Intel+Nvidia vs AMD+Radeon

[reVolt]

So I've previously had bad experiences with AMD CPU's and Radeon GPU's in terms of reliability and quality of hardware. I should note that this was pre 2008. Since then I've been going the Intel and nvidia route which, to be honest, have been very reliable with almost 0 software issues for me. And thus I didn't have an issue paying the extra buck or 2 for it.

Is that still the case? Is it worth it? I'm planning on buying a mid level gaming PC. Something that would perform in the lines of a RTX 2070 and i5 9600

 

[Areola Grande]

For CPU, AMD have come a LONG way and are making fantastic CPUs at present. If it's just gaming, and you want mid-tier, the Ryzen 3600 is the best bang for buck by miles.

The 9600 isn't available locally (from the 3 places I searched) and has been replaced by the new i5-10600 which retails for R5k. That is a fantastic chip, but R700 more expensive, so depends where you are budget-wise and your use case.

 

[MadSkiLLz]

So I've previously had bad experiences with AMD CPU's and Radeon GPU's in terms of reliability and quality of hardware. I should note that this was pre 2008. Since then I've been going the Intel and nvidia route which, to be honest, have been very reliable with almost 0 software issues for me. And thus I didn't have an issue paying the extra buck or 2 for it.

Is that still the case? Is it worth it? I'm planning on buying a mid level gaming PC. Something that would perform in the lines of a RTX 2070 and i5 9600

One mistake most people make is looking at component price difference as 1:1 so r5 3600x vs i5 10600k but what you need to do when building a whole new computer is look at the price difference in a whole system with all the other parts. because if intel is giving you say 15% more fps in games and all you want to do is play games with the pc nothing else, you might end up with results like 15% better gaming performance for 5% more money in total system cost.

but to get to your exact question: Today there is nothing wrong with amd atm, if you will be buying now try avoid b450 and pay the extra money for a b550 motherboard, to ensure you get the best experience out of the box with all the latest features and future zen3/ ryzen 4000 support. theres only 2 cpus worth buying right now, R5 3600 which is brand new for R4000 and the R9 3900x which is R8200 i tihink both from here:
Ryzen 3000 from Oj0

For the intel side, I would'nt buy anything besides the i5 10400 or the i7 10700, they are still on 14nm and will be for their next generation as well so if you need intel specific features. These are the only 10th gen cpus that make sense. All the K variants require coolers up to half the price of the cpu to overclock which financially is wasting your money. Intel also offers no pcie 4.0 support and will only be coming in the next generation.

so in short:
-No there is nothing wrong with AMD at the moment, both their cpu and gpu's are great value products and they offer you better features and future compatibility for at least 1 more generation.
- at the moment I would avoid intel 10th gen unless you really want intel. then go for the non k sku cpus.
- use the complete build price with the same tier components for amd vs intel vs nvidia to compare if its worth the extra cost etc and don't just look at the difference in individual component prices.

 

[Areola Grande]

One mistake most people make is looking at component price difference as 1:1 so r5 3600x vs i5 10600k but what you need to do when building a whole new computer is look at the price difference in a whole system with all the other parts. because if intel is giving you say 15% more fps in games and all you want to do is play games with the pc nothing else, you might end up with results like 15% better gaming performance for 5% more money in total system cost.

but to get to your exact question: Today there is nothing wrong with amd atm, if you will be buying now try avoid b450 and pay the extra money for a b550 motherboard, to ensure you get the best experience out of the box with all the latest features and future zen3/ ryzen 4000 support. theres only 2 cpus worth buying right now, R5 3600 which is brand new for R4000 and the R9 3900x which is R8200 i tihink both from here:
Ryzen 3000 from Oj0

For the intel side, I would'nt buy anything besides the i5 10400 or the i7 10700, they are still on 14nm and will be for their next generation as well so if you need intel specific features. These are the only 10th gen cpus that make sense. All the K variants require coolers up to half the price of the cpu to overclock which financially is wasting your money. Intel also offers no pcie 4.0 support and will only be coming in the next generation.

so in short:
-No there is nothing wrong with AMD at the moment, both their cpu and gpu's are great value products and they offer you better features and future compatibility for at least 1 more generation.
- at the moment I would avoid intel 10th gen unless you really want intel. then go for the non k sku cpus.
- use the complete build price with the same tier components for amd vs intel vs nvidia to compare if its worth the extra cost etc and don't just look at the difference in individual component prices.

