Intel vs. AMD

[Thinder]

And if the AMD happens to outpace the Intel..

who the f$ck cares?? Is there a prize or something or is it some balled nut boy pissing match???

 

Well actually, I do care, since I'm using AMD at the moment and the reason have always been budget.

 

For a starter: Motherboard, then CPUs, then a second hand (in reality brand new) 1080 Ti 11Gb, If I had chosen the Intel solution I wouldn't have better performances ant it would have cost me £150/200 more, money better spent into the HP Reverb G2 I'm getting this month and further upgrades, including a Ryzen 5 3600X.

 

The whole point being that with the Ryzen 5 3600X, AMD have done what they've always done for gamers, offering a cheaper solution, only this time it's on par with Intel's at a much overall lower cost when you take everything into account, PSU, motherboard, CPU, cooling solution and the capabilities of a sub-£90 board (in my case the B450 Gaming Plus Max).

 

After a GPU failure that I replaced the previous month, I ordered these on 23/06/2020. Processor was an Athlon 400 Black edition, when I upgraded, I sold the previous device to Computer Exchange, where I got the 1080 Ti 11 GB from.

 

 

For those interested here are some benchmarks for gaming that proves the point: You don't need more than 6 cores to get good results, the Ryzen 5 3600X beats CPUs with more cores more often than none and is on the heels of the i9-9900K in most games.

 

We can expect to see the price of this CPU go down, for those on a budget it's the obvious choice for upgrade.

 

[Lurker]

AMD has clearly taken the lead with regards to consumer PC CPU chips. This is a fact, and no amount of crying over it will change this. What will (hopefully) change is that Intel will drop prices to stay competitive, which maybe forces AMD to drop it's prices. In the end consumers WIN. This is what no fanboi (AMD or Intel) seems to get. It is best for us the consumer if both companies are competitive, if either of them drops behind > prices go up > consumers lose. Its a simple as that.

[LucShep]

AMD has clearly taken the lead with regards to consumer PC CPU chips. This is a fact, and no amount of crying over it will change this. What will (hopefully) change is that Intel will drop prices to stay competitive, which maybe forces AMD to drop it's prices. In the end consumers WIN. This is what no fanboi (AMD or Intel) seems to get. It is best for us the consumer if both companies are competitive, if either of them drops behind > prices go up > consumers lose. Its a simple as that.

 

If you're refering to my posts, it has absolutely nothing to do with "crying over AMD competicion market leadership", it has do with anti-consumer practices.

Was in Zoom and discord conferences late evening yesterday along with others watching "help me with BIOS updates please" issues, and already happening manufacturers' forums flooded with same questions (look around for that).

Gimme a break... I am actually biding on AMD lowered priced chips (3900X and 3900XT) and pretty much with one leg on AMD platform already myself, so I got no beef on that.

Couldn't this be avoided before hand by AMD and manufacturers?

[Lurker]

I specifically avoided naming you LucShep, but obviously you felt called out so I will respond. Anti-Consumer practices mean something completely different to what you think they mean. "Help me with BIOS updates please" is an IT support problem. I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make here, but if your point is that Intel chips are inherently better, because they require a bigger investment (a new motherboard) and less technical knowhow to install, then you have clearly missed how to make it.

 

I for one have claimed only one thing. AMD has taken the lead with regards to consumer PC CPU chips. This is a good thing, even for those who will ultimately stick with Intel processors for the time being. (I for one have an i5-9600k and might upgrade to an i9 at some point, once the prices go down THANK YOU AMD)

[Thinder]

AMD has clearly taken the lead with regards to consumer PC CPU chips. This is a fact, and no amount of crying over it will change this. What will (hopefully) change is that Intel will drop prices to stay competitive, which maybe forces AMD to drop it's prices. In the end consumers WIN. This is what no fanboi (AMD or Intel) seems to get. It is best for us the consumer if both companies are competitive, if either of them drops behind > prices go up > consumers lose. Its a simple as that.

