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

[Wikingking]

Hi there!

So I'm looking forward to build a new rig for gaming. Playing games in 1080p (21:9, 144Hz monitor) and then later in 1440p possibly will be in the focus. I'm planning to use this setup for the next 4-5 years and I am thinking of spending quite a lot of money, so high-end but not NASA-killer setups are in the talking (i5-9600k, i7-9700k, RTX2080-ish GPU).

I always had Intel processors but I am aware that AMD once again became a heavy-hitter, real-deal in the business. I am glad and everything but it is hard to let loose my initial discomfort of changing manufacturer and platform. However I am willing to do it considering that there are more than enough valid reasons behind it. Although emotions play a part and I surely can't really miss with an i7 or i5, nor can I with a Ryzen 5 (3600 and X) or Ryzen 7 (3700X).

So please, try to convince me buying a new rig with AMD architecture! But please keep in mind: framerate and longevity are the two key factors. I am not really interested in things like faster video export or faster times in WinRAR

Thank you

 

[Questionable_user]

Intel has without a doubt the fastest single core CPUs still. Multi-core things become more "muddy" in terms of performance crown as Intel is avoiding directly competing products above 8/16 (8 cores/16 threads) Intel is feeling pricing pressure, so they had to lower prices on HEDT. However Intel is still more expensive on these parts when compared against 3900X, 3950X, etc...

To sum up: At a similar performance level, AMD is cheaper and is MORE than adequate for gaming at 4K resolutions. At this point the GPU becomes the bottleneck more than the CPU (Most games)


AMD is likely to support socket AM4 for another generation. So if you get a quality board today (X570), you can upgrade to Ryzen 4000 series. (Zen 3) which is due out next year, and not have to replace your motherboard/memory.

my mobo is a msi b450 gaming pro carbon ac, would that be sufficent for a 4600 or 4600x (probs overclocked) when it comes out (if it comes out)?

 

[digitalgriffin]

my mobo is a msi b450 gaming pro carbon ac, would that be sufficent for a 4600 or 4600x (probs overclocked) when it comes out (if it comes out)?

That's entirely dependent on if MSI updates their BIOS. But I wouldn't hold my breath. As it is now, not all the B450 boards are getting Ryzen 3000 updates.

 

[Questionable_user]

That's entirely dependent on if MSI updates their BIOS. But I wouldn't hold my breath. As it is now, not all the B450 boards are getting Ryzen 3000 updates.

ive checked my mobo bios updates (https://www.msi.com/Motherboard/support/B450-GAMING-PRO-CARBON-AC#down-bios ), this mobo has gotten the 3rd gen compatability update.

 

[digitalgriffin]

ive checked my mobo bios updates (https://www.msi.com/Motherboard/support/B450-GAMING-PRO-CARBON-AC#down-bios ), this mobo has gotten the 3rd gen compatability update.

Its not a question if you are now. Buy the will you get updates then. Support usually dies off within a year of product eol.

If you want to see what your chances are take a little ok at an equivalent b350 and see its update history.

My last b450 update was September 9th to 1,0.0,3 ABB. My board was released in March. So as you can see there's no guarantee of support. (Not to be negativ about it. Just more or less a cavaet emptor on buying a board when there is no official listed support program.).

I would pay considerably extra for a motherboard that guaranteed ALL compatible AMD Agesa updates within two months of release.

Replacing a cpu is easy compared to swapping an entire board. That's about two hours of my time plus an OS re-install with a board. Would I pay $50 extra for a board that promised that? Darn right i would!

 

[DMAN999]

@ Wikingking
I have personally been running Intel based PCs for about 29 years.
I am Not a hardcore Intel advocate, but I am all about getting the best performance for my money.
Last November I built rig with a Ryzen 5 2600 on an Asus ROG Strix B450-F.
I game casually at 1080p/60Hz and with the 2600/1660 Ti, I was getting 85 to 120+ fps in current AAA games.
My full specs were:
PCPartPicker Part List
CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 2600 3.4 GHz 6-Core Processor ($117.68 @ Amazon)
CPU Cooler: ARCTIC Freezer 33 eSports Edition (Black/White) CPU Cooler ($141.12 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: Asus ROG STRIX B450-F GAMING ATX AM4 Motherboard ($119.99 @ Amazon)
Memory: G.Skill Trident Z RGB 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3200 Memory ($84.99 @ Amazon)
Storage: Crucial MX500 500 GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($64.42 @ Amazon)
Storage: Crucial MX500 1 TB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($107.50 @ Adorama)
Video Card: MSI GeForce GTX 1660 Ti 6 GB ARMOR OC Video Card ($289.99 @ Amazon)
Case: Rosewill CHALLENGER ATX Mid Tower Case ($39.99 @ Amazon)
Power Supply: Rosewill 750 W 80+ Gold Certified Fully Modular ATX Power Supply ($79.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $1045.67
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2019-11-15 02:14 EST-0500

I did a ton of research before making my decision to go AMD and I can say without any reservations that I was Very satisfied with my choice.
I use my PC to stream to 2 1080p TVs (via Plex), encode videos and play single player AAA games.

