How many years will it always take AMD CPU to beat Intel in gaming? (Who is the real Sub-Par Product here?)

Status
Not open for further replies.

valeman2012

Distinguished
Apr 10, 2012
1,258
11
19,315
21
How many years will it always take AMD CPU to beat Intel in gaming?

I saw how long it may take AMD Ryzen to beat Intel i7 8700K ....Will this continue?
 
AMD has become competitive again. They aren't quite as good at gaming as Intel, but in a lot of benchmarks were better at production type of work that requires lots of threads.

That said, Intel is better at gaming at the moment. No question.

However, another thing to look at, is if you want to overclock for example, you don't have to spend extra for a k series cpu, and you don't have to buy a z series board. Those type of things add value for a lot of us.

Not only that, but ryzen 1st generation came out early 2017. The last ryzen should be around 2020 sometime. If all the press is true and motherboard manufacturers give updates, you should be able to take the same board from 2017, and install a new cpu in 2020 and be set another couple of years. Traditionally, it seems AMD has allowed for this except for only a couple of times.

With intel it seems like every time you turn around, they change CPUs, and many times, like every 2 generations or so, you have to swap motherboards as well. Those things get expensive.

For me personally, I know AMD may not be exactly the same performance in gaming, but they are about 90% of where Intel is I'd say. And, for me, I've got other things going on in life besides sitting and gaming every day. The AMD platform for me still provides a great experience, and is more cost effective, but gives 90% of the performance. That's what a lot of us see in AMD, we are shopping for max value for our money. If you can save say 100 dollars between savings on a cpu and motherboard compared to buying Intel, that might be the difference between buying a gtx 1050ti and a 1060 6gb card for example. That's what it boils down to for many of us. Or just being able to have something different:)
 
Intel has a lot, A LOT, of cash reserves. This means they can outspend AMD on research and development. So unless Intel makes a colossal error somewhere down the line, AMD will never overtake them.

What keeps AMD in the game is the fact that you don't always need the fastest CPU, sometimes all you need is a CPU that is 'fast enough'.
 

valeman2012

Distinguished
Apr 10, 2012
1,258
11
19,315
21



Feel like buying Intel Processor setup will be upgrade proof meaning less upgrade needed and less cost
While AMD Processor setup will be more upgrades needed and costly
 

boju

Titan
Ambassador
My 2600k overclocked is still doing a good job and i got this in 2013. It plays all modern games well with a 1080Ti.

Either high end class processors from Amd or Intel should last you just as long, perhaps even longer.
 

Gam3r01

Titan
Moderator
One company could beat the other with any processor launch. Its less likely for AMD to make the jump due to their much smaller market share and RND budget.
So its impossible to even guess when, if, AMD would overtake intel.

IF AMD could keep up its current trend of performance increase, they would beat intel very soon. But everyone knows those gains are going to plateau at this point. AMD made up ground, and are competitive for the first time in a long while. Thats what really matters.
 
However, keep an eye out. AMD ryzen has been a good platform so far.

They have had ryzen 1, then ryzen +. Rumor is next year, they will release their ryzen 2 cpus. Aka the ryzen 3000 series. Ryzen started at 14nm, ryzen + went to 12nm and was a tweak of 1st gen. The release this year is supposed to go to 7nm. I think Intel may still be working on 10nm.

If these things are true, maybe AMD can turn down power consumption more and heat, which may allow them to increase ipc performance and go for higher clock speeds. So with any luck, they may be equal or on par with intel at that point.

Thing is though, Intel is a larger company with a lot more money. I would say AMD needs to find out how to further market. You see so many Intel commercials. But I'd say they appear to be doing much better than in prior years.