 

Agreed. This is what matters to me in the first place, simply because I need a certain level of performances for a given budget, I don't care AMD or Intel for as long as I got that, this time it's AMD, but if their performances had been below what I needed, I would have gone Intel.

 

What I have seen here is a certain level of disinformation about AMD situation in regard to BIOS update, which is similar to Intel's with their i9-9900K and Z390 chipset, AMD has little to do with the choice of motherboard manufacturers to sell boards which haven't got a proper upgrade path, the B450 have it, they just require an update which is not unique to. AMD.

 

Same for the number of cores for performances in gaming. The Ryzen 5 3600X proves that you don't need more than 6 cores to get good performances in gaming, more to it, the way they work means that they will use only 4 of them for maximum performances in Game mode or when O.Ced, shutting down two corps to lower latency while increasing the remaining corps clock speed makes sense for a gaming CPU, CPU overall performance matters not cores number.

 

If people plans to do video editing, CAD design, 3D, they might chose CPUs with more corps than 6, for gaming, with the performances offered by the 5600X, 6 cores are enough.

[LucShep]

 

Agreed. This is what matters to me in the first place, simply because I need a certain level of performances for a given budget, I don't care AMD or Intel for as long as I got that, this time it's AMD, but if their performances had been below what I needed, I would have gone Intel.

 

What I have seen here is a certain level of disinformation about AMD situation in regard to BIOS update, which is similar to Intel's with their i9-9900K and Z390 chipset, AMD has little to do with the choice of motherboard manufacturers to sell boards which haven't got a proper upgrade path, the B450 have it, they just require an update which is not unique to. AMD.

 

Same for the number of cores for performances in gaming. The Ryzen 5 3600X proves that you don't need more than 6 cores to get good performances in gaming, more to it, the way they work means that they will use only 4 of them for maximum performances in Game mode or when O.Ced, shutting down two corps to lower latency while increasing the remaining corps clock speed makes sense for a gaming CPU, CPU overall performance matters not cores number.

 

If people plans to do video editing, CAD design, 3D, they might chose CPUs with more corps than 6, for gaming, with the performances offered by the 5600X, 6 cores are enough.

 

Please stop refering to things you don't have any clue about.

 

The Z390 motherboards were made purposedly for the whole 9th gen line of Intel, including the i9 9900K, and all worked straight away without any need for intervention on Bioses, like as usual.

The bios updates requirements on Z390 were mostly to correct parameters on a few boards (Gigabyte), and for capable Z370 (8th gen) motherboards, for those that wanted to have the newer gen on previous gen board (see? ..it's nothing that AMD invented).

There was never no line-up of Intel processors (or AMD for that matter... untill now) left without 100% capable motherboards (right out of the box) at time of release, that's just a recent theme with AMD.

 

As for the rest... well, I said my piece already, no need to comment any further.

[Thinder]

 

Please stop refering to things you don't have any clue about.

 

The Z390 motherboards were made purposedly for the whole 9th gen line of Intel, including the i9 9900K, and all worked straight away without any need for intervention on Bioses, like as usual.

The bios updates requirements on Z390 were mostly to correct parameters on a few boards (Gigabyte), and for capable Z370 (8th gen) motherboards, for those that wanted to have the newer gen on previous gen board (see? ..it's nothing that AMD invented).

There was never no line-up of Intel processors (or AMD for that matter... untill now) left without 100% capable motherboards (right out of the box) at time of release, that's just a recent theme with AMD.

 

As for the rest... well, I said my piece already, no need to comment any further.

 

"made purposedly for the whole 9th gen line of Intel"... They still required a BIOS update mattey, it's even worse than the B450 which weren't designed for this generation of CPU and still will support them, and stop projecting will you? As i said, exactly the same situation as is the case of the B450 series, only worse, on your own admission.

 

 

As for the rest... well, I said my piece already, no need to comment any further.

 

Sure thing, enough B.S.

