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

[Smegil]

I would go AMD sounds like your wanting a PC that's good all around not just gaming also with AMD they build for same am4 socket so down the road if you want a new cpu you don't have to buy a whole new mb unlike Intel who changes sockets like we change socks

 

[RodroX]

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

I know thats why I tried to point out the "Why?". Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.

 

[InvalidError]

I would go AMD sounds like your wanting a PC that's good all around not just gaming also with AMD they build for same am4 socket so down the road if you want a new cpu you don't have to buy a whole new mb unlike Intel who changes sockets like we change socks

If you change CPUs evern more often than you change socks, perhaps you should buy a better CPU to start with. I would have been fine with an i3 back when I put my current i5-3470 together but I knew I wouldn't get more than 2-3 years out of the i3 before the upgrade itch would set in, so I decided to spend $40 or so extra to get the i5 instead. Most people who spent the ~$50 extra to get a Ryzen 1600 instead of a 1200-1500 will have very little reason to upgrade before AM5 comes along. (Well, very little reason aside from older Ryzen chip prices crashing down as new chips launch, unlike Intel's chips which are seemingly immune to depreciation and competition.)

 

[Smegil]

If you change CPUs evern more often than you change socks, perhaps you should buy a better CPU to start with. I would have been fine with an i3 back when I put my current i5-3470 together but I knew I wouldn't get more than 2-3 years out of the i3 before the upgrade itch would set in, so I decided to spend $40 or so extra to get the i5 instead. Most people who spent the ~$50 extra to get a Ryzen 1600 instead of a 1200-1500 will have very little reason to upgrade before AM5 comes along. (Well, very little reason aside from older Ryzen chip prices crashing down as new chips launch, unlike Intel's chips which are seemingly immune to depreciation and competition.)

I built my new system with the ryzen 5 3600 but in 2 years if I need or want a way more powerful CPU more then likely the am4 will still be the amd format unlike Intel which will probably have 10 different sockets by then minimum

 

[InvalidError]

I built my new system with the ryzen 5 3600 but in 2 years if I need or want a way more powerful CPU more then likely the am4 will still be the amd format

Nope, AMD said it would support AM4 for four years and 2020 is the fourth year, which means 4000-series is the most AM4 is likely to ever see. Whatever product from 2021 and beyond you upgrade to will almost certainly require next-gen socket.

 

[RodroX]

If you change CPUs evern more often than you change socks, perhaps you should buy a better CPU to start with. I would have been fine with an i3 back when I put my current i5-3470 together but I knew I wouldn't get more than 2-3 years out of the i3 before the upgrade itch would set in, so I decided to spend $40 or so extra to get the i5 instead. Most people who spent the ~$50 extra to get a Ryzen 1600 instead of a 1200-1500 will have very little reason to upgrade before AM5 comes along. (Well, very little reason aside from older Ryzen chip prices crashing down as new chips launch, unlike Intel's chips which are seemingly immune to depreciation and competition.)

Well you got a good point there about expend a bit more for more longevity. I always tell about this to my costumers and to people who consult me about buying PCs and or Notebooks.

Intel's chips been immune to depreciation was a good thing the last 8 years, but right now is a double edge weapon. By the time you figure out you need a new CPU, you will be able to sell your old part for more than a Ryzen counterpart. But unless youre selling a Core i7 you wont find many people willing to pay a lot for a core i3 or core i5, not today.

Right now you will paid a big amount of money to get some 4th, 6th or 7th gen intel core i7 chip (the only chips worth any money cause of the 4 cores/8 threads), but you could also get, for example, a brand new Ryzen 5 1600+Motherboard+RAM for around the same price.

Well, atleast thats how I see it.

 

[hannibal]

It depends on what you need. Amd offers most prosessing power for your money at this moment. If you don`t need prosessing power, then the choise is completely free.
Bot companies makes good cpu. Just how much you Are willing to pay of them is the only issue.

 

[TCA_ChinChin]

Since it seems like you're focusing on gaming with 144hz panels in the 1080p to 1440p range, try to wait for Intel's next gen core series to come out. Otherwise, your options are a better FPS/$ with AMD or better overall FPS in games if you pick i5-9600k or i7-9700k or something in that range. I would see if you can wait it out until Intels 10- series core chips come out cause those are going to significantly close the value gap that Intel has compared to AMD.

Overall seems that if you're gaming focused and you like Intel, its still the go to processor. Yes AMD is at parity or almost at parity with Intel for gaming, if you are already more comfortable with Intel and can afford it, why not? Unless you are actively sacrificing GPU performance to get that Intel processor, you will do better in games with Intel compared to AMD at this time.

