Intel or AMD?

[Grilled Salmon]

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?

[vadim]

As a rule of a thumb: workstation CPU should have quadchannel RAM or more. In my experience, RAM bottleneck is main reason that limits workstation performance.
Unlike games and other consumer apps (like photoshop or blender), workstation tasks usually extremely memory-intensive.

[r.linder]

Escrito originalmente por Jeph:

Escrito originalmente por Bananarama:

What are you planning to do with your pc? Streaming, Video editing, Gaming only?

Probably a bit of video editing and generally gaming. I'd LIKE the ability to stream, but I won't ever get to it, honestly.

3700X, 3800X, or 3900X would be your best bet. Don't need to spend more on a 9900K when the 3900X will do work better, and all 3 of these Ryzen chips are still fantastic in games.

[tacoshy]

Escrito originalmente por Escorve:

Escrito originalmente por vadim:

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.

PS: @Escorve, AMD only does better in workstation if the task is soley dependign on core count not on single core performance or special instruction sets nor the sue of quad channel. which you mainly have with rendering only. But there so many other task like compiling.

[r.linder]

Escrito originalmente por tacoshy:

Escrito originalmente por Escorve:

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.

PS: @Escorve, AMD only does better in workstation if the task is soley dependign on core count not on single core performance or special instruction sets nor the sue of quad channel. which you mainly have with rendering only. But there so many other task like compiling.

For the most part, what I've seen in benchmarks of a variety of programs is that the 3900X does a lot of them better than the 9900K.
It is a fact that the 3900X can match the 9900K in single-threaded IPC when it's clocked lower than the latter.

[tacoshy]

but if we talk about Workstation or Servers you not go with the 9900K in the first place, you go with a HEDT like the i9-9980XE or any Skylake-X CPU that gives you the advanatges of Quadchannels, more advanced instruction sets, PCI-E lanes

PS: And thats what Vadim says and actually is right - Workstation and Gaming PC's are 2 whole different stories (besides the obvios fact that you can OC the Intel 18 cores partwise to 5.0GHz all core aswell).

[r.linder]

Escrito originalmente por tacoshy:

but if we talk about Workstation or Servers you not go with the 9900K in the first place, you go with a HEDT like the i9-9980XE or any Skylake-X CPU that gives you the advanatges of Quadchannels, more advanced instruction sets, PCI-E lanes

The thread isn't even about HEDT. The OP is interesting in gaming and work, something that Ryzen would just do better.

[tacoshy]

Escrito originalmente por Escorve:

Escrito originalmente por tacoshy:

but if we talk about Workstation or Servers you not go with the 9900K in the first place, you go with a HEDT like the i9-9980XE or any Skylake-X CPU that gives you the advanatges of Quadchannels, more advanced instruction sets, PCI-E lanes

The thread isn't even about HEDT. The OP is interesting in gaming and work, something that Ryzen would just do better.

no the thread is about what the OP needs the PC for. Not workstation at all. If you talk about real workstation which is not a PC for basic work then you have to talk about HEDT. Because real workstation is HEDT and TR league.
The thing I see here, is that workstation was bought up and proberly was mistaken as a PC for basic workstuff like light video editing.

[r.linder]

Escrito originalmente por tacoshy:

Escrito originalmente por Escorve:

The thread isn't even about HEDT. The OP is interesting in gaming and work, something that Ryzen would just do better.

no the thread is about what the OP needs the PC for. Not workstation at all. If you talk about real workstation which is not a PC for basic work then you have to talk about HEDT. Because real workstation is HEDT and TR league.
The thing I see here, is that workstation was bought up and proberly was mistaken as a PC for basic workstuff like light video editing.

There's no point in arguing over what constitutes an actual workstation build, if it's consumer level or HEDT. People will still use Ryzen for those workloads, and as far as Ryzen 9 goes, it's perfectly fine, as the 3900X surpasses most of TR4. It surpasses previously released HEDT chips and costs less. Hence why AMD is pretty much rebuilding Threadripper from the ground up with the next generation.

[vadim]

Escrito originalmente por Escorve:

It surpasses previously released HEDT

Really? Please, compare Ryzen 9 3900x vs pretty old i9-7920x (both have 12c/24t) with AVX instruction set. Do you see the difference?
https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph14605/111184.png

[r.linder]

Escrito originalmente por vadim:

Escrito originalmente por Escorve:

It surpasses previously released HEDT

Really? Please, compare Ryzen 9 3900x vs pretty old i9-7920x (both have 12c/24t) with AVX instruction set. Do you see the difference?
https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph14605/111184.png

That's one program, and the 7920X costs over twice as much and uses considerably more power.
And I didn't say all previously released HEDT, now did I? I didn't even mention Intel HEDT, only TR4. It was a past to present comparison showing how far AMD has come with basically killing their own HEDT chips with a single CPU for 500$.

[vadim]

Escrito originalmente por Escorve:

That's one program, and the 7920X costs over twice as much and uses more power.

One program? Costs more?
Well, let's look at another compute and memory intensive benchmark:
http://www.numberworld.org/y-cruncher/benchmarks/charts/25m.html
Single 2 y.o. i9-7940x (14c/28t) wins over 2 x Epyc 7742 (128c/256t) that cost 10 times more.

[Guts]

Lets see... if you buy a i3-9100f for $100 which preforms pretty much on par with the 8700k or i5-9600k, and a say RTX 2060 or even the rx 580 you can have a BEAST gaming PC for VERY cheap

[Autumn_]

Escrito originalmente por bluedoo:

Lets see... if you buy a i3-9100f for $100 which preforms pretty much on par with the 8700k or i5-9600k, and a say RTX 2060 or even the rx 580 you can have a BEAST gaming PC for VERY cheap

Except in games that use more than 4 threads....lmao.
Quadcores ♥♥♥♥ bricks in this day and age.
You can pick a 2600x up for 120 dollars, and you get 2 more cores, plus SMT, and similar single core performance, there's litterally no reason to buy an i3 in 2019.

[r.linder]

Escrito originalmente por vadim:

Escrito originalmente por Escorve:

That's one program, and the 7920X costs over twice as much and uses more power.

One program? Costs more?
Well, let's look at another compute and memory intensive benchmark:
http://www.numberworld.org/y-cruncher/benchmarks/charts/25m.html
Single 2 y.o. i9-7940x (14c/28t) wins over 2 x Epyc 7742 (128c/256t) that cost 10 times more.

That's HEDT vs an actual server CPU. They're in different market segments.
Intel even classifies the 7940X as desktop chip and not a server chip.

Either way, not relevant to the OP. This is just derailed and needs to stop, so I'm done with this. It's not worth any more of my time.

[r.linder]

Escrito originalmente por bluedoo:

Lets see... if you buy a i3-9100f for $100 which preforms pretty much on par with the 8700k or i5-9600k, and a say RTX 2060 or even the rx 580 you can have a BEAST gaming PC for VERY cheap

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-8700K-vs-Intel-Core-i3-9100F/3937vsm796379

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-8700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-3600/3937vs4040

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-9100F-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-3600/m796379vs4040

Cringefest of a website, but relevant.
For 200$, the 3600 is actually within a few percent of the 8700K and actually worth buying. Intel's performance value is dead below the 9700K.