 11900K only has 8 cores and the older 10900K has 10. This was necessary because Rocket Lake is actually a backported 10nm process which was a win / loose situation for Intel. The 11900K achieved a 19% IPC boost over the 10900K, however with 2 fewer cores the 10900K still has better multi core performance. The 11900K has equal single core performance to the top tier Zen 3 processors (the 5900X and 5950X) in productivity. The 11900K also has roughly the same gaming performance, although the reviews point out that the Zen3 CPUs still retain a slight advantage in gaming across a full gaming suite and thus Intel fell short of regaining the gaming crown. Realistically one would never be able to tell the difference gaming on a top tier Rocket Lake CPU or a top tier Zen 3 CPU, they are so close in gaming performance that they are equal.

Where AMD pulls far ahead of Intel is in productivity tasks requiring more than one core (ie multi core performance). The latest top tier Rocket Lake processor (the above mentioned 11900K) only has 8 cores while the top tier Zen 3 processors have 12 and 16 cores. The 11900K and AMD's 5900X occupy the same price bracket (~$550) and have equal single core performance, however the 5900X with 12 cores just dominates the 11900K in multi core performance. If you do anything where you can leverage more cores AMD's flagship processors far outperform Intel's latest flagship processors. Intel's 10900K (from a year ago) does better in multi core workloads with 10 cores, but still falls far short of the AMD's top tier processors.

For anyone looking to upgrade it would be much better to wait six months for Intel to release Alder Lake (which will offer up to 16 cores), or if a system is needed right now and can't wait then at the top end Zen 3 would be the way to go. Mid range offerings are a toss up with 11600K processors being very close in performance to 5600X processors so whichever one you can get at the cheapest price would be the way to go. On the entry level Intel actually has the best offerings with their 11400K. If you can wait for Alder Lake it will be Intel's first true 10nm desktop processor release, offers a whole new big.Little core design and promises to see big performance increases (especially in multi core workloads) for Intel. While its still unknown exactly how much of a performance increase Alder Lake will be it should be at the very least equal to Rocket Lake / Zen 3 in single core tasks (although will probably outperform both in single core) and should have parity with 12 / 16 core Zen 3 processors in multi core tasks (although the 5950X will still more than likely have better overall multi core performance). If Alder Lake delivers on the performance they have been promising it will put Intel back on top (at least in gaming) and will put the ball in AMD's court to answer with a Zen 3 refresh or possibly bringing Zen 4 to market a little earlier. Both companies are getting back to the top of their game... no more do we have AMD handicapped by a bad arch (Bulldozer) or Intel wallowing on 4 cores or 14nm.

 

[Eximo]

Alder lake at 16 cores yes, but only 8 full size cores and 8 power efficient cores. That asymmetry is probably not that compatible with current benchmarking tools, let alone games and applications. It might be a while before optimization for offloading simple jobs to the efficient cores becomes a thing. I doubt Intel can make all those decisions in hardware on the fly without some latency penalties. Certainly shouldn't compete with the 16 full cores available in Ryzen today.

AMD has expressed similar plans, so that will be an interesting fight on the mobile front at least. Us desktop users might all move to Zen 4 Threadripper or Xeons from Intel to get back to workstation level CPUs.

 

[revodo]

As others have said, it's too complex of an issue to give a black and white answer.

They're usually comparable on most levels, and anytime one outperforms the other, the tables get turned, and so on and so forth.

My rig uses Intel, but I have a soft spot for AMD. They're more of true pioneers, where as Intel sticks to what works and is well known. It's kind of like the Tesla vs Edison story.

Also, you have to remember that unlike Intel, AMD dedicates it's resources to both CPUs and dedicated GPUs. Where as with Intel, they work on CPUs and a small inclusions of integrated graphics.

 

[sonofjesse]

No black and white.

Best valve right now is going to intel 10850k for 300 @ MC 10/20 thread cpu chip, decent passmark scores. Great for gaming.

Oh and it has video built in (could be a huge factor right now)

 

[geofelt]

No black and white.