Why 10700 and not 10600? Tech Jesus reckons the only 10-series worth buying is the 10600, unless you're sitting on 10900 money.

 

[MadSkiLLz]

Why 10700 and not 10600? Tech Jesus reckons the only 10-series worth buying is the 10600, unless you're sitting on 10900 money.

Because r5 3600 and b550 exists, if you planning to buy a 10600 you are not planning to upgrade your cpu in 1 year. And if you are then AMD is better because zen3 is launching later this year. So if you not planing to upgrade next year, then you should pay the premium for more cores.

Sent from my PRA-LX2 using Tapatalk

 

[Areola Grande]

Disagree. Not many games leverage many cores efficiently if at all.

The 10600 is already sitting with 12 cores and no games come near that of which I’m aware.

10600 also has a higher base clock and overclocks like a beast.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MadSkiLLz]

Disagree. Not many games leverage many cores efficiently if at all.

The 10600 is already sitting with 12 cores and no games come near that of which I’m aware.

10600 also has a higher base clock and overclocks like a beast.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

its not 12 cores its 6 cores 12 threads, just remember every benchmark you see is done on a clean install of windows with absolutely nothing running in the background. You don't run your pc at home with nothing in the background, you have discord, rgb software, mouse software, possibly capture software running while playing games. Just because not many games use more than x amount of cores is due to the fact that MOST games were developed on an API that was released when the most cores you could get on mainstream desktop was 4. That is not the case today and wont be the case in the future specially with the new consoles coming out in November with 8 cores 16 threads.

 

[Areola Grande]

its not 12 cores its 6 cores 12 threads, just remember every benchmark you see is done on a clean install of windows with absolutely nothing running in the background. You don't run your pc at home with nothing in the background, you have discord, rgb software, mouse software, possibly capture software running while playing games. Just because not many games use more than x amount of cores is due to the fact that MOST games were developed on an API that was released when the most cores you could get on mainstream desktop was 4. That is not the case today and wont be the case in the future specially with the new consoles coming out in November with 8 cores 16 threads.

Of course, change and progress are expected. But if a game uses 12 threads, and I don’t know of any that do - open to correction here, that still leaves you 4 threads for the rest which are typically lightweight anyway.

Would be a good thing to test actually.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MadSkiLLz]

Of course, change and progress are expected. But if a game uses 12 threads, and I don’t know of any that do - open to correction here, that still leaves you 4 threads for the rest which are typically lightweight anyway.

Would be a good thing to test actually.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, you have 4 extra threads but only with a 16 thread cpu like the i7 10700 8C/16T which is exactly why I suggested the 10700 in my post above.

 

[Areola Grande]

Yes, you have 4 extra threads but only with a 16 thread cpu like the i7 10700 8C/16T which is exactly why I suggested the 10700 in my post above.

Noooo.

If a game uses 8 threads (4 cores) you’d have 4 threads remaining. I’m running COD now to see it’s usage of cores.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MadSkiLLz]

Of course, change and progress are expected. But if a game uses 12 threads, and I don’t know of any that do - open to correction here, that still leaves you 4 threads for the rest which are typically lightweight anyway.

Would be a good thing to test actually.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Noooo.

If a game uses 8 threads (4 cores) you’d have 4 threads remaining. I’m running COD now to see it’s usage of cores.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Buddy, go back and read your own messages back and then you'll see 16 -12 = 4, look at the senario you were specifying. you said 12 threads. 12-12 = 0. Can't make any logical argument when your argument keeps changing to suit your outcome. That is called confirmation bias.

 

[Areola Grande]

Buddy, go back and read your own messages back and then you'll see 16 -12 = 4, look at the senario you were specifying. you said 12 threads. 12-12 = 0. Can't make any logical argument when your argument keeps changing to suit your outcome. That is called confirmation bias.

Calm your tits Susan. I made a mistake.

So COD seems to use 4 threads.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SILTECH786]

@ThanaPoeth_ZA Pour some wisdom here sir

 

[∀Z‾soʇɐuɐɥ┴]

So... Seeing as I was summoned...
Intel + Nvidia vs AMD + AMD is kinda pointless.

I ran a 5700xt with a 9700k without issues, the 5700xt was then swapped for a 1080ti coz free slight performance upgrade.
I then got rid of the 9700k and went 3950x with the 1080ti, and still 0 issues between CPU and GPU.
Performance is as it should be.

