[SOLVED] INTEL vs AMD RYZEN 2020

[rage690]

Hey guys im a little bit torn with the never ending discussion of INTEL vs AMD. its been a decade long debate with myself and i used to be fully INTEL because back in the day AMD cpus were bad and are known to get fried easily. it stuck to me since then and i have never used an AMD intel because of it. but the past few years im looking at Ryzen CPUs and i see a lot of gamers buy them. They are cheaper than intel nowadays. why are we still buying intel CPUs when they are more expensive ? im hoping to get a clarification from non-intel non-amd fanboys as to what the significant difference is between the two company.

i recently bought an Intel Core i5 9400 with built in iGPU but saw conflicting comparison results from the internet.

this is my favorite site a shows that the Ryzen 5 1600 scores better than the Intel Core i5 9400.
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

but then this site claims the 9400 is better. how is the 9400 (6 cores 6 threads) better than the ryzen 5 1600 ( 6 cores 12 threads) ?
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-9400-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-1600/m735306vs3919

any clarification would be greatly appreciated. i have been using Intel all my life but the way things are going, im thinking about moving to Ryzen if Ryzen can handle the job of MySQL and other work related tasks

 

[anvoice]

Intel still has a higher effective per core clock usually, so if you do something that doesn't benefit from multithreading you could do better with an Intel. At the moment though, bang for buck, Ryzen is better for most users.

 

[animekenji]

Passmark rates the Ryzen at 12447 in their benchmark and the 9400 at 9613. I question the rankings at userbenchmark for anything other than video cards.

 

[Wolfshadw]

It really breaks down to your budget. If budget allows, there's really no reason not to go with Intel. In multi-threaded applications, it depends on the workload. Do you really need 12 threads or more from an AMD processor? On the other hand, if you don't need that much horsepower (like me) and are on a limited budget, there's nothing wrong with going AMD.

-Wolf sends

 

[GarrettL]

I used the money saved going with a Ryzen build to get a nice IPS 1440p 140Hz monitor. I chose just a few percent slower for “Holy s@@@“ this games looks awesome

 

[ohio_buckeye]

Really AMD isn't too far behind. If you really want to compare 2020 though, you need to dump your comparison of the 1600 and look at the 3600. The 1600 is basically 2-3 years old and isn't really a fair comparison to a newer cpu.

If you look at the 3600, you see that in some cases the 3600 eats the 9400s lunch. In some cases the 9400 is a faster cpu. But anymore you can't make a blanket statement to say Intel is better for gaming. In the past Intel was faster at gaming. But these days they probably have some ground to make up.

 

[TerryLaze]

Really AMD isn't too far behind. If you really want to compare 2020 though, you need to dump your comparison of the 1600 and look at the 3600. The 1600 is basically 2-3 years old and isn't really a fair comparison to a newer cpu.

And so is the 9400 and he should be looking at the 10400.

 

[Rodrigodrt]

if you were to compare the direct competidors between amd and intel, right off the bat, you'd see that the ryzen offers more cores, wich result in more multitask capabilities, and intel has higher frequencies and also overclock capabilities, in short, out of the box intel provides about 10% more performance, and perhaps a little bit more if overclocked well.

that being said, if you just game, stream on one or another platform, do your browsing, yt etc etc, id go with intel. If you do some frequent video encoding, streaming on multiple fronts, a lot of edditing, that is, stuff that benefit from as many cores as you can have, then ryzen.

 

[drea.drechsler]

Hey guys im a little bit torn with the never ending discussion of INTEL vs AMD. its been a decade long debate with myself and i used to be fully INTEL because back in the day AMD cpus were bad and are known to get fried easily. it stuck to me since then and i have never used an AMD intel because of it. but the past few years im looking at Ryzen CPUs and i see a lot of gamers buy them. They are cheaper than intel nowadays. why are we still buying intel CPUs when they are more expensive ? im hoping to get a clarification from non-intel non-amd fanboys as to what the significant difference is between the two company.

i recently bought an Intel Core i5 9400 with built in iGPU but saw conflicting comparison results from the internet.

this is my favorite site a shows that the Ryzen 5 1600 scores better than the Intel Core i5 9400.
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

but then this site claims the 9400 is better. how is the 9400 (6 cores 6 threads) better than the ryzen 5 1600 ( 6 cores 12 threads) ?
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-9400-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-1600/m735306vs3919

any clarification would be greatly appreciated. i have been using Intel all my life but the way things are going, im thinking about moving to Ryzen if Ryzen can handle the job of MySQL and other work related tasks

First thing to know is that userbenchmark is little more than a shill for Intel. The comments that accompany scores often make that very apparent. The second thing to consider is that the way the benchmark works is by compiling all results submitted, even those that are heavily overclocked using LN2, into a common database. That skews averages and makes it impossible to fairly compare between different systems even if they're made of identical components. There's just way too many variables that are ignored. The only utility is to a user comparing to their own system as they tweak or change components.

