No current need for an Intel CPU.
No current need for an Intel CPU.
For top performance and integrated graphics—such as backups or QuickSync features—AMD doesn’t provide any options.
He mentioned 3700x which seems quite sensible, offering a significantly improved alternative compared to the pleb 6core 3600 Ryzen.
He mentioned the 3950X 16 core as something he was definitely going for. The 3700X doesn’t surpass the 3600 in gaming performance. Intel’s lineup is solid if you’re looking beyond the typical choices.
I think AMD is the better option for several reasons. First, Intel continues to face security issues, and each fix often brings new problems. Second, while not all users benefit from AMD's core and thread advantages, those who do see a significant improvement when switching to an AMD chip. Third, gaming trends are shifting toward more cores and threads, and software is adapting accordingly. Even upcoming titles slated for early 2020 already hint at this direction. It’s plausible that soon core count will become more important than clock speed. Fourth, upgradability matters. Intel’s newer chips may need a new motherboard, whereas AMD’s AM4 slot could remain viable longer. This means you might upgrade your CPU without buying a whole new board in the near future. Additionally, AMD supports PCI 4.0 now, and with upcoming GPU designs, it could become essential for optimal performance. Given these factors, especially when compared to Intel’s modest gains in gaming performance, AMD appears to be the stronger choice at present.
The key is pricing. Server/workstation market is different, as depending on your work the answer could be that either Intel or AMD is really the only sensible choice for technological reasons. But in the consumer market, there is no such limitation: the latest Ryzen is very good, but Intel has everything they need to match or outperform it (no, just because it uses the AM4 socket I won't count $750 high core-count CPUs as "consumer market"). And as others pointed out, for gaming Intel CPUs can still get you at least a tiny edge in the worst case scenario, at the high end of gaming CPUs. Therefore, the situation is that you can get great performance with either brand, and the real question is: how much do you need to pay for that performance? MSRP at launch can tell one story, but ultimately what matters to you is the current pricing in the stores you can buy from. Technically, you are giving up Thunderbolt (for now) going with AMD, and you are giving up PCIe 4.0 (for now) going with Intel, but realistically I could have PCIe 2.0 and USB 2.0 and be happy with it still today So, theory says there still is a sizable value advantage for AMD, but check pricing where you buy, because an Intel CPU can still make you very happy if you can get it at a relative-performance-based price.
AMD’s main advantage seems to be the security concerns. Most folks outside IT aren’t even paying attention to Intel’s issues—gamers probably don’t unless they’re dealing with illegal software. These latest microcode updates are dropping Cinebench and frame rates, especially on systems where security fixes are turned off and require full OS updates (such as 2017 Windows versions). If this trend keeps going, Intel’s i9 chips will quickly become nothing more than i5s.
^^^ I'm running a 5820K in my main rig with no performance issues, that's a CPU from 2014, 5 years ago. Still going strong, still runs all my games with no issues. X79 (2013) holds up as well, it's just X58 (2009-2011) that's fallen off due to its age of 10 or so years old. Still many older games or well optimized titles run just fine on it though. HEDT setups have held up better because they offered 6+ cores, the 8700K/9700K and higher are all above that so they won't suffer the dropoff in the very latest titles that the 4c/8t i7s on the mainstream platform have (for the most part, the 7700K is still pretty damn good). And again, those will run lighter or older titles with ease. Traditionally more reliable than Ryzen as well, the Zen chips have had a lot more issues (especially Zen launch and Zen 2 launch) due to the arch not being as mature as Intel's. Intel is by no means trash. Lmao yes . There isn't even a difference between the 3900X and 3950X, every review I've seen has specifically mentioned it's not a good choice for gaming. Price/Performance, it's what they've been winning on since the R5 1600. Being able to opt out of the very specific vulnerability fixes I'm never at risk of and that are already fixed by patches to the browsers would actually be pretty damn nice, lol.
The Ryzen 3000 series motherboard had some launch problems, but they've been resolved. It still has a few minor issues, but with BIOS version 1.0.0.4 and Windows 10 1909, plus some BIOS adjustments, three of my 3900X cores now run at least 4.6Ghz. The platform is now stable for me, even though I haven’t seen any crashes or BSOs since setup. I’ve always favored more cores/threads compared to the older generation, and my experience supports that idea. Back in the day, people debated whether the i7’s design offered better durability than the i5’s layout. I owned an i7 2600K with a GTX1080 for gaming at 4K resolution; it performed well despite GPU limitations, and I kept it for its value. Now I’m using an i7 4770K as my current HTPC, while my old i7 3960X remains in my second rig. It still handles games smoothly, though I think the GPUs are aging—so I’m planning to upgrade soon. I’m considering switching to Ampere if NVIDIA keeps its pricing stable.