 

Intel's latest 9th Gen CPUs have compatibility issues with older motherboards

 

"My concerns started when I bought an MSI H310 board, the H310-F Pro, for a little crypto-mining experiment. I dropped an Intel Core i5-9400 into it and failed to get anything on the screen. I swapped graphics cards, memory, and even monitors, but then I dropped in a Core i5-8400, and hey presto, I got it to POST. However, this was a brand new retail motherboard - exactly the type MSI had claimed would work with Intel's new CPUs (at least enough to POST). Except it didn't, and if I'd bought this combination and wasn't a hardware reviewer with convenient access to older Intel CPUs, I'd be completely stuck. (Well, you could always turn the board into a clock? - ed.)

 

Asus was next, and again it told me that there should be no compatibility issues with a new retail board. So I purchased my own sample of its TUF H310-Plus Gaming, and guess what? It didn't POST with the Core i5-9400, but the Core i5-8400 worked fine.

 

Now, I should add that I also looked into the CPU compatibility listings of both these boards, and as I suspected the BIOS versions provided with these retail samples were - despite being brand new boards - too old, pre-dating the versions MSI and Asus said would work with Intel's new 9th Gen CPUs. My Core i5-9400 sample was actually manufactured with the earlier P0 stepping, yet it still failed to POST in both Asus and MSI boards.

 

Next was Gigabyte, and this one was particularly interesting, as it had gone one step further to say that it would deal with the fallout should its boards fail in this way. I got hold of an H310M DS2 2.0 and B360M DS3H (two other cracking-value Coffee Lake-compatible boards), dropped in the Core i5-9400 and... POST! Now, the first of those two boards came from Gigabyte direct, but it still had an ancient 2018 BIOS on it. The B360 board, though, was purchased retail. It could just be that boards were slightly newer stock; there might still be older versions out there sitting in warehouses that lack compatibility, just like with the MSI and Asus examples. However, it appears that Gigabyte states the same BIOS should work regardless of what stepping you have. Still, without buying up every H310, B360, Z370, and H370 board out there, it's tricky to see if Gigabyte simply has less old stock in UK warehouses.

 

What this does mean, though, is that for Asus and MSI at least, there appears to be a compatibility lottery going on if you pair one of these first-generation 300-series chipset boards with one of the new 9th Gen CPUs, such as the Core i5-9400. Despite both companies claiming these boards will be compatible, there is clearly old stock out there with BIOS versions that are completely incompatible with these new CPUs. So, my advice to you is to buy Gigabyte, since its board worked, at least for me, plus in the UK it will apparently update your board to a compatible BIOS for free if it doesn't. If you go with someone else, be prepared to click that RMA button."

 

https://bit-tech.net/blogs/tech/cpus...ity-lottery/1/

 

With BIOS update, the X470 and B450 will have been supporting 7 different AMD processors...

 

 

BIOS Update For New Ryzen 3000 Processors – x470 & B450

 

Last updated on Oct 28, 2020 by Charlie Noon

 

https://www.wepc.com/tips/bios-update-for-new-ryzen-3000-chips-x470-b450/

 

 

[LucShep]

 

"made purposedly for the whole 9th gen line of Intel"... They still required a BIOS update mattey, it's even worse than the B450 which weren't designed for this generation of CPU and still will support them, and stop projecting will you? As i said, exactly the same situation as is the case of the B450 series, only worse, on your own admission.

 

Sure thing, enough B.S.

 

For the 9th gen line up of processors? HAHA ... Please do show the facts (BS?).

 

I made dozens of rigs with 9700K, 9600K and 9400, none needed bios update on Z390. :)

My point still stands: there was never no line-up of Intel processors (or AMD for that matter... untill now) left without 100% capable motherboards (right out of the box) at time of release, that's just a recent theme with AMD.

[Thinder]

 

For the 9th gen line up of processors? HAHA ... Please do show the facts (BS?).

 

I made dozens of rigs with 9700K, 9600K and 9400, none needed bios update on Z390. :)

My point still stands: there was never no line-up of Intel processors (or AMD for that matter... untill now) left without 100% capable motherboards (right out of the box) at time of release, that's just a recent theme with AMD.

