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

[humbug]

150€ is a very cheap motherboard? LOL ok bro.

Numbers dont lie, AMD gaves us a 35% performance increase in 4 years at the 300€ price point. Intel gave us more than 100% (6700 to 8700).

40%. 6700K (879 points) to 8700K (1230 points) is +40%

Intel Core i7-8700K Cinebench CB 15 Benchmarks

Tech journalist Karl Morin ran a Cinebench with Intel Core i7-8700K on a on an HP Omen PC. Intels six core and twelve threads processor scorded 1230 points in the multicore test. And that number is g...

www.guru3d.com

 

[HardReset]

I'm not comparing cores, im comparing prices. The number of cores is irrelevant to me. If AMD wanted to compare cores then maybe they shouldn't increase their prices by 50%?

I don't get what is your problem with a 150€ mobo. The Msi A pro for example has pretty decent VRM's and good memory ocing, so what is the issue with using that for example?

If AMD would have priced quad core Zen 1 (like Ryzen 3 1200) $300 at launch, you would praise how much more performance AMD got during last years. That just proves how flawed your logic is. It's very easy to make huge gains when starting point is very low. In this case, AMD starts at 8 cores and Intel at 4 cores. Sounds pretty "fair".

Decent VRM for such hot CPU is not very good idea long term. For over 200 watts maximum consumption, "decent" is not enough long term. That's where power consumption comes into play.

 

[Strawman]

If AMD would have priced quad core Zen 1 (like Ryzen 3 1200) $300 at launch, you would praise how much more performance AMD got during last years. That just proves how flawed your logic is. It's very easy to make huge gains when starting point is very low. In this case, AMD starts at 8 cores and Intel at 4 cores. Sounds pretty "fair".

Decent VRM for such hot CPU is not very good idea long term. For over 200 watts maximum consumption, "decent" is not enough long term. That's where power consumption comes into play.

You can check the review they did on hwunboxed, the vrms are actually good on this board and it easily handles a 10900k.

Sure, and intel increased their core number while amd decreased it...

 

[humbug]

You can check the review they did on hwunboxed, the vrms are actually good on this board and it easily handles a 10900k.

Sure, and intel increased their core number while amd decreased it...

Decreased it?

 

[Strawman]

40%. 6700K (879 points) to 8700K (1230 points) is +40%

Intel Core i7-8700K Cinebench CB 15 Benchmarks

Tech journalist Karl Morin ran a Cinebench with Intel Core i7-8700K on a on an HP Omen PC. Intels six core and twelve threads processor scorded 1230 points in the multicore test. And that number is g...

www.guru3d.com

There is something wrong with that test. The 8700k doesn't get 1230 point on stock. I know, I had it. Techpowerup shows over 1400

 

[Strawman]

Decreased it?

Yes, at the 300$ price point they went from 8 cores (3700x) to 6 cores (5600x). So their new cpus had less overall performance than their previous ones

 

[HardReset]

You can check the review they did on hwunboxed, the vrms are actually good on this board and it easily handles a 10900k.

Sure, and intel increased their core number while amd decreased it...

Handles yes but how long? That's another question.

Yes, at the 300$ price point they went from 8 cores (3700x) to 6 cores (5600x). So their new cpus had less overall performance than their previous ones

Why it is just $300? Why it is 2017-2021?

Why not $350? And why not 2016-2021?

 

[humbug]

There is something wrong with that test. The 8700k doesn't get 1230 point on stock. I know, I had it. Techpowerup shows over 1400

Even that would be 60%, you said "Intel gave us more than 100% (6700 to 8700)" they didn't did they?

 

[Strawman]

Even that would be 60%, you said "Intel gave us more than 100% (6700 to 8700)" they didn't did they?

Sorry, confused. The 6700 is 2 years apart with the 8700k. The right comparison is 4770k to 8700k and yes, I think the difference there approaches 100%

 

[humbug]

Sorry, confused. The 6700 is 2 years apart with the 8700k. The right comparison is 4770k to 8700k and yes, I think the difference there approaches 100%

How can you be confused? I have literally quoted what you said, now you're moving the goal posts.
The 4770K was released in 2013, the 8700K in 2017.
How much performance gain have AMD had between 2013 and 2017?
Its +245%
FX 8350: 3803
Ryzen 1800X: 9314

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X vs. AMD FX-8350 - Benchmark, Test and Specs

