5 ms·
Windows 10 EOL is probably helping to churn a lot of aging Intel chips out here. I can't imagine anyone in the know is building a new desktop with an Intel anyt
by brian-armstrong 11mo ago
Windows 10 EOL is probably helping to churn a lot of aging Intel chips out here. I can't imagine anyone in the know is building a new desktop with an Intel anything in it these days, either.
- colechristensen 11mo agoHow I pick a CPU: - Visit https://www.cpubenchmark.net/single-thread/ https://www.cpubenchmark.net/single-thread/ and pick the fastest CPU under $400 - Visit https://www.cpubenchmark.net/multithread/ https://www.cpubenchmark.net/multithread/ and verify there are no CPUs at a lower cost with a higher score It has been, for a long time, the latest generation Intel CPU with a 2xxK or 2xxKF model number these used to be "i7" models now there's just a 7, I'm very vaguely annoyed at the branding change. It would be hard for anybody to convince me that there is a better price|performance optimum. I get it, there was a very disappointing generation or two a few years ago, that hasn't put me off. The dominance of Apple CPUs might be putting me off both Intel and AMD and consider only buying Apple hardware and maybe even doing something like Linux running on a Mac Mini in addition to my MacOS daily driver.
- dangus 11mo agoFlawed way to pick a CPU if you ask me. - generic benchmarks don’t pick up unique CPU features nor they pick up real world application performance. For example, Intel has no answer to the X3D V-cache architecture that makes AMD chips better for gaming. - You can’t really ignore motherboard cost and the frequency of platform socket changes. AMD has cheaper boards that last longer (as in, they update their sockets less often so you can upgrade chips more and keep your same board) - $400 is an arbitrary price ceiling and you’re not looking at dollars per performance unit, you’re just cutting off with a maximum price. - In other words, Intel chips are below $400 because they aren’t fast enough to be worth paying $400+ for. - If you’re looking for integrated graphics, you’re pretty much always better off with AMD over Intel
- lostlogin 11mo ago‘Stupid’ is more than a bit strong. Your points are good and the tone undermines them.
- dangus 11mo agoModified to “flawed”
- halJordan 11mo agoWhen i read "here's how i choose..." At no point did i engage with it under anything other than "this is what some random dude does once every 5 years" Let him pick his cpu how he does it. Youre overreacting, and frankly over emphasizing things that dont matter like needing vcache or avx512 or misapprehending his own price points
- dangus 11mo agoHow many people who buy desktop DIY systems don’t care about gaming performance? That market is like 90% gamers at least. 3D v-cache is a key feature for that audience. It makes gaming performance significantly better.
- bfrog 11mo agoI got a 265kf and motherboard for 350. Plenty fast and saves money for the real issue which is GPU costs. Thankfully B580 is actually a pretty good deal as well at 250 compared to green or red options. Team blue has some good deals out there really if you aren't tied to a team color.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- beeflet 11mo agoI made the mistake of going with intel because of SR-IOV, which they still haven't mainlined to the linux kernel
- khannn 11mo agoI seriously want a Mac, but I hate Apple's pricing and stinginess with RAM/Storage sizes.
- andrewmcwatters 11mo agoYou’re not missing out on a lot. Coming from someone who has used their products for many years now. Their products have more compromises and trade-offs now than they did during Apple’s Intel era. What you will tangibly miss is low noise, low power draw hardware and very, very specific workloads being faster than the cutting edge AMD/Nvidia stack people are using today.
- klelatti 11mo agoGenuine question: what compromises are you referring to here?
- LeFantome 11mo agoI would also like to hear about those compromises. I have been wanting this hardware and would like to know what I don’t know.
- linguae 11mo agoI have a work-issued M3 MacBook Pro, and at home my daily drivers are a Ryzen 9 3900 PC (still on Windows 10) and a Framework 13 laptop with a Ryzen 5 7640U running Windows 11. The hardware on my MacBook Pro is fantastic; I get amazing battery life that lasts far longer than my Framework 13, and the performance is excellent. I also love my MacBook Pro's build quality. However, the reason my personal laptop is a Framework 13 and not a MacBook Pro is because I value upgradability and user-servicability. My Framework has 32GB of RAM, and I could upgrade it to 64GB at a later date. Its SSD, currently 1TB, is also upgradable. I miss the days of my 2006 Core Duo MacBook, which had user-serviceable RAM and storage. My Ryzen 9 3900 replaced a 2013 Mac Pro. Additionally, macOS doesn't spark the same type of joy that it used to; I used to use Macs as my personal daily drivers from 2006 to 2022. While macOS is less annoying than Windows to me, and while I love some of the bundled apps like Preview.app and Dictionary.app, the annoyances have grown over the years, such as needing to click a security prompt each time I run lldb on a freshly-compiled program. I also do not like the UI directions that macOS has been taking during the Tim Cook era; I didn't like the changes made during Yosemite (though I was able to live with them) and I don't plan to upgrade from Sequoia to Tahoe until I have to for security reasons. Apple's ARM hardware is appealing enough to me that I'd love to purchase a M4 Mac Mini to have a powerful, inexpensive, low-power ARM device to play with. It would be a great Linux or FreeBSD system, except due to the hardware being undocumented, the only OS that can run on the M4 Mac Mini for now is macOS. It's a shame; Apple could probably sell more Macs if they at least documented enough to make it easier for developers of alternative operating systems to write drivers for them.
