add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

Let's talk about Intel bias

Captaincow285
  • 26 months ago

So. Before we start, no, I am not paid by either side to voice my views, or otherwise affiliated with them. I do have a minor AMD bias, because Ryzen is a good deal, but I'm going to do my best to set that aside for the purposes of this conversation. Let's get started.

I was looking at PC Gamer recently, and at the article that was the basis of my parts list, the Best gaming PC build guide. I look at the CPU and it's an i5-8400. Now, why? All the PC Gamer build guides are designed to be the most bang for your buck. And the i5-8400 is not the best bang for your buck when comparing it to the Ryzen 5 1600. At a similar price point (R5 at $193, i5 at $199), price is not the issue. But the advantages of the AMD chip easily outstrip the Intel chip. It has SMT, effectively doubling the cores provided, and the motherboards for the AMD chip are cheaper. Not to mention the inherent streaming advantages built straight into the chip with the provided x264 codec, and the fact the Intel chip is rarely in stock for now. Why not? The only Intel advantage is some higher IPC.

I look at the other build guides. It's Intel both up and down - the budget build guide has an i3-8100 in it. A bit more excusable - it's equivalent to the Ryzen 3 at an equal price point. Yet, the Ryzen motherboards still have a price gap. The cheap gaming PC build guide has a G4560, which I cannot argue against. And the top one, the extreme build guide hasn't been updated since the 10-core i9-7900X came out. When it does get updated, I fully expect the Intel i9-7980XE to be in that slot. However, the high-end PC guide is a different story.

The CPU in that guide is an i7-8700k, a 6-core, 12-thread CPU at $380. If you remember, that's the same specs as the Ryzen 5 1600, at twice the price. This is completely unexcusable. You're telling readers to spend twice what they should otherwise - factoring in the motherboard, you could save $250. What can that buy? It's a week's rent on my old apartment, 2 week's groceries for a family of 4, or that new mouse-and-keyboard set you've been eyeing for years now but could never afford.

Now, PC Gamer seems to be the biggest perpetrator of this trend. Everywhere else either just hasn't updated (notably, the slew of websites still recommending Skylake and the one odd one that recommends a Clarksdale i7) or is being fair (Tom's Hardware is all AMD except an ultra-budget G4560 build and an odd i7 one, and several updated places offers builds from both companies), but this bias also has been happening here. It's been almost a year since Ryzen released.

What was the point of this chat, again? I've honestly forgotten.

Comments

  • 26 months ago
  • 4 points

I look at the CPU and it's an i5-8400. Now, why?

Gaming wise as the build is focused 8400 beats out a 1600 at 4ghz considering the board quality needed to reliably hit that kind of clock speeds you are looking at similar pricing for less performance by going with a 1600/1600X.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1514-core-i5-8400-vs-overclocked-ryzen-5-1600/

And without the risk of needing a top 20% of the production CPU to hit those clocks or any of the downsides of overclocking.

It's Intel both up and down - the budget build guide has an i3-8100 in it. A bit more excusable - it's equivalent to the Ryzen 3 at an equal price point.

8100 is equivalent to a R3/R51400 overclocked to 4ghz or a 1500X making it a decent deal for the same reasons as above board quality needed for that level of overclocking negates the board price advantage.

The CPU in that guide is an i7-8700k, a 6-core, 12-thread CPU at $380. If you remember, that's the same specs as the Ryzen 5 1600, at twice the price. This is completely unexcusable. You're telling readers to spend twice what they should otherwise

Only the 8700K trades blows not with a 1600 but with R7 in multi threaded workloads well offering better performance in less threaded workloads.

Not all cores and threads are equal just as not all architectures are equal.

(Tom's Hardware is all AMD except an ultra-budget G4560 build and an odd i7 one, and several updated places offers builds from both companies)

Actually they found that the 8350K when overclocked outperforms the entire Ryzen line and the I5-8400. Their budget builds are reader submitted.

In the chart below, we plotted gaming performance with both average frame rates and a geometric mean of the 99th percentile frame times (a good indicator of smoothness), which we then converted into an FPS measurement. We're also presenting price-to-performance charts that get split up to include CPUs-only and extra platform costs. For the models that don't come with a bundled cooler, we add an extra $25 for a basic heat sink. We also add $20 if overclocking requires a more expensive motherboard (as is the case for Z370).

It's hard to beat an overclocked Core i3-8350K for gaming unless you have the cash for a pricier Core i5 or i7. In fact, the i3-8350K is surprisingly competitive with those more expensive Coffee Lake-based models if you spend some time overclocking. And Core i3-8350K destroys Kaby Lake in everything. An overclocked Ryzen 5 1600 provides the biggest challenge from AMD, but it's only able to go up against the stock -8350K. Overclocking propels this chip into a league of its own. The less expensive Ryzen 5 1500X also makes a compelling case for enthusiasts willing to turn the overclocking dials, but its much lower stock performance isn't as attractive.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i3-8350k-cpu,5304-9.html

And that is widely considered a "Bad" CPU.

Benchmarks are what they are and both sides have some compelling strengths in specific area's like Ryzen and encoding performance even on a equal core/thread/speed basis.

As always checking benchmarks in your specific uses for guidance on CPU and graphics choices are always your best bets rather then blindly siding with a company over perceived value since the value may only be perceived.

  • 26 months ago
  • 2 points

The way I see it, at enthusiast grade hardware intel dominates because of the higher single core performance, regardless of the amount of cores AMD might have. Although, at the average consumer AMD is the obvious choice because of the bang for the buck performance. I love both Intel and AMD, in fact I like AMD as a company more because they are the rising underdog. I recommended AMD to all my friends because I believed it would be the best choice for all of them. But I chose Intel because I was willing to spend that extra money for the best performance. If you are looking for the top of the line everything, Intel is the best choice in my eyes. But if you are looking for the best overall processor AMD is the best you can get for your money. This is all in my opinion though.

  • 26 months ago
  • 2 points

I think the title should be AMD bias, I see that far too often on here compared to Intel.

  • 26 months ago
  • 1 point

I can agree. I mean, after poking around a bit here, I find that there are three camps, and everyone (including myself and Ada/Gilroar) divide themselves into one, even if they try as hard as they can to be unbiased. The camps are AMD (me), Intel (Ada), and don't give a damn (not anyone on these forums). You probably are in one camp.

  • 26 months ago
  • 4 points

I actually go towards the benchmark camp if the use favours one side or the other I will side with that option.

I will also argue the people who push certain myths.

"8400 will be better when cheaper board are out"

No it will still need aftermarket cooling and a healthy VRM design to keep boost clocks high or lose performance.

"1600 is a better value then a 1600X once overclock"

1600 needs to hit 3.8ghz on all cores to have any advantage and that is only in heavily threaded workloads well still falling behind if you don't use as many threads.

Factor in needing a decent quality board or accepting lower lifespan of the board and that even $20 aftermarket cooling is much better then the stock it really isn't as clear a winner.

"You can overclock on any B350 motherboard"

Very true but so is very few are actually decent quality for overclocking a 6-8 core CPU.

And we are already seeing a abnormal amount of boards being replaced for this reason.

Now I will if the situation shows bias argue a counterpoint but giving the high amount of anti-Intel out there right now it may seem I favor one side.

Only side I actually favor right now is ITX form factor, but I also admit I am a minority in that favor.

Edit forgot one.

"AM4 has a better upgrade path since it is here till 2020"

The only reason upgrade path matters is if you are knowingly building something that will not last the 2-3 years until AM4 is replaced.

If what you build is going to last that long there is No Upgrade Paths, and by the time that gets here anything on the socket will most likely not be worth upgrading to.

  • 26 months ago
  • 2 points

Well said.

  • 26 months ago
  • 1 point

I will also argue the people who push certain myths. "8400 will be better when cheaper board are out" No it will still need aftermarket cooling and a healthy VRM design to keep boost clocks high or lose performance.

I keep seeing you posting this. So here is some videos to CONFIRM the myth. After market cooling is NOT needed and it will boost all cores to 3.8Ghz.

https://youtu.be/hfb-PYsisXg

https://youtu.be/qWj0ozJCZuo

The first video he doesn't even have any exhaust fans running for some reason either.

  • 26 months ago
  • 1 point

First video shows a well ventilated case Deepcool kendomen iirc 5-fans stock looks like the top ones are not running leaving 3 still going as the video shows.

And isn't showing core temps for the same time frame as the stress testing having the core at 100%. Or the clock speeds it could easily be running at the 2.8ghz stock clocks and 100%.

Second video has fans pointing directly at the heatsink on an open bench.

Intel is supplying the same 65w cooling solution as they have for several years and it is maxed out trying to keep a quad core cool well running a stress test it isn't like the coolers performance isn't well known.

So what you have is two video's showing that yes if you feel like cutting holes in your case to mount a fan blowing directly at the CPU you can keep it cooler.

And that in a normal case setup when the CPU is being stressed you can expect clock speed variation.

Now would it be nice if Intel could add 50% more cores and have lower heat output to dissipate sure......

But are they able to achieve temps in line with a Ryzen 1600 on a Wraith Spire at stock with a lower grade thermal interface and a less capable cooler realistically.....?

  • 26 months ago
  • 1 point

The first video there is literally no exhaust fans, so if anything it would be even hotter in that case.

The second video is on an open test bench, so yes he has some fans blowing onto key parts since otherwise they would be getting no airflow, unlike if they were in a case.

I just don't appreciate how you are telling people that the stock cooler will thermal throttle the boost and how mobo's that are not released yet are not good enough to keep full boost on the i5-8400. You have zero evidence to prove either.

  • 26 months ago
  • 1 point

What Intel needs to start doing is soldering the IHS, that would make a huge improvement in temperatures. AMD has been doing it for years even their budget line up, why can't Intel even on a $1000+ CPU.

  • 26 months ago
  • 1 point

The CPU in that guide is an i7-8700k, a 6-core, 12-thread CPU at $380. If you remember, that's the same specs as the Ryzen 5 1600, at twice the price. This is completely unexcusable.

Yes the 8700k has the same core and thread count as the 1600 but the single core performance out of the box is significantly higher. When comparing stock vs stock the 8700k comes close in multi-core performance to the R7s and is the best gaming CPU on the market. The 8700k is priced where it should be (if it is at msrp), it has the multi-threaded performance of the R7s and has the best single core performance on the market.

There is always going to be bias in hardware especially considering that AMD fanboys have had nothing to hold onto until Ryzen came along. Both have their respective places but now with Intel having released their coffeelake lineup Ryzen isn't the absolute best bang for the buck anymore and coffelake doesn't even have budget motherboards yet.

  • 26 months ago
  • 1 point

I hate the work "bottleneck" but an interesting general comparison of different CPU paired with different GPU .

https://www.techspot.com/article/1496-pairing-cpu-and-gpu-bottlenecking/

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube