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

Intel vs AMD for my needs.

TheIbbyTron

17 months ago

I would be using my PC for gaming, homework, video watching and music listening. I know Intel is better for gaming and Ryzen is better for productivity but which would be better to suit my needs? Does it really matter at all?

Comments

  • 17 months ago
  • 5 points

"Ryzen is better for productivity" is a bit too wide of a blanket statement. You've probably heard that equivalently-priced Ryzen processors often have superior multi-threaded performance than Intel processors.

"Homework" might include some applications that could benefit from additional multi-threaded performance. If we're talking MS office, that's trivial even for lower-tier processors from both companies. Ryzen may offer better price/performance for heavy editing and workstation use, but it still depends on the exact application.

Video and music playback are quite trivial tasks for a modern gaming system, so those aren't going to be a deciding factor.

It may be better to consider your exact purposes and then choose a processor individually, rather than going through the AMD/Intel generalizations. What is your desired balance for gaming resolution/eye candy/framerates? What does your homework entail?

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

I'm thinking 144hz at 1080p at medium settings at least in most games. My homework will depend. I'm starting college in a half a year and will get the PC even later than that. Most likely coding, text documents and some more stuff.

  • 17 months ago
  • 2 points

Go intel for high refresh rates.

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

Got it!

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

One of the Coffee Lake i5 processors would probably a good fit (I'd personally jump for the 8400). The i5-8600K offers a nice performance boost for overclocking, but costs more (not just for the processor itself). You'd want a Z370 motherboard for a good overclocking experience, and a nice CPU cooler (the 8600K doesn't come with a stock one).

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

Yeah that's the one I've had my eyes on. I'm not planning to overclock so looking at a B360 motherboard. I would've gone with the 8500 for the higher clock speeds but it costs so much extra for a relatively small performance boost.

  • 17 months ago
  • 2 points

Only you can tell us what matters to you. What do you want it to do? If you just want "gaming, homework, video watching and music listening" to function correctly, you could get a Pentium and be done. "Oh but I want X frames in Y game at Z settings", now we are getting somewhere.

To answer your general inquiry with a general response though, they'll both do the job, so it doesn't really matter. Ryzen will arguably give you more bang for your buck in general.

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

I'd say, just given the general tasks they stated, Ryzen probably would be a decent way to go. Perhaps their 1200, or if they don't really plan on gaming hard, even a 2400G might be a decent route to go. Granted, then they could benefit from a bit more RAM. Catch 22, I suppose.

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

I see. Thanks. I'm looking for 1080p 144hz in most games at a minimum of medium settings.

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

You should go Intel, if budget is no issue.

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

Well I made a separate part list for Intel and AMD. The Intel build I made is like £20 more which I think is okay if the performance is better.

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

Intel (mostly K series CPUs with high clock speeds) has a slight edge with very high refresh rate monitor's otherwise either will have solid options for most the part across the board.

Depending on your budget and what your trying to do, the 8400 (Intel) or 2600 (AMD) would do all those tasks fine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUyF--fJaaM

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

I'll take that into consideration. Thank you

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

CPU speed and the refresh rate of a monitor have very little to do with each other unless of course you are trying to compare the integrated graphics of the two, which in that case, you're even more wrong because the new Ryzen chips churn out higher FPS than IntelHD is currently. However, neither of these chips can produce enough FPS in any game to make use of a 144hz monitor and are both completely slaughtered by a several year old entry level budget graphics card.

  • 17 months ago
  • 2 points

You have evidently misunderstood what I wrote or if you believe what you wrote, its simply not true. With the same graphical settings a to hit the higher FPS a higher refresh rate panel dictates, it means there will be a higher load on the CPU to deliver the the information to churn out more frames. This is where the likes of your 8700k etc lead the pack with strong clock speed, IPC and ringbus architecture.

Similarly just take a look at CPU's at stock then overclocked. The overclocked CPU's can with everything else being the same, be able to push out more FPS where the GPU is not a boundary on overall performance. Perfect example here showing how a CPU when given more grunt (in form of overclock / Faster RAM) is able to perform better in both Average and 1% Min where the GPU is not a limitation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUyF--fJaaM&t=

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

I know that Intel pushes more frames when the GPU isn't the limiting factor, but in this situation where OP is talking about playing at 1080p on medium settings, I am going out on a limb here and assuming that he might not be planning on buying a $700 GPU.

Plus, if you want to talk about Intel outperforming AMD in gaming, it's not even a discussion. Intel has been ahead of AMD in gaming for 15 years. But recently, by how much? If you're going to run a 1080TI, Ryzen is still capable of producing frame rates high enough in most games to take advantage of high refresh rates and if OP isn't going to be running a high powered GPU, then it's irrelevant because the GPU limitation will have both systems running the same FPS.

So basically, what it boils down to is that I/we would need more information including a budget, primary games, etc to make the right choice on a CPU.

But sure, dollar for dollar with the limited information that I have, assuming OP wants to primarily game and doing basic office tasks, I would chose Intel every time.

