I made a post about this a while ago, comparing the different processors and graphics cards. Intel has just released the tenth gen of processors, so I thought I would update it for fun. Lets start with Quick note before we get into the no budget category: the 10900k is currently sold out, but sells for around $550, which is around $150 cheaper than the 3950x. So for budgets under $750, the 10900k is the better choice. I don’t feel like doing GPUs at this time, so I will probably make that a different thread Dont ask me why, I like tech and this is fun[/SPOILER]
Intel claims that they are on track for 7nm by 2022, while AMD will be on 5nm at that point. Given AMD's year over year yields performance-wise, I would say that 2021-2024 amd is better, and 2024+ it is a tossup. Intel is getting into gear after the horrible mistake they made with 14nm+++++++
No doubt AMD is taking over. They figured how to make great processors in both laptops and PCs. They recently released their 4000 mobile processors. They are blazing fast compared to intel's recent mobile cpus https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-5-4500U-vs-Intel-Core-i7-10710U/m1052299vsm900004. Despite having the fastest speeds, the integrated graphics are slower than the previous generation.As of August 2020 they use a Vega 6 integrated graphics which is 49% slower than the previous graphics card (Vega 8). Not sure if AMD will send more updated drivers to hopefully at least be on par with the vega 8 performance.
This is true. However, the 4000 processors are based off of AMD's 3000 series 7nm process. Therefore, we will see a much higher level of performance in their 4000 series desktop CPUs, combined with the 5000 series laptop CPUs, coming soon. On a side note, user benchmark has recently been proven to be heavily biased towards intel processors, both in reviews and skewing the total processor speed benchmark in intel's favor. AMD did release the vega 8 graphics for the 4900h and 4900hs unless I am mistaken. If you are using user benchmark for your GPU benchmarks, the vega 8 benchmarks for all generations of laptop processors have been averaged, leading to a lower average score. This is true for all mobile graphics. Also, i believe that the 5000 series laptop processors will have the navi architecture for their integrated graphics, which will be much better performance-wise.
I was talking about the laptop cpus not the desktop cpus The desktop cpus will always be faster than the laptop/mobile cpus due to the increased wattage in the desktop cpus I didn't know user benchmark was biased towards intel cpus. When and where did you see it? I wanna make sure I'm using the correct benchmark. The 49900h and 4900hs respectively both have vega 8 graphics but they are used in gaming laptops which have a dedicated graphics card, leaving the vega 8 graphics sitting there and doing not much. I'll wait and see the 5000 series laptop cpus. If they do come with vega 8 or better then I will be sure to buy one. For now I'll likely stick with the 3000 series (3500 to be exact) laptop cpus that have the vega 8 graphics
I was talking about the laptop CPUs as well. I am not quite sure I felt that I needed to bring that up though. UserBenchmark gets banned from major subreddit due to drama generation - NotebookCheck.net News is a pretty good summary. That is a fair analysis. IMHO AMD still has a ways to go before they are perfect though.
ew i3 processors ewwwwwwwwwww Tip: If you're thinking of buying something with an i3 or below, it's better to go with AMD. The i3 is literally garbage in terms of today's standards I have to say - the Intel vs AMD debate has gone on for far too long now (16+ years?) - it's stupid to argue about it. The selling point of both of them are simply: AMD Pros: - Faster than Intel CPUs due to their higher clockrate - Innovate with newer technology - Hold their own in both the Processing and Graphics markets - Are affordable compared to Intel - Are great for budget builds due to their high power for very reasonable prices AMD Cons: - Have heat issues due to their high clockrate - Usually end up going out much quicker/earlier than Intel due to their heating issues - May require multiple heatsyncs (like both fans and liquid) - Are a true pain to keep cool in Australia when the AC kills itself - Get bullied by your friends because they have Intel i7s and you have AMD processors Intel Pros: - Always a step ahead of AMD in terms of new technology, partnerships, and marketting - Usually don't have heat issues (unless you're on a laptop. But you can die in the first place because you chose a laptop over a PC) - Aren't like AMD attempting to cram as many cores as possible in a CPU (looking at you, Threadripper) - Are good for servers and have very high single-core speeds Intel Cons: - While their single-core speeds are high, their multicore is quite low due to Hyperthreading - Hyperthreading is a con unless every single program on your computer requires one core - PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE - I can't emphasise this enough but - PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE - CAPTAIN PRICE WE HAVE ENEMIES PUSHING ON OUR POSITION! WE NEED TO MOVE - Enough CoD4:MW lore, back to Intel cons - Low clock speeds due to Intel caring too much about their CPUs not frying within the first year warranty period In conclusion, don't buy a laptop. p.s. Seriously. Don't. p.s.s. Intel is tops if you have the money, otherwise AMD is your best bet.
Yeah, honestly, the 3300x is all you will ever need if you are planning on gaming at 4k. It's entirely GPU bound at that point. I'm gonna disagree with you here. AMD now is on the lower end of clock rate, but with a higher IPC (instructions per cycle) which leads them to consume less power for less clock rate, but still keeping up with speed. Intel, on the other hand, is now boosting its processors to 5.3 GHz, drawing over 270 watts at full load. AMD is only drawing 145W at full load with an extra 6 cores and 12 threads. These remarks seem a bit outdated, as AMD hasn't had that issue with power consumption since first gen ryzen or the "Octa-core" FX-8350, and it is now Intel pushing the clock speeds to the absolute maximum for that 10% performance bonus. Again, this seems a bit off to me. AMD never meant for the Threadripper to be a gaming processor, and that is why they market the 3950x in their drivers rather than the 3990x. Same Laptop, Different CPU: Ryzen 4000 vs. Intel 10th-gen Battle this shows that AMD beats intel by a mile and a half when it comes to laptops. and yeah the price is a huge issue, but intel has enabled hyperthreading for their 10th gen. This is wrong, intel has insane clock speeds but lower IPC (like amd did when the FX-8350 was a thing) Yeah, I'm in the laptop bad gang too. it makes no sense imo but intel is only good at the No Budget, gaming section. everything else goes to AMD at the moment.
true, but its only about a 60% performance boost compared to the advertised 2x speed. Makes no sense, because 60 is bragworthy in and of itself
You said it, "boosting". Their base clock isn't that high. Usually most Intel CPUs come at around 4.2-4.8 GHz? Somewhere around there, while the latest AMD processors come at a base clock of ~5. You don't want to "Boost" or in technical words, overclock your Intel CPU. It usually results in higher temperature, which is why Intel has it as a toggle (if I'm correct). I never made remarks about power, to me power draw is unimportant as a 500W PSU will most likely be enough for anything. I know the threadripper was never meant to be a gaming processor, and I never said it was either. I also was talking about Desktop CPUs over laptop CPUs, as laptop CPUs have nowhere near the power of their desktop equivelants (I'm sure you know this). I didn't mention at all about laptops until the last line, and my line on Hyperthreading was completely my opinion. Hyperthreading is when one core utilises multiple instances of multithreading - which puts extra load on one core instead of say, using the next core, which allows for more power and less stress. I should also say "compared to their AMD equivelants" instead of just saying it as it is, but yeah this is it.
