2017-18 Intel vs AMD which is better?

If you plan on exclusively gaming at 1080p and not using your PC for pretty much anything else ever, get an intel chip. If you have gobs and gobs of money and are doing heavy multi-threaded loads which would benefit from a 2%-5% performance gain for twice the cost of an AMD solution, go with intel's highest end i9 X chip. If you get a raging boner or damp in your lady bits for optane or thunderbolt 3 built into the motherboard, go with an intel solution.

For pretty much every other usage scenario, I suggest AMD at this point. Since the bitcoin miners and VRAM scarcity have driven prices up on mid-range GPUs, I'd say go with a high end GPU (NVIDIA 1080 or better for gaming, AMD VEGA for mining... or keep waiting for NVIDIA's latest, which is rumored for early 2018 at this point).

Based on lots of research on the matter, I'm under the impression that the Ryzen R5 1600 and 1600x processors may be the best value in CPUs in five years (the whole line up is solid, regardless). If you need beefier than that, Threadripper is probably the best high-end bang for buck in quite awhile too. If price doesn't matter, I think it could be argued that intel can win out by a small margin but at a much higher price point for a negligible performance gain. However, if I didn't get a massive discount on intel CPUs due to being an electronics retail minion, I'd only be buying Ryzen, Threadrippers, or Epyc for friends and family beyond the previously mentioned exceptions.

As for the 960 Pro sammy, I'd say go with the Evo if you're a bang for the buck person. I went with the 950 pro a build back, and the 960 evo on most recent. The Pro line, though great, is pretty far off the mark when it comes to bang for budget, especially when compared to the current EVo

We can see what will happen on socket 2066, but most the numbers I've seen so far just look like it's a new platform mostly for the sake of having a new platform / performance gains are pretty insignifcant between 1151 or 2011-v3 versus 2066. If there is a significant performance jump on the intel side in a year, AMD will likely slash prices to compete as they've typically done.

Just my two cents. Hope it helps.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, it appears I'll be waiting until Christmas time or early 2018 to be able to get what I want. I'm still unclear on Intel or AMD tho.

A friend and I were discussing this issue with PCIe 4.0 and figured - it would be helpful if we knew how much of the PCI bandwidth was being used so, it would be helpful to have a graph like in task manager to be able to monitor how much of the PCI bandwidth is being consumed - we don't know if we are using 45% or 95% of the total bandwidth. Maybe we should be able to monitor that? - just saying.

Yeah, it just makes sense at this point in time to be able to monitor how much of the PCI bandwidth we are using. The charts are not helpful at all to the average person - how ya suppose to take the chart below and the specs for your system and really figure out your bandwidth usage?


pcie-bw-table.jpg


http://techreport.com/news/32064/pcie-4-0-specification-finally-out-with-16-gt-s-on-tap

PCIE bandwidth does not matter one bit. No gpu can saturate a current gen3 x16 link. Then add in the kicker that multi gpu is basically dead and the near future. Thus it makes PCIE gen4 and beyond even more meaningless in the scope of things. Until there's actually a need, it's just stuff to try and get ppl to upgrade in the future.
 
For me, this is about a lot more than just GPU's ... there are also lanes - such as for NVMe ssd's and other things that share the PCIe bandwidth that must be taken into consideration - that's why I suggested previously that it would be helpful to be able to monitor PCI usage in a graph like we do with CPU & GPU. What if one has more than one GPU & more than one NVMe ssd - that really digs into the PCIe bandwidth. There's also a future proof factor because for me, I tend to keep my PC's until they die - money is a factor too, I wanted to get as next-gen as possible. I definitely don't want to have to buy another computer every 2 or 3 years. I don't like to upgrade unless I'm going to get at least a %200 performance increases but, price/performance matters to me.
 
And for those of us on Sandy-EP, even less reason to consider a change. Still very happy with how well my 3970X is standing the test of time.
 
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but this is how I understand the current PCIe lane situation

Intel has 16x 3.0 for gpu(s) and you can run two 4x 3.0 nvme SSDs, but the two SSDs have to go through the chipset to the cpu, whos link is 3.0 4x so that makes a bottleneck.

AMD has16x 3.0 for gpu(s) and and you can run one 4x 3.0 nvme SSD, a 2nd nvme SSD can run off the chipset but at 3x 2.0 speed, so half the bandwidth.

PCIe 4.0 won't bring more lanes, just more bandwidth per lane. If you want more lanes go with one of the HEDT options. Do they still make motherboards with PLX chips? It would be another way to get more lanes but I never really researched how it works.
 
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but this is how I understand the current PCIe lane situation

Intel has 16x 3.0 for gpu(s) and you can run two 4x 3.0 nvme SSDs, but the two SSDs have to go through the chipset to the cpu, whos link is 3.0 4x so that makes a bottleneck.