I liked my AMD R5 2600 build enough that I recently built a 3700x based rig.
With my 3700x/2060 Super rig I get 90-200+ fps in current games.

PCPartPicker Part List
CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 3700X 3.6 GHz 8-Core Processor ($326.99 @ SuperBiiz)
CPU Cooler: Scythe Ninja 5 43.03 CFM CPU Cooler ($54.49 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: Asus ROG STRIX X470-F Gaming ATX AM4 Motherboard ($169.99 @ Amazon)
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws V 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3600 Memory ($74.98 @ Amazon)
Storage: Samsung 970 Evo 500 GB M.2-2280 NVME Solid State Drive ($89.99 @ Amazon)
Video Card: MSI GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER 8 GB ARMOR OC Video Card ($399.99 @ B&H)
Case: Rosewill RISE Glow ATX Full Tower Case ($64.98 @ Amazon)
Power Supply: Corsair RM (2019) 650 W 80+ Gold Certified Fully Modular ATX Power Supply ($94.98 @ Newegg)
Total: $1276.39
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2019-11-15 02:17 EST-0500

 

[TerryLaze]

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

So what's the point you are trying to make with this video?
When looking at the very few games he tested and with pretty much zero info he gives on what and how he tested AMD still needs double the cores to not-quite match intel...do you consider this good or bad for ryzen?!
OP already stated that productivity is irrelevant to him.

 

[CountMike]

So what's the point you are trying to make with this video?
When looking at the very few games he tested and with pretty much zero info he gives on what and how he tested AMD still needs double the cores to not-quite match intel...do you consider this good or bad for ryzen?!
OP already stated that productivity is irrelevant to him.

Point is in the video, I'm not trying to make any point except that Intel still has security problems and trying to fix them ends up in lowering it's potential.

 

[Deleted member 14196]

I think people like the original poster are trolls. And it brings out all the other trolls

You can convince yourself by going and buying one and finding out for yourself how good AMD processors are And doing real work and not just silly games

 

[Wikingking]

I think people like the original poster are trolls. And it brings out all the other trolls

You can convince yourself by going and buying one and finding out for yourself how good AMD processors are And doing real work and not just silly games

You say I am the troll while you're the one who's blaming me for using my computer the way I do? "Silly games"...it's like blaming me for buying a Ferrari for top speed and acceleration instead of a Dodge Ram which has more space for packing and can tow a bus out of a swamp. I'm sorry for being the guy who likes more FPS than faster calculation. Whenever I run a finite element software for my work I can wait for 2 more minutes for the CPU to calculate, or I have 40 seconds for WinRAR to finish instead of like 34.
You can say that you are OK with 118 FPS instead of 125 and that is fine. But it is a matter of preferances.

My question was genuine. I'd like to take the advice of AMD users or users of both platforms for I'd like to spend my money the way I find it the best and don't want to avoid AMD just because of bias towards intel. If this is trolling then I'm very sorry...-_-

 

[Deleted member 14196]

It sounds like you’ve already convinced yourself on intel. Hence, you are trolling For responses that reaffirm your viewpoint. Goodbye and have fun.

 

[Intel-i2]

The amd athlon 200ge (£50) can probably run any game better on its iGPU then any Intel processes with an iGPU

 

[Wikingking]

It sounds like you’ve already convinced yourself on intel. Hence, you are trolling For responses that reaffirm your viewpoint. Goodbye and have fun.

I did for a certain degree but if some user would shed a different light on AMD then I am ready to buy it - actually, currently I am very hesitant to buy Intel compared to how I felt few weeks ago. So if anything this contradicts your idea about me being a troll.

 

[RodroX]

I did for a certain degree but if some user would shed a different light on AMD then I am ready to buy it - actually, currently I am very hesitant to buy Intel compared to how I felt few weeks ago. So if anything this contradicts your idea about me being a troll.

Well, I believe many forum members already gave thier point of view.

