For most people Intel is currently better than AMD. The general performance of a 3.6GHz AMD Ryzen 1800X CPU compared to a 7th Generation 4.2GHz Intel Kaby Lake Core i 7 7700K CPU is slightly weaker, and yet the AMD processor costs hundreds of dollars more than the Intel equivalent.
Intel Vs AMD, The Comparison Between AMD and Intel
AMD Ryzen vs Intel Core i3, Core i5, Core i7, Core i9
What are Intel and AMD up to now?At the start of 2018, both companies have strong ranges, particularly for desktop PCs and the so-called HEDT segment - high-end desktop.
AMD has its Ryzen and Threadripper CPUs and Intel has responded with six-core 8th-gen Core processors and many more cores available from the Core i9 range.
The two firms are even collaborating on a mobile processor, with AMD supplying the graphics chip for Intel's latest Core i7 with Vega M.
Intel doesn't really compete in the gaming graphics arena, but AMD is - as ever - battling Nvidia. Its current Vega platform has brought it (almost) level with Nvidia, but Nvidia is now poised to launch a new range of consumer graphics cards based on its latest Volta architecture.
Why does Intel vs AMD matter?
If you’re buying a traditional laptop or PC, AMD and Intel are your only choices for processors, but don’t make the mistake of thinking the PC’s slump in popularity means either company is sliding towards irrelevance. Intel doesn't make all its money from PC and laptop processors, of course.It also produces graphics processors, wired and wireless network adaptors, server and workstation processors and components, plus set-top box parts. You'll even find Intel chips in many smartphones: certain models of the iPhone X have an Intel modem.
AMD is the smaller of the two companies by some margin. For one thing, while Intel builds its own chips in over a dozen fabrication (fab) plants in the USA, Ireland, Israel and China, AMD sold off its last fab in 2009. Today, just like ARM, VIA, MediaTek and others, AMD designs its own chips but outsources the manufacturing. Producing microprocessors is formidably expensive.
However, there some potentially-big exceptions. The extra processor cores offered by Ryzen compared to Kaby Lake (eight instead of four) mean that certain tasks will run MUCH faster than the Intel chip. If you do a lot of 3D rendering, video encoding or your favourite games run better on multiple cores (few do, but some popular titles like Battlefield 1 and Civ are included in the short-but-growing list) then the extra money is well worth paying. The extra cores can also help with video game streaming on services like Twitch.
To put this into more perspective, an expensive, eight-core Intel Core i7 6900K CPU is similar in speed to an AMD Ryzen 1800X CPU but the AMD processor costs less than half as much! That’s revolutionary and disruptive… to some people.
AMD deserves a great deal of credit for coming back from nowhere to match Intel and produce some interesting technology but its claims of matching Intel for dramatically less money are somewhat misguided. Intel’s platform is faster and cheaper.
Intel’s flagship Core i7 7700K processor can be had for around $500 with a decent Z270 motherboard costing around $200. That’s a total of $700. Meanwhile an AMD Ryzen 1800X CPU costs $699 while a decent AM4 AX370 motherboard costs around $300. That’s a $1,000. Even with deals and judicious buying, a comparable AMD system will cost hundreds of dollars more. So which is faster?
Gaming is the new battle
Gaming is worth around £2bn per year to the British economy – and here it's AMD which holds the more dominant position. Intel does produce 3D graphics chips, of course, but its expertise lies in integrated graphics.Integrated graphics are ideal for laptops: an integrated graphics processor doesn’t add much to the price of a laptop, doesn’t draw too much power and – contrary to popular opinion – does offer enough 3D processing oomph for the odd game.
AMD Ryzen 1800X CPU vs Core i7 7700K processor
The AMD AM4 Test Rig used the same Samsung 960 Pro NvME hard drive, Nvidia 1070 graphics card but with a Gigabyte Aorus GA-AX370-Gaming 5 motherboard (BIOS rev: 5b) plus Corsair Vengeance 3000MHz LPX DDR4 RAM.
We ran the tests at default BIOS settings with only the memory timings being adjusted to run at the advertised speeds. AMD told us that these still need to be done manually but we found on our Gigabyte motherboard that we could still set the timings and voltage automatically using (Intel’s proprietary) XMP settings – which takes just a couple of clicks – all good! (Related: How to set up new RAM using XMP.)