 

[InvalidError]

Intel's chips been immune to depreciation was a good thing the last 8 years, but right now is a double edge weapon. By the time you figure out you need a new CPU, you will be able to sell your old part for more than a Ryzen counterpart.

That is assuming you can be bothered to sell your old system in the first place. I don't. When I upgrade my main system, the old one replaces the living room PC, the old living room PC becomes the new spare I dump old hardware in so I can still use it if needed, the old spare goes in the back of a closet with whatever other old PCs I still am keeping around for things like retro PC gaming until I decide to get rid of them.

By the time I'm done with one of my PCs, they're more valuable as doorstops or scrap metal than as PCs.

 

[joeblowsmynose]

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.

Even mATX ... I have a great case that I really like but it only fits mATX and smaller MBs. I also need optical audio outputs, -- don't really want to buy a soundcard. My current AM4 B450 mATX MB has it (MSI Mortar)

Then zen2 launched and I decided I need a 12 core CPU ...
When I heard that MSI didn't follow bios specs on their 1st gen boards I started looking around for a different AM4 mATX board with optical out. A total of zero in X570 and I found only one single other board and that was an X470 board from Asus.

Anyway I was happy to hear that MSI did manage to cut down their bios OS enough to fit the extra crap in which was required for Zen2, so I will be able to plug the 3900x in after all. I just updated to that bios the other day, and wow is it ever "cut down". I can't even OC through it anymore at all (and I have a 1700 that clocks to 3.9 (and outperforms 1800x at that) so yeah I need to OC it). Might be ok because the 3900x is best left at stock anyway, and there's always Ryzen Master. Anyway, I'm besides the point now.

The take-away here is that form factor might also be a valid considerations for the decision between Intel and AMD if one is planning on having specific mobo features and a board other than standard ATX. But that of course has nothing really to do with AMD, but availability of mobos to support.

I hope mobo makers realize this void, as I am certainly not the only one who has this complaint. Maybe B550 will be better if it ever even happens ...

 

[joeblowsmynose]

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.

If you take games and average them out it's 6-8% overall average (across games - some games actually prefer Ryzen, i.e. CSGO) with 2080ti @ 1080p according to Steve Burke from Gamer's Nexus. If you buy a 2080 non-super or less, that will shrink a fair bit. If you get a 1440p monitor that difference will be less. If you spend time tweaking the RAM that will become less.

You have to take the gaming benchmarks with the caveat that this is in an exaggerated scenario.

Also note that 10% less than say 160fps, is 144. Since your monitor is 144 hz the difference in that case is zero percent.

So maybe to determine the actual difference you can expect let's have you assume a specific card, the games you like to play, and the settings you like to use. Is 144fps your target FPS for anything you play and do you adjust settings / resolution to try to stay over that?

From there you can get a better idea if the 10% difference you are seeing (or the 6-8% average across a suite of games) will actually apply to you or not. Most people don't experience that difference because they like to use high quality AA, or AO, or some ultra quality game settings, which makes the GPU bottleneck again, eliminating the CPU from the equation for the most part.

Reviewers do a pretty horrible job at disclaiming that your results will be different unless you have the exact setup and settings that they use to purposefully induce CPU bottleneck as badly as they can. But they are aware of it - this is why Steve Burke (from GN), and PCWorld actually recommends Ryzen for most gamers needs (particularly the 3600 for its extreme bang for buck).

And yes 9600k should NOT be an option -- not enough threads and this results in bad 1% lows even though average FPS might still be high ... which segues into my next point ... average FPS isn't as important as strong 1% lows. R5 3600 is generally superior to 9600k for gaming for this reason, even if 9600k can produce higher averages.

I'd take higher 1% lows over higher average FPS any day of the week. I can't stand microstutter ...

Anyway, a few more considerations for you ...

 

[rigg42]

If you take games and average them out it's 6-8% overall average (across games - some games actually prefer Ryzen, i.e. CSGO) with 2080ti @ 1080p according to Steve Burke from Gamer's Nexus. If you buy a 2080 non-super or less, that will shrink a fair bit. If you get a 1440p monitor that difference will be less. If you spend time tweaking the RAM that will become less.

You have to take the gaming benchmarks with the caveat that this is in an exaggerated scenario.

Also note that 10% less than say 160fps, is 144. Since your monitor is 144 hz the difference in that case is zero percent.

So maybe to determine the actual difference you can expect let's have you assume a specific card, the games you like to play, and the settings you like to use. Is 144fps your target FPS for anything you play and do you adjust settings / resolution to try to stay over that?

