Top 5 Best CPUs: Intel or AMD, who dominates today?

Status
Not open for further replies.

nodfor

Posts: 205   +362
Seems to me like you somehow find a way to dodge what the *vast majority* of people should get as the best and most well rounded, the 5600x.

It's just makes very little sense to me.
I have one and at the time of purchase was the best option for me (found it on discount, 11th gen Intel was still kinda of expensive)
With current pricing though, 11400f seems a way better option, unless you already have an AM4 motherboard that supports 5XXX
11400f is 80% cheaper. and very close in performance.
 

Crinkles

Posts: 222   +206
Seems to me like you somehow find a way to dodge what the *vast majority* of people should get as the best and most well rounded, the 5600x.

It's just makes very little sense to me.

I would hope so if one misses main points in every topic, such as this.

"the cheapest CPU they’re offering using the Zen 3 architecture is the Ryzen 5 5600G at $290, or the 5600X at $300, both of which are underwhelming at their respective price points. It’s still possible to find the odd 1st, 2nd and 3rd generation Ryzen processor at discounted prices, but for the most part they’re simply not worth it."

Like underwhelming, not worth it, ect.
 

Nobina

Posts: 3,724   +4,099
12600K was the most impressive CPU in the lineup for me. Everything else is trash now. If you have a motherboard that supports newest Ryzen then 5600X or 5800X.
 

Aryassen

Posts: 207   +235
Wow, I didn't think that there are still 10100s available (they are 2 gen back). It is like we are reaching back 2400G (or max 3400G, 3100 or 3300X) from AMD side. These are probably remaining stocks, from old deliveries, which people didn't want to buy because at the time of their introduction, there were better options.

Today, it is an absolutely cracking deal, not a shread of doubt about it.

Still, it is not fair to compare an 10100 to a 5600G: they are not even in the same ballpark (neither CPU, nor integrated GPU wise). So, let's jst stick to the facts: the 10100 from 2 generations ago is a great deal at the moment (while remaining stocks last), and AMD has no offering in that segment (which is a pity), shall we?
 

BSim500

Posts: 893   +2,113
Seems to me like you somehow find a way to dodge what the *vast majority* of people should get as the best and most well rounded, the 5600x. It's just makes very little sense to me.
I picked up a new i5-10400F in a sale for £107 (down from £129). At the same time the 5600X was "normally" £260 peaking at £330. It may be "well rounded" but the 5600X has been very poor value ever since AMD stuffed their 5000 prices up (and even ignoring Intel, for comparison it wasn't that long ago that the previous 6C/12T AMD CPU's were £99 for 1600AF / 2600 and £129 for the 3600...) It certainly made little sense to me to pay triple the money for virtually no difference at 1440p (link).
 
Last edited:

Shadowboxer

Posts: 2,071   +1,650
AMD massively jacked up their pricing. The R5 line has effectively doubled. The 1600, 2600 and 3600 were all readily available for $150-$200 for most of their lives but the 5600 is $300 and rarely falls below that. There are no “budget” models in AMDs lineup. And they apparently haven’t responded to Intels superior Alder lake lineup (we haven’t seen any price cuts).

AMD best have something amazing in the works to replace their Ryzen 5000 series if they want to keep their premium pricing.
 

Dimitriid

Posts: 2,080   +3,983
I have one and at the time of purchase was the best option for me (found it on discount, 11th gen Intel was still kinda of expensive)
With current pricing though, 11400f seems a way better option, unless you already have an AM4 motherboard that supports 5XXX
11400f is 80% cheaper. and very close in performance.
It is cheaper, but it's not "very close" in performance. If you only care about gaming and saving money then it could be "close enough" in performance but if you ever need to do something else even passingly, there's a significant performance advantage.

See I actually said "well rounded" for a reason and that's because the 5600x is not AMD's cheapest entry, that'd be the 5600g which cuts down the performance a bit because of the reduced L3 cache but it is also cheaper.

If you want to talk 11400 (The actual non f version) vs 5600G then that would be a much fair comparison to make but the fact is that due to TSMC constrains AMD simply has no low end products, at all.

Yet my point is that this kind of articles in the past almost always include a "most well rounded" option and now it's gone because no: the 11400f is not "well rounded" it performs ok for it's price but it's decisively slower specially for productivity. It's a low end product and priced as such and that's ok, it literally has no competition right now (The expense of the new platform with scarce motherboards and only high end options take the 12400 out of the equation for right now) but it's not suddenly "very close" to the mid range tier.
 

