# AMD vs Intel



## lupi900 (Dec 7, 2017)

Ever since the whole shitstorm of intel insisting people get new motherboards. With every new CPU release, I've switched back to AMD by choosing the R5 1600 on new rig.


----------



## Yakamaru (Dec 7, 2017)

AMD>Everything else.


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Dec 7, 2017)

Intel>AMD. Nuff said...


----------



## 134 (Dec 8, 2017)

I like AMD


----------



## GrowlBurger (Dec 8, 2017)

lupi900 said:


> Ever since the whole shitstorm of intel insisting people get new motherboards....


Huh? Is that the real reason people are complaining about Intel? Because that's awfully silly and fallacious if so, and isn't specific to Intel. Any time a new CPU uses a new socket type (and sometimes, just architecture), you need a new motherboard. AMD has changed socket types plenty of times in the past.

And it's a good thing too! If CPU companies never changed their architecture, CPU tech wouldn't be able to improve. And when the architecture changes so drastically that older motherboards will no longer be compatible (something that is bound to happen if, again, you expect CPU's to improve over time) you need to get new hardware...

And even if CPU socket changes came more often (which I'm not sure they do) that would likely be because Intel chooses to put more of their chipset functionality into the CPU rather than separate onboard chips that connect to the CPU with copper wire. This also makes Intel CPUs far more efficient than they would be otherwise.

Also, just fyi, they aren't "forcing" you to get a new motherboard. If you want to own state-of-the-art tech, thats well and good, but then you shouldn't be complaining about this, because that's how the game goes. CPUs are rarely the bottleneck in modern machines anyways (for most users, at least) and you're better off spending your upgrade cash on a new GPU or more RAM, not a new CPU (or an entirely new mobo/CPU combo in an attempt to switch companies).

At any rate, in summary, both companies change socket types all the time. Not sure why you would think this is just an Intel thing. If you prefer AMD over Intel that's all well and good, but the reason you listed isn't an actual valid one.

Edit: SSD storage space is another great option if you have cash to spend on your PC, and I'd rate that a far better option than new CPUs as well. The CPU is honestly one of the last things I would consider upgrading in a rig, because the performance changes are unlikely to make much of a difference for 99.9% of the programs and games the average person uses/plays.


----------



## Saiko (Dec 9, 2017)

The problem with Intel lately is that they’ve been moving at a snail’s pace for the past four years, making only marginal improvements to performance and power consumption. Now they’ve let AMD catch up with Ryzen, which is pretty pathetic considering how big Intel is.


----------



## Namba (Dec 10, 2017)

I'm still rocking an i7 3770, but the day I'm ready to start from scratch with an entirely new build, I'm more than likely going  with a Ryzen 5


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Dec 19, 2017)

Blue team for life


----------



## Deleted member 106754 (Dec 23, 2017)

lupi900 said:


> Ever since the whole shitstorm of intel insisting people get new motherboards. With every new CPU release, I've switched back to AMD by choosing the R5 1600 on new rig.



Just moved on from a 6 year old 1366 platform and an i7 970 to AM4 and 1700. I myself have more faith in future upgrade-ability with team red, and If you have a tight budget but still want to do "all the things" AMD has really done good for themselves. I also always try to vote with my wallet nowadays and I don't think Intel deserves my money this time around. So far I've had no stability issues and running 3000Mhz ram no problem. Things sure seem to have matured on the platform and I will be guiding my contacts and friends in the right direction which I believe is the AM4 platform.


----------



## lupi900 (Dec 23, 2017)

Redlinelies said:


> Just moved on from a 6 year old 1366 platform and an i7 970 to AM4 and 1700. I myself have more faith in future upgrade-ability with team red, and If you have a tight budget but still want to do "all the things" AMD has really done good for themselves. I also always try to vote with my wallet nowadays and I don't think Intel deserves my money this time around. So far I've had no stability issues and running 3000Mhz ram no problem. Things sure seem to have matured on the platform and I will be guiding my contacts and friends in the right direction which I believe is the AM4 platform.