Drivers for AMD was a issue on the 5700xt's when they launched, but have since gotten much much better.
So pretty much go for which ever option you can afford.

If you want RTX enabled in games then obviously you can't go AMD, and will have to go Nvidia 20xx or wait for 30xx.
If you have a gsync only monitor and you want to use gsync, then again, go Nvidia.
If you have a freesync monitor and it supports gsync, then go either (im running with one currently, though I am not using gsync coz it's pointless imo, or I just dont know how to use it)

So bottom line, determine what it is you want to be doing at the end of the day, and then go with which ever floats your boat.
The only restrictions would be whether you want to run gsync (if gsync only monitor) or rtx in games.

Other than that, just go with whatever.

*Edit. My suggestions
So for my suggestion I would say as a cheap option go Ryzen 3600x + 5700xt (if buying new)
Else go 9700k + 5700xt/1080ti if you are going 2nd hand . 1080ti and 5700xt roughly same price, though 1080ti's are a bit scarcer or sell quicker.

 

[MadSkiLLz]

Calm your tits Susan. I made a mistake.

So COD seems to use 4 threads.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Susan? 😅Ok buddy I guess you can't have logical factual discussions with a rock, I was suggesting guidelines for the op to use while doing his research for price to performance for a brand new build and all you insist on doing is being butthurt by the difference between cores and threads,1st grade maths and how many threads a specific game uses. If you want to insult me you can pm me.

BTW i5 10600 doesn't overclock its locked, must be another one of your "mistakes" along with the inability of being rational.

 

[∀Z‾soʇɐuɐɥ┴]

Susan? 😅Ok buddy I guess you can't have logical factual discussions with a rock, I was suggesting guidelines for the op to use while doing his research for price to performance for a brand new build and all you insist on doing is being butthurt by the difference between cores and threads,1st grade maths and how many threads a specific game uses. If you want to insult me you can pm me.

BTW i5 10600 doesn't overclock its locked, must be another one of your "mistakes" along with the inability of being rational.

Just get a 3950x and you never have to worry about threads/cores/pubic hairs again

 

[reVolt]

Recon i might give AMD and Nvidia a go - thanks for pointing out Gsync, i completely forgot about GPU and monitor combo's@ThanaPoeth_ZA

Thanks all!

 

[reVolt]

Maybe the topic should have been which MOBO is the cheapest for Intel or AMD. Holy shit some of those MOBO's are f-ing expensive😳

 

[M@tree2]

Disagree. Not many games leverage many cores efficiently if at all.

The 10600 is already sitting with 12 cores and no games come near that of which I’m aware.

10600 also has a higher base clock and overclocks like a beast.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Apex legends runs my 9700K flat, all 8 cores...
just saying.

 

[M@tree2]

Maybe the topic should have been which MOBO is the cheapest for Intel or AMD. Holy shit some of those MOBO's are f-ing expensive😳

Again, is the OP planning to OC?
If not, then your run of the mill MOBO will be fine, If going Intel and OC on 10th gen, you are going to want a beefy mobo, look 8+ Phase VRMs.
X570 is cheaper in comparative Intel socket to AMD socket, at least with the Gigabyte boards, that is the case.
Processor cost,I don't have any room to talk, but for pure gaming and gaming alone then Intel.
Different use cases AMD
And for specific stuff and certain programming languages Intel.

OP, do what makes the most sense for you, but do be careful on all aspects, as I assume this will be a complete new build.
Mobo and CPU combo on either platform is guaranteed to be expensive.

 

[goldfritter]

Maybe the topic should have been which MOBO is the cheapest for Intel or AMD. Holy shit some of those MOBO's are f-ing expensive😳

If you go AMD then you can get a B550 motherboard, they are much cheaper than the X570 or Z390 options, and you lose very few features.

 

[goldfritter]

Apex legends runs my 9700K flat, all 8 cores...
just saying.

R6 Siege uses 14 out of 16 threads for me. So lots of modern games are already optimised for plenty of threads.

 

[M@tree2]

R6 Siege uses 14 out of 16 threads for me. So lots of modern games are already optimised for plenty of threads.

Yip, now if you can have both, threads and frequency, then you are golden.

This pretty much makes the 10600 irrelevant...

 

[SILTECH786]

And that is why the 10900k was born hmmm > ?