If you want the highest posible FPS, while keeping very good 1% low and .1% low then theres only one choice, well actually 2, just that one of them may be really silly to spend your money on (for me atleast): Core i9 9900K and 9900KS. Keep in mind that you can get very, very similar performance with the Core i9 9900K and you will have the full warranty time that Intel gives, cause for the "KS" Intel only gives 1 year).

Intel may come with something better next year when the new Core iX XXXXX++++++ 14nm node CPUs comes out. But if you keep waiting there will be someonthing new once again .

Cheers!!!

 

[Wikingking]

Well, I believe many forum members already gave thier point of view.

If you want the highest posible FPS, while keeping very good 1% low and .1% low then theres only one choice, well actually 2, just that one of them may be really silly to spend your money on (for me atleast): Core i9 9900K and 9900KS. Keep in mind that you can get very, very similar performance with the Core i9 9900K and you will have the full warranty time that Intel gives, cause for the "KS" Intel only gives 1 year).

Intel may come with something better next year when the new Core iX XXXXX++++++ 14nm node CPUs comes out. But if you keep waiting there will be someonthing new once again .

Cheers!!!

It's interesting as I've sort of convienced myself not to buy i9, even if my budget would let me. Gaming performance is identical to i7-9700 and if I'd like to have the multi-core performance then Ryzen 7 provides almost identical again but with 30-40% cheaper. I can see that i9 is a versatile powerhouse but I think due to its pricing it is 2 misses instead of 2 birds with 1 stone.
But I appreciate your insight, especially what you've said regarding KS and warranty!

 

[schaperb9]

For me, the argument for AMD is easy. Look at your choice, and the money your are spending as votes. Do you want to vote for a cpu that delivers horrible performance per dollar or do you want to vote for a cpu that offers great performance per dollar. I think people underestimate how much this affects the market. Send the message to Intel, that you aren't willing to pay more for less, and that they need to get out there and compete in performance and price to earn your money.

 

[TerryLaze]

For me, the argument for AMD is easy. Look at your choice, and the money your are spending as votes. Do you want to vote for a cpu that delivers horrible performance per dollar or do you want to vote for a cpu that offers great performance per dollar. I think people underestimate how much this affects the market. Send the message to Intel, that you aren't willing to pay more for less, and that they need to get out there and compete in performance and price to earn your money.

What are you talking about?
The i9-9900k and the R 9 3900x cost about the same and the i9 is about 10% faster on average which means it has at least 10% better FPS to dollars ratio even with today's GPUs that severely limit how fast the i9 can go since it's still 10% faster running at 4Ghz.
If you are talking about specific CPUs you have to state the models nobody can read minds in here.

Why is everybody trying to convince a gamer that somehow CB scores (or whatever productivity) are in any way relevant to what he is going to do with the system.

 

[joeblowsmynose]

So what's the point you are trying to make with this video?
When looking at the very few games he tested and with pretty much zero info he gives on what and how he tested AMD still needs double the cores to not-quite match intel...do you consider this good or bad for ryzen?!
OP already stated that productivity is irrelevant to him.

AMD uses double the cores to stomp Intel in almost anything other than one scenario - artificially bottlnecked gaming that actually almost no does in reality. Did you think AMD added those cores to make gaming faster? Your bias is making you not think straight.

Anyway this thread is 75% off topic rubbish and arguing ... they OP asked to be convinced why he might want to switch to AMD even given his single use scenario that AMD has a slight deficit in. That is the purpose of this thread. Notice the OP thanks posts that actually stick to topic and are constructive and useful.

 

[joeblowsmynose]

Ok I have one more consideration - not a huge one but one that might make you go "hmmmm..."

AM4 platform is expected to extend to zen3, while it looks like zen 4 will need a new socket to accommodate ddr5. (I can dig up sources if that is important to you)

AMD has been innovating at a very fast rate compared to Intel lately. All Intel has really done is refine the node and bin better, refine the node and bin better - they've squeezed all they can out of 14nm and 10nm has trouble with high clock speeds (hence why they're going into mobile and servers and not desktop - maybe at the low end).

The improvements that AMD has made in about three years has been impressive and I'm not talking about the jump from bulldozer, but just within Zen itself. If you look at gaming results between say a R5 1600 and an R5 3600 and there's quite a large improvement there.

Zen3 also has architectural changes again that will help remove memory latency - the L3 cache will be shared with all cores in a chiplet instead of divided by 2; there will also be more cache available overall -- both of these changes should directly help in gaming.

Other leaks on Zen3 point to up to 200mhz clock increase and 8%+ IPC uplift - both of which gaming numbers will respond nicely to.

