add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

AMD vs. Intel!

vincent_2006

26 days ago

which one do u like more and y?

Comments

  • 26 days ago
  • 2 points

Neither. Brand loyalty like that always bites You in the end.

AMD ignores the market when they design products and features of those products.

Intel will sit back and wait for AMD to finally fix their design and then drop a already outdated design over and over.

We really need a competent third party with even barely competitive products to end the coopetition we are forced to deal with.

  • 26 days ago
  • 1 point

lol thx!

  • 26 days ago
  • 1 point

You can lol at it but the truth is very sad.

All the AMD construction families ignored how programs use resources.

Ryzen is actually a faster architecture then Intel's Lake architectures by a not insignificant amount.

In both they require the software market to be entirely rewritten from the current designs to make use of the performance of those architectures.

Intel's newest revealed architecture had its design finalized over a year ago and may not even launch this year.

And that is their first architecture to make it to market since AMD launched Zen.

  • 25 days ago
  • 1 point

thx!

  • 19 days ago
  • 1 point

intel and amd are being weird rn

  • 19 days ago
  • 1 point

Nothing weird about it.

AMD and Intel are cooperating without competition.

AMD is filling the voids left by shortages in Intel production which allows Intel to concentrate production on the parts AMD doesn't compete with.

Both benefit without the downsides of competition.

The only major wrench in the whole gearworks is the lack of reason to upgrade for most users who have anything less then 6 years old so long as they built to fill their needs back then.

If You stop and look at it the people who needed multi threaded performance and built with a 5820K/5960X are likely still waiting on a solid performance upgrade reason to justify a platform swap.

Same with the people who bought into a 4770K/4790K for gaming the titles that don't run well on those still don't run well on newer hardware.

The market for those who needed that level of performance and didn't spend the money back then has a far lower entry point but that is about it putting more and more of the market into a holding pattern waiting for a reason to justify an upgrade.

That is likely why Intel is moving into the GPU market so aggressively, a year away from launch give or take and they are actively promoting products. It is a short lifespan market with high turnover.

  • 19 days ago
  • 1 point

I keep getting conflicting news regarding Intel and GPU market. Commercial or Pro? Many point to competition in the sub-market forged by the Quadro / Titan products rather than the competition in the standard GeForce/Radeon lineups. Pity if that is true, I have been wanting a third party to shake things up, Nvidia have been gouging that market too long and AMD are not doing enough - AMD are pretty much developing the Playstation 5, where is that 14TFlop Ray Tracing Enabled GPU they developed for the PS5 in their line up? Should be coming with Navi or have been the Radeon VII. Shame on them.

  • 26 days ago
  • 1 point

Depends on the use case, just liking one over the other for no reason isn't smart

  • 26 days ago
  • 1 point

okay! lets say for multipurpose use!

  • 26 days ago
  • 1 point

That doesn't really help, it depends on a specific use case, not just general

  • 26 days ago
  • 1 point

wdum? srry!

  • 25 days ago
  • 2 points

No, really. It makes more sense to judge chips individually than to say you prefer AMD or Intel, and limit yourself to those chips.

For less than 4 cores, Intel tends to be far better, if only because AMD doesn't make chips with less than 4 cores (they disable cores for the Athlon 200GE). Just remember that if you live near a Microcenter, that $80 R6 (1800?) will cream any pentium or celeron (of course you'll have to supply a GPU regardless of whether the motherboard insists it has graphics present).

Once you get into the mid-range, you have to balance the higher cost and lower maximum throughput of Intel vs. the higher maximum clock rate. I wouldn't consider an Intel unless I planned to overclock it (thus forcing me to use a "K" chip).

At the high end, things get really different with the Intel having large number of highly clocked cores in the i9 and AMD having an extreme amount of reasonably high clocked cores in the threadripper. While you should always buy the hardware for the software you wish to run, at this level it becomes a lot more obvious which ones work better with each program (or not. It takes a lot of parallelism to justify an i9: I'd expect any reason to use an i9 over an i7 would imply that a threadripper will do a better job than the i9. I suspect the majority of the times people would rather just throw money at an easy solution than try to figure out which they need.

I may like AMD as a company, but I really doubt that I will ever need much more than 8 cores (and 8 thread) and that clockspeed matters more than the additional cores and threads. Still, the lower price of AMD is likely to keep me buying an AMD when the Ryzen 3000 comes out (although I can't imagine Navi will have a place in such a computer, this year anyway. Nvidia simply owns everything above 1440).

  • 25 days ago
  • 1 point

thx, srry i should hv been more specific!

  • 26 days ago
  • 1 point

If I am budget shopping, AMD would be a strong choice. If I want pure performance Intel is still has the better CPU's in the highend. They both have decent products at the moment so it depends on what your needs and budget are. Chances are you can find the right product to fit the bill.

  • 25 days ago
  • 1 point

ok!

  • 26 days ago
  • 1 point

I will admit I have used Intel since my first PC I built in the mid 90's and all I did was game so for just pure gaming Intel is great. My last Intel chip was a i5 2500k (built in '11 and it still rocks to this day).

I just built a new system and decided to go with AMD (R5 2600) since the Intel 9th gen chips cost too much imho and so far I am very impressed with the R5 2600. It is nice I can game/stream very smoothly on the R5 2600. Of course I have not tried doing that on any Intel chips lately.

All in all for just gaming they are both REALLY great but Intel is king there yet they cost more. But for autocad/number crunching then AMD is what one would lean to and they cost less.

  • 25 days ago
  • 1 point

thx!

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube