Question I always had Intel CPUs. Convince me about AMD.

[InvalidError]

But doesn't AI of other people/creatures/items in a game, if there are more of them, lend itself well to multiple cores/threads?

AI is mostly matrix math: you have a bunch of inputs fed into a bunch of input neurons each with different weighs from training, you multiply inputs by weighs, apply additional processing such as a sigmoid transfer function, pass outputs to the first layer of intermediate neurons, rinse and repeat until you reach the output layer, rinse and repeat for each AI network. Heavy mostly brainless math until you reach the output layer where you have to act on the outputs, at which point you have another blob of sequential things to do just like with player input.

 

[mdd1963]

the 3600 and 3700X make darn compelling 'do-it-all'/gaming starting points at quite reasonable price points , often easily $150-$200 or so less than a 9700K or 9900KF system, as the latter processors typically require another $100 minimum for cooling solutions...

the 3700X might not keep up with 9700K/9900K in gaming, but, most begrudgingly admit, it's hard to call 110 fps in games 'slow' compared to 120-125 fps...; the 3600 and 3700X both are right near the 8700K's performance, which is still no slouch at anything.

 

[RodroX]

Wow this been long, Im gona try to keep it short.

If you wana go Intel today, and you want your rig to last 4~5 years then don't buy anything other than Intel Core i9 9900/9900K, or the bigest nonsense out there the 9900KS. Unless of course you don't mind upgrading down the path of those 4~5 years from let said a 9700K to a 9900K, if this is the case then get the 9700K today.

If you wana pick a Ryzen CPU thats fine, the Ryzen 7 3700X or 3900X can keep up on any game.

Thing is people usually talk only about big AVG FPS numbers, but I like a smooth gameplay better, as of today, it seems that higher core counts and threads have the better smoothness in most newer games (and even some oldest too).

Sidenote: And please don't think for a second that Intel never have an issues with any of its launches. And if you think Intel platform is out of problems, think again, and take a good look at diferent sections of this forum.
Intel have as many issues as AMD. The main diference is that Intel had more than ten years to improve and keep developing the "Core" architecture, while AMD "zen" is less than 3 years old.

I run a Core i5 3570 for 5 years, was an exelent choice and really all round CPU for the money back then, but since Ryzen 7 1800X launch in February 2017 I knew that next time I changed my rig was probably back to AMD.
I just don't know how many people (including Intel) didn't saw, or wanted to admit what was coming/happening. And Im not the only one, many reviewers were already saying back in 2017 or early 2018 that the Core i5 was not the best choice (not many listened) and today whoever got a Ryzen 5 1500, 1600 or a 2600 instead is a happy guy/girl who can upgrade, if need it at all, to a Ryzen 3xxx or 4xxx next year.

In the end is your choice. I go to where I get can more for the money I spend, and what I think will be balanced for my build and upgradable in the future.

Cheers

 

[StewartHH]

I'm with ya. If anything AMD = Intel these days. The core race is over exaggerated.

I 100% agree this core race is overrated - the number of cores is not the entire story, what is under the hood is what matter. It just seams like AMD is sticking cores together to overcome of deficiency in the CPU design. Yes Intel has been hurt by 10nm stuff and of course the security stuff ( which I yet seen a virus that uses it ).

Just remember the days after the Pentium 4's and way Intel came back - I believe Intel is working on similar plan and also keep in mind - AMD is not actually Intel primary CPU threat. ARM and mobile environments are the real threat. Yes to gamers AMD is fine but that is not the major CPU market.

 

[joeblowsmynose]

In my opinion, if I was to build a strictly gaming/browsing rig, here's a couple things I'd consider:


1) 9700k is really the only current CPU from Intel that fits the bill. 9900k is a waste of money (especially adding in cost of a suitable cooler) unless you do some content as well. Its just too expensive.
Pros:

• can get slightly higher FPS at 1080p on 2080 series cards
• can OC to that satisfyingly even "5.0" number in most cases.

Cons:

• Intel platforms leave pretty much no chance to only upgrade CPU - you'll need a new mobo as well when you want to upgrade
• generally will cost more

2) 3700x is probably the equivalent CPU you want from the AMD side, although the 3600 is a fine cpu as well. Either of those will fit the bill for your needs.
Pros:

• less $$$ for 95% of the performance in most games
• a chance (not guaranteed) that you will be able to put a future CPU in the same mobo and save some $$ for other upgrades

-stock cooler is generally good enough

Cons:

• lightly less max fps in some scenarios (2080 series gpu - as you said you will have)
• can't really OC the CPU

Other considerations:
You can save money with Ryzen and buy faster RAM, tweak and OC the RAM and get up to 20% performance increase in some games. Tweaking RAM is a pain but there's tools out there that take the work out of it and on Ryzen the difference is quite pronounced. I see RAM tweaking and OCing replacing the CPU OCing with Ryzen, and the gains are worth it.