Overclocking AMD Ryzen 1800X CPU vs Core i7 7700K processor
We then ran the same tests with a system’s automatic overclocking features. We don’t tweak settings like enthusiastic overclockers as few people can be bothered with that. However, if motherboard settings or an app made it easy to stably boost performance, we were happy to use that.With Intel’s processors we used the Gigabyte Z170X Designare motherboard’s built-in automatic overclocking settings to easily increase the clock speeds. This feature isn’t (yet?) available on Gigabyte's AX370 mobo but overclocking is simply executed using the RyzenMaster Windows app – you just slide the sliders to the speed you want.
We only had access to a modest Noctua NH-U12S SE-AM4 air cooler which meant we couldn’t push the Ryzen 1800X CPU very hard – Ryzen’s built in heat management means it manages its own speed at high temperatures which has the side effect of running faster when cooler. We found the 3.6GHz CPU crashed at 4.1GHz but would run stably at 4GHz. The exception was in the Cinebench 3D rendering test which pushes all cores to 100% usage. It quickly crashed at 4GHz and only worked sporadically at 3.8GHz. We strongly suspect that a better cooler will improve this performance but we didn’t have access to one as we went to press.
We usually leave our test rig at default settings with Balanced Performance but AMD insists that it requires Windows to be set to High Performance in order to get the best from Ryzen because of the platform’s innovative heat-influenced performance features which can be detrimentally affected by Windows core parking and power management. Indeed, switching from Balanced to High Performance raised Ryzen’s PC Mark score from 4171 to 4317 (this compares a Core i7 7700K's Balanced Performance score of 4411).
Which processor is faster: Intel or AMD - The Comparison of AMD Ryzen 1800X CPU vs Core i7 7700K processor And Their Performances
Our AMD Ryzen test rig arrived with some unusual tweaks (AMD is adamant it shouldn’t have but it did) and when we reset the (rev. 3f) BIOS (and set up the RAM with XMP timings) it scored 3,944 in PC Mark.
Gigabyte provided us with the latest rev. 5b version and the score increased to 4,010. That’s still behind the Kaby Lake 7700K’s 4,448 and also behind Intel’s older 6th generation 4GHz Skylake Core i7 6600K score of 4,040.
When overclocked the Ryzen score only increased to 4,147 but the Intel 6700K pushed on to 4,355 and the 7700K pushed on to 4,477.
So in the general usage PC Mark test, Intel wins – which will be enough for most people. We also ran the Creative 3.0 PC Mark test which focuses more on photo manipulation and video editing. In this case Intel scored 5,853 while Ryzen scored 5,861. That’s a slight win for Ryzen which, as we see below, will translate to potentially-dramatic time saving if you do extensive media encoding.
3D Mark Ryzen results
In 3D Mark the 1800X Ryzen processor scored consistently higher than Intel’s 7700K. However, the score is made up of three parts: two graphics tests and a CPU test. Both graphics tests were actually very similar: 37fps and 32.5fps which isn’t surprising due to both systems relying on the same Nvidia GTX 1070 graphics card. However, 3D Mark appears to make good use of the extra cores on offer with Ryzen and it scored 26fps versus Intel's 18.5fps.AMD Ryzen Threadripper vs Intel Core i9
Intel’s Core i9 and AMD’s Ryzen Threadripper are facing off in the toughest CPU match in years. Historically, if you wanted the fastest PC chip, you bought Intel. If you wanted to save money, you went with AMD. With Threadripper, AMD claims you can have it all: a low price, and the best performance.We pitted both chips against each other in a grudge match... and each walked away claiming victory. If you’re obsessed with single-threaded performance (including games), back the Core i9 and its higher clock speeds. Threadripper 1950X’s outsized core count punches way higher in multithreaded performance, though, and it’s the people’s champion in everyday tasks and price.
AMD officially offers three Threadripper chips:
- AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X $899.99MSRP $999.00(on Amazon)
- Ryzen Threadripper 1950X ($999 on Amazon): 16 cores, 32 threads; 3.4GHz base clock, 4GHz boosted clock
- Ryzen Threadripper 1920X ($799 on Amazon): 12 cores, 24 threads; 3.5GHz base clock, 4GHz boosted clock
- Ryzen Threadripper 1900X ($549): 8 cores, 16 threads; 3.8GHz base clock, 4GHz boosted clock
The Ryzen Threadripper 1950X and 1920X launched on August 10, along with X399 motherboards. The 8-core Threadripper 1900X will launch on August 31.
