Intel CPUs are Still Better - Says Intel

Let's summarize.

Intel better at single/low thread applications
AMD better at multiple thread optimized applications or multitasking

AMD has better overall (total) performance for the price, which might be accomplished by running multiple tasks at the same time.

People are not stupid and realize each CPU strength.

Intel is Apples, AMD is Oranges.

Intel be smart.
Intel says: Apples are better than Oranges, cause Apples is all what humans eat.

 

The Ryzen 3000 already has IPC, so I guess they're already good with single/low thread applications such as games and other Ancient apps that for the life of are still stuck with the old ways of computing.

I think the better buy are still the Ryzen 3000 series, specially for those who wants to accomplish multiple things with their machine. Let's see what Intel has to offer next year, if they were able to get out of their +++++ schemes and release the 10, 7 or 5nm CPU's then they have the right to talk. Right now, their statement is like a toddler who's having tantrums XD

Yes, this is the scenario that I like, as I'm a busy person and I don't have time to do manual OC'ing on my own. All I have to do is to buy a Mobo with lots of cooling features, and quality VRMs, as well as Fans (delta fans ) to compliment either an AIO watercooling or a good ol CPU heatsink, and I'm good to go - and let the CPU OC's it own as thermals would allow.

Right now, I'm still stuck on 4.3ghz on my 8700k as I cannot go past 4.7 or 5ghz without hitting 85C at full regular load. This pathetic CPU requires me to delid just to "unlock" the performance Intel promised me. Just pathetic.

 

I like amd's motherboard comparability - intel, seem's like new chip, new motherboard

 

Just watched a video on this and arrived to the same conclusion:



It's plain obvious that the 3700X has a noticeable IPC advantage as relevated by the productivity workloads yet not all games show this. I'm guessing the landscape will be different with newer games in the fold.
I'm not sure about what you're saying about compiler optimization though, wasn't that a thing of the past? I admit I'm not well informed on this topic.

 

Intel is 100% Right thou. Real wold performance is not cinebench and especially Gaming, Ryzen 3900x is slower then last years 8600K

Here is another one: Ryzen 5 3600 vs. Ryzen 9 3900X vs. Core i9-9900K: GPU Scaling Benchmark

 

Performance per dollar is what matters. Is Intel faster for the same amount of money?

 

Performance per dollar is irrelevant for most people, people on budget buy what they can afford and people that always buy the top or second to top CPU dont care at all, they just want whats best.
You speak of performance per dollar but in one point in time you purchased 980Ti, Highest end cards are always losers in performance per dollar, so its not that important to you either.

 

Intel's marketing has always been... subpar.

 

So it it just a coincident that the Ryzen 5 1600 and 2600 were the most popular CPUs of their generation and also offered the most performance per dollar? People don't just buy the cheapest product or the best - they want good value for their money (especially if they're on a budget). Even now, previous 1600 owners will gush about how much they loved that CPU - and the 3600 looks to continue that tradition.

 

Well it isn't. CPUs could work in both Z370/Z390. And X299 is going to still work on upcoming CPUs. It isn't different from say AMDs X470/X570. You don't NEED X570.

AMD just has had AM4 around for a while, but in actuality that probably has been limiting them.

Oh really?

 

No. People on a budget, which is the majority of people, buy the best performance for what they're willing to spend, aka "best bang for the buck." This isn't just true for CPUs, it's true for anything. How to get the most for the amount of money you can afford is what people do.

 

I don't agree with BLEH!, but pointing out AMD's marketing does nothing to prove him wrong.

Regardless, I think he meant recently, because like em or hate em, Intel has had one of the most successful marketing campaigns in all of corporate history during the 90s. "Intel Inside" with that little jingle was huuuuge. You know your marketing was a resounding success when people bought your product, not really knowing anything about it at all. The name "Pentium" was powerful enough that it has stuck around all these years, despite modern Pentiums having hardly anything at all to do with the original architecture.

Today... Intel is grasping at straws.

To further elaborate on this:
If budget weren't a constraint, everyone would buy a 7980XE. Everyone else either doesn't like to burn money just because they can, or, are on a budget and buy what suits their workload best with whatever they can afford. Of course, based on a lot of the comments here, it seems people buy more based on their biases than their needs.

 

They're also buying on what is "common knowledge". If you are able to construct a narrative and successfully push it, then the narrative becomes reality for a lot of people (this isn't some weird theory, it's what politicians, media and corporations actually do for a long time now.) That is exactly why Intel made this statement, and there's lots more like it yet to come.

 

165hz and 240hz monitors, still, are viable and enjoyable only with oc'ed Intel cpus. AMD, the best they can do is 144hz/fps or lower, it is the absolute cap and hardcore gamers, would never accept that for their fast paced eyes. Each to his own. Not everyone is graphics' placebo whore.

 

Yeah I don't buy it. I played CSGO competitively for years, along with SC2, Dota, etc - I was the person with the top end rig that set all the settings to very low for maximum FPS.. once you go over 144hz you aren't noticing a difference. I'd be willing to bet that no one could reliably pick out a 165 vs 240Hz monitor in a blind test. That's not to mention that I played with/against people with crap PCs, microsoft intellimouse on 60hz screens that were CPL/CAL P top of Faceit, etc. There are pro teams in various games including overwatch/cs/etc that are playing on Ryzen systems - not even 3900x's but slower ones.

Also I get like 400fps with my 3900x in CSGO and above 250 in various other competitive games - but I guess I wouldn't be able to enjoy 165/240Hz monitors because it's not an overclocked Intel CPU or whatever nonsense you're spewing.

 

You look it it backwards, if i have 200USD for CPU then ill buy the best 200$ CPU there is and usually there is only 1 or 2 options.
When you buy "best performance per dollar" you go online, and compare every CPU vs Performance vs Price and then you look at its price and buy.
How many people actually do this? I never heard of anyone.

non CPU/GPU things are not a good example, if you want best TV for your money you have virtually UNLIMITED options to choose from,same with cars, washing machines, AC, but with CPU/GPU we have 2 options for CPU and 2 options for GPU and thats it

 

I don't know anyone who is disciplined enough to stick to a rigid budget. Everyone I know asks for the value proposition when they buy stuff, or they just chase the shinny, desirable thing regardless of value. I can't think of a single person who wouldn't at least strongly consider spending 20% more money on a product if it gave them 30+% more value.

 

It depends in what scenario and what cpu's you are comparing. But that is a question you know

For med Performance is all. Per dollar I don't care.

I just buy the fastest hardware

 

Sure, I agree but the situation you described usually happens after people decided on a build, so they already buying this brand or that brand and now thinking if they should pay more for faster CPU.
Most people in the budget category are stuck with small sums they can spend on whole PC and thats it, they dont have anything else, you can see tons of such requests on reddit and forums, asking for help to build best build for the sum they have.
I assume these are teenagers, kids and people living on strict budget and have their paycheck already spent months ahead on bills and groceries and use whats left to build a PC.

Same thing, every year a new CPU comes out i buy the fastest mainstream CPU and thats it, its the fastest, i dont need to know anything else.
People are lazy and dont understand there are schemes how to upgrade CPU/GPU every generation and not spent full prices.