The R5 1600 with its is a steal for power to price ratio when compared to any quad core i5. Games like BF1's 64 MP max out the i5 6600k & the 6700k is needed because of its 8 threads. Which is why the 8400 bugs me since in some games it struggles because it's limted to 6 thread's instead 8 & above.


----------



## Deleted member 106754 (Dec 23, 2017)

I hear you. The 8600 also only runs 6 threads does it not? First when you move up to 8700 you get 12.


----------



## lupi900 (Dec 23, 2017)

Redlinelies said:


> I hear you. The 8600 also only runs 6 threads does it not? First when you move up to 8700 you get 12.



Yes the 8600k is 6/6, It's pretty much a 6 core 6700k gimped to only 6 threads. Same issue on how skylake i5's were only 4 threads. Anyone that still insists a 6600k or a older i5 is either a moron or fanboy when more and more games are making use more than 4 threads & cores.


----------



## Saiko (Dec 23, 2017)

JackieR said:


> amd is only good at the low end


This is false. Except at the very top of the lineup, AMD and Intel are currently neck and neck for performance. I don’t know how they compare in power consumption and heat generation right now, but you can justify either as long as you literally aren’t trying to build the fastest, most expensive single-processor server-grade system possible.


----------



## Deleted member 106754 (Dec 23, 2017)

lupi900 said:


> Yes the 8600k is 6/6, It's pretty much a 6 core 6700k gimped to only 6 threads. Same issue on how skylake i5's were only 4 threads. Anyone that still insists a 6600k or a older i5 is either a moron or fanboy when more and more games are making use more than 4 threads & cores.



It's nice to see AMD back in the high end market again, but even more so to see some more real improvements and movements forward on the processor market in general. 
It's clear Zen didn't quite reach "all" the way, in particular with clocks compare to Intel but there's dye shrinks on it's way and most likely IPC improvements in general and the whole tech industry seems to see potential in Ryzen.
Meanwhile it just feels like Intel is doing damage control while AMD seems to know what they want to do, hence it appears that AM4 is probably something to go with if you want any sort of upgrade path in the future.


----------



## Scorpen (Dec 24, 2017)

As far as I'm concerned...
Motorola! (I love old 68k and PPC based systems.)
In all seriousness though I'd have to go with Intel.


----------



## Deleted member 106754 (Dec 24, 2017)

JackieR said:


> yea in the mid end they go neck in neck for multicore application, but in gaming intel wins. Power consumption might be lower too


Some truth in it. Intel has better IPC than what AMD can muster right now, power consumption as far as I know is quite even as they both rock 95 and 65 TDP on stock and certainly something that doesn't lean more or less in the other teams favor in the planes we're talking about.
However it does seem like AMD struck some gold with their AM4 platform and zen architecture and just what they needed to stay in the game. Though saying AMD is just good for low end(today) is just fanboy talk xD, just to look up a few articles and some numbers to prove yourself wrong. Everyone can agree to the fact that Intel does have better per core performance, but if you do anything else but playing @ 1080p resolutions you'd be just as well, if not better off with a Ryzen system. Cores play(Probably will play even more) a bigger role today than what they did a few years ago, if it didn't you'd still get your 8700k with 4 cores and 8 threads. c:

Gaming however is not the only thing on some peoples mind, I rather take a minute or two off rendering time than to have 5-10 frames in a game that relies more on the GPU.
Never quite that simple as there's different things that tickles peoples fancy.


----------



## Saiko (Dec 24, 2017)

JackieR said:


> yea in the mid end they go neck in neck for multicore application, but in gaming intel wins. Power consumption might be lower too


No, I’m referring specifically to the gaming spectrum. Intel currently only “wins” at the point where the CPU is overpriced and overpowered, even for gaming. Below that, you can justify either depending on your priorities. Namely, if you want to save money and don’t mind a hotter system, you can go with an AMD CPU and be perfectly fine.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Dec 24, 2017)

Saiko said:


> No, I’m referring specifically to the gaming spectrum. Intel currently only “wins” at the point where the CPU is overpriced and overpowered, even for gaming. Below that, you can justify either depending on your priorities. Namely, if you want to save money and don’t mind a hotter system, you can go with an AMD CPU and be perfectly fine.


Hell's heat is fuelled by an AMD processor.


