4 ms·

Can anyone knowledgeable comment on the performance? Are the recent AMD CPUs generally better for their price than Intel ones, and are there any downsides? My p

by kreetx 7y ago

Can anyone knowledgeable comment on the performance? Are the recent AMD CPUs generally better for their price than Intel ones, and are there any downsides? My personal context is compiling programs, but I do get that gamers is the other big market. And I guess this is mostly a choice for desktops, since laptops have a pre-made choice of CPU.

0-_-0 7y ago
Depends on the workload. In games, Intel is still the leader (unless you're bottlenecked by the GPU in which case there's no difference). I expect this will change when game companies start optimizing for AMD CPUs, often games run faster when SMT is turned off. See for example: https://youtu.be/yqQ2X1y0jvw?t=892 https://youtu.be/yqQ2X1y0jvw?t=892 AMD is better in parallel workloads, like compression and especially Linux kernel compilation which takes advantage of the massive L3 cache.
cheez 7y ago
I can tell you unequivocally no AMD is not faster. I have both AMD and Intel CPUs and the latest AMD is still slower than last generation Intel CPUs on standard workloads. That being said... I have SSD and like 800 billion GB of RAM so I hardly notice the difference, but I definitely do notice a difference.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
fabian2k 7y ago
They're generally cheaper than the Intel counterpart with similar performance. They're also significantly more power-efficient right now, mostly because they're one process node ahead of Intel. The single-core performance gets very close to the fastest Intel processors, and you can get a 12 core Ryzen now (and a 16 core later this year) while Intel is at most 8 cores on the mainstream desktop platform. There are differences in specific applications between Intel and AMD, but you'll have to look for individual benchmarks on this.
- snvzz 7y ago
  >The single-core performance gets very close to the fastest Intel processors I would add: While using way less power to get to that level of performance.
ben-schaaf 7y ago
At least in Australia, the 3700x undercuts it's price competitor (9700k) by a fair margin and has around 40% faster multi-core performance with very comparable single core. For compiling I don't think its even a contest at this point. Even before this generation AMD offered more multi-core performance per $, and much higher end HEDT processors (32core 2990wx).
chx 7y ago
> Are the recent AMD CPUs generally better for their price than Intel ones, and are there any downsides? My personal context is compiling programs, Oh boy, are you in for a nice surprise. https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ryzen-3700x-3900x-linux&num=7 https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ryzen-37... the Ryzen 7 3700X (323 USD) stands its ground against the i9 9900K (485 USD). The top end is not even funny, there is no consumer Intel CPU that can stand against the Ryzen 9 3900X (499 USD), the LGA 2066 workstation chips that can are double, triple the price. Or, to put it another way: at the same price the 3900X vs 9900k it is 32% faster when compiling the kernel. Passmark https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/AMD-Ryzen-9-3900X-vs-Intel-Core-i9-9900K/3493vs3334 https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/AMD-Ryzen-9-3900X-vs-In... shows no less than fifty percent. Right now the 3900X is in such a short supply it sells for 700-ish on eBay. This will resolve in a few months -- there's a 3950X scheduled for September with 16 cores instead of 12 cores, slightly lower base clock (3.8 vs 3.5) but slightly higher turbo clock (4.7 vs 4.6) tightening the screw on Intel. Of course, it'll have a "halo" price at 750 USD but will compete, again, with Intel workstation chips double the price (and much higher TDP as well). Intel is in deep... and they have nothing to counter with, Comet Lake-S is only scheduled for next year, this roadmap was posted just a few weeks ago: https://www.techpowerup.com/img/Gouh8r91rj9vR7FV.jpg https://www.techpowerup.com/img/Gouh8r91rj9vR7FV.jpg and these are just words, there is no guarantee whatsoever they will be able to ship 10nm in mass market quantity ever. Ps. Intel's workstation (HEDT) strategy is a mess anyways -- https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i9-9900K-vs-Intel-i9-9820X-vs-Intel-i9-9900X/3334vs3369vs3376 https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i9-9900K-vs-Intel... they essentially have nothing to offer between 485 USD and 950 USD which of course right now hits them with a vengeance because they can't just take a 700 USD CPU, bring it down in price a bit and make it into a 3900X competitor. The LGA 2066 platform was nothing but a mess ever since launched, watch this video from 2017 highlighting the problems with LGA 2066: https://youtu.be/TWFzWRoVNnE https://youtu.be/TWFzWRoVNnE
- kreetx 7y ago
  Thanks - and wow! I had heard that they are good, but not this good. Since price per performance is pretty much what I always look at then AMD looks like a clear winner. Some time ago I had just had a discussion on CPU choice with a friend and I think he went with Intel (citing something vague about "less problems"), and unfortunately I didn't look anything up then. It is sad in how little the general public knows about what is the best choice at any given moment and how long it takes for this knowledge to spread.
rwmj 7y ago
If you don't mind watching a video, Linus Tech Tips compared Ryzen 7 & 9 with similar (but more expensive) consumer Intel chips and Ryzen came ahead in basically all tests except one related to high-end gaming: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3aEv3EzMyQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3aEv3EzMyQ Price/performance of the AMD chips was ahead in everything.
Proven 7y ago
Intel has lower power CPUs and because of that I'll again buy a low power Intel desktop. (Which reminds me: its hard to reconcile the militant climatist attitude of the HN readers with their simultaneous preference for power-hungry AMD CPUs, but it is what it is)

by kreetx 7y ago

0-_-0 7y ago

Depends on the workload. In games, Intel is still the leader (unless you're bottlenecked by the GPU in which case there's no difference). I expect this will change when game companies start optimizing for AMD CPUs, often games run faster when SMT is turned off. See for example: https://youtu.be/yqQ2X1y0jvw?t=892 https://youtu.be/yqQ2X1y0jvw?t=892 AMD is better in parallel workloads, like compression and especially Linux kernel compilation which takes advantage of the massive L3 cache.