 

You keep talking like you know better and keep being proven wrong. Just quit, you just waste good forum space.

 

What this does mean, though, is that for Asus and MSI at least, there appears to be a compatibility lottery going on if you pair one of these first-generation 300-series chipset boards with one of the new 9th Gen CPUs, such as the Core i5-9400. Despite both companies claiming these boards will be compatible, there is clearly old stock out there with BIOS versions that are completely incompatible with these new CPUs. So, my advice to you is to buy Gigabyte, since its board worked, at least for me, plus in the UK it will apparently update your board to a compatible BIOS for free if it doesn't. If you go with someone else, be prepared to click that RMA button."

 

https://bit-tech.net/blogs/tech/cpus...ity-lottery/1/

[LucShep]

 

You keep talking like you know better and keep being proven wrong. Just quit, you just waste good forum space.

 

No buddy, I'm calling you on your own BS. It's you spreading misinformation.

I do know better there, having handled the products at their time of release.

 

Stop being a friggin AMD fanboy spamming info that will be easily misinterpreted by those needing the info - confirming BIOS doesn't mean "Ready off the shelve" or that people won't need to mess around with BIOS, because they will.

We know already that's not a problem for you, but it's already a problem for others.

[Lurker]

 

For the 9th gen line up of processors? HAHA ... Please do show the facts (BS?).

 

I made dozens of rigs with 9700K, 9600K and 9400, none needed bios update on Z390. :)

My point still stands: there was never no line-up of Intel processors (or AMD for that matter... untill now) left without 100% capable motherboards (right out of the box) at time of release, that's just a recent theme with AMD.

 

Okay, try installing a 10XX generation Intel CPU on a Z390 motherboard. Get back to us when you manage to do that.

[LucShep]

 

Okay, try installing a 10XX generation Intel CPU on a Z390 motherboard. Get back to us when you manage to do that.

 

10th gen have their own motherboards (Z490 all ready off the shelve) since day one, like every other generation of Intel has ever had.

...What's your point?

[Thinder]

Intel’s Core i7-9700K

 

Like the other 9th generation chips, it is compatible with Intel’s new Z390 chipset as well as last years Z370 chipset (with an updated BIOS).

 

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compar...00X/4030vs4041

 

Mutiple sources says the same thing, older chipsets needs BIOS update, Intel like AMD, there is no difference here, only to me as I pointed out, it means that I will be able to use my actual cooler, (a very good Artic 7X ) and use a GPU with a TDP up to 30W higher than my actual 1080Ti 11GB, it won't cost me an extra penny in PSU upgrade even if i O.C it, being 30% more energy efficient and I still will have the same power output margin than today.

 

And btw, it will run 16% faster O.C quad-core speed than my actual Ryzen 5 3600X and being cooler, I won't have any issue with my actual cooling solution which already runs cool while O.C, so WHY on hearth would I chose Intel over AMD today?

 

Interestingly the more expensive Intel’s Core i7-9700K doesn't run circles around the Ryzen 5 5600X in gaming despite having 2 more cores, which debunk the whole "OMG less cores?" narrative, it only proved that those who bashed this processor knew nothing about how it works.

[Lurker]

 

10th gen have their own motherboards (Z490 all ready off the shelve) since day one, like every other generation of Intel has ever had.

...What's your point?

 

My point is that the new AMD CPUs don't need new boards. In many cases they don't even need a BIOS update, and if they do a BIOS update is a hell of a lot cheaper than buying a new motherboard.

[LucShep]

 

My point is that the new AMD CPUs don't need new boards. In many cases they don't even need a BIOS update, and if they do a BIOS update is a hell of a lot cheaper than buying a new motherboard.

 

 

OMG :shocking: ...again this?

And don't people have to buy the friggin motherboard if migrating from other platform (i.e, Intel)? :doh:

 

The fact that you previous AMD owners can reuse same motherboard (+bios update) was never a matter of contemption (quite the contrary?).