AMD has16x 3.0 for gpu(s) and and you can run one 4x 3.0 nvme SSD, a 2nd nvme SSD can run off the chipset but at 3x 2.0 speed, so half the bandwidth.

PCIe 4.0 won't bring more lanes, just more bandwidth per lane. If you want more lanes go with one of the HEDT options. Do they still make motherboards with PLX chips? It would be another way to get more lanes but I never really researched how it works.

Your understanding of the PCIe lane allocation between Intel's Zx70 chipsets and it's mainstream CPUs, compared to Ryzen 7 and its X399 chipsets is accurate.

As for the PLX chip, they have fallen out of fashion for several reasons. PEX, the company that produces them was bought by another company. The cost of the PEX PLX 8747 chip was high to begin with. Sources on prices vary somewhat, but I've seen numbers as low as $50 and as high as $80. Supposedly, they cost more than that now. The PLX chips never actually added bandwidth or PCIe lanes. a PLX chip required 16x PCIe lanes as an interconnect to the CPU. The PLX chips offered 32 lanes per chip for devices. However, any connected devices were ultimately limited to the 16x lanes that the PLX chip used to connect to the CPU. Therefore, the PLX chip never really added more lanes, it simply multiplexed them. This also added latency, and in many tests performance was even lost using them.

However, the PLX chip acted as a PCIe lane switch, and a good one at that. You could effectively load balance or dynamically allocate PCIe lanes with greater flexibility than you could without one. This was really it's only benefit. This is what would allow systems with a motherboard with a mainstream chipset to run four PCIe x16 slots with 8x lanes for 3-Way or 4-Way SLI. The GIGABYTE Z170X Gaming G1 was such a motherboard that used this. However, between that and the Alpine Ridge controller, it was $450 and costs as much as most HEDT class motherboards do today. Essentially, the PLX chip was only good at providing support for 3-Way and greater GPU and device configurations on motherboards that ordinarily lacked the PCIe lanes to support it. You still shoved everything through 16 lanes, so it didn't work as well as it could. That said, it works surprisingly well in most cases as you rarely see a benefit to using more than 8x PCIe 3.0 lanes for a GPU.

Without the PLX chipset, you are more or less limited to an 8x8x4 lane configuration for a mainstream motherboard, which means 3-Way SLI would be off the table. AMD Crossfire supports that, but NVIDIA doesn't. Even without a PLX chip, allot of PCIe switches and bridges end up getting used on motherboards. However, the newer platforms don't need this as much because we have so many more lanes via the PCH than we used to. Back when the PLX chip was more common, we had 8x lanes at the chipset max. AMD still only has 8x PCIe 2.0 lanes on the chipset, but everything important runs through the CPU which has more lanes to start with.

Hopefully that clears things up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drklu
like this
If AMD can stay on track for the next 2 to 3 years I think they may take the lead in every aspect.


That's the big question in my mind. Over the past 20 years, it seems (at least in my recollection of history) that AMD almost never follows up a hit with another. It's very frustrating from the standpoint of continuity and upgrade-ability. I've always wanted to be an AMD supporter, as they've pretty much always been the underdog, but every time in the past I've switched, I ended up burned in some way or another. CPU's and GPU's. Either great performance and shit drivers/support, or instability, or the next iteration, and or any possible upgrades without switching MBs have ended up being crap that wasn't worth it.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it just seems like there's no consistency. Intel and Nvidia on the other hand, consistently deliver top class performance, time and again, with stable products, that are well support in most cases. As much as I want to support competition, it's difficult for me to not stick with the proven option anymore.
 
That's the big question in my mind. Over the past 20 years, it seems (at least in my recollection of history) that AMD almost never follows up a hit with another. It's very frustrating from the standpoint of continuity and upgrade-ability. I've always wanted to be an AMD supporter, as they've pretty much always been the underdog, but every time in the past I've switched, I ended up burned in some way or another. CPU's and GPU's. Either great performance and shit drivers/support, or instability, or the next iteration, and or any possible upgrades without switching MBs have ended up being crap that wasn't worth it.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it just seems like there's no consistency. Intel and Nvidia on the other hand, consistently deliver top class performance, time and again, with stable products, that are well support in most cases. As much as I want to support competition, it's difficult for me to not stick with the proven option anymore.

AMD has sort of followed up one hit with another, but only so much as the Athlon (Slot 1), Athlon XP, (Socket A), Athlon 64 (S754, S939) and Athlon X2 were all more or less sequential. That said, they weren't all Intel killers. You are absolutely correct about getting burned. In many instances, AMD has had the delivered the goods with the CPU and it's platform has suffered from poor performance, driver issues or a number of other problems. Intel has shown a great deal more consistency, but the Netburst architecture was a gamble that didn't pay off. However, the platform always worked and always felt mature.