cheez 7y ago

I can tell you unequivocally no AMD is not faster. I have both AMD and Intel CPUs and the latest AMD is still slower than last generation Intel CPUs on standard workloads. That being said... I have SSD and like 800 billion GB of RAM so I hardly notice the difference, but I definitely do notice a difference.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

fabian2k 7y ago

They're generally cheaper than the Intel counterpart with similar performance. They're also significantly more power-efficient right now, mostly because they're one process node ahead of Intel. The single-core performance gets very close to the fastest Intel processors, and you can get a 12 core Ryzen now (and a 16 core later this year) while Intel is at most 8 cores on the mainstream desktop platform. There are differences in specific applications between Intel and AMD, but you'll have to look for individual benchmarks on this.

snvzz 7y ago
>The single-core performance gets very close to the fastest Intel processors I would add: While using way less power to get to that level of performance.

ben-schaaf 7y ago

At least in Australia, the 3700x undercuts it's price competitor (9700k) by a fair margin and has around 40% faster multi-core performance with very comparable single core. For compiling I don't think its even a contest at this point. Even before this generation AMD offered more multi-core performance per $, and much higher end HEDT processors (32core 2990wx).

chx 7y ago

> Are the recent AMD CPUs generally better for their price than Intel ones, and are there any downsides? My personal context is compiling programs, Oh boy, are you in for a nice surprise. https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ryzen-3700x-3900x-linux&num=7 https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ryzen-37... the Ryzen 7 3700X (323 USD) stands its ground against the i9 9900K (485 USD). The top end is not even funny, there is no consumer Intel CPU that can stand against the Ryzen 9 3900X (499 USD), the LGA 2066 workstation chips that can are double, triple the price. Or, to put it another way: at the same price the 3900X vs 9900k it is 32% faster when compiling the kernel. Passmark https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/AMD-Ryzen-9-3900X-vs-Intel-Core-i9-9900K/3493vs3334 https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/AMD-Ryzen-9-3900X-vs-In... shows no less than fifty percent. Right now the 3900X is in such a short supply it sells for 700-ish on eBay. This will resolve in a few months -- there's a 3950X scheduled for September with 16 cores instead of 12 cores, slightly lower base clock (3.8 vs 3.5) but slightly higher turbo clock (4.7 vs 4.6) tightening the screw on Intel. Of course, it'll have a "halo" price at 750 USD but will compete, again, with Intel workstation chips double the price (and much higher TDP as well). Intel is in deep... and they have nothing to counter with, Comet Lake-S is only scheduled for next year, this roadmap was posted just a few weeks ago: https://www.techpowerup.com/img/Gouh8r91rj9vR7FV.jpg https://www.techpowerup.com/img/Gouh8r91rj9vR7FV.jpg and these are just words, there is no guarantee whatsoever they will be able to ship 10nm in mass market quantity ever. Ps. Intel's workstation (HEDT) strategy is a mess anyways -- https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i9-9900K-vs-Intel-i9-9820X-vs-Intel-i9-9900X/3334vs3369vs3376 https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i9-9900K-vs-Intel... they essentially have nothing to offer between 485 USD and 950 USD which of course right now hits them with a vengeance because they can't just take a 700 USD CPU, bring it down in price a bit and make it into a 3900X competitor. The LGA 2066 platform was nothing but a mess ever since launched, watch this video from 2017 highlighting the problems with LGA 2066: https://youtu.be/TWFzWRoVNnE https://youtu.be/TWFzWRoVNnE

kreetx 7y ago
Thanks - and wow! I had heard that they are good, but not this good. Since price per performance is pretty much what I always look at then AMD looks like a clear winner. Some time ago I had just had a discussion on CPU choice with a friend and I think he went with Intel (citing something vague about "less problems"), and unfortunately I didn't look anything up then. It is sad in how little the general public knows about what is the best choice at any given moment and how long it takes for this knowledge to spread.

rwmj 7y ago

If you don't mind watching a video, Linus Tech Tips compared Ryzen 7 & 9 with similar (but more expensive) consumer Intel chips and Ryzen came ahead in basically all tests except one related to high-end gaming: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3aEv3EzMyQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3aEv3EzMyQ Price/performance of the AMD chips was ahead in everything.

Proven 7y ago

Intel has lower power CPUs and because of that I'll again buy a low power Intel desktop. (Which reminds me: its hard to reconcile the militant climatist attitude of the HN readers with their simultaneous preference for power-hungry AMD CPUs, but it is what it is)