Thread has been deleted
Last comment
AMD Ryzen vs. Intel
United States curlyfriezzz 
Which processor company do you guys prefer?
2018-04-13 21:45
#1
 | 
Netherlands Deji 
Intel is really crap now
2018-04-13 21:47
#2
 | 
Germany s2ily 
Not crap but buying AMD makes more sense because you get more for your money.
2018-04-13 21:49
#4
 | 
Netherlands Deji 
i have never used AMD so i cant really decide
2018-04-13 21:50
#6
 | 
Germany s2ily 
I haven a Ryzen 1700X and it's great. Good FPS and while streaming no FPS drops. 8 Cores 16 Threads FTW.
2018-04-13 21:52
#7
 | 
Netherlands Deji 
Nice
2018-04-13 21:54
#8
 | 
Germany s2ily 
Plus, I can install the next Gen. CPUs on my mainboard as well because AMD doesn't change the socket when a new Gen. got released. AM4 FTW! :D
2018-04-13 21:56
Intel because better
2018-04-13 21:49
#5
 | 
Azerbaijan Masallu 
k
2018-04-13 21:55
#9
fer | 
Brazil DreeBR 
Ryzen: Mult-use PC, such as streaming, editing and working on heavy programs. Intel: Games, bit no really worth it since performances are basically the same on some games, and Intels get pretty hot. So currently, Ryzen > Intel
2018-04-13 21:56
+1.
2018-04-17 11:23
#17
 | 
Finland Aibbee 
Well my amd experience was that amd processor got hot as fuck. Intel doesnt. I dont know what model are u refering tho
2018-04-17 11:23
> Well my amd experience was that amd processor got hot as fuck. Which one? Ryzen CPUs are colder than Intel's Skylake/Kaby Lake/Coffee Lake.
2018-04-17 11:27
#22
 | 
Finland Aibbee 
Fx 8320 :D I know it's super old and ryzens propably are cooler nowadays but I havent rly paid attention to ryzen processors. I wanted them to be more powerful, not cooler. I prefer better performance and hotter than the other way around
2018-04-17 11:29
Ryzen has pretty good balance between TDP and performance (and even price) IMHO.
2018-04-17 11:35
#40
 | 
Turkey osmanabi 
ah the fx series, that was considered one of the worst amd cpu series so don't count that lol. For gaming try to pick up a ryzen cpu with good single thread performance.
2018-04-17 12:27
#80
 | 
Finland Aibbee 
nah, im still rocking with my i5 6600k . Not the best but does the job
2018-04-17 16:53
#83
JZFB | 
Lithuania gime114 
Ryzen doesn't
2018-04-18 10:43
#10
 | 
Poland zerodesire 
>amd >good cpu choose one they were good last time 10-15 years ago
2018-04-13 21:57
#11
 | 
Germany Tunio 
lmao more like right now
2018-04-13 22:43
You can be an Intel fanboy, that's fine. I prefer Intel as well. But AMD has some really good CPU's now, and really consumer friendly at that. If you really think their last good CPU's were from 10-15 years ago, you're an uneducated idiot.
2018-04-13 23:07
I smell a fanboy that didnt realy try amd.... If it wasnt for amds ryzen, intel would be still selling i5 with 4 cores and game development would still be stuck. Now they will start makeing games to utilize more cores
2018-04-17 11:21
#70
 | 
Poland zerodesire 
i had amd in my first pc
2018-04-17 14:57
#13
REZ | 
Sweden klangoo 
intel just because it can run more OS than AMD AMDs can't run Mac OS
2018-04-13 23:09
It can though?
2018-04-17 11:29
#41
 | 
Turkey osmanabi 
wait what? how? that is really weird considering Apple uses AMD components on their products.
2018-04-17 12:30
since when
2018-04-17 12:48
#49
smooya | 
United Kingdom fal36 
They use vega graphics in imac pros
2018-04-17 12:52
um, ok. Still OS need proper CPU to run.
2018-04-17 12:59
#53
smooya | 
United Kingdom fal36 
But its an amd component
2018-04-17 13:00
#73
 | 
Netherlands Deji 
Virtual machine ez
2018-04-17 15:17
R7 1700 user here and i couldnt be more happy with my PC, runs everything i can throw at it without any problems. EZ stream, EZ video editing and EZ gaming.
2018-04-17 09:18
stream link pls xd
2018-04-17 11:26
#28
 | 
Netherlands !napz 
twitch.tv/napz2016
2018-04-17 11:46
#29
 | 
Netherlands !napz 
I hav same processor plox watch xD
2018-04-17 11:46
I own R5 1600 and I have some problems on performance when playing csgo, rest is fine i would say (didnt try streaming or editing tho). For the price guess its worth tbh
2018-04-17 11:42
just bought i7 4770k + asus maximus vii ranger for 250e total. i get about 300-400fps. was worth it after playing with amd fx 8350 with 160fps for 2 years
2018-04-17 11:28
Yeah these older intels still worth it used
2018-04-17 11:35
#25
ckN | 
Estonia ckN 
why not Core Quad Q6600 in 2018?