If you have or get anything less than a RTX2080, then the 9700k will lose its advantage. It takes a pretty clear CPU bottleneck to even bring the CPU into the equation. You said you will move to 1440p gaming - this will also bring any small difference between the 9700k and say a 3700x pretty much back to parity. Will it be worth the extra money to you to have a few FPS advantage just for the duration while you are playing 1080p on 2080 series card?

What money you potentially save on cooling and Ryzen, you can put back into faster SSD, or GPU. You can also put that money back into better RAM as well - again helping the Ryzen out in games.

If you already have a great cooling solution, then factor that in as well, that will add value to a 9700k decision.

Also learning curve for the new platform especially if you like to tweak and OC ... if learning something new is fun to you, this should not impact the decision, but if you hate it, familiarity with the Intel system may add value for the 9700k.

I personally would lean to Ryzen for longevity reasons ... 12 or 16 vs 8 threads will add future proofing as games get programmed to handle more of them (which is already happening); I don't think AM4 will last two more generations making a better upgrade path, but you never know. I have first gen Ryzen and will very happily be upgrading to a 12 core in the same mobo very soon, so that has had a lot for value for me, but as I said its not guaranteed. Monitors at 1440p and 4k will get cheaper and most people will want to play at native resolution - again the longevity here will even the small difference out over time.

If by chance you end up with say only a 2070 or 5700 series, again the GPU will become the bottleneck and the difference you see in gaming benchmarks in reviews won't be the differences you experience. Note that those always use 1080p, 2080ti, and not the highest graphical settings - the numbers you see relate to this scenario specifically - anything different and the difference will be less to none.

If in the future you by chance find yourself needing more cores and threads for some new thing you discovered you like to do with your computer (like streaming), then you'll wish you got the Ryzen if you didn't.

Its close, but for the longevity aspect I'd go Ryzen. But personally that is partly driven by my desire to own a CPU for at least three+ years before upgrading anything ... if you are the type to upgrade as soon as new stuff comes out and have the $$ to do it, then that might add a little value to any other value proposition the 9700k has.


Either way, there's no wrong choice, just whatever you think will suit you best.

 

[geofelt]

AM4 is supposed to be compatible for upgrades, but it turns out that if you want to use some of the upgrade features you still need to change the motherboard.
I think this is largely true for both intel and amd chipsets and motherboards.

I think most people upgrading a processor are going to upgrade the motherboard at the same time.
Who knows what the future will bring. Best to buy what you need now and for your foreseeable future.
I might put that time frame at one year. two at most.

 

[RodroX]

I 100% agree this core race is overrated - the number of cores is not the entire story, what is under the hood is what matter. It just seams like AMD is sticking cores together to overcome of deficiency in the CPU design. Yes Intel has been hurt by 10nm stuff and of course the security stuff ( which I yet seen a virus that uses it ).

Just remember the days after the Pentium 4's and way Intel came back - I believe Intel is working on similar plan and also keep in mind - AMD is not actually Intel primary CPU threat. ARM and mobile environments are the real threat. Yes to gamers AMD is fine but that is not the major CPU market.

On the desktop platform, only gamers? really?, so you never heard of productivity workloads, on wich AMD has been trashing intel on almost every software since the first Ryzen 1700/1700X/1800 launch and so on with the newer generations.

And what about the HDET computing, you didn't heard about Threadripper either?

Please someone go tell Microsoft and Sony to decline choosing AMD from been (once again) inside the most selling consoles on the world, What do they have in thier heads?, picking a horrible designed CPU/APU?

Of course Intel have the biggest part of the "Server" cake by himself, which is the major part of its earnings, but EPYC is there too now, and slowly getting adopted on more and more big projects.

AMD my not be a threat on Intel global earnings, but its a defenetly huge pain in the ass.
AMD has made Intel cut the prices of thier desktop and hdet market for the first time in a decade. Why will that be? sure is not because of AMD crappy products and defective CPU design.

I don't mind people been on AMD nor Intel side, I enjoy fan boys talking, everyone is entitled to thier own opinions, and should choose the product they like more. But don't come with things like "AMD is sticking cores together to overcome of deficiency in the CPU design" when you simple don't realize that right now AMD and Intel have similar IPC performance (so core designs are pretty much equivalent for that matter). In fact, if you wana think about CPU designs how come AMD have similar performance with lower frecuency?, Perhaps they are doing one or two things right, or better?