Nintenboy01

Posts: 214   +169
I wonder if AMD could ever use Intel fabs in the future. TSMC really needs to ramp up capacity asap, or hopefully Samsung catches up
 

Shadowboxer

Posts: 2,071   +1,650
If you want to talk 11400 (The actual non f version) vs 5600G then that would be a much fair comparison to make but the fact is that due to TSMC constrains AMD simply has no low end products, at all.
Lmao, the 3000 series was on TSMC 7NM, the same process as the 5000 series, the 3600 frequently sold for $150. The reason AMDs prices are high is because AND have ambitions of being the premium choice, they want to be the company that sells the most expensive CPUs. The board and shareholders are quite obviously pushing for the average unit price to be raised. It’s classic corporate shenanigans. It might work too.

I don’t know why some people have so much trouble accepting that AMD would choose to raise prices, they are a multi billion dollar US corporation!
 

Theinsanegamer

Posts: 3,317   +5,507
It is cheaper, but it's not "very close" in performance. If you only care about gaming and saving money then it could be "close enough" in performance but if you ever need to do something else even passingly, there's a significant performance advantage.

See I actually said "well rounded" for a reason and that's because the 5600x is not AMD's cheapest entry, that'd be the 5600g which cuts down the performance a bit because of the reduced L3 cache but it is also cheaper.

If you want to talk 11400 (The actual non f version) vs 5600G then that would be a much fair comparison to make but the fact is that due to TSMC constrains AMD simply has no low end products, at all.

Yet my point is that this kind of articles in the past almost always include a "most well rounded" option and now it's gone because no: the 11400f is not "well rounded" it performs ok for it's price but it's decisively slower specially for productivity. It's a low end product and priced as such and that's ok, it literally has no competition right now (The expense of the new platform with scarce motherboards and only high end options take the 12400 out of the equation for right now) but it's not suddenly "very close" to the mid range tier.
This isnt ryzen 1800 VS 6700k. The difference in production tasks for the 5600x and the 11400f are not that far apart, adn teh 12 series is passing the 5000 series. The 11400f does plenty well in productivity, again this isnt skylake. It's about 20% slower then the 5600x while costing 35% less. Perf/$ intel actually wind the argument.

You dont seem to understand what "well rounded" means. Or "dissapointing, underwhelming", or "good value".
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 2,203   +2,591
TechSpot Elite
This is good to see. Intel lighting a fire under AMD is exactly what AMD needs to keep on innovating. Having said that, it doesn't really matter all that much at this time because the silicon shortage makes doing anything significant all that much more difficult.

I want AMD to keep grabbing more and more market share but only until they hit 50% of the market because THAT would be the healthiest market condition possible. AMD has dominated Intel in sales for many years now and that was vital because Intel had them pushed to the brink. Sure, Intel is a criminal organisation and their conduct was the primary reason but AMD wasn't exactly managed well at the time either. Ever since Lisa Su took the helm at AMD, she did what was needed and her first accomplishment was recruiting Jim Keller, the best CPU designer in the world and the father of x64, to design the Zen architecture.

Things have been actually interesting ever since.
 

Crinkles

Posts: 222   +206
Wow, I didn't think that there are still 10100s available (they are 2 gen back). It is like we are reaching back 2400G (or max 3400G, 3100 or 3300X) from AMD side. These are probably remaining stocks, from old deliveries, which people didn't want to buy because at the time of their introduction, there were better options.

Today, it is an absolutely cracking deal, not a shread of doubt about it.

Those CPUs are great. LGA 1200/10th-11th gen have a long way to go.
Today a 10100 can be had for $91 or a 10150 for $92. Motherboards are everywhere at every price point. What's not to like? Graphics...nevermind


Still, it is not fair to compare an 10100 to a 5600G: they are not even in the same ballpark (neither CPU, nor integrated GPU wise). So, let's jst stick to the facts: the 10100 from 2 generations ago is a great deal at the moment (while remaining stocks last), and AMD has no offering in that segment (which is a pity), shall we?

AMD isn't out of the game for lower cost products, they're just harder to find and acquire, this one at the shown price is definitely a budget price, comes with a fan and uses the future proof socket, AM4 for easy/cheap upgrades.
 

Theinsanegamer

Posts: 3,317   +5,507
AMD isn't out of the game for lower cost products, they're just harder to find and acquire, this one at the shown price is definitely a budget price, comes with a fan and uses the future proof socket, AM4 for easy/cheap upgrades.
That's a bulldozer part. You may as well suggest somebody buy a pentium IV for a CPU. Even intel's dual core pentiums with AVX run circles around that part. No exaggeration, the (MUCH) faster FX-8350 when tested by gamers nexus could only maintain 20-30 FPS average in most games, this A series has half the CPU hardware. The pentium G6400, OTOH, maintains upper 50s average, and can be put in the same motherboard as a 11900k (alderlake pentiums will be coming).

So no, if you're shopping in this range, get a pentium. Hell, get a celeron, even those will beat the snot out of the A6. The construction cores were the most pathertic attempt at computer hardware in AMD's history.

Oh, one other thing, you cannot use that A6 in any 500 series motherboards. Even most 400 motherboards ship with newer BIOSes that remove support for bulldozer chips to make room for 3000 series AGESA code.