- Aurornis 11mo ago> - Visit https://www.cpubenchmark.net/single-thread/ https://www.cpubenchmark.net/single-thread/ and pick the fastest CPU under $400 FYI www.cpubenchmark.com is a running joke for how bad it is. It’s not a good resource. There are a few variations of these sites like userbenchmark that have been primarily built for SEO spam and capturing Google visitors who don’t know where to go for good buying advice. Buying a CPU isn’t really that complicated. For gaming it’s easy to find gaming benchmarks or buyers guides. For productivity you can check Phoronix or even the GeekBench details in the compiler section if that’s what you’re doing. Most people can skip that and just read any buyers guide. There aren’t that many CPU models to choose from on the Pareto front of price and performance.
- embedding-shape 11mo ago> For productivity you can check Phoronix or even the GeekBench details in the compiler section I guess the reason people prefer something like cpubenchmark, is because it seems way easier to get an overview / see data in aggregate. GeekBench (https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/multicore https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/multicore) for example just puts a list of all benchmarks, even when the CPU is the same. Not exactly conductive for finding the right CPU.
- IAmGraydon 11mo ago>FYI www.cpubenchmark.com is a running joke for how bad it is. It’s not a good resource. That's not the prevailing opinion at all. Passmark is just fine and does a lot to keep their data solid like taking extra steps to filter overclocked CPUs. Then you go on to recommend GeekBench??? Right...
- sznio 11mo ago>FYI www.cpubenchmark.com is a running joke for how bad it is. It’s not a good resource. You might be confusing them with UserBenchmark.
- Lord-Jobo 11mo agoUserbench is openly mega biased and fudges their own test scores against AMD, it’s so bad it shouldn’t even be listed in search results, There are also many criticisms against CPUbennchmark that are much more minor like its over simplified testing leading to weird anomalous score gaps between extremely similar CPU’s. For the average consumer, I think cpu benchmark is fine and probably as good as you can ask for without getting into the weeds which defeats the purpose really.
- brian-armstrong 11mo agoWhy would anyone use such an arbitrary method when you could have a 9800x3D for $40 more?
- colechristensen 11mo agoA 9800X3D is $479, my present choice of intel processor is $275. Is it that much better? Show me.
- pixelpoet 11mo agoSo much sass for such a googleable thing, good grief.
- colechristensen 11mo agoA bunch of people telling me I'm wrong and that I should google why... I mean just don't say anything if what you're trying to add is just "go look it up yourself"
- pixelpoet 11mo agoAnd now you're being bossy? Good day, sir.
- amypetrik8 11mo agoDo you have a source for that?
- pixelpoet 11mo agoFor the 7800x3d and 9800x3d being really good CPUs? I worked on Cinebench and its rendering engine, so I'll often go by its single- and multi-threaded results, and in a past life I worked on Indigo Renderer and find IndigoBench still works great too: https://indigorenderer.com/indigobench https://indigorenderer.com/indigobench
- Aeolun 11mo agoHuh, my method involves the same thing but filtering out all the Intel stuff before selecting the best AMD version.
- redox99 11mo agoThat's probably the worst benchmark you could choose.
- nerdsniper 11mo agoWhat's a better one where i can sort all cpus?
- homebrewer 11mo agoDepends on what you're doing; I'm mostly interested in typical developer workloads, so I've been relying on https://openbenchmarking.org/test/pts/build-linux-kernel-1.17.1 https://openbenchmarking.org/test/pts/build-linux-kernel-1.1... There are lots more tests in the sidebar.
- mmis1000 11mo agoUnless you need to use AutoCAD, their software have garbage level optimization on amd cpu. It's probably the only software you can see an intel i7 series cpu beat amd r9 by a big margin.
- cyber_kinetist 11mo agoProbably they're using the Intel MKL library for their linear algebra (which is severely gimped on AMD - SIMD is disabled and only the scalar fallback code runs). If they've wrote SIMD code themselves then the gap between the two shouldn't be big (AMD's are actually better for SIMD nowadays, since the recent models support the AVX-512 instruction set while Intel ended support for that due to the P/E core split fiasco.)
- wtcactus 11mo agoIf you are doing integrated GPU transcoding, Intel is still the best option. That’s a bit niche though. But for a NAS is great.
- cyber_kinetist 11mo agoAs a side note, Intel's discrete GPUs are also famous for high-quality video transcoding - it was quite popular for streamers who needed a second helper PC only for OBS streaming.
- rewilder12 11mo agoWindows 10 will be the last msft os I ever use. I rebuilt using AMD CPU/GP booted up Fedora 42 and I have never had to run a single shell command to get anything to work. I don't even notice my OS. Work, games, local models (this one still takes some tweaking but is better), all work fine