----------



## lupi900 (Dec 24, 2017)

Saiko said:


> No, I’m referring specifically to the gaming spectrum. Intel currently only “wins” at the point where the CPU is overpriced and overpowered, even for gaming. Below that, you can justify either depending on your priorities. Namely, if you want to save money and don’t mind a hotter system, you can go with an AMD CPU and be perfectly fine.



What intel stuff is the hot ones CPU watt wise my R5 1600 is 65 watt & runs fine with air coolling while the bule team needs AIO's even without OC'ing. But no I'm the liar when i brought up how useless 6600k's are for heavier games.

Funny AMD bounces back on there CPU side while the fans of blue team just lash out with stuff that rang true with there FX chip's. Holy shit fuck off.


----------



## Saiko (Dec 24, 2017)

lupi900 said:


> What intel stuff is the hot ones CPU watt wise my R5 1600 is 65 watt & runs fine with air coolling while the bule team needs AIO's even without OC'ing. But no I'm the liar when i brought up how useless 6600k's are for heavier games.
> 
> Funny AMD bounces back on there CPU side while the fans of blue team just lash out with stuff that rang true with there FX chip's. Holy shit fuck off.


I never said anyone was lying. I’m just filling in my ignorance of current AMD heat dissipation with a worst case that used to be true. Even with that worst case, you can pretty easily justify AMD for a gaming rig because current AMD processors are pretty damn good and an excellent value right now. Depending on how the market looks in five’ish years, there’s a reasonable chance I’ll swap because Intel is currently the one with stagnated processors.


----------



## 134 (Dec 24, 2017)

Saiko said:


> No, I’m referring specifically to the gaming spectrum. Intel currently only “wins” at the point where the CPU is overpriced and overpowered, even for gaming. Below that, you can justify either depending on your priorities. Namely, if you want to save money and don’t mind a hotter system, you can go with an AMD CPU and be perfectly fine.


I'm Running an overclocked AMD FX8350 with a Maximum Temperature of 50 degrees Celsius without watercooling.

Try me.


----------



## Saiko (Dec 24, 2017)

Jesus Christ you guys are defensive. I was fucking explaining one of the trade-offs historically involved with AMD and only brought it up in particular because it was a point of common ground with JackieR that I could use to make my point. Their processors have previously used more independent logic cores with higher clocking speeds; it is a fact of computer engineering that this requires more power and produces more heat; and in the absence of contrary information it is reasonable to debate with the assumption that this trade-off still persists. It is also a fact of engineering that you have to consider this trade-off when choosing your parts. This does not make one explicitly better than the other, and I’ve been arguing against that thought process. It only means you have to choose your trade-offs just like every other engineer.

And of course you’re fine with air cooling, @Nimilex. Almost everyone would be fine with air cooling, and quite frankly a lot of people would be better off with it. You clearly chose your cooling system and case superbly, but don’t mistake that for a lack of trade-offs. You’ve simply engineered around the trade-offs you chose, which is what you’re supposed to do.


----------



## rekcerW (Dec 29, 2017)

ATI is the shit... wait, what are we on about here? I had a TNT2 and it was the best fucking graphics card ever, fuck the fact nVidia made it. That thing played the fuck out of Mechwarrior.

AMD is the shit, though the 6700HQ that's running this laptop is pretty sweet too.

They work or they don't and they're priced reasonably or they're priced like shit, I'll buy whatever makes more sense.


----------



## TheOutedFurry (Jan 4, 2018)

AMD. Intel for me never has worked good (for me). The Intel days are over now... (shivers)


----------



## Coil (Feb 6, 2019)

Depends
Ryzen 7 2700X > I7 9700K
FX 9590 < I5 7600
TR 2990WX > i9 9980XE
Phenom II X6 < I5 2600
You get the idea

It mostly depends on budget and you can get more powerful AMD for 200$ than an Intel for same price


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 12, 2019)

I just enjoy that there are options on team red again as well 
Right now I am using a 7700K. I kept the board and just switched the CPU.
If I had upgraded the whole machine I might have switched to a Ryzen instead.


----------



## S.A.F.I (Mar 11, 2019)

RISC-V anyone?


----------

