[ARCHIVED THREAD] - PC Build Help, Intel vs AMD (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 5/30/2017 10:10:48 PM EDT
|
So I'm planning to build a nice full tower gaming PC in the coming months. Current computer is about 4 years old and working great......Build before that is about 8 years old and needs replaced. Gonna toss the old one and use the current one for work.
Last couple builds have been AMD because it seemed like the best bang for the buck. I've been looking at Ryzen but am open to doing my first Intel build. What says GD? |
|
I think this is probably the best price performance ratio for gaming last I looked
Kaby Lake Pentium I built a system a year ago with an FX-6300 before the kaby lake pentiums were introduced or I may have gone that route. I'm happy either way and I barely game anymore anyways. |
|
Quoted:
I think this is probably the best price performance ratio for gaming last I looked Kaby Lake Pentium I built a system a year ago with an FX-6300 before the kaby lake pentiums were introduced or I may have gone that route. I'm happy either way and I barely game anymore anyways. OP, either Ryzen or Intel would make a great box right now. What matters if figuring out what games you will play and what performance levels you need and what budget you are going to set. From there you need to make sure that you choose parts with good compatability to your base CPU choice. As an example Ryzen needs to be paired with verry fast ram to achieve it's best performance. GL OP 
|
|
between the intel and ryzen, there probably isn't that much of a difference, because not all of the cores are used by many games.
that's why intel still will still have a sight lead, compared to a ryzen, as it's still more effective single threaded. the most important, and area of biggest improvement, is going to end up in the graphic card you use. that said, if you do any other stuff like video encoding/re-encoding or other high computational stuff, get a ryzen edit - frys has been having discounts weekly on their intel i7 stuff - but you have to catch it on sunday or it sells out quickly - this week it was i7 7700k + MISI z270 SLI mb for 375 |
|
What games do you want to play and at what resolution? How long do you want this system to be relevant? What is your budget?
The simple answer without knowing that is that an I5-7500 will probably be more then adequate for current titles. Any of the ryzen CPUs will also probably be fine. The argument for Intel is less about value in the CPU but the larger and more mature motherboard market for Intel based chipsets. |
|
Quoted:
WIthout bieng a jerk that processor is terrible if you want a somewhat competent rig. OP, either Ryzen or Intel would make a great box right now. What matters if figuring out what games you will play and what performance levels you need and what budget you are going to set. From there you need to make sure that you choose parts with good compatability to your base CPU choice. As an example Ryzen needs to be paired with verry fast ram to achieve it's best performance. GL OP |
|
Quoted:
I was throwing it out there as the best current budget processor. Of course you can buy more performace with a higher end processor such as a Ryzen - about 15% more performance for 315% of the price. Dual core systems are horribly underpowered today because most apps, games, and even drivers for things like network cards are multi-threaded to at least some extent and two physical threads doesn't even give you the option to have two cores working and one core assembling. Again, I don't want to seem like a deuche or a snob but a dual core processor is woefully underpowered these days. 
|
|
Go all out and get the 18 core (3.3ghz) i9!
https://www.engadget.com/2017/05/30/intel-core-i9-extreme/ Comes stock with a liquid cooler. 
|
| My i7 2700k from 2012(?) Is still running strong as well as the Pc I put it in. Only thing changed atm is a different SSD and Video card. Oh and I took tin snips to the inside of my case to get rid of the HDD bays for better airflow (SSD is taped to the bottom) |
|
Quoted:
AMD, Ryzen. If you're not buying an entire bleeding edge system their stuff will be fine Intel destroys AMD on gaming. Yes even ryzen. 10-15% faster with similar priced CPUs. Buy an i5 or i7 if you want the best. If you are okay spending the same money on slower hardware AMD is just for you. |
|
Quoted:
Fuck AMD fanboys. What brilliant advice. Buy the slower shit just because. Intel destroys AMD on gaming. Yes even ryzen. 10-15% faster with similar priced CPUs. Buy an i5 or i7 if you want the best. If you are okay spending the same money on slower hardware AMD is just for you. K... |
|
Quoted:
Fuck AMD fanboys. What brilliant advice. Buy the slower shit just because. Intel destroys AMD on gaming. Yes even ryzen. 10-15% faster with similar priced CPUs. Buy an i5 or i7 if you want the best. If you are okay spending the same money on slower hardware AMD is just for you. I think you still have some sand in your vagina. |
|
Quoted:
That is not a good budget processor unless you must build a PC for as close to zero dollars as possible. Dual core systems are horribly underpowered today because most apps, games, and even drivers for things like network cards are multi-threaded to at least some extent and two physical threads doesn't even give you the option to have two cores working and one core assembling. Again, I don't want to seem like a deuche or a snob but a dual core processor is woefully underpowered these days. http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/ Sort by value. #1. It shows 9% less gaming performance than Ryzen. It highly outperforms my AMD FX 6300, which is slightly aged but not ancient by any means. Yes, you can do better if you're building a $900 rig but as I stated, it's currently the best budget processor on the market. I'm not sure if OP is looking for a $500 build or a high end, that's why I tossed it in as an option. On poorly optimized games like Arma 3, you're going to get more FPS per dollar with this than just about anything else out there. Obviously a quad or six core will blow it out of the water when it comes to raw calculations. |
|
AMD Ryzen Wins Best CPU, Best Technology & Best Product Of The Year 2017. It currently the best CPU in the market. It also have the highest positive rating in a decade.
https://thetechdudz.com/amd-ryzen-wins-best-cpu-best-technology-best-product-of-the-year-2017/ http://wccftech.com/amds-ryzen-5-well-received-cpu-launch-nearly-decade-survey-reveals/ |
|
Quoted:
AMD Ryzen Wins Best CPU, Best Technology & Best Product Of The Year 2017. It currently the best CPU in the market. It also have the highest positive rating in a decade. https://thetechdudz.com/amd-ryzen-wins-best-cpu-best-technology-best-product-of-the-year-2017/ http://wccftech.com/amds-ryzen-5-well-received-cpu-launch-nearly-decade-survey-reveals/ |
|
Quoted:
Very few games utilize multiple cores effectively. http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/ Sort by value. #1. It shows 9% less gaming performance than Ryzen. It highly outperforms my AMD FX 6300, which is slightly aged but not ancient by any means. Yes, you can do better if you're building a $900 rig but as I stated, it's currently the best budget processor on the market. I'm not sure if OP is looking for a $500 build or a high end, that's why I tossed it in as an option. On poorly optimized games like Arma 3, you're going to get more FPS per dollar with this than just about anything else out there. Obviously a quad or six core will blow it out of the water when it comes to raw calculations. |
|
For a gaming PC? Get the best i5 that you can afford. No need to spring for the i7. AMD's new Ryzen line is decent but the fact is most games are single or very lightly threaded and so core performance > number of cores.
Only if you do a lot of other bullshit on your gaming PC or if you can find a good deal then I might consider the R5 from AMD. |
|
Quoted:
Very few games utilize multiple cores effectively. http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/ Sort by value. #1. It shows 9% less gaming performance than Ryzen. It highly outperforms my AMD FX 6300, which is slightly aged but not ancient by any means. Yes, you can do better if you're building a $900 rig but as I stated, it's currently the best budget processor on the market. I'm not sure if OP is looking for a $500 build or a high end, that's why I tossed it in as an option. On poorly optimized games like Arma 3, you're going to get more FPS per dollar with this than just about anything else out there. Obviously a quad or six core will blow it out of the water when it comes to raw calculations. That scenario also doesn't take into consideration games which are well multithreaded or need multiple threads (those exist today since all the consoles are multi-threaded  ) nor does it factor in games which are heavily CPU bound such as the incredibly popular CSGO.
Add in a single multi-tasking situation on top of all the stuff I previously mentioned and a dual core chip will be tapping out so fast that it isn't even funny. |
|
AMD is definitely making a comeback, but they aren't back yet. I'd go Intel still for now.
FWIW, GPU still matters more than CPU for gaming anyway. My 2014 i7-4790K build has all four cores/eight threads pinging at near 100% while gaming almost never, and when it does, it's like for a split second during a loading screen and then drops way back. |
|
Quoted:
Current Intel 4 core are max out in some games. They are running at 100% CPU usage. No more growth room for them. While 8 core Ryzen don't even break 50%. As it stands 4 cores are going out with 6 and 8 standard. We are seeing more and more games using multi cores multi threads. It only a matter of time when all AAA games will go that route. |
|
Quoted:
What those tests don't show you is how all the other stuff you run will benefit massively from those extra cores and your game won't be bogged down because your sound is trying to process while your NIC is trying to send out packets and you are attempting to VOIP with your buds all at the same time. That scenario also doesn't take into consideration games which are well multithreaded or need multiple threads (those exist today since all the consoles are multi-threaded ) nor does it factor in games which are heavily CPU bound such as the incredibly popular CSGO.
Add in a single multi-tasking situation on top of all the stuff I previously mentioned and a dual core chip will be tapping out so fast that it isn't even funny. |
|
Intel is the answer.