I will also say that I've got Z370, X399, X299, etc. all on the bench, or have had them on the bench recently and I've got to fight with the AMD stuff quite a bit more than I do the Intel stuff to make it work. When I talk about memory compatibility and other issues, I'm not kidding. Most Intel systems, POST on the first try and work very well. AMD systems I've got to fight to get them to POST, install an OS some times or detect drives. RAM compatibility is a nightmare on AMD's stuff right now. It's all getting better, but anyone who buys into AM4 or TR4 may not have the easiest time getting their system up and running.
 
Apparently, we've hit the wall when quad-core CPU's simply won't be able to keep up with new games especially in 2018 and beyond.

 
Humm, which system would you choose?:

Intel's Z390 or AMD's X470?

All depends on when z390 gets released. X470 will be out in April. At least we'll get a new chipset with z390 instead of a z270 with a different pin layout. Sounds like AMD is committed to AM4 through 2020, so you'll likely have a better upgrade path in the future with x470.
 
Apparently, we've hit the wall when quad-core CPU's simply won't be able to keep up with new games especially in 2018 and beyond.



This is highly dependant on the studio.
The ones I've worked with as an Ops guy employed by the publisher, you can be all over the place.
There will be a belief that if you cover the i5 from 2gens ago you're mostly covered by the well implemented engine features you're working on by more than a few studios.
Biz guys are not going to want to pay Dev teams for features a minority of enthusiasts can use.

Some studios will produce titles that put Autodesk products to shame with emphasis on scaling and execution.
Other studios you are surprised if their builds will run on a console by the E3 before launch, their ports are even worse on PC but can be brute forced into some playability with really high spec hardware.

I've literally pulled Nvidia gear out of Dev target hardware and replaced them at the last minute with AMD....and vice versa as late as Pax West. That'll make a shaky November launch at best.

Could be worse, I have friends at Adobe that still won't tell me what their target hardware is when I ask if I should ever buy a consumer CPU with more than 8-cores 4.0ghz+ but mostly stick to 4-core 5ghz, 16gb ram is fine but plan on 128gb once a week. One big nvme drive is fine but run 3 specific tiered drives for an undocumented use case.

Motherboard, all I'll care about is whether all the features work as advertised.
I want it to be stable without fighting it a lot, there was a time I'd have to deploy gaming environments in 100's of seats.
Anything above stable and working is gravy, bc when it breaks I'll toss it.
There's a lot to be said about enjoying the maturity of a chipset when it's just ripe.

I don't have the luxury of stacks of replacement parts anymore, toss it and move on when it breaks a leg.
Cattle, not pets.
 
After 7 minutes in they compare NVMe ssd performance Intel vs AMD and it appears that AMD is considerably slower so, I hope H-OCP stick a pin in that and do some testing - say Z370 vs X470 NVMe performance comparison.

Podcast #497 - Ryzen X470 NVMe performance, Samsung 970 performance
 
Last edited:
AMD vs Intel - 2018


Good vid.

But, I'm going to disagree with one point: motherboard quality and features being in parity between AMD and Intel. Well, more of a nitpick on my part, but MoBo manufacturers are still limiting the top of the top tier features (such as a real sound processor, like the Creative SoundCore 3D) to Intel boards only. I'd really like to see that option on some X370, X470 and sTR4 MoBos...
 
So now we have both AMD and Intel offering their X490 and Z390 chipsets and motherboards ... which is better value?

Intel Z390 and AMD X490 chipsets coming, will be CONFUSING

"the X470, like its predecessor, puts out just 8 downstream PCIe lanes, which are PCI-Express gen 2.0 at that, the new Z490 will put out a total of 12 PCI-Express gen 3.0 downstream lanes, which will power additional bandwidth-hungry devices, such as additional M.2 slots, external USB 3.1 controllers, 10 GbE controllers, etc.... "

https://www.techpowerup.com/243419/amd-readies-z490-chipset-with-more-and-faster-pcie-lanes


; )
 
After 7 minutes in they compare NVMe ssd performance Intel vs AMD and it appears that AMD is considerably slower so, I hope H-OCP stick a pin in that and do some testing - say Z370 vs X470 NVMe performance comparison.

Podcast #497 - Ryzen X470 NVMe performance, Samsung 970 performance


I've actually said AMD's NVMe performance was worse. I've said that for awhile now. On paper it had more potential, but the reality is that Intel may have been somewhat apathetic about CPU releases but it knows what its doing when it comes to I/O. If a bottleneck on the Intel side looks like its apparent to us in theory, its probably not as big a deal in the real world.
 