Best valve right now is going to intel 10850k for 300 @ MC 10/20 thread cpu chip, decent passmark scores. Great for gaming.

Oh and it has video built in (could be a huge factor right now)

I just checked mc. 10850K is $320.
11700K is $350 and around 10% better passmark numbers.
There is value with 11th gen on ram and pcie speed capability with 500 chipset motherboards.

 

[Eximo]

If it wouldn't cost me like $50 in gasoline just to get to Microcenter...

Sucks I've only really been after a thing or two lately.

 

[Redneck5439]

Alder lake at 16 cores yes, but only 8 full size cores and 8 power efficient cores. That asymmetry is probably not that compatible with current benchmarking tools, let alone games and applications. It might be a while before optimization for offloading simple jobs to the efficient cores becomes a thing. I doubt Intel can make all those decisions in hardware on the fly without some latency penalties. Certainly shouldn't compete with the 16 full cores available in Ryzen today.

AMD has expressed similar plans, so that will be an interesting fight on the mobile front at least. Us desktop users might all move to Zen 4 Threadripper or Xeons from Intel to get back to workstation level CPUs.

I totally agree with pretty much everything you said. That is exactly why I've been telling people to be "excited" about Alder Lake and what it represents, but not to expect too much out of Alder Lake. With very few exemptions most first generation processors have major teething issues that usually aren't worked out until second or even into their third generation. I really expect Alder Lake to compete against the 5900X (at least the 16 core variant). The 16 core Alder Lake processor will only feature 24 threads which will be interesting vs the 5900X. The Alder Lake processor will use 8 high performance cores and 8 efficiency cores (=16) and 24 threads while the 5900X features 12 full cores (performance cores) and 24 threads. It should make for an interesting match up. However AMD will doubtless retain the overall lead with the 5950X having 16 full cores and 32 threads.

Alder Lake may also boast better IPC (theoretically) than Zen 3, however being in its first gen it will probably suffer from optimization issues, scheduling issues, as well as latency. That is why I think that Alder Lake's single core performance will be more or less equal to current Rocket Lake processors / Zen 3. Not being able to effectively leverage its theoretical IPC advantage could also mean that the 12900K falls slightly behind the 5900X in multi core performance.

I have a feeling that is one reason why AMD isn't pushing a Zen 3 refresh and there has been speculation that they will forgo a Zen 3 refresh and concentrate on Zen 4. AMD has had major supply issues (like just about everyone else) with the semiconductor shortage which I'm sure was also a major focus point on the possible cancellation of a Zen 3 refresh, however I think that AMD is also not overly concerned with Intel's upcoming release of Alder Lake. I think AMD is confident enough in current Zen 3 vs Alder Lake.

 

[TerryLaze]

Alder lake at 16 cores yes, but only 8 full size cores and 8 power efficient cores. That asymmetry is probably not that compatible with current benchmarking tools, let alone games and applications. It might be a while before optimization for offloading simple jobs to the efficient cores becomes a thing. I doubt Intel can make all those decisions in hardware on the fly without some latency penalties. Certainly shouldn't compete with the 16 full cores available in Ryzen today.

AMD has expressed similar plans, so that will be an interesting fight on the mobile front at least. Us desktop users might all move to Zen 4 Threadripper or Xeons from Intel to get back to workstation level CPUs.

The only thing they need to do is, if app uses a lot of cores use all cores big and small, if app only uses few cores use only big cores.
It's nothing, this probably already is part of the task manager because intel CPUs have favorite cores for a few generations now that are tasked with the most demanding threads by task manager.

Also if you look at the 16core ryzen, if one core is used it runs at 5ghz while when all cores run they run at 3.7Ghz it's already pretty much the same situation as a big.little CPU and it's way more difficult to figure out at which point the loss of single threaded speed isn't worth the gain in multithreaded speed any more, a fully loaded big.little alder lake CPU would have all the big cores still run at their full speed and the small cores run at their full speed, making things way more simple.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/1621...e-review-5950x-5900x-5800x-and-5700x-tested/8