Let's say you buy 3700x now, and in H2 2020 when zen3 launches, these change, are enough to push it ahead of Intel in bottlenecked CPU gaming gaming as well. I don't know what Intel will have to counter if that occurs -- the power consumption on 14nm is already getting ridiculous, and trying to push the clocks any higher than they currently are either plain won't work due to the laws of physics, or power consumption will become a limiting factor due to inadequate cooling / noise, etc. Intel does say they will have "10nm" on desktop in 2020 but the way it is looking it seems to me they will be lower end parts like i3's if they even occur.

If you buy an AM4 board now, it strongly seems that you will be able to plug in a zen3 chip and go.


What if you do buy Intel now and next year AMD also surpasses Intel in gaming (Zen3 has improvements that look like it may be possible). Intel's roadmap for desktop seems to have a gap for 2020 where nothing new will be emerging. (could change though - AMD has lit a fire under them)

Would you be ok knowing that AMD is the best gaming CPU while you have an Intel CPU inside? Will you want to change it, and if so how much will that cost? Is gaming numbers that important to you (as you seem to be insinuating) ... or is it about the brand? What are the weights between those two?

A bit of speculation here as we have no idea whether Zen3 will beat Intel at gaming or not, but the known and rumoured architectural changes, TMSC's EUV process (7nm+ which is what zen3 will be on offers 20% density increase, plus higher clocks (according to TSMC)) seem to point that this may well be what happens in 2020 as Intel doesn't really have anything new on their roadmap except refine and bin ... will that be enough to keep AMD's momentum at bay?

One path allows you to potentially and cheaply take advantage of Zen3 in less than a year, the other does not.

This is another factor when I consider the longevity and future proofing of my decisions. "What do things look like next year? The year after? What might change? what might stay the same?"

Article on leaked / rumoured Zen3 changes here: https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel...ase-in-clocks-compared-to-Zen-2.438940.0.html

Take it with a grain of salt, but do note that when AMD said Zen+ would have 10% IPC uplift, many doubted and they produced 15%. When they said they will have a 16 cores mainstream part many people said it was a false rumour because its not possible with dual channel memory. It was true. When rumours leaked that the 3950x was more powerful than i9-9980XE in both multi-threaded and single threaded workloads, many doubted (including me) - but that was also true.

Rumours and leaks on AMD seem to have been relatively accurate.

 

[vMax]

I think people like the original poster are trolls. And it brings out all the other trolls

You can convince yourself by going and buying one and finding out for yourself how good AMD processors are And doing real work and not just silly games

The moment you said 'silly games' you lost the argument....whether someone likes to game on the PC has nothing to do with the issue at hand as gaming is certainly not silly for many, many people as is using a PC for some serious productivity workloads and would you believe gaming in the spare or down time. At the end of the day it is very hard to buy a bad CPU today and whether one's choice is AMD or Intel it does not matter as its what someone wants and is willing to pay for it. This ultra stupid AMD versus Intel versus Nvidia is so beyond me and I cannot understand why people get into such tribalism over hardware....Just buy whatever gives you the best performance for your budget and workloads...I can guarantee you AMD nor Intel are going to tuck you in bed and read you a bed time story...they are both businesses with shareholders and will do anything and everything for your said money..they are both not bad or good, just a business that has to make a profit in order to continue...whether Intel is on top or AMD, they both will continue without your personal support so long as they make good products that people are willing to pay for.

 

[SgtScream]

I think people like the original poster are trolls. And it brings out all the other trolls

You can convince yourself by going and buying one and finding out for yourself how good AMD processors are And doing real work and not just silly games

^ This is trolling lol

 

[RodroX]

Lets see it like this, many here have been wondering: Why are threads soo important? , Well to be honest they seems to be very important for now. Will they still be important next year, or in 2021, or 2022?, It seems but, who knows for sure?.

All I know is that it seems developers have found that sharing the cpu load over more cores and threads can make a game playable on CPUs that otherwise may have a very poor or even unplayable experience (lets say the slow APU that runs PS4 and Xbox One but it has 8 cores). But wait if they do that, yeah the CPUs without many threads will suffer.

Since I know my english sucks do me a favor, spend a few minutes and check this review from Hardware Unboxed "Ryzen 5 1600 vs. Core i5-7600K, How Times Have Changed!" (https://www.techspot.com/review/1859-two-years-later-ryzen-1600-vs-core-i5-7600k/) : newer engine games like "Shadow Of Tomb Raider", "Hitman 2", "Assassin's Creed Odyssey", "Battlefield 5" and "The Division2" - explain why cpu frecuency is important, but having more resource to work with, sometimes can make the diference. (note: you can find the video on youtube too if you prefer).

