I am a little confused regarding some of the current AMD hype.
I am a little confused regarding some of the current AMD hype.
The situation isn't just about passionate complaints. Intel has made some issues, but the current review environment seems biased. For instance, many AMD boards lack BIOS updates for newer chips, yet few users react strongly—some might even discover their CPUs won’t work. As I mentioned earlier, I support the 3600 and similar processors for most users, though I’m concerned many believe newer Intel models offer no real benefits.
They once provided a "loaner" CPU to help with BIOS updates, which is a helpful service many customers value. I’m not sure if Intel has done something comparable before, but it seems unlikely they would offer such a program now due to the unique circumstances involved.
People say AMD is better because Intel designs are "so old" and "they're just the same thing over and over". People also say that AMD has "more features". Except for a few more PCIe lanes on some chips, I can't tell that this is true. The reality is that the only thing AMD has over Intel is value . Intel still generally exhibits better performance per thread, higher total performance in similarly specced chips, and better memory compatibility. For some reason people have been convinced that node size means something, even though the manufacturer of the lithography machines says that the node size number no longer actually relates to node size at all and is more like a model number. Basically, it boils down to this: Moore's law is ending , and Intel got there before AMD did. AMD is better at lying about where they are at than Intel ever was, so people never notice that what's really going on is that AMD is just now catching up to Intel , rather than actually surpassing them. Which is why we see what we see now, Intel is better in some areas, AMD in others. Intel has some competitive products, AMD has some competitive products. The days of market domination in IA32 and IA64 processors are over, and people love an underdog story.
Sure, focusing on boosting frame rates, those Intel chips are a good investment. What tasks typically benefit from a computer? One of my CPUs is a 6-core, 12-thread processor, but I rarely run all 12 threads. I’d prefer quicker performance from a single core instead.
Ultimately, what matters is how you define value when aiming for better performance. If you prioritize higher FPS, you’ll need to target multicore capabilities. It’s not necessary to say more—though I can admit some people still prefer Intel products because of their consumer approach. Even though it’s becoming less appealing, I won’t agree that Intel chips are inherently bad. There’s always a market for different options.
My rig uses an Intel processor. I'm planning to switch to AMD. (The top upgrade for me is a 3100x) This is mainly for workstation use, particularly in schools and offices. The market for AMD workstations seems tough for Intel to capture. While Intel parts are more affordable, labor costs remain higher.
I get that. There are lots and lots of things you can complain about when it comes to Intel. But clearly there is a witch hunt going on when people even go as far as to complain about some internal leaked slide because it doesn't use X or Y program when doing benchmarks. Or accusing Intel of paying Asus to cripple the AMD version of a laptop, and stuff like that. People are looking for things to complain about when it comes to Intel, but people give free passes left and right when it comes to AMD. Intel has a security vulnerability which also affects AMD? Let's talk about how bad Intel are! Oh, it also applies to AMD processors? Well I don't believe they do, even when AMD has verified that they are affected! Stuff like that. If you want to complain about Intel then I think people should do so for any of the number of valid reasons that exist. You don't need to make up crazy and completely unfounded conspiracy theories to make Intel look bad. But no, AMD are not better. AMD lies and deceives all the time. The mentality you are displaying now, that "Intel is evil and anti-consumer and AMD are the good guys" is wrong. It's just that people like to bring up all the times Intel act that way, and turn a blind eye whenever AMD does the same things. This is not true. The best value processor on the market for gaming is the i3-9100F. It has around 50% higher price to performance ratio than the 3600. The i3-9100F gets roughly the same performance in games as the 3600, but it does so at almost half the price. So what you claim to be a fact is incorrect. I would still recommend the 3600 over the 9100F, but saying that the 3600 is the "best value processor for gaming on the market" is just flat out wrong. The 3600 isn't even the best value AMD processor, much less the best on the market. The i3-9100F is the best value on the market for gaming, and the Ryzen 3 3100 is the second best value on the market (for gaming). At least if you can find it for the recommended 99 dollar price. But since the 3100 is selling so well (far more than the 3600) its price is currently very inflated (sits at around 150 dollars). Also, I understand that I might be coming off as an Intel fanboy and AMD hater right now but that could not be further from the truth. The problem I have is this completely incorrect generalizations people make about companies. Things like "AMD has better value" is a massive generalization which might be true for some products, but it's definitely not true for other things. Like I showed above, the best value CPU right now is an Intel i3. Or this witch hunt that we can see in this thread: Where for some reason as soon as someone noticed "weird how the AMD laptop has a blocked exhaust" the first thing they thought of was "I bet Intel paid Asus to cripple the AMD product!". Even though that was not only a completely baseless assumption, it also turned out to be wrong. But I swear that more than half the people who read that thread did not see the update and bought into the "Intel is bad" conspiracy theory. People view Intel with bad faith (assume everything they is assumed to be intentionally malicious, bad and should not be forgiven) and they view AMD with good faith (assume everything they do is good and if they do something bad, it gets forgiven because it is assumed it was a mistake). That's what bothers me with this whole debate. The witch hunt where people try and find things to complain about when it comes to Intel, and the arguments from bad faith with them. All the good faith people have with AMD and how quick people are to forget and forgive anything bad they do. The massive generalizations people make like "Intel chips are hot" and "AMD has good value", which might be true for a handful of their products, but becomes monstrously untrue once you start trying to apply those generalizations to their 100+ portfolios of products. Just because one or two of their products have a certain characteristic, does not mean the other 150 products from the same company are like that.
Uncertain about the topic but the G15 clearly shows Asus defeating AMD with the same layout except for the absence of black paper on Intel, which performs better despite less airflow. The paper is added just to balance temperatures—without it, the Ryzen 4000 runs cooler and quieter than the Intel version with similar specs. Please avoid spreading misleading details to support your brand bias. Thank you.
Intel faces significant scrutiny for its lack of progress beyond the 14nm technology. The company appears to be struggling, and its inability to advance past this node raises concerns. Besides technical challenges, Intel is under investigation for insider trading allegations. It should be recognized as a market leader with innovative products, not merely repeating outdated designs or minor updates like thermal paste variations for major players such as AMD. Criticizing AMD’s marketing is common, but Intel often focuses heavily on promoting its 10th generation desktop chips, targeting gamers with single-core performance even though they fall short against AMD in multi-core scenarios.