If Threadripper’s official chips are too rich for your blood, take heart: There seems to be a slower, possibly cheaper Threadripper on the way. The Threadripper 1920 (no “X”) is also a 12-core, 24-thread processor, though it’s clocked slightly lower than its cousin: 3.2GHz, boosting to 3.8GHz. It appears to consume less power (140W) compared to the 180W of other Threadripper “X” chips.
Intel’s own chip breakdown is a bit messier. All of Intel’s Core i9 chips are predicated on the Skylake architecture, known as Skylake-X. But some of the slower chips are branded Core i7. If you’d like to know more about those, our original Core i9 news story breaks it down further. Here, we’re sticking to the Core i9 brand.
Intel Core i9
A summary of Intel’s Core i9 chips, complete with the Core i9 clock speeds Intel recently revealed :
- Core i9-7980XE ($1,999): 18 cores, 36 threads; 2.6GHz base clock, 4 GHz-4.4-GHz boosted clock
- Core i9-7960X ($1,699): 16 cores, 32 threads; 2.8GHz base clock, 4.2GHz-4.4GHz boosted clock
- Core i9-7940X ($1,399): 14 cores, 28 threads; 3.1GHz base clock, 4.3GHz-4.4GHz boosted clock
- Core i9-7920X ($1,199): 12 cores, 24 threads; 2.9GHz base clock, 4.3GHz-4.4GHz boosted clock
- Core i9-7900X ($999, or $1,059 on Newegg): 10 cores, 20 threads; 3.3GHz base clock, 4.3GHz-4.5GHz boosted clock
As of early August, only the Intel Core i9-7900X is shipping. The 12-core Core i9-7920X launches on August 28, while the 14-, 16-, and 18-core Core i9 chips ship on September 25.
The Core i9 consumes less power than Threadripper: The highest-end i9-7980XE, i9-7960X, and i9-7940X consume 165W, while the Core i9-7920X and i9-7900X consume 140W.
Chipset and motherboard support
The chipsets used by the Core i9 and Threadripper chips are somewhat confusing, because they’re so similarly named: AMD’s Threadripper uses the AMD X399 chipset, while Intel’s Core i9 chips use the Intel X299 chipset.
Neither chipset has a compatibility advantage. Intel’s X299 chipset uses Socket R4, a 2,066-bump LGA socket. AMD’s X399, meanwhile, uses a 4,094-bump LGA socket, known as TR4, that’s, in a word, massive.
Neither Threadripper nor the Core i9 is compatible with other products from the same manufacturer: Threadripper chips can’t be used on Ryzen boards, and Intel’s Core i9 chips are not backward-compatible with existing Skylake or Kaby Lake motherboards.
Intel’s X299 chipset offers these benefits:
- Up to 44 lanes of PCI Express Gen. 3 (enabling two x16 or four x8 graphics cards)
- Quad-channel DDR4 2666 memory
- Intel’s improved Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0, on the Core i7-7820X and above
- The X299 features up to eight SATA 3.0 ports, and increases the USB 3.0 port count to 10, compared with the six ports its predecessor, the X99 chipset, used.
We have some details on the Core i9 X299 motherboards that have been announced, from Asus, MSI, Gigabyte, ASRock, and EVGA. Prices look like they vary quite a bit, from $200 on up to even $500.
AMD’s X399 chipset offers the following advantages:
- A full 66 lanes of PCIe Gen 3.0 expansion. (Threadripper supports 64 PCIe lanes, but the board vendor can use an additional two, AMD notes in a footnote to its TR4 platform.)
- Multi-GPU support (SLI and CrossFire)
- Quad-channel DDR4 DRAM 2666 support
- 12 SATA ports
- 14 USB 3.1 Gen 1 ports (5Gbps), two USB 3.1 Gen2 ports (10Gbps), 6 USB 2.0 ports
We’ve rounded up some of the early Threadripper X399 motherboards. While price does vary a bit, the early boards have been priced in the high-$300 to low-$400 range. Some of Threadripper’s price advantage could be offset by a motherboard purchase if you don’t shop smart.
Performance AMD Ryzen Threadripper vs Intel Core i9
Performance Unfortunately for Intel, Threadripper is putting up a fight. As Gordon Mah Ung writes in PCWorld’s Threadripper review: Threadripper is “arguably the most powerful consumer CPU ever unleashed upon mankind.”
Indeed, Threadripper blows away the Core i9 in multithreaded applications, such as rendering or video conversion. Meanwhile, the Core i9 performs higher on games and applications that are coded for single-threaded performance. Don’t despair, AMD gamers: Even after a hard day’s work rendering 3D objects or converting video, the new Threadripper’s Game Mode helps elevate gaming performance to levels where the difference between the two chips is negligible.
Similar to the Ryzen chips we’ve reviewed previously, Threadripper offers competitive performance at a very competitive price. Right now, if you buy a top-of-the-line Threadripper, you can buy a top-notch graphics card to go with it before you equal the price of a Core i9. Price weighs very heavily in Threadripper’s appeal, even before we take into account its solid performance.
If you don’t want to build your own Threadripper PC, there’s only one big PC builder that will offer it initially: Alienware. Alienware has the worldwide exclusive on Threadripper systems among large PC manufacturers, though many smaller U.S. boutique builders will offer it as well. AMD told us you should theoretically be able to build a Threadripper system with up to 1TB of memory when 128GB LR-DIMMs are used—hopefully enough to hold you for a few years. (AMD also says Threadripper should technically be able to support up to 2TB of RAM, although the company hasn’t validated this because there are no DIMMs that support the capacity yet.)
Alienware’s famous for its gaming PCs, and that leads us to the next potential pain point: the Game Mode AMD built on top of Threadripper is a little confusing. Game Mode essentially “switches off” one of the 8-core chips within the package, because some games simply can’t handle the number of CPU cores Threadripper supplies. But others do want the extra cores and memory bandwidth, so Game Mode may have to be switched on and off almost on a per-game basis. We recommend that you read our full Threadripper review for more, and then experiment with Game Mode for best results.
Finally, the way in which AMD has built Threadripper—connecting two 8-core dies together with its Infinity Fabric—should allow more manufacturing flexibility than Intel’s monolithic die approach. In other words: more chips for sale. Hypothetically, you shouldn’t have to worry about a sudden run on Threadripper depleting all of the available supply.
That’s important, as we’re already starting to see some shortages of Core i9 chips. In our pricing summary above, you probably noticed that the actual price of the Core i9-7900X was higher than the list price. That’s an indication that customers are buying up the available supply, and shortages are driving up the price.
Core i9 buyers will probably need to take some care—and cash—in crafting a system if they want to overclock, too. Techspot tried overclocking with Intel’s Core i9-7900X and found that even a premium cooler produced unacceptable temperatures. A more satisfactory build cost an additional $400 in cooling alone.
AMD vs. Intel: Gaming
Gaming is one area where picking a CPU can get tricky. Intel processors include on-die integrated graphics, but the performance isn’t up to par with discrete, stand-alone graphics chips or add-in graphics cards. Meanwhile, AMD’s desktop processors do not include integrated graphics. Instead, AMD combines its processor cores and its Radeon-branded graphics cores into one package/chip called an Accelerated Processing Unit, or APU.
Gaming AMD vs Intel : Battlefield-4-naval-strike
That said, those who take their gaming seriously use an add-in graphics card or a discrete GPU rather than integrated graphics. In those scenarios, Intel tends to dominate in gaming performance because of the way the two chip giants build their processors. AMD’s chips, and specifically its latest Ryzen CPUs, are excellent at multi-threaded scenarios and good at running applications that support multiple cores. Intel’s chips almost offer the reverse of that, losing out in heavy multi-threaded settings, but excelling in more restricted thread settings.
Games, although much more multi-threaded today than they were in the past, still rarely use more than two to four threads, which typically gives Intel the edge — even with Ryzen’s optimizations.