This is only 2 years old CPU (and the very first Ryzen ever launched), and the FPS diference in those newer game engines is important. I always pay attention to the 1% low, those results are the ones that define how smooth my gameplay will be.

So where am I going with all this, if I were to buy a CPU today, I will go either way, but with one caveat, the CPU should have HT or SMT enable.

 

[mitch074]

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.

Not true - the only real advantage a X570 has over a X470 is PCIE 4.0, which isn't used much today. If you went with one of the few very good X370 (or even some B350) motherboards made available when Ryzen 1xxx came out to plug your 1700 or 1600(X) CPU on, you can enjoy 99% of the goodies the X3950 brings for the price of the CPU alone today (the X470 is barely a refresh of the X370). If, that same year, you bought the revered 7700k, you'd have to change motherboard, indeed - but the newer motherboard would bring exactly zero improvement.

In short, with AMD you can upgrade the CPU if you want a much better CPU, upgrade the motherboard if you want a better motherboard, or upgrade both if you want a better everything; with Intel, you must upgrade both to get a marginally better CPU.

 

[mitch074]

Its not a question if you are now. Buy the will you get updates then. Support usually dies off within a year of product eol.

If you want to see what your chances are take a little ok at an equivalent b350 and see its update history.

My last b450 update was September 9th to 1,0.0,3 ABB. My board was released in March. So as you can see there's no guarantee of support. (Not to be negativ about it. Just more or less a cavaet emptor on buying a board when there is no official listed support program.).

I would pay considerably extra for a motherboard that guaranteed ALL compatible AMD Agesa updates within two months of release.

Replacing a cpu is easy compared to swapping an entire board. That's about two hours of my time plus an OS re-install with a board. Would I pay $50 extra for a board that promised that? Darn right i would!

As you say, it really depends on the manufacturer, but also on the quality of the board when it came out. I bought a few MSI B350M Mortar when Ryzen 1 came out. Back then, it had all the teething pains AM4 boards had : unacceptable boot speeds and extremely picky RAM compatibility when higher than base clock (2133 MHz).

So many BIOS updates later, booting is very quick, RAM runs overclocked without much problem and it's compatible with Ryzen 9 3950X.

On the other hand, that i5 4670K I still have in my cupboard loses speed on every BIOS update.

 

[Third-Eye]

Discussion is great and all, but hasn't everyone's point been made by now? If the OP hasn't been convinced on what to pick by now, I don't know what will. It's really a matter of performance vs price vs requirements. Intel for highest fps in games, but more expensive and with fewer cores (except 9900k and until next year.) AMD for 10-20% less fps in games, but lower price point with higher core/thread count making production work faster.

 

[joeblowsmynose]

As you say, it really depends on the manufacturer, but also on the quality of the board when it came out. I bought a few MSI B350M Mortar when Ryzen 1 came out. Back then, it had all the teething pains AM4 boards had : unacceptable boot speeds and extremely picky RAM compatibility when higher than base clock (2133 MHz).

So many BIOS updates later, booting is very quick, RAM runs overclocked without much problem and it's compatible with Ryzen 9 3950X.

On the other hand, that i5 4670K I still have in my cupboard loses speed on every BIOS update.

I have that board in mATX form. I didn't really have any issues with the included bios, but I did update fairly early on. I was able to run some "not approved" Corsair RAM at 3200 with tighter timings than XMP -- Maybe I was lucky

I do plan on putting a 3900x into it soon and I love that I don't have to shell out more for a new board - -I don't need PCI4 anyway - as is the case for most people.

Due to my planned upgrade I recently updated to a zen2 compatible bios -- I wish I had not done that yet. MSI didn't leave enough "room" for the zen2 bios in their boards and it was first reported that they would NOT support Zen2 at all. AMD worked with them, and managed to create a very cut down version of the new bios that would fit.

There's no more raid support (but I didn't need it) and almost all my OC features are gone now. The GUI is all text based now (reminds me of the old days), but that males it pretty hard to set fan profiles where there used to be a graph.

I have a r7 1700 currently, and it needs to be OCd (can OC 900mhz from base and still keep it really cool), it seems Ryzen master resets all settings when the computer sleeps - a pain in the butt.

Here's my take away -- and to the other fella back there in the thread ... I have a feeling that MSI first gen boards won't support Zen3 at all due to this misstep by MSI on their 1st gen boards.

Other than that issue, the board is very good.