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X vs. AMD FX-8350 - Benchmark, Geekbench 5, Cinebench R20, Cinebench R23, Cinebench R15 and FP32 iGPU (GFLOPS) benchmark results

www.cpu-monkey.com

 

[Strawman]

How can you be confused? I have literally quoted what you said, now you're moving the goal posts.
The 4770K was released in 2013, the 8700K in 2017.
How much performance gain have AMD had between 2013 and 2017?
Its +245%
FX 8350: 3803
Ryzen 1800X: 9314

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X vs. AMD FX-8350 - Benchmark, Test and Specs

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X vs. AMD FX-8350 - Benchmark, Geekbench 5, Cinebench R20, Cinebench R23, Cinebench R15 and FP32 iGPU (GFLOPS) benchmark results

www.cpu-monkey.com

Sure, but I didnt say that amd stagnated in 2013. I said they are doing it the last few years, and I compared it to a period when everyone agrees that intel did stagnate.
Intel gave us more performance between 2011 and 2015 (2600k to 6700k) at the 300 euros pricepoint than amd did between 2017 and 2021 at the 300 pricepoint (R7 1700 to r5 5600x)

 

[HardReset]

Sure, but I didnt say that amd stagnated in 2013. I said they are doing it the last few years, and I compared it to a period when everyone agrees that intel did stagnate.
Intel gave us more performance between 2011 and 2015 (2600k to 6700k) at the 300 euros pricepoint than amd did between 2017 and 2021 at the 300 pricepoint (R7 1700 to r5 5600x)

Intel gave more relatively performance because Intel started on bottom (4-core) and AMD started on top (8-core). You do understand relative performance is better when starting point is lower?

Again, why 2017-2021. Why not 2016-2021?

 

[humbug]

Sure, but I didnt say that amd stagnated in 2013. I said they are doing it the last few years, and I compared it to a period when everyone agrees that intel did stagnate.
Intel gave us more performance between 2011 and 2015 (2600k to 6700k) at the 300 euros pricepoint than amd did between 2017 and 2021 at the 300 pricepoint (R7 1700 to r5 5600x)

You're moving the goalposts again, the 2600K was released in 2011, the fact still remains AMD had a much higher performance upgrade in that time than Intel, to me that's irrelevant, you made the argument they didn't.

AMD Ryzen 7 1700 - Benchmark, Test and Specs

AMD Ryzen 7 1700 - Benchmark, Geekbench 5, Cinebench R20, Cinebench R23, Cinebench R15 and FP32 iGPU (GFLOPS) benchmark results

www.cpu-monkey.com

AMD Ryzen 5 5600X - Benchmark, Test and Specs

AMD Ryzen 5 5600X - Benchmark, Geekbench 5, Cinebench R20, Cinebench R23, Cinebench R15 and FP32 iGPU (GFLOPS) benchmark results

www.cpu-monkey.com

8065 vs 11268 +40% the 5600X is also 10% cheaper than the 1700, I don't see anything wrong with that. 40% higher performance at a 10% lower price.

Also:

10700K: $374, score 4974
10600K: $262, score 3605
5600X: $299, score 4390

5600X cost vs 10600K +14%, performance +22%
10700K cost vs 5600X +25%, performance +13%

The price to performance was higher for the 5600X vs the 10600K and 10700K.

 

[Strawman]

Intel gave more relatively performance because Intel started on bottom (4-core) and AMD started on top (8-core). You do understand relative performance is better when starting point is lower?

Again, why 2017-2021. Why not 2016-2021?

Cause 2017 is when the first ryzen cpus were released? Cause amd didnt produce any new cpus in 2016?
Intel gave more relative performance cause they increased the number of cores while amd decreased it

 

[HardReset]

Cause 2017 is when the first ryzen cpus were released? Cause amd didnt produce any new cpus in 2016?
Intel gave more relative performance cause they increased the number of cores while amd decreased it

Why starting year must be year when first Ryzens were released? Intel didn't make any new around $300 CPU's on 2016 either (6700K was 2015 and 7700K was 2017): https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/compare.html?productIds=88195,97129

Intel increased amount of cores because Intel had 4 cores at start and AMD had 8. However AMD's 6 cores got faster than AMD's old 8 cores while still offering 8 cores and even 16 cores as possibility. And because AMD had much faster cores than Intel had, AMD should have lowered prices? Just like Intel "did" before.

Despite Intel making 0% IPC gain in 5 years, you still say AMD stagnated because on your cherry picked (price, year range) scenario Intel "gave more performance". And still your scenario does no hold if starting year is moved one year earlier. That tells more than enough.

