Intel or AMD?

[The Gormless One]

Thinking towards the future again, I know nothing of computer building, and would like to know which would be stronger, an Intel processor, or an AMD processor? Or am I missing the big picture here?

[SHREDDER]

notkennyS původně napsal:

SHREDDER původně napsal:

Never buy intel agian! i have got 3 intel and 3 amd cpus(486 pentium 4 athlon xp athlon x2 core i5 2500k and now ryzen 7 1700) but that is form now on AMD only. Intel has been eating our money while selling overpriced weak cpus for too long! Buy Ryzeb 3700x or better.

Graphics card get a RTX 2070 super. It will run evrything max settings 1440p and 4k(without Ray tracing). Monitor get a 27'' 4k HDR they start at just 500 euros now.

2070S doesn't run 1440p maxed, nor 4K. No point in getting a 4K monitor, just buy a tv at that point.

my gtx 970 that i have it since 2014 still run 1440p maxed but most games run at 30-40 fps instead of 60 fps. 2070S can run evrything 1440p max settings 60 fps and some unoptimzied games might drop to 55 fps in some scenes. That what see form benchmarks and videos anyway. why do you think it cant run max settings 1440p? Also it can 4k max settings 30 fps on evry game.

[Komrade]

SHREDDER původně napsal:

notkennyS původně napsal:

2070S doesn't run 1440p maxed, nor 4K. No point in getting a 4K monitor, just buy a tv at that point.

my gtx 970 that i have it since 2014 still run 1440p maxed but most games run at 30-40 fps instead of 60 fps. 2070S can run evrything 1440p max settings 60 fps and some unoptimzied games might drop to 55 fps in some scenes. That what see form benchmarks and videos anyway. why do you think it cant run max settings 1440p? Also it can 4k max settings 30 fps on evry game.

Edited. Also, no one plays at 4K 30fps, and your 970... I'm not even gonna say anything.

[x_wing]

IMO it's better too get a middle tier CPU (like the Ryzen 3600) with all the extra you need (memory, mb, ssd) and then spend as much as you can in the GPU.

Unless you have an unlimited budget, there is no point to go to highest end on everything. Also, as the question is more "future proof" centered, I think that it's better to save money so in the future you can use it to upgrade for new middle-high end parts.

[emoticorpse]

AMD

[r.linder]

vadim původně napsal:

Escorve původně napsal:

AMD has a much better value because of the Ryzen 5 3600, which matches the i7-8700(K), and better value for workstations

All Ryzens are consumer-grade chips. They are too slow for anyone in their right mind to use them in a workstation.

I admit, I laughed my ass off when I read this because it's flat-out wrong. Just because it's a consumer-grade chip from AMD, doesn't mean it's "too slow" for workstation tasks. You don't even own a Ryzen CPU, do you?

The Ryzen 9 3900X completely stomps 1st gen TR4 and the 12-core 2920X, and isn't too far behind the 16-core 2950X, which will probably end up being stomped by the 3950X due to that being a 16-core chip instead of a 12-core. Beyond workstation tasks, the 3900X is a much better value than the 2920X and 2950X because it's more versatile and using a superior and newer architecture. Users seeking more than just a workstation chip will find Ryzen 9 more desirable, while the rest would still be into TR.

Threadripper isn't even worth buying into right now as AMD is moving from X399 to TRX40, TRX80, and WRX80 chipsets, which AMD claims 3rd gen TR will not be compatible with X399 motherboards. Workstation users that can afford paying more for the higher end chipsets are waiting for them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxMYN_zanfo

[GuRu Asaki]

As long as it can still output the power to get 60fps or higher with good clock speeds, & minimal lagg spikes, & such for 8K, ill switch from a threadripper 2nd Gen Higher End CPU to a better CPU by AMD, as the NAVI is not strong enough for what I need it for...

I got a Radeon VII, & if the Radeon VII struggles with 8K at 16GB VRAM, then hoping my CPU can get me better results to help push my PC into the 60 or higher FPS range with better clock speeds, & such, i dunno however you put it...

[Autumn_]

GuRu Asaki původně napsal:

As long as it can still output the power to get 60fps or higher with good clock speeds, & minimal lagg spikes, & such for 8K, ill switch from a threadripper 2nd Gen Higher End CPU to a better CPU by AMD, as the NAVI is not strong enough for what I need it for...

I got a Radeon VII, & if the Radeon VII struggles with 8K at 16GB VRAM, then hoping my CPU can get me better results to help push my PC into the 60 or higher FPS range with better clock speeds, & such, i dunno however you put it...

CPU will not help you with resolution.
CPU only cares about FPS, and 60 FPS is a goal almost any CPU can do.
No card can play games at '8k', we're still struggling with '4k'.

[GuRu Asaki]

no, no the gpu can output the 8K visuals, i just need a stronger cpu for better fps, & minimal lagg & better speeds, that is all...

I was hoping for a better cpu coming soon then our current navi cpu & such...

[Autumn_]

GuRu Asaki původně napsal:

no, no the gpu can output the 8K visuals, i just need a stronger cpu for better fps, & minimal lagg & better speeds, that is all...