I think I also saw that Amazon is going to start using AMD CPUs in some of their data centers. That's what they need is to get into servers and into enterprises for servers/workstations. If they do that, that should be where Intel traditionally dominates, I work in IT and almost every single system we get is Intel. So if AMD gets in the enterprise, then they should start having more money to keep investing back into their products.
 

valeman2012

Distinguished
Apr 10, 2012
1,258
11
19,315
21



Yea there ware lot of delusional AMD Fanboys saying AMD with more cores and threads is better than Intel.... I think the Gamers are looking at Gaming performance and upgrade-free long term..not short....these day

I mean AMD has this new Ryzen CPU coming out which is 16 Cores / 32 Threads AMD Processor (speculation) for High End Mainstream....and still wont able beat Intel i9 9900K (8 Cores/16 Threads) in gaming...

I think i would save more money just for going for Intel Processor until the Intel Processor struggles in the games in that generation as they are upgrade free for a long time.


It really does not matter who is ahead of nm process....You already know AMD 12nm Processors cant beat Intel most of it.
 

Gam3r01

Titan
Moderator
AMD wouldnt point their 32 thread processors at the gaming market, but people will make it that way.
At this point, its just as reasonable to say Ryzen 2 will beat the 9900k, its actually impossible at this point in time to make any claim one way or the other.
 
Here's the thing. Intel does have them on single core performance granted. At least a year or so ago though, a lot of benchmarks showed AMD spanking Intel on multicore performance.

Gaming is great, Intel wins there, but it can be argued, that for the money spent, the ryzen chips are better all rounder chips. In other words, pretty good for working on by day, then still good performance to fire up a game or 2 by night.
 

boju

Titan
Ambassador
Also some older games may not work with so many cores. Farcry 4 for example freaks out and crashes with 16+ cores. Not sure if there are other games having trouble, might just be the engine FC4 is on including Primal.
 

More cores and threads with "close" per-core performance absolutely can be better for gaming, especially when talking about an "upgrade-free long term" investment. I would argue that AMD already was beating Intel with most of their first-generation Ryzen lineup. Which was a better purchase for gaming in 2017, an overclockable quad-core Ryzen, or a locked dual-core i3 in the same price range? How about a 6-core, 12-thread Ryzen compared to a 4-core, 4-thread i5? Even if those i5's performed slightly better in most games at the time of Ryzen's launch, games are becoming more multithreaded, and those 4-threaded processors are already falling behind in a number of titles. Just look at this recent 9900K review, for example, and compare where the first-gen Ryzen processors place alongside their similarly-priced Kaby Lake counterparts...

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i9_9900K/13.html

And those numbers are for stock clocks, while the entire Ryzen lineup can be overclocked for a bit more performance. The only one of those Kaby Lake processors still reliably outperforming its Ryzen counterparts in recent demanding titles is the i7-7700K, since its SMT gives it enough threads to avoid choking on these more multithreaded games, allowing its higher clocks to still give it a slight advantage. While the additional threads of the 4 to 6-core Ryzens are showing their benefits, games still are not really utilizing the extra threads of an 8-core Ryzen, at least not yet. So, the 7700K is still outperforming its R7 counterparts at gaming, and that likely won't change for a while (at least in situations where one isn't streaming or otherwise heavily multitasking while gaming). So sure, at the high-end, Intel may have been the better option. But the vast majority of people don't spend $350 on a CPU for a gaming system, particularly since putting that money toward graphics hardware will generally make a larger performance difference, so I would say that overall, AMD beat Intel in terms of long-term gaming performance with its first-generation Ryzen processors.

Now, Coffee Lake brought more cores to Intel systems as well, along with higher clocks, though there's still a less-severe thread count deficiency. At least for the short term though, that arguably brought Intel back into the lead for gaming performance. Will that still hold true for these processors down the line though, when games will likely benefit from having access to more than six threads? Additionally, the post-launch price adjustments can't be ignored. Most of Intel's processors have risen in price this year, purportedly due to limited production capacity resulting from Intel's repeatedly delayed 10nm launch, while AMD's prices have generally gone down. A 6-core, 12-thread Ryzen 2600 is closer in price to the i3-8100 than an i5-8400, despite it having as many threads as an i7. Sure, it can't clock as high as an i7, but it's around half the price. On anything but the highest-end gaming systems, that extra $150-$200 would be better put toward a higher-end graphics card than a CPU that only offers marginally better performance, even in situations where the graphics card isn't what's limiting frame rates.

It also sounds like AMD's upcoming 7nm CPUs may close the remaining performance gap with Intel's current high-end offerings, likely still with lower prices for a given core count. Will Intel eventually return to the lead with their 10nm chips? Sure, probably. That doesn't change the fact that Ryzen has been offering better value for most gaming systems much of the time since it debuted.


Feel like someone is getting paid by Intel to make these posts. I have difficulty believing that you are honestly seeking thoughtful discussion on this. And how exactly is AMD more costly? The CPUs cost significantly less for a given thread count while offering close to the same level of per-core performance. They don't lock overclocking behind a price premium for more expensive versions of CPUs and motherboard chipsets. They come with better stock coolers. And the first-generation of AM4 motherboards will apparently be supported for several years from launch, instead of needlessly requiring a new board every-other generation, in case one does decide to upgrade their processor down the line. Intel's current processors can be fine for certain builds, but I certainly wouldn't say that they offer notably better long-term value.
 
Top CPUs from either camp are more than good enough for gaming and can match any GPU and than some. Gaining/loosing few % of gaming performance is rarely of any consequence. Things like that can only be seen in benchmarks.
 


Moore's Law is no longer relevant so game designers can't count on steadily improving single core performance (IPC) to improve their game performance. If the way to beat Intel at gaming is in single core performance, or IPC, I wonder if AMD will ever beat Intel. Or it it really matters to AMD that they do, from a pure business perspective.

Gaming performance is already superb on either platform, it really doesn't matter that it improve any more. Only a small market of extreme enthusiasts really care about the small FPS improvements they can get from Intel's better IPC. As for the remaining home-builder base: Intel will outsell AMD 5 to 1 no matter what happens on shear inertia (and marketspace hegemony) and they know that. So, considering how small and shrinking that market is, why invest heavily in chasing superior IPC?

All AMD truly cares about is getting enough traction in the home-builder space to gain positive market attention and translate that to more sales of server and HEDT workstation chips where they are already beating Intel, hands-down, in performance. This is the kind of performance that matters to a company since turning around projects to their customers in record fast time is very important to their bottom lines.

In that market, companies and consultants toss out computers and servers in large numbers - at regular intervals at worst case, or just because there are superior performing products entering the market. They need that performance to keep their customers happy. This is where the real money is, and Intel is losing market share here. Steadily.

 
As far as talking about gaming too, another thing to keep in mind, I believe current xbox one and ps4 are both running amd 8 core cpus of some kind. If game designers are programming for these cpus, it stands to reason that PC gaming will become more multithreaded as console games are ported over.
 


I've read that games will always depend on one or maybe two threads for most computation (due to temporal dependencies or something LOL). The core(s) those threads execute on will always be the limiter and the other threads will wind up waiting on them. Of course, it helps those main threads to push processes off to other threads/cores wherever possible but in the end it's always the main thread/core that limits performance.
 

valeman2012

Distinguished
Apr 10, 2012
1,258
11
19,315
21

No one getting paid to say that, but kinda stating the obvious.
Intel is long term proof ...(Less worries about performance degradation from future games as Intel has promised best performance and less intentions to upgrade --- saving more money)

AMD Processor is just a short term proof....with more intention to upgrade as their performance degradation shows faster. AMD FX all over again..
It like a Battery.
Would you go for a Long Lifespan Term battery that cost $25 or a Short Lifespan Term Battery that cost $20. You go for Longer one because it will last longer as promised and you save money instead buying buying the short term battery.

AMD Fanboys act so surprise when they saw "wow more cores and threads than intel at this price is better gaming performance" that`s not the case. Intel can have less core and thread count (to 6C/12T or 8C/16T) still over beats AMD in gaming.









I think Intel is purposely stepping 1 block back to allow AMD to catch up...Sorta not helping them but allowing them to rise a bit to prevent near bankruptcy

You can tell even if they are ahead of nm process ...like 12nm vs 14nm i7 8700K....still cant beat them in gaming.
Nothing but sub-parness.
I think it just a intentional step back for intel..

