The processor that’s slower on nearly all measurable metrics is always the snappier one.... According to the owners of said processor. AMDs FX series was widely said to be snappier too by its owners.I read someone insisting Intel CPUs are snappier on the desktop. How would you even test this?
Does Linux Mint slow down a bit as well?I always notice with a new build everything is snappier/smoother/more responsive. Guess it relates to everything being new along with a fresh os install. Then of course you get used to it (get adjusted) and it all seems nominal in terms of speeds/snappiness.
I prefer to just re-image once in a while (usually after big Windows updates) to get that feeling. All the important stuff are on other SSD/HDD and/running into VM.If I defrag my OS SSD partition or restore a backup, it is always snappier than an install running for a few weeks.
I'm not recommending defragging an SSD as a general thing, but the OS partition once every 3+ months isnt excessive. It doesnt rewrite the whole OS, just a small part of it.
But you can benchmark system response time. Hence the definition of "Snappiness" as used here. A person's amount of Patience in terms of "wanting" or "having" to wait for a system response is subjective.You can't benchmark an opinion, and all snappiness means is someone's opinion.
I don't think it's placebo, there are often huge differences in snappiness between configurations using the same cpu.I think it's a case of placebo effect. You think you're going to see a difference so you subconsciously do when you switch to whatever "team" you think you like better.
That most likely is a placebo effect cuase I use a amd and a intel at work , and the snapiness in the amd is no where close to my 9900k @ 50. Reason is easy amd takes a high hit on memory latency somewhere around 65ns on high end memory when intel is around 39ns to 42ns. Also that's why intel hit higher fps in games. Latency is where you get the snappines. Even winrar is faster intel despite the core deficiency , which more core speed and the memory control so close to the processors on the die , it just get more cycles done quicker.My Intel 6700k system becomes rather snappyless where other stuff is going on in the background. AMD system seems way more consistent in application loading, response, loading when cores are loaded down. 3900x at 100% CPU usage and one would not be hindered (depending upon what is consuming that 100% CPU usage), Intel 100% CPU usage on anything it seems becomes a slugfest. I would like to see some actual testing of this, for me I have a total opposite experience dealing with Intel and AMD -> AMD is more snappier in general in what I do. As for just single type sessions, scenario etc. I don't see much if any difference between them.