2018-04-17 11:36
youtube.com/watch?v=gMFd0aVhVKU youtube.com/watch?v=Oc08ZPc30Zs if you don't do any multitasking/streaming/rendering videos and use pc only to play games there is absolutely no reason to buy cpu above 4770/4790 or shitty and overpriced i3/i5s i had rig with 4770k myself and built rig with ryzen 1700 only becuase i render a lot of videos and x264 encoding speed is crucial
2018-04-17 12:13
#42
ckN | 
Estonia ckN 
i mean he could buy i3-8350k with the cheapest Z370 mb for 270eur
2018-04-17 12:30
I sometimes render highlight videos I make but it doesn't bother me too much
2018-04-18 10:40
this cpu is a beast, get a decent cooler and overclock it, ez 5 years more without upgrading
2018-04-17 12:15
#27
 | 
Italy ErR0Rleet 
I was using Intel for years, and last year i bought R5 1600 and I love it! This is my first AMD CPU and it's awesome.
2018-04-17 11:46
Soooooo many intel fanboys who clearly dont know ryzen 2 is coming out in 2 days and pretty much got identical performance as i7 8700k in single core performance... If anyone buys i7 8700k to get 1-3% fps more in 1080p they lost their mind...
2018-04-17 11:48
And it comes with a really nice stock cooler!
2018-04-17 11:54
Well i sure wudnt use a stock cooler :D want my things cold and quiet ;D
2018-04-17 12:38
AMD FX-8300 vs Intel Pentium G4560 ?
2018-04-17 11:55
Believe it or not, the FX series win here because nowadays games are capable of taking the full advantage of a multicore CPU. I will still not recommend to buy any DDR3 configurations even though they are good and will satisfy your benefits for now, but it's better to think for the long run journey.
2018-04-17 12:02
AMD For multiple reasons. If you want a detailed reply let me know.
2018-04-17 12:02
What do you think about the perception that AMD heats up quicker than intel and thus a bit cheaper?
2018-04-17 12:32
I will answer you, just wait a bit because I need to deploy something on production (I'm at work).
2018-04-17 12:44
First of all, I apologise for my double post, a rule that i've broken because the edit action for my last reply expired. Second, let's talk about our main subject: 1. What do you think about the perception that AMD heats up quicker than intel These are special cases that are related with past AMD products and we're talking about both CPUs and GPUs. However, back in the days when the FX series was the best of what AMD could offer, Intel progressed with their CPUs making them better and better while AMD stagnated with their old FX series. I must say that AMD also tried to rise up from the ashes by releasing their FX 9000 series which was a total fail. That CPU was insignificantly better than its precedent FX 8000 series and consumed a monstrous quantity of power. Further details will show that it was an expensive CPU and even a motherboard that offered support for the FX 9000 series, its price was just absurd and unjustified. Intel also had their own CPUs on which you could cook some eggs, but because of the conjuncture in witch those things happened, AMDs reputation fall down while Intel continued to grow up. AMD FX series (except 9000) and the new Ryzen series never had any thermal problems. It must be said that there are some people who used to overclock the FX CPUs while using an inappropriate cooling system like a the stock cooler, which was really weak even for the main stock clock. You can kind off deduce from my paragraphs the reasons of why people tend to label AMD as a brand who like to make boiler type processors. 2. Why is AMD cheaper? From their fresh start AMDs main goal was to conquer the low and medium budget market. In order to do so they needed to make their products cheap while maintaining a high quality level. AMD is cheaper because "cheaper" is a part of their identity. Now AMD made allot of good products but people like to forget this aspect because of the fails with the FX series. - First dual core CPUs AMD Athlon x2 were absolutely stunning in their era - First quad core CPU from AMD, the Phenom II x4 was a complete beast and it can still be used today. With an 1060 or RX 480 (which will be bottlenecked) you can max out today's games in 1080p and still get a better performance than consoles could offer. - The FX series was great and the FX 8300 can still achieve nowadays 50-60 FPS (or more ofc) in the latest games in 1080p max out, when paired with a GTX 1060 or RX 480/RX 580. Now the Ryzen series offers you much better performance than its predecessor FX, offers stability to your in game FPS, it pairs better with the new GPUs, its calculation speed is significantly higher and it makes a huge difference in video rendering or 3D modelling. It uses the new DDR4 and overall, it's just a better CPU that worth the money. CPU vs Intel? Depends on what do you want to be honest, but nowadays AMD competes directly with Intel and beats them in many aspects in which Intel has no reply yet. Do not get me wrong, Intel is still really good when it comes to their CPUs, do not get me wrong. Having two rivals that can compete at all three levels of low/mid/high will bring us only benefits because in these conditions, quality is the one that will rise up first.