 

[Strawman]

Why starting year must be year when first Ryzens were released? Intel didn't make any new around $300 CPU's on 2016 either (6700K was 2015 and 7700K was 2017): https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/compare.html?productIds=88195,97129

Intel increased amount of cores because Intel had 4 cores at start and AMD had 8. However AMD's 6 cores got faster than AMD's old 8 cores while still offering 8 cores and even 16 cores as possibility. And because AMD had much faster cores than Intel had, AMD should have lowered prices? Just like Intel "did" before.

Despite Intel making 0% IPC gain in 5 years, you still say AMD stagnated because on your cherry picked (price, year range) scenario Intel "gave more performance". And still your scenario does no hold if starting year is moved one year earlier. That tells more than enough.

Οk bro, whatever

 

[Joey Rakas]

So you acknowledge that the 12600K is cheaper and faster than a 5600X but you say we should still buy the 5600X anyway because it’s not slower enough to notice unless you are measuring it?

Yeah that still makes the 12600K a better buy. You are an ***** if you pay more for a slower 5600X. Or a fanboy, they are the same. And besides, the 12600K doesn’t just beat the 5600X at gaming, it wins practically across the board and it’s mobos have PCIe5 and thunderbolt 4.

I bought a 5800X just over 12 months ago, if I were buying today I would buy the 12700K. Even though I would be unlikely to notice the difference between these parts, I’m smart enough to see which one is faster by reading the benchmarks that the tech press publish. That’s why we are here, I mean if you’re going to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend Alder lake doesn’t exist then why even bother reading benchmarks at all?

If you're even a remotely smart shopper, you will not pay more for a 5600X than a 12600K at a given time. All these processors(Intel and AMD alike) can frequently be found on sale. As a hardware enthusiast, I own Intel and AMD systems alike. But it all depends on the scenario of each individual, does it not? Sure if someone was putting together a new system from scratch, perhaps the Intel system is the way to go in terms of future upgradability, and while the AM4 platform has reached about the end of it's road, they are still a solid performing option, and will be for years to come. And what about those on older generation Ryzen chips? the 5600x, 5800X, ect, ect, might be a much better option instead of shelling out for a new Motherboard, Processor, and Ram. At the end of the day to each their own.

 

[humbug]

The short of it is AMD are selling everything they make and in retail that is a lot more than Intel.
If you want a price war provoking it through contrived nonsense like this is barking up the wrong tree, its incredibly naive in my view, AMD are not going to sell more than everything they make with a 20% price cut, they just lose 20% revenue, no one is daft enough to do that. Least of all AMD's CEO.

The way AMD won back customers was with CPU's at a dramatically reduced price for what you're getting.
This came from AMD knowing the situation and being humble enough to work for it, now they are reaping the rewards of it.

You're not going to get what you want pretending AMD are still the victim.
Its Intel's turn to eat some humble pie and while you're about as used to that as Intel are just know you're not going to get anywhere ignoring reality, AMD no longer live under Intel's shadow.

 

[erickmendes]

Well... Seems like the 12th Intel Gen brought together a LOT of Intel biased reviews...

 

[Tantor]

The short of it is AMD are selling everything they make and in retail that is a lot more than Intel.
If you want a price war provoking it through contrived nonsense like this is barking up the wrong tree, its incredibly naive in my view, AMD are not going to sell more than everything they make with a 20% price cut, they just lose 20% revenue, no one is daft enough to do that. Least of all AMD's CEO.

The way AMD won back customers was with CPU's at a dramatically reduced price for what you're getting.
This came from AMD knowing the situation and being humble enough to work for it, now they are reaping the rewards of it.

You're not going to get what you want pretending AMD are still the victim.
Its Intel's turn to eat some humble pie and while you're about as used to that as Intel are just know you're not going to get anywhere ignoring reality, AMD no longer live under Intel's shadow.

Yep. I have always bought only AMD since the mid 1990's. That's because AMD gives you better value for your money in the long run. And they deserve to be supported.

I just bought a 5700g for my wife. It drops into the AM4 slot. We started with a Ryzen 1400, went to 1800x, and now the 5700g. None of the 'upgrade mobo every time' nonsense that you get with Intel. No need to rip the mobo out of the case. Not only that, her 5700g has excellent graphics for her gaming, and it runs extremely cool in a small case. Intel has nothing to compare with it.