From there you can get a better idea if the 10% difference you are seeing (or the 6-8% average across a suite of games) will actually apply to you or not. Most people don't experience that difference because they like to use high quality AA, or AO, or some ultra quality game settings, which makes the GPU bottleneck again, eliminating the CPU from the equation for the most part.

Reviewers do a pretty horrible job at disclaiming that your results will be different unless you have the exact setup and settings that they use to purposefully induce CPU bottleneck as badly as they can. But they are aware of it - this is why Steve Burke (from GN), and PCWorld actually recommends Ryzen for most gamers needs (particularly the 3600 for its extreme bang for buck).

And yes 9600k should NOT be an option -- not enough threads and this results in bad 1% lows even though average FPS might still be high ... which segues into my next point ... average FPS isn't as important as strong 1% lows. R5 3600 is generally superior to 9600k for gaming for this reason, even if 9600k can produce higher averages.

I'd take higher 1% lows over higher average FPS any day of the week. I can't stand microstutter ...

Anyway, a few more considerations for you ...

Excellent points. I was just about to type up a similar post. I'd like to add that the argument against the 9600k should also apply to 9700k IMO. A year ago people were making the same "enough threads for gaming" argument for the 6c/6t 8600k (and not long before that for the 4c4t I5's) that they make for the 9700k now . If longevity is a concern the odds that the 9700k starts coming up short on threads in gaming in the near future are a pretty good based on how things have gone in new games the last few years.

 

[rigg42]

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.

Please explain? What is dismal about mITX on AM4? There are a several excellent AM4 ITX mobos. The Asus ROG Strix x570-I gaming for example has the best VRM ever put on an ITX motherboard that I'm aware of. Given the limitations of all ITX motherboards I'm not sure what else there is to complain about besides the VRM. Perhaps you meant MATX? If that's the case I agree 100%.

 

[StewartHH]

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?

As a software developer myself, I would say over the years that developers have gotten lazy with more memory and now more cores - in my early days I remember counting clock cycles and trying to keep memory size down to minimum. I remember my first program I wrote ever and it was in assembly language and it was so close to 8086 or 8088 bytes that I had to fill it out - it was terminal emulator program.

Now most programs have memory leaks and waste memory and don't really care about performance. I memory one time I shaving clock cycles off an interrupt routine because the vendor of hardware thought it was too slow - it ended up that the vendor switch to cheaper timer chip. Today they say big deal add more cores and memory.

I not saying more cores and memory are bad, I just think it a lot of cases it used as lazyness. What is need is new instructions that handle it better. Not just on CPU or Graphics, but in disk performance.

 

[Gfost73]

I don't know much about Intel, nor do I much about AMD lol.. I do however own A Ryzen chip, and I love it, I'm not a hard core gamer and my GPU isn't the best and I can easily get 90-140fps+ on every game I play which include Skyrim, GTA V , Dauntless and some more, and really seeing as I just use a HDTV as a monitor which is only 60Hz, @1080p that is more than enough FPS for me. all with very little CPU usage ( I know my GPU is bottlenecked) so for the savings in money alone Id say Ryzen .. but I could be bias =)

 

[CountMike]

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-reveals-taa-vulnerabilities-in-cascade-lake-chips-and-a-new-jcc-bug?utm_source=Selligent&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=9998&utm_content=20191113_TH_Newsletter+-+adhoc+&utm_term=3175882&m_i=Oguw_1daIOYl8B7WRklcU5MsMBGr4sTDkxhUJQemkFt1ASvq0ylMdBLPAkbVxZ70_nfd60h_vOdHET8Acm9kRIcz7GOywCGOO0

 

[vMax]

If you are after a high refresh rate 1080p or 1440p I would still look to Intel in the 9700K as for gaming it is still right up there with a lot of headroom when overclocked which it does with ease to 5GHz all core. AMD is a good option if you are no to worried about some FPS loss at the top end but if you want the max FPS a 9700K coupled to a RTX 2080 is a mighty gaming combination.

As to which platform will give you the best upgrade path I just would not worry about that as ny the time you look to upgrade next, Intel's 10nm will be battling AMD's new CPU's in the 4000 series so you will be doing a full update any way and this setup will see you through 4 years at least.

 

[doolittle]

Have to agree with the consensus, Ryzen gives you the best value for your dollar and living near a micro center amplifies that factor with their $80 price for the 1600 and $115 for the 2600 compared to $130 for the i5-9400f - already that's a free high-performance 500gb SSD you can bundle into your build if you go with the 1600. Micro Center is a love / hate relationship, love their prices when I visit and hate my empty wallet when I leave!