 

Alright, alright... I quit, the AMD fanboys win. :surrender:

 

I'll just leave this here (again) and promise not coming back to the subject:

​

Everyone getting into AMD Ryzen 5000 (particularly those coming from Intel) needs to understand this - every single AM4 motherboard out there needs to have Agesa 1.1.0.0, and while that seems simple and inoffensive, it's quite a sensitive operation.

After working with PC repairs for quite some time, can say that issues with bricked motherboards due to corrupted BIOS during its update (then requiring new bios-chip if there's no BIOS flashback) is a LOT more common than most think. (yes, even now)

If you're not sure or confident on this operation, enquire and ask the seller for assistance before commiting to the deal.

Do not count with PC stores flashing BIOS prior to motherboards purchase (none of those that I contacted do it), the interest is on selling the parts, period.

 

The way that AMD and the AIBs are handling this release is utterly moronic, with no motherboards 100% ready off the shelve for these new processors.

Next weeks probably will show the extension of the problem a little more, I predict there'll be many frustrated users with the migration to AMD after years on Intel.

I'm outta here :bye_3:​​​lol

[Thinder]

 

 

OMG :shocking: ...again this?

And don't people have to buy the friggin motherboard if migrating from other platform (i.e, Intel)? :doh:

 

The fact that you previous AMD owners can reuse same motherboard (+bios update) was never a matter of contemption (quite the contrary?).

 

Alright, alright... I quit, the AMD fanboys win. :surrender:

 

I'll just leave this here (again) and promise not coming back to the subject:

 

I'm outta here :bye_3:​​​lol

 

Granted, I might not buy a B450 today, but I certainly don't regret my choice. I keep saying it, for below 90 quids, it's by far the best board I never used, way better than some boards costing up to twice this price, so considering what I can do with it; using the Ryzen 5000 after a BIOS update, Gen2(PCI_E4), DDR 4 4000/ 4133 MHz (by A-XMP OC MODE) up to 128GB, support for new GPU, why would I bother even considering upgrading?

 

I used my previous motherboard from 01/06/2017 to 23/06/2020 and it was a OK up to the point when I started to play online games, from then on, I was on the path to upgrades only to keep up with the increasing demands on players caused by constant changes in standard and minimum requirements, you complain about DCS? Try War Gaming...

 

Considering the investments I've made just to be able to play DCS, then go to VR, the B450 GAMING PLUS MAX was by far the best choice I could make when I needed to upgrade my previous board and I don't think I could have done it going with Intel.

 

I used Athlon 400 with DDR 3, upgraded my PSU for a Corsair 750W, changed my GPU for a Radeon RX 5500 XT MECH 8G OC when it failed, then got this motherboard, a Ryzen 5 3600X and a 10180 Ti 11Gb with 32 BG of DDR 400 3200.

 

Although I managed to resell some of the old stuff to CEX, got the 1080 Ti cheaper than new from CEX (with exchange for my Radeon RX 5500 X) it has been a lot of money spent in this machine just to make it VR capable, and I don't mention new case and fans, what the AMD solution allowed me to do was to get most of it cheaper for equivalent performances, the Ryzen 5 3600X is an excellent processor and since the next step is the Reverb G2 I'll have the opportunity to test-bench this PC before the next upgrade, probably an AMD Radeon™ RX 6800, although I'm not sure of the final choice yet.

 

So Again what matters is value for money when you're on a budget.

 

 

[Lurker]

 

 

OMG :shocking: ...again this?

And don't people have to buy the friggin motherboard if migrating from other platform (i.e, Intel)? :doh:

 

The fact that you previous AMD owners can reuse same motherboard (+bios update) was never a matter of contemption (quite the contrary?).

