AMD Vs Intel
-
For your average business desktops, yeah, I'd go AMD if it saves you a chunk of money.
For video editing rigs or cad workstations, I'd do Intel CPUs + AMD GPU (oh, the irony).
-
@travisdh1 said in AMD Vs Intel:
First of all, Ryzen 3 is the upcoming CPU line from AMD. If you're supplier has access to those for less than an i5, probably a steal at this point as they're not generally available yet.
Ryzen 3 has been available since AMD introduced the series. Don't get that confused with what generation they're on. There's Ryzen 3, 5, and 7 which are supposed to be comparable to Intel's line of i3, i5, and i7.
Yes you likely would save on Ryzen 3 vs i5, because they're not directly comparable products. A more fair comparison would be Ryzen 5 vs i5 or Ryzen 3 vs i3. I would think you'd still see some savings, but maybe not quite as significant.
As others have stated, it comes down to your performance needs. Both are solid platforms.
-
@hobbit666 said in AMD Vs Intel:
What's peoples views on AMD vs Intel for desktop workloads?
I prefer AMD, only use Intel when I specifically have to work around Windows Server per-core licensing (so only for customers, we are Linux in house so AMD all the way) or can't get AMD in the models that we need. But I prefer the genuine product, I find them overall just better.
-
@hobbit666 said in AMD Vs Intel:
Few of our suppliers have been asking why not try a Ryzen 3 instead of the Intel i5. Saving near £100 per unit on desktops.
Shouldn't it be asked the other way? LOL Why try Intel if you have AMDs available?
That's how we always look at it.
-
@hobbit666 said in AMD Vs Intel:
But I've always been a Intel person as when ever I've used an AMD always seems a bit "laggish" but that might be me thinking "It's AMD"
Laggish? In what sense? The AMD64 architecture has been generally superior from AMD for most of its life span. Intel has tended for the last decade to make the best top end processors, but those are irrelevant to 99.9% of the market who would never be spending $8K on a single proc.
-
@dafyre said in AMD Vs Intel:
For your average business desktops, yeah, I'd go AMD if it saves you a chunk of money.
I'm posting from my AMD desktop right now.
-
@Pete-S said in AMD Vs Intel:
If AMD's where too slow then it was the wrong CPU for the application and it was a purchasing error, not an error on AMD's part.
This. AMD makes CPUs that are so monster, so fast, and has been since around 200 when the Athlon came out. Intel's top of the line was the Pentium III (the P4 never matched it) and AMD pulled ahead during that era, and then made 64bit and left Intel in the dust. AMD hasn't had a lack of "faster than anyone needs" processors since the 1990s.
-
@zachary715 said in AMD Vs Intel:
Yes you likely would save on Ryzen 3 vs i5, because they're not directly comparable products. A more fair comparison would be Ryzen 5 vs i5 or Ryzen 3 vs i3. I would think you'd still see some savings, but maybe not quite as significant.
AMD savings should be visible right now because Intel is having supply problems and so cost is going higher relative to the norm as people who require or demand Intel are getting charged a premium. For those able to use Genuine AMD (to use Intel's terminology) you get a bigger benefit right now than you normally do and desktop and laptop makers are adding AMDs to their lineups quickly so that they can keep machines on the market. That's really why they are pushing AMD, they've always known that it was a better value but that doesn't matter to them, what does matter is that they are able to get them and keep getting them for you so that you can keep buying more.
-
@dafyre said in AMD Vs Intel:
For your average business desktops, yeah, I'd go AMD if it saves you a chunk of money.
For video editing rigs or cad workstations, I'd do Intel CPUs + AMD GPU (oh, the irony).
Why are people using those types of apps, still using single-threaded applications? That's the only thing that Intel does better than AMD. With Intel's CPU shortages, the price difference is just making AMD look better and better. With Ryzen 3 out soon (we're seeing leaked performance reports now), the difference in performance even at that 1 special thing isn't going to be so much anymore. Plus, those apps are so old, or the companies that wrote them stopped any active development so long ago that you should probably be moving away from their use. We're talking at least 15 years since multi-core became the standard for x86 compatible hardware.
-
There's no advantage to AMD. To get an AMD with the same performance as a modern Intel, you're spending at or more on an AMD then.
-
@Obsolesce said in AMD Vs Intel:
There's no advantage to AMD. To get an AMD with the same performance as a modern Intel, you're spending at or more on an AMD then.
Really? https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html Your claim seems rather fishy.
-
@Obsolesce said in AMD Vs Intel:
There's no advantage to AMD. To get an AMD with the same performance as a modern Intel, you're spending at or more on an AMD then.
Actually, according to Forbes testing, AMD commands a lead while being cheaper. In single threaded apps and games, Intel has a tiny lead (but not when cost is factored), but for business workloads, AMD was better in performance with a pretty massive price lead.
-
@Obsolesce said in AMD Vs Intel:
There's no advantage to AMD. To get an AMD with the same performance as a modern Intel, you're spending at or more on an AMD then.
AMD besting Intel has been the accepted knowledge for some time. There was a tiny blip in the early 2010s when AMD had no new products and Intel was going gangbusters and they finally managed to get a lead on them after a full decade of being so bad to be nearly a joke. (But remember, prior to 2000, Intel was awesome and AMD a joke, so it was a major reversal as it was.) But not since the Pentium IIIS had Intel had anything impressive until around 2010.