 

[SgtScream]

Have to agree with the consensus, Ryzen gives you the best value for your dollar and living near a micro center amplifies that factor with their $80 price for the 1600 and $115 for the 2600 compared to $130 for the i5-9400f - already that's a free high-performance 500gb SSD you can bundle into your build if you go with the 1600. Micro Center is a love / hate relationship, love their prices when I visit and hate my empty wallet when I leave!

That gives you way more budget to devote to the graphics card which will make all the difference in gaming performance and will make up for not matching Intel's 5ghz boost frequency. Not to mention smoother game play and better FPS 1% lows due to Ryzen's superior multicore performance. It's a no brainer. Intel is really only applicable to 144hz or higher 1080p gaming. For everything else, Ryzen is the best choice.

 

[King_V]

Have to agree with the consensus, Ryzen gives you the best value for your dollar and living near a micro center amplifies that factor with their $80 price for the 1600 and $115 for the 2600 compared to $130 for the i5-9400f - already that's a free high-performance 500gb SSD you can bundle into your build if you go with the 1600. Micro Center is a love / hate relationship, love their prices when I visit and hate my empty wallet when I leave!

Not to mention the additional discount they'll give you on a motherboard if you purchase a CPU and motherboard at the same time.

 

[CountMike]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stM2CPF9YAY&feature=youtu.be&t=261

 

[RodroX]

@CountMike

lol poor Linux, doesn't seems to find the way to talk bad about AMD.

Im glad AMD can keep this momentum going, this is the best thing that can happend to us, consumers. Not only we have a huge landscape of products to pick and fill out our needs, but also at very reasonable prices.

Im not an AMD fan boy but let me said this please, man they are doing a really good job!

Lets hope with and for the new Ryzen 4xxx they can make a twist on the 7nm process node so its not that hard to get more "very good" chiplets from each CPU wafer.

 

[CountMike]

@CountMike

lol poor Linux, doesn't seems to find the way to talk bad about AMD.

Im glad AMD can keep this momentum going, this is the best thing that can happend to us, consumers. Not only we have a huge landscape of products to pick and fill out our needs, but also at very reasonable prices.

Im not an AMD fan boy but let me said this please, man they are doing a really good job!

Lets hope with and for the new Ryzen 4xxx they can make a twist on the 7nm process node so its not that hard to get more "very good" chiplets from each CPU wafer.

It just shows how good thing proper competition is. Intel had it their way far too long, we can only be sorry that Motorola and Cyrix are no longer in CPU business and Arm is going their own way.

 

[joeblowsmynose]

If you are after a high refresh rate 1080p or 1440p I would still look to Intel in the 9700K as for gaming it is still right up there with a lot of headroom when overclocked which it does with ease to 5GHz all core. AMD is a good option if you are no to worried about some FPS loss at the top end but if you want the max FPS a 9700K coupled to a RTX 2080 is a mighty gaming combination.

As to which platform will give you the best upgrade path I just would not worry about that as ny the time you look to upgrade next, Intel's 10nm will be battling AMD's new CPU's in the 4000 series so you will be doing a full update any way and this setup will see you through 4 years at least.

A fair assessment, but do consider this in regards to your "four year" longevity cycle - which I think is a very valid number, I always want at least three or more years out of CPUs. The consideration is that the landscape of how games are, or are not, multi-threaded may change in that time-frame.

Although its moving rather slowly, games definitely are becoming much more multi-threaded; hell, 4 cores was apparently enough just four years ago (not like we had much a choice though), and now 6-8 cores seems to be what you need for a lot of games best experiences- especially if you don't have some form of SMT. Six cores without SMT, is even questionable in the eyes of many game reviewers today.

So will a 9700k with 8 threads still give you the best and smoothest FPS four years from now as games become more graphically demanding and/or require more threads? This is a good question ... as soon as games get more graphically demanding, the Ryzen and Intel CPUs will be back to equal due to shift to GPU bottleneck, and this could be mitigated by putting money into better GPU now - if you can afford it.

When games do become more graphically demanding, and they certainly will, that will again shift more emphasis to a GPU bottlenck rendering the extra few FPS gone, with no way to recover except buy a new faster GPU ... or save $250 with the R5 3600 and put that toward a 2080ti instead of a 2080 or 2080 super, and maybe not feel the need to upgrade you GPU for a little longer.

The caveat here, though is that when new cards succeed the 2080ti in performance (granted you can afford one), there may be CPUs that would be a better match for low resolution gaming (if that's even still a thing at that time). But again, I'm thinking a 2080ti will be good for 3-4 years as well, when one would want a new CPU anyway.

 

[Questionable_user]

basically intel begins with a i which stands for intellectuals and amd begins with a which stands for aliens, so amd = intel