The Radeon VII won't do more than like 5 FPS at 8k.....
CPU doesn't care about resolution, getting a CPU with more cores won't help either.

[GuRu Asaki]

why do you keep saying cpu & resolution?

im only talking about fps & cpu, & such... oO

[r.linder]

GuRu Asaki původně napsal:

why do you keep saying cpu & resolution?

im only talking about fps & cpu, & such... oO

Because higher resolution equates to lower load on the CPU as you're getting less FPS the higher your resolution. Hence why a lot of CPU benchmarks are done at 1080p for the most part instead of 1440p or 2160p. Weak CPUs that normally struggle with 1080 Ti at 1080p will handle it better at 4K because it's not holding back the 1080 Ti, as lower resolution means less GPU load and higher CPU load, as the CPU is preparing more frames for the GPU to render, to the point where if its too weak for that GPU, it'll hold it back and cause stuttering and below average performance for that card.

8K gaming isn't even possible yet, the 2080 Ti can struggle at 4K in some games, and 8K is four times as bad.

[Zireth]

In comparison to a 9900k, the 3800x performs 5% worse to a 9900k but cost only 370$ compared to 455$.

You could put a top of the line noctua or be quiet! Air cooler and be almost the same price of the intel.

I highly suggest AMD over intel If you want to save a little while not compromising performance.

[vadim]

Escorve původně napsal:

I admit, I laughed my ass off when I read this because it's flat-out wrong. Just because it's a consumer-grade chip from AMD, doesn't mean it's "too slow" for workstation tasks.

You should realise that workstation and server are basically the same market. Workstations need less cores, higher single-thread performance and more advanced ISA extensions (they much more often use to run custom soft), but all in all they are very similar. In particular, they both should have a lot of RAM and high RAM bandwidth.
Let's look at the numbers. AMD market share on this market as low as 3.4%. Intel has other 96.6%.
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-desktop-pc-mobile-server-overall-market-share,40141.html
https://www.extremetech.com/computing/296655-amd-reports-q2-2019-market-share-as-intel-sticks-to-its-guns-on-pricing

[r.linder]

vadim původně napsal:

Escorve původně napsal:

I admit, I laughed my ass off when I read this because it's flat-out wrong. Just because it's a consumer-grade chip from AMD, doesn't mean it's "too slow" for workstation tasks.

You should realise that workstation and server are basically the same market. Workstations need less cores, higher single-thread performance and more advanced ISA extensions (they much more often use to run custom soft), but all in all they are very similar. In particular, they both should have a lot of RAM and high RAM bandwidth.
Let's look at the numbers. AMD market share on this market as low as 3.4%. Intel has other 96.6%.
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-desktop-pc-mobile-server-overall-market-share,40141.html
https://www.extremetech.com/computing/296655-amd-reports-q2-2019-market-share-as-intel-sticks-to-its-guns-on-pricing

Market share doesn't mean ♥♥♥♥ to me. I know more people buy Intel than AMD in that respect because they can afford to pay more for a marginal difference. I don't care that companies are buying more expensive workstation CPUs, because I'm talking workstation workloads on a closer to consumer-grade level, not freaking servers and datacenters. Those don't even apply to this thread.

Ryzen still performs better than Intel does in work related tasks, unless you're comparing something like 2nd gen Ryzen to a 9900K, which gets stomped by the 3900X in that regard. That is more in line with what the OP is asking.

[tacoshy]

vadim původně napsal:

Escorve původně napsal:

I admit, I laughed my ass off when I read this because it's flat-out wrong. Just because it's a consumer-grade chip from AMD, doesn't mean it's "too slow" for workstation tasks.

You should realise that workstation and server are basically the same market. Workstations need less cores, higher single-thread performance and more advanced ISA extensions (they much more often use to run custom soft), but all in all they are very similar. In particular, they both should have a lot of RAM and high RAM bandwidth.
Let's look at the numbers. AMD market share on this market as low as 3.4%. Intel has other 96.6%.
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-desktop-pc-mobile-server-overall-market-share,40141.html
https://www.extremetech.com/computing/296655-amd-reports-q2-2019-market-share-as-intel-sticks-to-its-guns-on-pricing

highly depends on what you do as server or workstation. To be fair a server often is used to run multiple VM's and emulating multiple servers as game servers in whichc ase it becomes core depending. The same importance to cores should be given when you use the server for AI learnign but then again we're betetr off with an Xeon Phi 72 Core CPu over any consumer grade CPU, HEDT or even the Epyc CPU's.

For Workstation it depends if you do rendering only which runs better with more cores no matter how strong they are and then AMD unless you OC intel HEDT. An I agree that you better of with TR because of Quad-Channel and Core count. If you do VM's and compiling and not just need the core count you proberly better off with Intel 80XE CPU's espacially if you can overclock them to 4.5-5.0GHz (also the reason why I currently looking into i9-10980XE release)

And last but not least we have Adobe the grand example for Intel. Adobe with AMD and you pretty fast going to regret not to use Intel.