A fast AMD processor in a mini-ITX board really only became a reality with the Ryzen launch, right? Were there any complications, or just smooth success?
 
A fast AMD processor in a mini-ITX board really only became a reality with the Ryzen launch, right? Were there any complications, or just smooth success?

You'll need to do more research, but the complications look like lower-level support, i.e., very little overclocking in ITX on AMD boards. Would really like to be proven wrong here :).
 
Intel Z390 Disappointments:

HDMI 1.4 - should be 2.0
DDR4 2666 - should be 3200
BIOS needs lots of work
Utility CD instead of a USB thumb drive
9700k only 8-thread instead of 16

so why is it so expensive then?

 
Retarded points..

HDMI 1.4... who buys a 9700K to use onboard video?
I am pretty sure the crappiest chip can do DDR4 3200 speed in its sleep
Can't comment on bios didn't click on video
Doesn't everyone go onto the manufacturer's website to download latest drivers?
9900K...
 
Retarded points..

HDMI 1.4... who buys a 9700K to use onboard video?
I am pretty sure the crappiest chip can do DDR4 3200 speed in its sleep
Can't comment on bios didn't click on video
Doesn't everyone go onto the manufacturer's website to download latest drivers?
9900K...

I thought Windows 10 was supposed to take care of drivers? Could someone who has used Windows 10 before chime in and confirm?
 
Look at my specs.... I've never used Windows 10 before. It's my understanding that they add and remove features and drivers automatically. I know i've seen people say that on this very forum.

Your statement presents you as someone who has never used Windows before.
 
I thought Windows 10 was supposed to take care of drivers? Could someone who has used Windows 10 before chime in and confirm?

I'll take your question at face value: The answer is yes and no.

Yes in that Microsoft has some form of driver available from their online repository for a lot of different bits of hardware. Windows will automatically download and install these drivers within a few minutes of detecting the hardware unless you have it explicitly set not to do this.

No in that those drivers do not always provide all the features available to the hardware - video cards in particular are famous for not having their OpenGL support installed with these MS-provided drivers. Also, the manufacturer of the hardware tends to (but not always) have newer drivers than the ones MS provides, and often with more features and other improvements. Also, there is still a fair bit of hardware out there that you will just need to manually download and install drivers for. Microsoft does not have drivers for everything that can run under Windows 10.
 
I thought Windows 10 was supposed to take care of drivers? Could someone who has used Windows 10 before chime in and confirm?

No, it doesn't. As the post above states, Windows does have a large driver repository built into it with more of them being available from Microsoft online. However, the drivers in the Windows data base do not include all the hardware in a given system. Hardware manufacturers do not have to submit drivers to Microsoft to be placed in the repository. Many do not, or at least, do not do so every time they make new devices. The drivers included in the database are also not necessarily ideal. They may not provide full functionality and certainly aren't the most up to date.
 
I'll take your question at face value: The answer is yes and no.

Yes in that Microsoft has some form of driver available from their online repository for a lot of different bits of hardware. Windows will automatically download and install these drivers within a few minutes of detecting the hardware unless you have it explicitly set not to do this.

No in that those drivers do not always provide all the features available to the hardware - video cards in particular are famous for not having their OpenGL support installed with these MS-provided drivers. Also, the manufacturer of the hardware tends to (but not always) have newer drivers than the ones MS provides, and often with more features and other improvements. Also, there is still a fair bit of hardware out there that you will just need to manually download and install drivers for. Microsoft does not have drivers for everything that can run under Windows 10.

Random, hopefully not against the rules if so just remove.

Do you still have that Koolance 290x block? I've seriously been searching everywhere for some...
 
Random, hopefully not against the rules if so just remove.

Do you still have that Koolance 290x block? I've seriously been searching everywhere for some...

Sadly, I do not. I sold that ~6 months ago or so. It was salvaged from a 290X that I accidentally drowned and murdered when I was doing loop maintenance (forgot to re-verify the soft-tube 90-deg rotator fittings didn't loosen up during re-installation. That was a sad, sad day :() I have another block, but it is currently in use on a 290 that my kids use to game at 1080p on a Skylake core i5 system.
 
AMD > Intel at this point in nearly every respect that matters... and it will probably stay that way for a while.

AMD's AM4 platform will likely let you jump to their 7nm parts with a BIOS update so you may have the possibility of 16-cores on 7nm whereas Intel won't have anywhere near that on current platforms.

Also Intel has a history of being viciously anti-competitive and putting out processors with significant security flaws and not telling anyone, so yeah... probably a good idea to send people that do those sorts of things a message. Especially if the competition finally put out something better.
 
Back
Top