Ryzen would be OK if you were looking at doing, say, video encoding with a highly parallelized codec, and one that was compiled to work well on Ryzen. For more common tasks, Intel is the choice. Also, over 20 years of dealing with both, I'd say that about 35% of the systems I've built and used (everything from single-socket desktops to 8-socket Opterons) have had AMDs. A good number of them were rock-solid, BUT: 100% of the systems with failed or bug-ridden chipsets that I've dealt with were... AMD-based systems. Because of that, AMD would have to *really* bring something cool to the table to make me want to take a chance on their chipsets again. |
|
Quoted:
Agree to disagree on the word budget I suppose, personally 100+ FPS in CS:GO and 60 FPS in Arma 3 is good enough for me, for the price. I also want to point out that Arma is a very GPU intensive game while CSGO is a very CPU intensive game. These two games are at the extreme ends but the newer engines tend to do a much better job of utilizing the whole PC to include the multiple cores and I can tell from personal experience that even in games like CSGO and ARMA3 having more threads is going to make a massive difference the moment you add even a single extra factor such as VOIP to the equasion. When another program needs one of those cores it is going to bog your PC down hard. |
|
Quoted:
What those tests don't show you is how all the other stuff you run will benefit massively from those extra cores and your game won't be bogged down because your sound is trying to process while your NIC is trying to send out packets and you are attempting to VOIP with your buds all at the same time. Of course, dual-core systems are so ten years ago. 
|
|
Quoted:
The issue is that 100~ in CSGO is significantly below the 128fps minimum for max packet transmission and if you are averaging 60 or 100 fps in any game your dips could be much much lower which is going to destroy the experience. I also want to point out that Arma is a very GPU intensive game while CSGO is a very CPU intensive game. These two games are at the extreme ends but the newer engines tend to do a much better job of utilizing the whole PC to include the multiple cores and I can tell from personal experience that even in games like CSGO and ARMA3 having more threads is going to make a massive difference the moment you add even a single extra factor such as VOIP to the equasion. When another program needs one of those cores it is going to bog your PC down hard. I would love to stay up and continue this dialogue but I have to get some rest so my tax dollars can fund more obama phones. If you find me a processor under $140 that beats the kaby lake pentium in performance, I will accept defeat. Otherwise I will let you buy me a new i9 
PS, check out this budget car 
|
|
Just looked at newegg and the Core i7-7700K and RYZEN 7 1700X are about the same price ~$350
Core i7-7700K: 4.2GHz, 4 Cores RYZEN 7 1700X: 3.4GHz, 8 cores For gaming performance, go with the Intel chip. The Intel is going to smoke the AMD in gaming performance and single threaded applications every time. I also believe they are still ahead of the game in architecture compared to AMD. I'd only recommend the AMD for a workstation application. Personally, for example, I work with parallelized technical codes and data processing and I'd choose the AMD. For my multi-threaded applications having a 100% increase in number of cores out weighs the 25% decrease in clock speed. But for all other applications go Intel, no use in having 8 cores when most will sit idle. |
|
Quoted:
Fuck AMD fanboys. What brilliant advice. Buy the slower shit just because. Intel destroys AMD on gaming. Yes even ryzen. 10-15% faster with similar priced CPUs. Buy an i5 or i7 if you want the best. If you are okay spending the same money on slower hardware AMD is just for you. |
|
Ryzen chips are simply better bang for the buck right now. I remember when everybody said 4 cores was overkill and you only really needed 2 cores, and now it's pretty much 4 cores as a bare minimum. Games and tasks are increasingly multi threaded, it would be silly not to buy a cpu with at least 6 cores.
If you want to pay $350 for a 4 core cpu from Intel that has no headroom, uses crap TIM, and is on a dead end socket (7700K) go ahead and do that. Even their newly announced refresh products is more of the same. Everyone used to joke about AMDs being hot, but now the Intels are the higher wattage parts and they still use that crap TIM. You can get a better 6 or 8 core ryzen for cheaper, pay less for a motherboard compared to the Intels, and have more headroom for threaded tasks. |
|
Quoted:
Fuck AMD fanboys. What brilliant advice. Buy the slower shit just because. Intel destroys AMD on gaming. Yes even ryzen. 10-15% faster with similar priced CPUs. Buy an i5 or i7 if you want the best. If you are okay spending the same money on slower hardware AMD is just for you. 
120 fps vs 140 fps is totally noticeable too. /s |
|
I'm pleasantly surprised. I thought everyone would be pushing the new AMD shit.
Winning an award doesn't mean shit. A Kia will beat out a Honda in some areas, but it doesn't mean it's the real world best one to purchase. There's a reason Intel and nvidia dominate the market. They basically charge what they want because there is no competition. And screw the bang for buck bullshit. If you can afford to build a new desktop pc, $50-100 isn't going to break you on the chip cost. |
|
https://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/05/26/definitive_amd_ryzen_7_realworld_gaming_guide
Intel i7 7700K $349 Pros: Absolute best gaming performance you can get right now, easy overclock to 5.0GHz, Optane support Cons: Socket 1151 is DOA; you will be stuck at 4 cores/8 threads for the life of the motherboard, high temperature issues when overclocked due to shitty thermal paste under the heat spreader, no air cooler included. AMD Ryzen 1600 $219 Pros: 6 cores/12 threads, includes decent air cooler, easy overclock to 4.0GHz, AM4 socket can accept later Zen 2 and Zen 3 processors Cons: Slightly worse performance in CPU limited games, new platform teething issues, currently fussy with overclocked DDR4 memory Between the two, I would go AMD for platform longevity. |