 

[geofelt]

I might point out that the OP specifically asked for arguments for a gaming pc, not a production pc.

 

[rigg42]

If you can hold off a few more months for Comet Lake CPUs (assuming they don't get delayed), you should be able to get quite a bit more value per dollar than current-gen mainstream Intel CPUs with i5 gaining HT to get up to par with AMD's 3600(X). The same thing will most likely apply to Intel's i7 too.

Intel's current value-per-doller is horrible compared to AMD's 3rd-gen.

I agree. Intel's 14nm rehash should be much more compelling vs Zen 2 from a value perspective.

Intel can beat AMD across the board (in high refresh gaming) if they increase the all core turbo's of all K SKU's to the mid-high 4ghz range, add hyper threading across the stack, and match AMD in cores/threads/pricing in the 3-7 SKU's. They can't match them in cores/threads in the 9 series stuff but they can undercut them in price and beat them in gaming. They could easily regain their gaming advantage from top to bottom by simply doing away with the artificial product segmentation. If they stopped disabling hyper threading and limiting turbo speeds on low and midrange SKUs it would make their product range much more compelling. Even more so if they quit locking out overclocking on the lower TDP non K parts.

That won't change the fact that they aren't as efficient, likely won't include adequate coolers (if any at all), can't compete in multi threading, and will probably have a higher overall platform cost. Despite that, gaming performance/clock speed are much easier to market than power efficiency/multi-thread performance/lower platform cost. The reality is that product segmentation and pricing is all Intel needs to fix to be competitive with zen 2. Given how mature 14nm is, it shouldn't be difficult to achieve those things in their next consumer desktop refresh.

If you have a preference for Intel I'd wait a couple months and see how they respond to zen 2. It's just hard to recommend them against AMD given the current value proposition.

 

[Karadjgne]

Of course Sony went Amd, the Xbox being its major competition was Intel at the time.

DVD games are about dead. Everything is online now, Steam, Origin, LucasArts all DLC's. And very few really enjoy single player anything. PvP, team raids, Guilds, all multi-player and thats where threads count the most, as Invalid was gracious enough to explain. I play a lot of SWtOR, and single player is fine, 8 man is still good, 16 man and I'm loosing fps, and a 24 man World Boss fight is horrendous. It's not the gpu, my 970 is still good there, it's the multiple players, my old i7 just can't keep up. It's not that far behind the Ryzens in IPC, but combined with only 4 shared cores and limited bandwidth, it kills me, literally. 8 full cores of the i7-9700k and I'd be in a much better place, 8/16 on a 3700x and I'd be jammin.

 

[TJ Hooker]

Of course Sony went Amd, the Xbox being its major competition was Intel at the time.

PlayStation went AMD the same time the Xbox did. PS4/XB1. Previous gen consoles were both used IBM PowerPC.

 

[Karadjgne]

Prior to AMD's introduction of APUs, gaming console makers primarily used custom Intel, NVIDIA, ATI, and PowerPC chips. Microsoft's original Xbox was powered by an Intel CPU and NVIDIA GPU, while the Xbox 360 used a PowerPC CPU and an ATI GPU. Sony's PS2 used a custom CPU and GPU, and the PS3 used a customized PowerPC CPU and NVIDIA GPU

 

[King_V]

Some thoughts:

Look at the specs of those posting. For the most part, you will find advocates of amd or Intel correspond to what the poster owns. Justification for their decision, I think.
From that, put me in the intel camp. But, since I am perfectly happy and not looking to upgrade, you can discount that.

Not necessarily. Or, well, maybe to some extent with new stuff, but as you said yourself (and applicable to me), not currently looking to upgrade. And, when I did buy, Ryzen wasn't around yet.

For a friend of mine, I recommended Ryzen, which was the best bang for her buck, and the budget was limited, though some parts were carried over from a previous build.

Now if I were to put together a new system for myself or for my son today, I would almost guarantee that I would go with Ryzen.

 

[Karadjgne]

There's only one thing that bothers me about Ryzens and my future plans for a new platform. I really would prefer my next build to be mITX, and for AMD, that's dismal.

 

[TJ Hooker]

Prior to AMD's introduction of APUs, gaming console makers primarily used custom Intel, NVIDIA, ATI, and PowerPC chips. Microsoft's original Xbox was powered by an Intel CPU and NVIDIA GPU, while the Xbox 360 used a PowerPC CPU and an ATI GPU. Sony's PS2 used a custom CPU and GPU, and the PS3 used a customized PowerPC CPU and NVIDIA GPU

Er, OK? You said that Sony switched to AMD because the Xbox was using Intel "at the time". Your quote clearly states this was not the case; by the time Sony switched to AMD the XB had been using something other than Intel for a full generation already.