 

Alright, alright... I quit, the AMD fanboys win. :surrender:

 

I'll just leave this here (again) and promise not coming back to the subject:

 

I'm outta here :bye_3:​​​lol

 

I don't care about any corporation, I never have. All I care about is the product and how it affects me. It's quality, it's price etc. You keep ignoring the elephant in the room to your own detriment and you are being irrational. Intel made better CPUs, and this is why I used them so far. This generation (some would argue, even the last generation) AMD has been making the better CPUs. You can cry about it all you want but those are the facts. One of those facts is that Zen 3 can be used on older boards, which brings extra value to this processor for those have them. This has NOT been true for Intel processors for many, many years.

 

Again, I am on an Intel processor, and will probably be for some time as I only upgraded to an i5-9600k last year. I might upgrade to an i9-9XXX if Intel decides to drop it's prices or just buy a cheap used one when all the Intel users start switching to AMDs. I call that a win for me and for all consumers.

[Mars Exulte]

You visibly haven't seen the charts for the Ryzen 5 5600...

 

I'm gonna sound like an a-hole for saying this, but it really undermines your tech cred when you can't even spell CPU core (not corps) correctly.

[Thinder]

 

I'm gonna sound like an a-hole for saying this, but it really undermines your tech cred when you can't even spell CPU core (not corps) correctly.

 

Like I care, You want me to spell it in my first language?

[Greekbull]

Well as someone who came from years and years of Intel CPUs I don't regret going to team Red this time at all. This 5950X blows the doors off my 8700K, even when it was paired with my EVGA RTX 3090 FTW3 Ultra, the 5950X with the same card is about 25% faster in just about every comparison I have run with the same amount of RAM. I am finishing loading up DCS and will do some comparisons but I don't think I will regret the purchase in any way...BIOS update was a breeze...Just get a Mobo with Bios Flashback and you're set with an easy update.

[Thinder]

Well as someone who came from years and years of Intel CPUs I don't regret going to team Red this time at all. This 5950X blows the doors off my 8700K, even when it was paired with my EVGA RTX 3090 FTW3 Ultra, the 5950X with the same card is about 25% faster in just about every comparison I have run with the same amount of RAM. I am finishing loading up DCS and will do some comparisons but I don't think I will regret the purchase in any way...BIOS update was a breeze...Just get a Mobo with Bios Flashback and you're set with an easy update.

 

May I ask which motherboard (including maker) you're using? Thanks!

[Lurker]

From reviews it appears that the 5950X is actually slower in most single threaded applications (such as games like DCS) compared to the 5800X. I hope you didn't just get it for DCS. In any case it's still a monster of a CPU, especially where heavy multithreaded applications are concerned.

[Greekbull]

I'm using a Aorus X570 Master

[Greekbull]

From reviews it appears that the 5950X is actually slower in most single threaded applications (such as games like DCS) compared to the 5800X. I hope you didn't just get it for DCS. In any case it's still a monster of a CPU, especially where heavy multithreaded applications are concerned.

 

I think you're mistaken. The 5950X clocks higher in single core as well. I know the 5800X has a slightly higher Base Clock but I've yet to see a review at any resolution that it beat the 5950X. In Firestrike which is DX11 and a good DCS type benchmark I was 4,000 points higher than a friend with a 5900X with a 3090.

[Lurker]

 

I think you're mistaken. The 5950X clocks higher in single core as well. I know the 5800X has a slightly higher Base Clock but I've yet to see a review at any resolution that it beat the 5950X. In some lower resolutions with older cards I've seen the 5900X be on par or a few FPS higher but at higher res I've seen the 5950X ahead every time. In Firestrike which is DX11 and a good DCS type benchmark I was 4,000 points higher than a friend with a 5900X with a 3090.

 

Please note Im talking about a 5800X (not the 5900X) which has all 8 cores on one die, this is why it is as fast in single threaded applications. Obviously the higher base clock speed is a result of that.

 

Let's see if I can dig up some benchmarks: https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compar...00X/4086vs4085

 

Once more DCS users get their hands on these processors we should get some real world benchmarks. Don't get me wrong, Im sure the 5950X is great but it's gains will be very limited compared to the 5800X or even the 5600X in DCS World.