AMD was out of the game for only a couple of years and has been the leader when real world cost is considered, for most workloads, for several years again now, and nearly all of the late 32bit and all of the 64bit era.
-
@scottalanmiller said in AMD Vs Intel:
@Obsolesce said in AMD Vs Intel:
There's no advantage to AMD. To get an AMD with the same performance as a modern Intel, you're spending at or more on an AMD then.
Actually, according to Forbes testing, AMD commands a lead while being cheaper. In single threaded apps and games, Intel has a tiny lead (but not when cost is factored), but for business workloads, AMD was better in performance with a pretty massive price lead.
Maybe it's just the ones I compared. Example, the i7 7700K. An equal performing AMD costs the same or more.
-
@Obsolesce said in AMD Vs Intel:
@scottalanmiller said in AMD Vs Intel:
@Obsolesce said in AMD Vs Intel:
There's no advantage to AMD. To get an AMD with the same performance as a modern Intel, you're spending at or more on an AMD then.
Actually, according to Forbes testing, AMD commands a lead while being cheaper. In single threaded apps and games, Intel has a tiny lead (but not when cost is factored), but for business workloads, AMD was better in performance with a pretty massive price lead.
Maybe it's just the ones I compared. Example, the i7 7700K. An equal performing AMD costs the same or more.
Check the tests above. The 8700 vs the R7... the R7 crushed the 8700 even in single threaded, let alone multi-threaded, performance. And did it at $225 compared to like $360. It's not just faster and cheaper, it is a huge amount faster and incredibly cheaper. That's like 60% the cost, for noticeably more performance in nearly any use case.
-
@scottalanmiller said in AMD Vs Intel:
@Obsolesce said in AMD Vs Intel:
@scottalanmiller said in AMD Vs Intel:
@Obsolesce said in AMD Vs Intel:
There's no advantage to AMD. To get an AMD with the same performance as a modern Intel, you're spending at or more on an AMD then.
Actually, according to Forbes testing, AMD commands a lead while being cheaper. In single threaded apps and games, Intel has a tiny lead (but not when cost is factored), but for business workloads, AMD was better in performance with a pretty massive price lead.
Maybe it's just the ones I compared. Example, the i7 7700K. An equal performing AMD costs the same or more.
Check the tests above. The 8700 vs the R7... the R7 crushed the 8700 even in single threaded, let alone multi-threaded, performance. And did it at $225 compared to like $360. It's not just faster and cheaper, it is a huge amount faster and incredibly cheaper. That's like 60% the cost, for noticeably more performance in nearly any use case.
Why does the much older, less core, less threads, i7 outperform that later and bigger better R7?
-
@Obsolesce said in AMD Vs Intel:
Why does the much older, less core, less threads, i7 outperform that later and bigger better R7?
Where do you see that? I don't even see it being tested. It's a "quad core" test specifically designed to not show performance, but to make for a useless report. Check overall speed, not a false "if we cripple it and don't actually test it" speed.
So from that test, it sure looks like the AMD is blowing the Intel away. Not just from the numbers you showed (those numbers are produced from 33% of the Intel, but only 25% of the AMD), but also from the fact that people are making these kinds of test just to make false numbers to try to make the Intel look competitive!
That's how slow the Intel is, that this kind of test even exists.
-
After Ryzen, everything AMD released is good. and worth having.
-
@scottalanmiller said in AMD Vs Intel:
@Obsolesce said in AMD Vs Intel:
Why does the much older, less core, less threads, i7 outperform that later and bigger better R7?
Where do you see that? I don't even see it being tested. It's a "quad core" test specifically designed to not show performance, but to make for a useless report. Check overall speed, not a false "if we cripple it and don't actually test it" speed.
So from that test, it sure looks like the AMD is blowing the Intel away. Not just from the numbers you showed (those numbers are produced from 33% of the Intel, but only 25% of the AMD), but also from the fact that people are making these kinds of test just to make false numbers to try to make the Intel look competitive!
That's how slow the Intel is, that this kind of test even exists.
Oh so fake tests.
-
Testing single threaded or limited threaded performance of CPUs is useful only if we aren't talking about normal workloads and you know that your software can't use any modern CPU properly. In which case, none of these processors make the least sense, nor were they set up correctly even for the processors selected. The test is total BS.
If testing single or 6 or fewer thread limits, you turn off HT. They didn't, these are bogus even on just measuring an individual processor.
But the test is designed around 1990s video game workloads, not modern desktops. In the modern office, we expect people to run web browsers, office apps, and such. Even if they still run MineSweeper and some single threaded app, it's just one of many workloads. These tests are designed to ignore that.
The large number of AMD threads is because it is designed around real world workloads, not arbitrary tests. Sure, at some point, no one needs more threads, but for most of us, that's what we need the most. We have lots of open tabs, windows, and apps. Each one uses one or more threads, plus the OS would like a few of its own if they are available. I could use over 20 threads, right now, just for my browsers let alone anything else. A 32 thread processor would not be wasted for me or any of my staff, and we are light IT users.
If you have people running more intensive workloads, that need normally just increases. I'm not saying that procs need to go thread crazy, I'm just saying that testing them in a limited fashion reflects inversely on how they will perform in real desktop workloads.
