The Best CPUs 2020: AMD Ryzen vs. Intel Core

Gomos

Posts: 15   +40
Mobile CPU category is missing, now also completely dominated by AMD.

Meanwhile, Intel is hanging by a thread in the gaming category and while maybe that 10600K is still a good option, if the rumors about Zen 3 are only half-true, one might be better off getting a Ryzen CPU today with a motherboard that can upgrade to Zen 3.
 

Irata

Posts: 577   +747
TechSpot Elite
Can‘t really argue with the conclusions, however I am curious if
- PCIe 4.0 will make a difference for the upcoming top end GPU
- the extra 4 PCIe lanes from the CPU will make a difference in IO intensive games that the next gen consoles may usher in. If you have heavy IO from the nvme drive plus networking there may be bottlenecks. Then again, the question is when we will see the first games of that type on PC, I.e. if this is even an issue for systems built now.
 

Nobina

Posts: 2,500   +2,091
Intels CPUs are still good for gaming until you realise how much you have to spend on a motherboard and an aftermarket cooler then AMD makes more sense. Ryzen 5 3600 is all you need unless you're trying 4K gaming in which case, why?
 

Gomos

Posts: 15   +40
Can‘t really argue with the conclusions, however I am curious if
- PCIe 4.0 will make a difference for the upcoming top end GPU
An RTX 2080 Ti is saturating roughly around 60% of PCIe 3.0 x16 bandwidth. I suppose it will be hard for the upcoming top end GPU to fully saturate it and if it does it will be only very slightly.
 

neeyik

Posts: 1,005   +969
Staff member
Depends if the rumors of nVcache for Ampere are true, or not.
There was no mention of it, or anything like it, with the A100 and given that it's a HBM2 GPU, if there was a good place to use it, then this would be it. I know the rumour is basically saying it's Nvidia's version of AMD's HBCC used in the Vega architecture, but it didn't exactly set the world on fire in that product.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Charles Olson

QuantumPhysics

Posts: 2,884   +2,607
I'll wait till I actually need a new computer till I have to worry about a CPU - but when I do get a new one or rebuild, I want nothing less than DDR5 and a 3000 series GPU.

I am currently using an Intel Core i9 Extreme for my desktop. I love it.

I am using an Intel Core i7 for my laptop. I love it.

If anyone comes to me looking for a new computer for school or work, I feel comfortable recommending the 10th Generation i3 and i5.

When I take friends and family to Microcenter, I usually get them into an i5 or i7.
 

Arbie

Posts: 55   +57
An RTX 2080 Ti is saturating roughly around 60% of PCIe 3.0 x16 bandwidth. I suppose it will be hard for the upcoming top end GPU to fully saturate it and if it does it will be only very slightly.
No argument with your technical point, but in defense of the language... you mean that it's using around 60%. "Saturation" means full use, so BTW "fully saturate" is redundant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wizardB and Gomos

Peter Farkas

Posts: 423   +222
Time to move below 14nm for Intel. AMD has caught up with them by now. Time to really engage the thrusters and let the competition burn like never before!
 

Amariami

Posts: 8   +0
Best Budget Ryzen 5 3400G would be replace by 6C/12T Core Ryzen 5 4400G or 4C/8T Ryzen 3 4200G.

Ryzen 4000APU it's ready just waiting for the release date. Yeah all APU Renoir Enabled SMT, same x16 PCI-e gen 3.0 (1x8 GPU + 2x4 GPP), probably enough as 2nd streaming system
 

amstech

Posts: 2,643   +1,801
Article pretty much hits the nail on the head, Intel for gaming, AMD for everything else.

The idea that your only getting better frames with Intel CPU's at 4K is amazing to me, the 8700K is faster across the board then the 3600 by 5-15 FPS before its overclocked. The 9900K is 5-20 FPS faster across the board then the 3800X.
Whether its something a gamer will notice or not, whether its only true at 720p, 1080p, and closer 1440p does not matter IMO.
PC Enthusiasts want every last frame, so Intel is still a good option for gaming, and when matched up core for core and thread for thread, its not that far behind, if at all, in all other tasks.


 

Jerry in WA

Posts: 65   +54
I say it's also a great time to wait. Wait just a little bit longer. The 4th gen Ryzen chips are supposed to have a significant IPC increase, possibly putting them right on par with Intel for gaming. Or beating them. Ryzen already has them beat by every other known metric.

 

Jackwoz

Posts: 41   +35
I'll wait till I actually need a new computer till I have to worry about a CPU - but when I do get a new one or rebuild, I want nothing less than DDR5 and a 3000 series GPU.

I am currently using an Intel Core i9 Extreme for my desktop. I love it.

I am using an Intel Core i7 for my laptop. I love it.

If anyone comes to me looking for a new computer for school or work, I feel comfortable recommending the 10th Generation i3 and i5.

When I take friends and family to Microcenter, I usually get them into an i5 or i7.
May be you should start recommending AMD
 

Privery

Posts: 67   +34
Article pretty much hits the nail on the head, Intel for gaming, AMD for everything else.

The idea that your only getting better frames with Intel CPU's at 4K is amazing to me, the 8700K is faster across the board then the 3600 by 5-15 FPS before its overclocked. The 9900K is 5-20 FPS faster across the board then the 3800X.
Whether its something a gamer will notice or not, whether its only true at 720p, 1080p, and closer 1440p does not matter IMO.
PC Enthusiasts want every last frame, so Intel is still a good option for gaming, and when matched up core for core and thread for thread, its not that far behind, if at all, in all other tasks.
The thing is those differences don't really justify spending all that extra money for an up to 20 fps premium you still need to buy a cooler and almost always a new mobo
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0dium

Boshum

Posts: 137   +86
Article pretty much hits the nail on the head, Intel for gaming, AMD for everything else.

The idea that your only getting better frames with Intel CPU's at 4K is amazing to me, the 8700K is faster across the board then the 3600 by 5-15 FPS before its overclocked. The 9900K is 5-20 FPS faster across the board then the 3800X.
Whether its something a gamer will notice or not, whether its only true at 720p, 1080p, and closer 1440p does not matter IMO.
PC Enthusiasts want every last frame, so Intel is still a good option for gaming, and when matched up core for core and thread for thread, its not that far behind, if at all, in all other tasks.
If a gamer isn't going to notice it, why pay a lot more for it? Most PC Enthusiasts who want every last frame, still don't want to pay a lot more than they need to. That's why AMD is winning by so much in the PC Enthusiast DIY market. You think most DIY builders don't know what the options are? Clearly, they think AMD is better on balance, and I'm sure that most of them are gamers.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Arbie and 0dium
So far as I see it, AMD is the only manufacturer who supplies the whole solution; that being: chipsets, GPUs, and CPUs designed to perform with tight integration, and they do it economically and with great flexibility. It has taken AMD a few years now for them to achieve this and they will and are willing to do what it takes to continue this trend according to the roadmap they have set out on. We all will be the beneficiaries of these efforts for the foreseeable future. I know I have as I have built two new systems so far this year and couldn't be more pleased with the way they turned out.