_
I used to use AMD processor but i feel like i going be wasting more money as the performance has reach rock bottom requiring me to upgrade more and more...so i made a "make sense" decision to fully switch to Intel.
 
Don't get me wrong, I thought about the switch to Intel. But I can't stand the idea of paying so much more just to have features like unlocked chips, ability to overclock etc.

Plus for me, I'm usually on a little bit a budget, so the AMD allows me to upgrade a piece at a time. I think Intel got satisfied with just doing a 5-10% bump each year. I wonder if in some ways Intel knew AMD was up to something, but if they weren't sure what was coming.

A 40% performance increase in 1 generation is a lot. Coffee lake seemed a little rushed. Kind of like they had it developed and when AMD ryzen came out, they needed to answer. That said, I see how you could argue that Intel allowed AMD back into the game.

I'm personally upgrading from a ryzen 1600 to a 1700x so that I can regift a lot of my old system to my wife for her home office. But with a little overclocking, that will probably last me until 2020 when they eventually drop the ryzen 4000 series, which I'll probably update to at that point to get the last bit of performance out my platform until something else appears. But I do like that my board from now should accept those CPUs so that I don't have to do a full cpu/board like Intel seems to do every other year.
 
I can't stand Intel's business policy charging exorbitant price for small performance jumps while having very low compatibility with MBs, sockets and chipsets. Always stayed with AMD and even Cyrix. Value for the money was never Intel's forte.
 

boju

Titan
Ambassador
The good old days. 286, 386, 486, 686, 100MB HDDs, 1MB video cards. Thinking each time i upgrade it was important, but it kept going like as if there was this tail i was chasing never ended.. look back at it now and it was fun and swap meets were the places to go on Sundays :D

Was all fun but Cyrix and Amd in those days were cheap and didn't perform as good as Intel.
 

Yes, much more exciting days, feeling privileged to be part of birth and revolution in IT. Such progress happens only few generations apart. Rates with advent of agriculture, steam and aviation.

 
I think this whole AMD versus Intel argument is so, so wrong...Right now we are living in a very good time for consumer CPU's where for every price point we have a decent CPU, in fact it is now very hard to buy a bad CPU and that is thanks in part to AMD finally bringing out a product to compete with Intel....
You cannot blame Intel for AMD's lack luster CPU's prior to Ryzen and you can credit AMD for bringing a new design toi the table that actually competes with Intel.

The important point is we now have CPU's across the price range for everyone from the low end to the high end with Intel still on top in gaming and AMD well on top for value. You only have to ask your self some simple questions in terms of budget, performance and longevity to buy a CPU that suits...for those that have a better budget and want all out FPS performance, then Intel comes in and for the value end where cost is paramount, then AMD comes in.

I don't give a flying you know what about brand, I have bought AMD and Intel and ultimately only the price to performance matters to me in that for 'my' budget what CPU can I get that gives me maximum performance for my use case. I know that AMD and Intel are business, something I see a lot of people forget...they are not in the business for you personally. They have to make a profit for shareholders and will do anything for that and that includes AMD...right now AMD need market share and thus are pricing accordingly, Intel are after margin and thus price accordingly as they already have market share..These companies are not your personal friend and are not going to tuck you in bed and sing a lullaby to you..get real.

In terms of the future, I don't see anything changing as both Intel and AMD have there new launches and AMD with there 7nm will more than catchup only for Intel to jump over again with there 10nm and then 7nm..

We should all just be thankful that AMD have come to the front with Ryzen to introduce competition and I for one hope they do actually catch up on the GPU side as boy do we need competition in that space...I am even hoping that Intel do make a good GPU to bring in even more competition in the GPU space as a 3 way GPU competition will only bring even more performance and lower costs on the GPU side...Don't blame Nvidia for charging what they do, they are a business and will continue to do this until someone can actually compete with them so c'mon AMD and Intel....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS