Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?
-
@kamidon said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
Edit: And in terms of speed, I mean AMD just doesn't seem to cut it. Maybe as a server because of the muilti core speeds.
These are desktop procs, not server procs.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@kamidon said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
Now it has been a while, I wouldn't mind trying out a system with another AMD proc, but at least at this time, Intel is cheaper and faster...still...so from a consumer perspective, it doesn't seem viable to go with AMD.
AMD has been faster and cheaper for a few years now. And the latest generation is supposed to go from "a little faster and cheaper" to "blows the doors off."
From a consumer perspective, Intel has been weird to use for a while, other than vendors selling nothing else. But when you are directly impacted by the choice, AMD has been a pretty clear winner for quite some time with the cost/performance of Intel just ruling it out for anything but the most high end use cases. Now those high end ones go to AMD mostly with their new high end procs.
What AMD software do you run with a CPU? I don't install any. That AMD has good or bad software doesn't seem like a factor in a CPU decision.
That's ridiculous, a clear winner from what perspective??? The Linux perspective? Lol
AMD machines in general have far less support.
Software is wonky at best.
No, they are NOT faster and have NOT been faster since the early 2000s when they first came out with their quad core.
Now, multi core is faster if you actually look at benchmarks, but that's it. Is that insignificant? NO of course not, but overall, Intel is easily much faster.
Even video cards, "Oh AMD came out with a new card! Oh...It's slower than last years nVidia and only $50 cheaper than nVidia's second best card...bummer." Next year, Same thing year after year.
The processor aspect of their business isn't much different. -
@scottalanmiller said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@Dashrender said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
For consumers wouldn't it be better to look at i5 vs Ryzen, or i7 vs Ryzen?
Why would a consumer want a slower, more expensive processor?
Benchmarks don't agree with you.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@kamidon said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
In what market though? Surely not the consumer market. And most servers I've at least seen are always Intel. Perhaps the east coast is different?
The ENTIRE market.
You're desire for AMD to be selling better != reality
-
@kamidon said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-9900K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-9-3900X/4028vs4044
This shows the AMD as crushing the Intel in performance of the processor. Yes, Intel continues to lead for single threaded applications (systems that just run one thing, and that one thing is single threaded.) But that's pretty much no one today. That's Windows 98 gaming systems.
In the real world, even the gaming world, we don't artificially limit to one or four cores, we use quite a few. Chrome uses a thread per tab, for example. Each application that you run uses one or more threads. Your OS itself can use more than one. In what I have running right now, I have easily use for at least fourteen threads... and that is assuming Firefox is not threaded (which I think that it is, if so make it more like 30), and assuming that I don't need to virtualize anything (I actually do) which would be awesome to have many more threads.
Those "low thread" tests are useful in edge cases, but are mostly Intel sponsored marketing to play on people's memories of DOS' lack of threading and that most people don't know that Windows NT is not related to DOS/Windows.
In the real world, most all apps that we use are heavily multi-threaded, the OS is designed around heavy threading, and we tend to use lots of different graphics apps at the same time on our desktops and some people use virtualization taking the need for threading to whole different levels.
So for actual usage, that report seems to show the AMD significantly in the lead. Now it does cost more, yes, but it is also a drastically more powerful chip in a different category than the Intel it was paired against.
-
@kamidon said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@scottalanmiller said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@kamidon said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
In what market though? Surely not the consumer market. And most servers I've at least seen are always Intel. Perhaps the east coast is different?
The ENTIRE market.
You're desire for AMD to be selling better != reality
I'm just repeating what the news reported. My desire is not a factor, whatsoever.
-
@kamidon said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@scottalanmiller said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@Dashrender said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
For consumers wouldn't it be better to look at i5 vs Ryzen, or i7 vs Ryzen?
Why would a consumer want a slower, more expensive processor?
Benchmarks don't agree with you.
The one you showed sure did.
-
@kamidon said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
AMD machines in general have far less support.
Software is wonky at best.What does this mean? What "support" do you need for a CPU? None, that's not a thing really. And software? You don't install software for a CPU, not for a long time. You just install the OS and you are done.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@kamidon said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
AMD machines in general have far less support.
Software is wonky at best.What does this mean? What "support" do you need for a CPU? None, that's not a thing really. And software? You don't install software for a CPU, not for a long time. You just install the OS and you are done.
I got side tracked and started thinking about their graphics drivers.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@Dashrender said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
but it was just over 5 years old and died last year.
That's pretty young for a laptop. My $1100 HP Folio 13 is still going strong from 2012.
I do have a laptop from 2012'ish also that still function - but I didn't would say - going strong.. it sucks to use sooo slow.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@Dashrender said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
For consumers wouldn't it be better to look at i5 vs Ryzen, or i7 vs Ryzen?
Why would a consumer want a slower, more expensive processor?
most consumers don't want to pay the prices of i9 processors (and if you're talking about anything else other than that, you missed the point).
-
@kamidon said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
No, they are NOT faster and have NOT been faster since the early 2000s when they first came out with their quad core.
Actually, AMD was faster in the 32bit era, their AthlonXP was the fastest desktop proc at the end of that era. Intel had completely fallen on their faces with their useless Pentium IV platform and couldn't recover. And they had dropped the Pentium III and couldn't spin it back up fast enough to compete.
If you remember, AMD went into the 64bit era having been crushing Intel, then destroying them by making fast 64bit while Intel was still pushing the Pentium IV 32bit, then attempting to save face by re-releasing their Pentium III and calling it a new name: Core. They failed and didn't sell well and the performance was pathetic.
AMD then created the Opteron market and destroyed Intel in performance all through the 2000s. Not by small amounts. We are talking huge amounts here. AMD totally owned the server market for most of that decade.