2018-04-17 14:04
Thx for detailed explanation and your time man!
2018-04-17 15:14
No problem. Hope that I've helped in a way or another.
2018-04-17 15:15
Do you think ryzen 3 is enough for streaming and rendering stuff?
2018-04-17 15:18
Rendering - yes Streaming- no You can stream with Ryzen 3 of course but it cannot support the stream itself and a high resource consumption game at the same time. Consider the fact that your stream can get over populated - this being a hard step for Ryzen 3. I'll recommend Ryzen 5 1600x or Ryzen 7 series if you want to stream. It will also give you high boost in video editing and rendering.
2018-04-17 15:32
thank you very much. :)
2018-04-17 15:39
My pleasure, as always.
2018-04-17 16:00
Pepsi
2018-04-17 12:02
#43
 | 
Portugal PrimoVictoria 
AMD for me. But the main reason for me is how easy overclockable amd chips are, plus they solder the heat spreader to the die unlike intel, makes everything less troublesome. I'm currently still running with a FX8320, at 4.4Ghz, overclocked with the FSB+HT Link and CPU NB running at 2600Mhz, running on air with a custom cooling loop, never found a need to upgrade yet, running it 24/7 since 2011 paired with a GTX 780.
2018-04-17 12:32
Intel for me. Had a Ryzen 7 1700 before but i7 8700K is feeling much better in terms of performance across all games I play. Only playing games though and occasionally render a video for Youtube.
2018-04-17 12:53
Amd all the way after 15 years of Intel.
2018-04-17 12:54
"15" xD
2018-04-17 14:05
21 years of intel for me, still keep the pentium 133mhz as an artifact :))
2018-04-17 14:09
Ohh, i've misunderstood you. To be honest I have the Intel version of 486 that could run at 66 mHZ (If I remember correctly), 16mb ram, 500mb HDD and a Voodoo ISA GPU.
2018-04-17 14:11
Yeah my bad, I started with penthium 4 in 2002 so it's 16. Sorry.
2018-04-17 14:09
read #61
2018-04-17 14:11
No problem.
2018-04-17 14:16
I got intel but would get amd now probably if I'd update
2018-04-17 12:55
#54
Sunde | 
Denmark Cabbi_OP 
AMD for my needs. heavy workload + some casual gaming, great allrounder. Got r7 1700 for cheap paired with gtx 1070, B350 mobo for cheap, and cant tell you how satisfied I am. Recently got 1440p monitor, and its handling all games at high/ultra with ease. Gonna upgrade to 7nm Ryzen next year hopefully, without having to change my mobo. Amd did a great job with Ryzens, unlike prevoius FX trash.
2018-04-17 13:01
#66
 | 
Russia Razor_88 
how much fps in csgo?
2018-04-17 14:43
#67
Sunde | 
Denmark Cabbi_OP 
300~500
2018-04-17 14:44
Intel for gaming
2018-04-17 14:08
my next pc will most probably be on ryzen 2
2018-04-17 14:10
#63
 | 
Other canano 
Intel offers more raw power for gaming, cause IPC and extra Ghz, but, you pay more on motherboards, for example. With AMD, atm, you get more for less, and, to be honestly, Ryzen are more "futureproof" right know because of the extra cores/threads. Its the same thing when I decided to go for Intel Q6600 instead of E8400, everyone though I was crazy but on the long term, it paid off, by far, as Q6600 still runs CSGO smoothly - in my former rig - , while E8400 doesnt.
2018-04-17 14:13
Q6600 vs Phenom x4 965 xD.
2018-04-17 14:17
#78
 | 
Other canano 
I'm getting, from what I recall, that Phenom x4 965 was waaay better, but, I bought whole pc that was on sale for 320eur than then, while the Q6600 was around 200eur back then. I took the price instead, then made some changes afterwards. For the pc I had now, just 2 months, I have a Ryzen 5 1600 and I'm pretty happy with it. Also, I always considered AMD a bit of a "underdog" with really good products, that just don't sell so much because there is a wrong idea that Intel is much better than AMD.
2018-04-17 15:55
You are completely right with everything that's presented in the above post. I'm glad that people are starting to understand the fact that AMD is not bad at all and quite the contrary.
2018-04-18 09:39
#68
 | 
Faroe Islands memento_1 
intel has the better architecture. they need less cores/threads for same performance. so for the gaming aspect intel is definitely better. for general computing i think amd is cheaper.
2018-04-17 14:47
AMD EASY
2018-04-17 14:47
Depends on what you want it to do. If you're a guy that uses programs for video editing - most likely you need Ryzen R7. If you're a pimply gamer - you need Intel i7.
2018-04-17 15:22
Login or register to add your comment to the discussion.