If you go looking at balanced and fair reviews with results from tests made in a controlled fashion to limit variables (HWunboxed and GamersNexus do great ones, there are others) you'll find that Intel CPU's do have an advantage in certain games when playing with a very high powered GPU. Especially in low resolution, where the CPU is almost always the bottleneck, an Intel CPU can get from 1-5% better FPS on certain titles.

If you want to run your 2080 or 3080 at 1080p then get an Intel processor. If you want to run it at 1440 or higher, or 2060/5700 class GPU, then CPU doesn't matter so save some bucks and get AMD.

And lastly: 6 core/6 thread processor (9400) is going to be hurting with many modern titles that are using more cores/threads. If you need... or would like... almost any apps open alongside your game (discord, game recording, streaming, web browser) you're just setting yourself up for frustration if you don't get a processor with more cores/threads.

 

[ohio_buckeye]

AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT Review

At $250, the Ryzen 5 3600XT is the most affordable Ryzen XT model, and it even includes a heatsink in the box. Overclocking worked very well. Our Ryzen 5 3600XT review sample reached a maximum stable frequency of 4.5 GHz on all cores, which makes this an interesting SKU for tweakers.

www.techpowerup.com

That's a review of the 3600xt, but shows graphs with the Intel chips. Sometimes the Intel is faster, but they really appear on par especially as resolution goes up.

 

[gingerrankin]

Hey guys im a little bit torn with the never ending discussion of INTEL vs AMD. its been a decade long debate with myself and i used to be fully INTEL because back in the day AMD cpus were bad and are known to get fried easily. it stuck to me since then and i have never used an AMD intel because of it. but the past few years im looking at Ryzen CPUs and i see a lot of gamers buy them. They are cheaper than intel nowadays. why are we still buying intel CPUs when they are more expensive ? im hoping to get a clarification from non-intel non-amd fanboys as to what the significant difference is between the two company.

i recently bought an Intel Core i5 9400 with built in iGPU but saw conflicting comparison results from the internet.

this is my favorite site a shows that the Ryzen 5 1600 scores better than the Intel Core i5 9400.
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

but then this site claims the 9400 is better. how is the 9400 (6 cores 6 threads) better than the ryzen 5 1600 ( 6 cores 12 threads) ?
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-9400-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-1600/m735306vs3919

any clarification would be greatly appreciated. i have been using Intel all my life but the way things are going, im thinking about moving to Ryzen if Ryzen can handle the job of MySQL and other work related tasks

It depends on how you use your computer.

If you wanted it for gaming (which I discard since it uses the IGPU) of course you are more interested in Intel.

For heavy productivity tasks (like video processing ...) you might be more interested in Ryzen, but keep in mind that most Ryzen have no IGPU so you will need to buy a discrete GPU.

For light tasks (web browsing, word, excel ...) Intel is the choice.

If you are a professional who uses the computer to work, you should not be guided by differences of $ 50 but in which computer works best for you.

In the specific case that the I5 9400 indicates it is much, much, much better than the Ryzen 5 1600 even though it has 12 t. The ryzen 5 2600 is somewhat more even and the ryzen 5 3600 is somewhat better (although its natural competitor is the I5 10400 which is better).

Finally, if you want your system to work the first time, you do not have to tune memories or parameters, do not worry about bending the pins of the cpu of course Intel. If you like to "touch up" Ryzen is ok.

 

[mdd1963]

Looking forward to next gen of Ryzen desktop CPUs; if they can match the 10700k in gaming prowess, and cost less, they will sell boatloads!

 

[ohio_buckeye]

Think I heard a number of 15 improvement on 3000 series. If they can do that, which they delivered with the 3000 series, then they should be good CPUs. What will be interesting is will you be able to get for example, 3600 CPUs for 120-140 new. Or 200 dollar 3700x CPUs similar to what happened with the 2700x. That would make things interesting.