 

[Karadjgne]

Didn't say switched at all. Said Sony went with Amd cuz Xbox went with Intel at that time. Didn't say anything about Xbox 360 or Xbox One. Said Xbox.

But on further review, the original Playstation used an LSI logic cpu, they have subsidiaries in Japan, not AMD as I had thought.

 

[Wikingking]

Wow, so many replies, very cool!

Gaming is indeed my primary goal with the new rig and I don't want to touch it for the coming years, so future compatibility is nice but not needed.
If I'd buy AMD I would very likely to be going by a B450 chipset as I don't really need the functions of the X-series.

I am also hesitant to buy Intel-K + Z-series as just by looking at a few benchmark results with OC, the difference is not that significant 9 out of 10 times. I feel that by the time I'd feel the urge of OC-ing it would already be too late and buying a new setup will be inevitable eventually. So OC-ing might only make my life easier in the last year, but if gaming trends will change and the main limit will be 8 threads, then it may not help even that much at all.

AMD doesn't have this possible future issue with already providing 6+6 or 8+8 cores/threads but currently all gaming benchmarks show them roughly 10 percent behind Intel which is freakin' huge, it's like a generation of difference.

So altogether while AMD have become a lot more likeable and I'm almost done with hating it because of past reasons, they are still weaker in gaming after all. Intel however is expensive and offers a seemingly more restrictive system build, namely that they usually change the socket whenever they can and also only their top-tier MB chipset offers functions like memory overclocking and CPU OC, while AMD has this in the mid-tier as well.

What is sure that - unfortunately - i5-9600(K) is out of the talkings as I'm too afraid to buy 6/6 construction especially if I won't touch OC at all.

 

[JQB45]

That's mostly false. Any reputable review has those mitigations installed, especially if it's 9th gen.

Here's what I don't like about this year. AMD X570 boards need a chipset fan because the chipset is/was half baked. B550 is soon to release. Is it still that OCing Ryzen disables idle frequencies? (what is this? 1990?) Intel is obviously late on their much needed 10nm chips.

On my AMD Ryzen R5-1600 I can overclock to ~3.9GHz and it will still idle at 1500MHz.

 

[TerryLaze]

Dual cores are done. Simply cannot handle modern games, devs are having far to much code in multiple strings trying to shove through a cpu all at once.

No they don't,what they do is to copy paste the same one single work doing thread to multiple cores at slightly different times to stand a chance of getting some useable performance out of the poor old jaguar cores.
If these threads had the smallest amount of progression check and would scale,not even in number of threads deployed but in the amount of work they do,even a dual core would have no problem running them.
Instead what they do is to blindly run as fast as possible,because for the consoles the weak CPU cores of the jaguar are a physical limit so there is no problem there, so on PC they are producing useless data since most of it will not be used.
http://advances.realtimerendering.com/destiny/gdc_2015/Tatarchuk_GDC_2015__Destiny_Renderer_web.pdf

But doesn't AI of other people/creatures/items in a game, if there are more of them, lend itself well to multiple cores/threads?

I am a software developer, but don't work in anything remotely like gaming, so I'm out of my element on that point?

Yes it does,have you played the meme that was far cry 5?
All the different "factions" (enemies civilians animals etc) in the game would follow their own isolated AI leading to you not being able to have a conversation because something would start charging at you.
You would drive down the road and it would be utter chaos with everything and anything happening at the same time.

Multithreading is great but then again if you want a good gaming experience you need a lot of scripted stuff because chaos in a game is just stressing the gamer out.

 

[RodroX]

Wow, so many replies, very cool!

Gaming is indeed my primary goal with the new rig and I don't want to touch it for the coming years, so future compatibility is nice but not needed.
If I'd buy AMD I would very likely to be going by a B450 chipset as I don't really need the functions of the X-series.

I am also hesitant to buy Intel-K + Z-series as just by looking at a few benchmark results with OC, the difference is not that significant 9 out of 10 times. I feel that by the time I'd feel the urge of OC-ing it would already be too late and buying a new setup will be inevitable eventually. So OC-ing might only make my life easier in the last year, but if gaming trends will change and the main limit will be 8 threads, then it may not help even that much at all.

AMD doesn't have this possible future issue with already providing 6+6 or 8+8 cores/threads but currently all gaming benchmarks show them roughly 10 percent behind Intel which is freakin' huge, it's like a generation of difference.