Just....dont.
 

Crinkles

Posts: 222   +206
That's a bulldozer part. You may as well suggest somebody buy a pentium IV for a CPU. Even intel's dual core pentiums with AVX run circles around that part. No exaggeration, the (MUCH) faster FX-8350 when tested by gamers nexus could only maintain 20-30 FPS average in most games, this A series has half the CPU hardware. The pentium G6400, OTOH, maintains upper 50s average, and can be put in the same motherboard as a 11900k (alderlake pentiums will be coming).

So no, if you're shopping in this range, get a pentium. Hell, get a celeron, even those will beat the snot out of the A6. The construction cores were the most pathertic attempt at computer hardware in AMD's history.

Oh, one other thing, you cannot use that A6 in any 500 series motherboards. Even most 400 motherboards ship with newer BIOSes that remove support for bulldozer chips to make room for 3000 series AGESA code.

Just....dont.

"bulldoser" -- AM4 platform is ready-for-RYZEN and designed for the DEMANDS of TOMORROW 2 CORE 2 THREAD 65W AM4 SOCKET 1MB CACHE Maximum Frequency 3800 MHZ's"

So futuristic, that $62.38 chip has level 1 advertising energy.
 

Guberian

Posts: 191   +259
It is cheaper, but it's not "very close" in performance. If you only care about gaming and saving money then it could be "close enough" in performance but if you ever need to do something else even passingly, there's a significant performance advantage.

See I actually said "well rounded" for a reason and that's because the 5600x is not AMD's cheapest entry, that'd be the 5600g which cuts down the performance a bit because of the reduced L3 cache but it is also cheaper.

If you want to talk 11400 (The actual non f version) vs 5600G then that would be a much fair comparison to make but the fact is that due to TSMC constrains AMD simply has no low end products, at all.

Yet my point is that this kind of articles in the past almost always include a "most well rounded" option and now it's gone because no: the 11400f is not "well rounded" it performs ok for it's price but it's decisively slower specially for productivity. It's a low end product and priced as such and that's ok, it literally has no competition right now (The expense of the new platform with scarce motherboards and only high end options take the 12400 out of the equation for right now) but it's not suddenly "very close" to the mid range tier.
sir have you heard of the 12600k?
Seems to me like you somehow find a way to dodge what the *vast majority* of people should get as the best and most well rounded, the 5600x.

It's just makes very little sense to me.
sir have you heard of the 12600k? Same price significantly better then the 5600x.
 

Shadowboxer

Posts: 2,071   +1,650
AMD isn't out of the game for lower cost products, they're just harder to find and acquire, this one at the shown price is definitely a budget price, comes with a fan and uses the future proof socket, AM4 for easy/cheap upgrades.

Lmao, an A series AMD APU. I wouldn’t wish one of those on my worst enemies! What the writer means when they say AMD are out of the budget game is that they have nothing worth buying for budget level money. The reason they are doing this is because they are trying to rebrand themselves as the expensive (premium) option. They want more of our money basically…
 

JCX88

Posts: 10   +7
It's weird they included 11700k when you can pick superior 12600k or 5800x for similar money or 10700k significantly cheaper.

From my perspective best CPU's are 11400 (agreed here), 5600x, 5800x, 5900x, 12th gen and 10900k/10850k
 

Crinkles

Posts: 222   +206
It's weird they included 11700k when you can pick superior 12600k or 5800x for similar money or 10700k significantly cheaper.

From my perspective best CPU's are 11400 (agreed here), 5600x, 5800x, 5900x, 12th gen and 10900k/10850k

It's a confusing lineup. The chip to buy is the 12700
If that's too high get a 12600
Need more Low Cost << get a 12100 or a 12150
Need more poware! Get a 12400

Shop across gens for lower prices, but should focus on getting the newest generation possible. If shooting for AMD - slide a replacement to where intel sits, let intel work for you.
 

JCX88

Posts: 10   +7
It's a confusing lineup. The chip to buy is the 12700
If that's too high get a 12600
Need more Low Cost << get a 12100 or a 12150
Need more poware! Get a 12400

Shop across gens for lower prices, but should focus on getting the newest generation possible. If shooting for AMD - slide a replacement to where intel sits, let intel work for you.
Yeah the point is 10th gen was broadly awesome, especially high end, 11th gen was total garbage on the high end, but great on the low end and 12th gen is amazing, but comes with newer architecture issues like some games won't work, windows 11 kinda required, etc

And Ryzen was superior to both 11th and even 10th gen only narrowly defeated by 12th gen with compatibility caveats.
 

paul1122

Posts: 219   +232
If you want our Nvidia Intel opinion, completely unbiased Intel/Nvidia opinion, we'd have to go with the much better in every way Intel CPU for anything ever done or will be done. At least that's what we have to say in our own Intel Nvidia way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.