Then around 2009 AMD faltered and Intel got their game together and started making new designs that were 64bit native and accepted that Itanium had failed and they had to just play AMD's game. They did so really well and Intel ruled the roost for about 8-10 years. AMD had very little to show. I think you are remembering that era and confusing it with the decade leading up to it.
Then around a year ago AMD came out with new cores that kept pace with Intel, but at lower cost. And now, a few weeks ago, blew them away with new designs that are significantly outperforming what they had just a few months ago.
-
@Dashrender I just picked AMD's latest and greatest and pitted it against Intel's proc that came out June of last year.
-
@Dashrender said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@scottalanmiller said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@Dashrender said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
but it was just over 5 years old and died last year.
That's pretty young for a laptop. My $1100 HP Folio 13 is still going strong from 2012.
I do have a laptop from 2012'ish also that still function - but I didn't would say - going strong.. it sucks to use sooo slow.
It's getting slower, but it is on 1903 and performing quite well. Except for games, of course, the GPU is useless.
-
@kamidon said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@scottalanmiller said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@kamidon said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
AMD machines in general have far less support.
Software is wonky at best.What does this mean? What "support" do you need for a CPU? None, that's not a thing really. And software? You don't install software for a CPU, not for a long time. You just install the OS and you are done.
I got side tracked and started thinking about their graphics drivers.
Oh okay, yes, those suck. But Intel's GPUs are completely useless, too. Like, SO BAD.
Yes, in the GPU world, AMD has issues and Nvidia is trouncing them. Intel has effectively just given up there and doesn't even play any more. With RFX, Nvidia hasn't just outperformed AMD, they've left them in the dust.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@kamidon said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
No, they are NOT faster and have NOT been faster since the early 2000s when they first came out with their quad core.
Actually, AMD was faster in the 32bit era, their AthlonXP was the fastest desktop proc at the end of that era. Intel had completely fallen on their faces with their useless Pentium IV platform and couldn't recover. And they had dropped the Pentium III and couldn't spin it back up fast enough to compete.
If you remember, AMD went into the 64bit era having been crushing Intel, then destroying them by making fast 64bit while Intel was still pushing the Pentium IV 32bit, then attempting to save face by re-releasing their Pentium III and calling it a new name: Core. They failed and didn't sell well and the performance was pathetic.
AMD then created the Opteron market and destroyed Intel in performance all through the 2000s. Not by small amounts. We are talking huge amounts here. AMD totally owned the server market for most of that decade.
Then around 2009 AMD faltered and Intel got their game together and started making new designs that were 64bit native and accepted that Itanium had failed and they had to just play AMD's game. They did so really well and Intel ruled the roost for about 8-10 years. AMD had very little to show. I think you are remembering that era and confusing it with the decade leading up to it.
Then around a year ago AMD came out with new cores that kept pace with Intel, but at lower cost. And now, a few weeks ago, blew them away with new designs that are significantly outperforming what they had just a few months ago.
YES, now this I absolutely agree with. But they've lagged behind since early 2000.
Intel > AMD for the time being.
I believe though, Ryzen 4 will blow Intel out of the water. Intel is stuck right now until 2021, they can't get the 7nm. -
@scottalanmiller said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@kamidon said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@scottalanmiller said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
@kamidon said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
AMD machines in general have far less support.
Software is wonky at best.What does this mean? What "support" do you need for a CPU? None, that's not a thing really. And software? You don't install software for a CPU, not for a long time. You just install the OS and you are done.
I got side tracked and started thinking about their graphics drivers.
Oh okay, yes, those suck. But Intel's GPUs are completely useless, too. Like, SO BAD.
Yes, in the GPU world, AMD has issues and Nvidia is trouncing them. Intel has effectively just given up there and doesn't even play any more. With RFX, Nvidia hasn't just outperformed AMD, they've left them in the dust.
No, I completely disagree, Intel's onboard graphics can run most modern games. Tens of thousands of games and they run them very well. (Obviously they can't run games on Ultra or Extreme or whatever term the particular game uses to describe dialing it up)
I really like AMD, I always have. But from my perspective, a gaming one, they don't have my vote.
Reliability perspective? Well I've had horrible luck with the damned things, so I would still go Intel. -
I assume when you guys are talking about AMD vs Intel video - you're talking the embedded video chip in the processor?
That you're not talking about ATI vs Intel? -
@Dashrender Yes lol.
Oh god, the Vega 11........garbage. -
@kamidon said in Spec'ing a new computer from Dell or?:
Now, multi core is faster if you actually look at benchmarks, but that's it. Is that insignificant? NO of course not, but overall, Intel is easily much faster.
Why do you feel that it isn't significant? You say "no of course not", but I say "obviously". Threads are a massive factor. About the only common workload that doesn't leverage them is some limited gaming, and even that is normally dramatically threaded today. If you are playing legacy games from say 2008, yes, the Intel is better suited for that. But either is SO fast in that case, doesn't really matter.
But for current stuff, they are written for the future where threading is everything. Pretty much everything is designed around leveraging threading today. It has to be, no matter what platform you are on, threading is the only significant way to get more power from your silicon. Writing stuff that isn't designed around the assumption of large threading models means that you have no access to the CPU's power.
I'm a pretty basic desktop user, and my one second snapshot shows 36 threads actively using the CPU. Threading is what allows desktops to provide the "snappy" feeling that most people care about most. High single thread performance is what allows single operations to be performed faster. Both have a place. But the single thread model is more often useful either in gaming, super niche calculations, or in servers. Whereas the large thread pool is more useful to business desktop usage where many, snappy apps are the most common priority.