So altogether while AMD have become a lot more likeable and I'm almost done with hating it because of past reasons, they are still weaker in gaming after all. Intel however is expensive and offers a seemingly more restrictive system build, namely that they usually change the socket whenever they can and also only their top-tier MB chipset offers functions like memory overclocking and CPU OC, while AMD has this in the mid-tier as well.

What is sure that - unfortunately - i5-9600(K) is out of the talkings as I'm too afraid to buy 6/6 construction especially if I won't touch OC at all.

I believe the main thing you have to get from all this is: Finally after 7 years of AMD been regrettable in the gaming and heavy threaded arenas, and Intel doing whatever they wanted with the price of Desktop and HEDT CPU (because they had and still do have the best CPU for gaming, not soo much in the HEDT side) we have real competition. That gives consumer the choice of picking whatever it fits their needs and also we finally have access to better prices.

What will developers do?, that for me is the big question here. Since both consoles (XBOX and Playstation) will have an 8 cores/16 threads CPU, it does really sound that heavy threaded games will be the way to go for the next years.
Of course thats just an assumption one can make. And it doesn't mean that Intel can't compete, as a matter of fact what the recent leaks shows is that Intel finally realized that either they add HT to all thier CPU (Core i3, i5, i7), or they may lose the battle for now (in those segments).

Intel wont go away from gaming segment at all, is just that its harder for a giant to change course and adapt to the circumstances.

 

[InvalidError]

Intel however is expensive and offers a seemingly more restrictive system build, namely that they usually change the socket whenever they can

Since AMD had to almost double the CPU substrate layer count to make chiplets work on AM4 and update the socket to make ThreadRipper work with chiplets, I'll hazard a guess that AMD is regretting its four years commitment to AM4 right about now - can't make chiplet-based CPUs as good as they could be due to socket limitations that require extra layers (extra effort and cost) to work around of.

Personally, I don't care about long-term socket support since whatever I upgrade to will outlast the socket's market life by years and a meaningful upgrade from there will require a new motherboard regardless.

 

[SgtScream]

Since AMD had to almost double the CPU substrate layer count to make chiplets work on AM4 and update the socket to make ThreadRipper work with chiplets, I'll hazard a guess that AMD is regretting its four years commitment to AM4 right about now - can't make chiplet-based CPUs as good as they could be due to socket limitations that require extra layers (extra effort and cost) to work around of.

Personally, I don't care about long-term socket support since whatever I upgrade to will outlast the socket's market life by years and a meaningful upgrade from there will require a new motherboard regardless.

That's were I stand also. People say go AMD because Intel is a "dead platform" when in reality people won't upgrade an already good system or have the need to until the whole amd platform is dated enough to have the need to replace everything. The upgrade is only relevant for mid to lower end systems like R5/R3. By the time you need to upgrade a 3700x-3900x, the platform will no longer be relevant and options to uprade to aren't going to be enough of a performance difference to justify it. The intel platform may be "dead", but it will still be viable for a decade easy for many people.

 

[boju]

Intel's two gen upgrade path for each motherboard platform so far. Amd managed 3xx, 4xx, 5xx ~ Zen, Zen +, Zen2, three multi compatible platforms up until now. It's only one cpu upgrade more over Intel, possibly two with Ryzen 4000 before an entirely different platform change. It's not a great deal and don't understand the fuss.

Intel's two cpu upgrade path doesn't bother me.

 

[RodroX]

That's were I stand also. People say go AMD because Intel is a "dead platform" when in reality people won't upgrade an already good system or have the need to until the whole amd platform is dated enough to have the need to replace everything. The upgrade is only relevant for mid to lower end systems like R5/R3. By the time you need to upgrade a 3700x-3900x, the platform will no longer be relevant and options to uprade to aren't going to be enough of a performance difference to justify it. The intel platform may be "dead", but it will still be viable for a decade easy for many people.

Well if you really think about it, Why will AMD keep the old Threadripper socket alive, when they are adding new features (like lots of pci-e 4.0 lines) to the new CPU?

For me and the people I know who use this kind of CPUs, Is by far the better choice to change sockets when theres such a major upgrade to a working class CPU like this. Is the only way to be able to take advantages of all the new features.

 

[SgtScream]

Well if you really think about it, Why will AMD keep the old Threadripper socket alive, when they are adding new features (like lots of pci-e 4.0 lines) to the new CPU?

For me and the people I know who use this kind of CPUs, Is by far the better choice to change sockets when theres such a major upgrade to a working class CPU like this. Is the only way to be able to take advantages of all the new features.

Unfortunately the new and upcoming Threadripper CPU's aren't backwards compatible with previous gen motherboards.