That gap is less pronounced than it used to be thanks to improvements in the new “Zen” architecture used AMD’s Ryzen processor cores. We saw a net loss of about 10 FPS when running Civilization VI‘s internal benchmark on the Ryzen 7 1800X, compared to the i7-7700K. The gap narrowed when running a more graphically-demanding game like For Honor, with the Ryzen CPU providing an average of 109 FPS, while the Intel Core i7 averaged 110 FPS.
As for Threadripper versus Core i9 chips, Intel has a small edge. Still, we wouldn’t recommend either for a gaming system given that games don’t benefit from the extremely high core counts in these processors.
Ultimately, Intel chips tend to be better for gaming of today, but that doesn’t mean you should count AMD out. Intel’s rival does offer processors that can be a great gaming value, such as the Ryzen 5 chips in particular. Check out our Ryzen processor buying guide for details, including benchmarks.
Remember, though — the CPU is rarely the limiting factor in games. Springing out for a more powerful graphics card — if you can find one at a good price — will usually yield better results than doing so for a more powerful processor.
Finally, here’s an interesting tidbit that manifested in November and became full-blown products in early January: the Core i7-8809G and three other Core-branded modules. They’re not the result of pigs finally sprouting wings, but rather a surprise collaboration to cram a discrete Radeon graphics chip, HBM2 graphics memory, and an Intel processor into one, single-chip solution.
For the Core i7-8809G, Intel’s portion contains four seventh-generation “Kaby Lake” cores, and an on-die HD Graphics 630 GPU component. Meanwhile, AMD supplies 1,536 “Vega” graphics cores (24 compute units), and dedicated HBM2 memory. The jury is still out on how these all-in-one chips perform in benchmarks, but one of the first products to rely on a Core i7 module is the “Hades Canyon” NUC. Intel’s three other modules are the Core i7-8709G, the Core i7-8705G, and the Core i7-8706G.
On the AMD front, the company introduced new Ryzen-branded “mobile processors.” Dropping the APU label, these four chips contain processor cores based on the company’s new “Zen” architecture, and graphics cores based on AMD’s latest “Vega” architecture used in its two high-end Radeon Vega 64 and Vega 56 desktop add-in cards. These chips promise better performance than the last generation given AMD basically started from scratch when it began constructing its Zen processor architecture.
Summary And Conclusion, Intel Vs AMD, AMD or Intel ? Which Processor Should You Chooese ?
AMD Ryzen 1800X CPU vs Core i7 7700K processor and AMD Ryzen Threadripper vs Intel Core i9
In the AMD Ryzen 1800X CPU vs Core i7 7700K processor, most buyers will be better off buying an Intel 7th Generation processor like the Core i7 7700K as it costs $200 less than Ryzen’s best 1800X processor and for most, general-usage tasks, works faster. It also doesn’t require having your PC set up for Maximum Performance which is not healthy for power bills. However, things can dramatically change if you regularly perform the following uncommon tasks:-
3D Rendering or video encoding
- Playing a game where performance is boosted by multiple cores
- Enthusiast-grade overclocking
- Streaming your games online without using a separate computer
In these instances, Ryzen will be worth paying the premium for as it won’t just enhance your enjoyment but save you a lot of time and potentially money.
In the AMD Ryzen Threadripper vs Intel Core i9 case, one problem both Threadripper and Core i9 will face is actually finding apps that scale to their high core counts. Today, you’re lucky if you can find an app, let alone a game, that can soak the 16 threads of an 8-core Core i7 or Ryzen 7. While testing Intel’s 10-core Core i7 and an 18-core Xeon, we found that many of the cores just coast along with nothing to do.
The Value Of AMD vs. Intel
This territory is a fight between AMD's Ryzen 3 and Intel's Core i3 chips.
Right now my recommendation goes to AMD and the Ryzen 3 chips for the budget segment. You can pick up a Ryzen 3 1200 for $110. For that price you get quad-core/four threads, an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, and a fantastic cooler.
And if you don't feel the Ryzen 3 1200 offers enough power, then for an extra $20 you can have the Ryzen 3 1300X which has a faster clock speed and boost.
And on top of that all AMD Ryzen chips are VR-ready, which gives you some future proofing.
If you are on an ultra-low budget, then an Intel chip such as the Pentium G4400 or G4560 (which retail for around $55 and $79 respectively) are worth considering.
With cost serving as a major factor in building or upgrading your PC, choosing the right CPU often comes down to finding the one that offers the best bang for your buck. In just price alone, AMD’s chips are generally cheaper than comparable Intel chips. Low-end, dual-core AMD Sempron, Athlon, or A-series dual-core processors start at about $30. In comparison, a low-end Intel chip, like the G3930 dual-core processor will cost around $40. That said, you’ll find similar pricing as you climb the performance ladder, with Intel’s offerings almost always coming in a little higher than AMD’s chips.
For the better part of a decade, this was the typical pricing scenario endured by most PC enthusiasts until the arrival of AMD’s new Ryzen CPUs. Their debut in early 2017 shook up that long-standing formula, with the new Ryzen 7 1800X sitting at the top of the consumer-focused end of AMD’s spectrum. It’s an eight-core behemoth with a turbo-clock of 4.0 GHz, and even for $460, it’s among the least expensive eight-core processors on the market today. The eight-core Ryzen 7 1700 is even more affordable with a $300 price tag while Intel’s cheapest eight-core chip eats a bigger portion of your wallet at $600.
Meanwhile, the recent Intel Core i9 and AMD Threadripper CPUs targeting enthusiasts and gamers offer even more performance and continue to shake up the processor market’s traditional bang-for-buck dynamic. Intel’s Core i9-7900X CPU, which doesn’t sit on a traditional Intel-based motherboard, offers 10 cores, 20 threads, a maximum peak speed of 4.3GHz, and a price tag currently set at $966. But to really appreciate the price-per-performance differences between Ryzen Threadripper CPUs and Intel’s Core X-Series chips, you have to behold the glorious numbers:
AMD vs. Intel: Overclocking
Overclocking a processor is straightforward, depending on your chosen method, but not every processor can do it. Most CPUs ship with “locked” multipliers, which prevent any attempt to overclock the CPU’s cores.
Overclocking, in general, is very much dependent on the chips themselves. In our tests, the Ryzen 7 1800X performed well after an overclock, but we weren’t able to squeeze too much extra power out of AMD’s eight-core processor. The more mid-range 1700 and 1700X chips, however, are said to be better at handling overclocked speeds.
Clock speeds are a great way to compare processors against each other — 2.7GHz, 4.5GHz, etc. — but keep in mind these numbers are not fixed figures. Boost clocks offer temporary performance gains under specific scenarios, but if you delve into the realm of manual ‘overclocking,’ you can net yourself a nice bump in performance as well.
Luckily, both Intel and AMD offer unlocked CPUs at a variety of price points. If you opt for an Intel CPU, look out for those with a “K” or “X” in the processor label, such as the Core i7-8700K. In comparison, all of AMD’s Ryzen chips support overclocked speeds — though not all have full support for the automated overclocking, XFR feature.
Intel’s latest generation of chips that do allow overclocking are somewhat more even in their potential, though their maximum is very much down to luck, as some chips can go further than others. You’ll also need decent cooling for most overclocking scenarios.
Where a 10-core-and-up CPU comes in handy is in “megatasking.” That’s basically the definition of doing as many things as you can think of, simultaneously: encoding a video, rendering 3D, running Photoshop, and gaming while streaming to Twitch, YouTube, and Facebook. Just the sort of thing that will drag down a quad-core chip. If this kind of megatasking isn’t your regular practice, do you really need to pay for all that silicon? Give it some thought.
All that said, the judges have reached a decision: It’s AMD’s Threadripper. Right now, the substantial, if not massive, price differential justifies any slight dip in single-threaded performance. In multithreaded performance, AMD’s chip is unparalleled. Between Intel’s Core i9 and AMD’s Threadripper, Threadripper is absolutely the chip to buy.
We want to encourage you to think hard before spending hundreds of dollars on a chip you might not need, regardless of its affiliation. As my colleague, Gordon Mah Ung, points out, the price difference between an AMD Threadripper and a Ryzen chip, or a Core i9 and the more generic Core i7/i5 chips, can be significant: hundreds of dollars in memory, a new motherboard, a larger power supply and cooling solution, and possibly even a larger case. Do you really need a Ferrari when a Toyota will get you to work each day?
(source : pcworld.com, zdnet.com, digitaltrends.com)
0 comments:
Post a Comment