Value is very subjective. I chuckle at the folk who bought into Intel's 11th gen cpus, and are now confronted by Alder Lake. Holy cow, talk about getting 'value slammed.' Intel's 11 to 12th gen marketing transition must be one of the most egregious bait and switch maneuvers ever perpetrated.

AMD all the way for me.

 

[rmcrys]

Conclusion:

- Intel made the 10th Gen much cheaper which now is attractive
- AMD (TSMC) production capacity is very constrained, so they have to produce the most profitable chips, so no low end + high prices
- Intel has their own production, so they have much more products
- Intel made the 11/12th Gen more interesting

So AMD has an issue here. And Intel is even making contacts which TSMC to affect production availability for others (eg. AMD)...

Solution: AMD should make low end with Samsung, high end TSMC

 

[HardReset]

Conclusion:

- Intel made the 10th Gen much cheaper which now is attractive
- AMD (TSMC) production capacity is very constrained, so they have to produce the most profitable chips, so no low end + high prices
- Intel has their own production, so they have much more products
- Intel made the 11/12th Gen more interesting

So AMD has an issue here. And Intel is even making contacts which TSMC to affect production availability for others (eg. AMD)...

Solution: AMD should make low end with Samsung, high end TSMC

AMD is moving high end on TSMC 5nm next year. Since 7nm has no troubles against Intel's 10nm, low end @ 7nm is OK. Assuming AMD get around same 5nm capacity as they have 7nm, there shouldn't much capacity problems since GF can still do big stuff, like chipsets and IO dies.

 

[humbug]

Conclusion:

- Intel made the 10th Gen much cheaper which now is attractive
- AMD (TSMC) production capacity is very constrained, so they have to produce the most profitable chips, so no low end + high prices
- Intel has their own production, so they have much more products
- Intel made the 11/12th Gen more interesting

So AMD has an issue here. And Intel is even making contacts which TSMC to affect production availability for others (eg. AMD)...

Solution: AMD should make low end with Samsung, high end TSMC

It would be true if Intel actually sold more CPU's than AMD, but they don't, Alder Lake sales are actually quite bad, Coffee Lake and Rocket Lake are not as bad but AMD are still selling far more than Intel.

As for TSMC, I don't think you realise just how big AMD actually are these days, every major hyper scaler, AWS, Cloudflare, Microsoft, Google, Dropbox, even Facebook with their Meta Verse, all use AMD servers, not Intel, AMD, on top of that you have CPU's, Consoles, GPU's, the Steam Deck, car SoC's, aviation, medical equipment, Samsung Mobile phones... AMD's market growth and the markets they are growing in to is nothing short of astonishing, and it keeps going...

AMD are TSMC's number 2 partner, second only to Apple, behind Apple AMD make TSMC the most money, they are second in line for allocation, with that AMD starts 6nm and 5nm mass production next year, Intel are a competitor to TSMC, there is no love between them, TSMC know Intel only intends to fill in the gaps in their own flagging and out of date production technology, there is no long term partnership here.

 

[HardReset]

It would be true if Intel actually sold more CPU's than AMD, but they don't, Alder Lake sales are actually quite bad, Coffee Lake and Rocket Lake are not as bad but AMD are still selling far more than Intel.

AMD are TSMC's number 2 partner, second only to Apple, behind Apple AMD make TSMC the most money, they are second in line for allocation, with that AMD starts 6nm and 5nm mass production next year, Intel are a competitor to TSMC, there is no love between them, TSMC know Intel only intends to fill in the gaps in their own flagging and out of date production technology, there is no long term partnership here.

Intel sells much more CPU's than AMD in fact. However most of those are outside wise buyers (retail market) but morons buying servers and especially laptops.

As for TSMC, you're right. TSMC gladly takes someone (Intel) to pay 3nm risk production or make small amounts of small chips for Intel's jigsaw puzzle chips but that's about it.

 

[rmcrys]

It would be true if Intel actually sold more CPU's than AMD, but they don't, Alder Lake sales are actually quite bad [...]
AMD are TSMC's number 2 partner, second only to Apple

Actually Intel sells more chips than AMD, they have more partners but ADL is only competitive with DDR5 which is nowhere to be found, so Intel just doesn't sell ADL as they could. When AMD changes too DDR5 and should availability still be bad, then it will be the same;

About AMD being the partner number 2 is right only for this generation, Intel reserved most of the next nodes for themselves (as 2nd partner).

But Intel chips still have a bad IPC/Watt, AMD is much better and Apple even better. If on gaming desktops it doesn't matter too much, on laptops it is vital.