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

I know that Intel pushes more frames when the GPU isn't the limiting factor, but in this situation where OP is talking about playing at 1080p on medium settings, I am going out on a limb here and assuming that he might not be planning on buying a $700 GPU.

At time of my post OP did not at all indicate 1080p / medium settings etc. This was after the my post and only then has he listed such such requirements to another posters post (see timestamps). Hence why in my post I listed mainstream CPUs from Both sides capable of performing sufficiently for most the tasks he listed and adding the wording "Depending on your budget and what your trying to do" because at the time, none of this was indicated.

Plus, if you want to talk about Intel outperforming AMD in gaming, it's not even a discussion. Intel has been ahead of AMD in gaming for 15 years. But recently, by how much? If you're going to run a 1080TI, Ryzen is still capable of producing frame rates high enough in most games to take advantage of high refresh rates and if OP isn't going to be running a high powered GPU, then it's irrelevant because the GPU limitation will have both systems running the same FPS.

Its not a matter of the gap, without any further details, I simply listed facts, as it stands a comparable Intel CPU will usually outperform an AMD CPU. Is the gap massive for most the part and important, no not really. Could a comparable Intel CPU be more expensive, sure. Simply put without further details at the time I listed Intel CPU's generally edge out the AMD CPU's. Does this mean I rule out AMD CPU's because they are few % behind, absolutely not, hence why I suggested both an AMD and Intel CPU which outside of high refresh rate gaming will perform similarly.

So basically, what it boils down to is that I/we would need more information including a budget, primary games, etc to make the right choice on a CPU.

Yes, more information would be nice. Like most other posters who posted more then an hour ago (time at which OP mentioned his requirements in more detail) we were all providing more general input.

But sure, dollar for dollar with the limited information that I have, assuming OP wants to primarily game and doing basic office tasks, I would chose Intel every time.

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

Look man, I am not trying to argue with you here. My reasoning for my initial comment was because your statement regarding intel/refresh rate relationship was vague and I didn't want OP or some person stumbling upon that comment and blindly thinking that Intel was better suited for high refresh gaming as a blanket statement because a highly regarded member that has built $10000 machines and has 40% comment/karma ratio said so without knowing the additional stipulations and when it's applicable and not.

That's all..

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

Intel. It does better at high-refresh rate gaming, anything can do homework as long as your homework doesn't include CAD, Music Production, etc. Music listening and video watching can be done on any Pentium.

So I'll vouch for Intel.

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

It does better at high-refresh rate gaming

What if they don't plan on high refresh gaming?

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

I would be using my PC for gaming

Not my problem. It's an upgrade. Not a direct choice. It's not like you can say "Well I'd rather stick with my 60 hz rather than 144 hz, and I'll never go above that for some reason."

Sure, if they were gaming at 4k or sometimes 1440p, you wouldn't be going for higher refreshrates. But they would probably have specified if that was the case.

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

Not my problem

What? They are asking for advice. If they don't plan on going for high refresh rates, then your advice of Intel over Ryzen due to it's more effective high refresh performance is misguided. How is that not your problem?

It's an upgrade.

Where did they say that?

Not a direct choice.

What?

It's not like you can say "Well I'd rather stick with my 60 hz rather than 144 hz, and I'll never go above that for some reason."

But, they can absolutely say that. If they never plan on getting a monitor higher than 60 Hz, they will never be able to benefit from high refresh rates.....

Sure, if they were gaming at 4k or sometimes 1440p, you wouldn't be going for higher refreshrates. But they would probably have specified if that was the case.

They also probably would have specified that it was an upgrade, and they likely would have specified that they wanted high refresh....

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

What? They are asking for advice. If they don't plan on going for high refresh rates, then your advice of Intel over Ryzen due to it's more effective high refresh performance is misguided. How is that not your problem?

It's not misguided. Intel performs better than Intel at higher refresh rates, which is one of the reasons I recommended Intel.

Where did they say that?

Well, I think we can all agree that the lower refresh rate the better, right? /s

What?

By that I meant if you choose to not get a 144hz monitor simply because you have a spiritual connection to 60 hz, it's odd. It's just an opinion, which isn't something I'll recommend parts off of.

But, they can absolutely say that. If they never plan on getting a monitor higher than 60 Hz, they will never be able to benefit from high refresh rates.....

If they never plan on getting a monitor higher than 60 Hz, then sure. But that doesn't mean that there could potentially be a time where they have the option to upgrade to 144 Hz without changing their processor. "Sure, I'll stick to 60 Hz for a while" is completely fine, but if they change their mind and think that "Alright, 144 hz seems pretty interesting, I'll try it out", they'd be stopped because of a potential CPU upgrade instead. I don't want that to happen.

I just don't think people plan on not upgrading. It's like saying "I'll just stay with my FX CPU forever". People might plan on doing that, but at some point an enticing option will come along, and they might change their mind.

They also probably would have specified that it was an upgrade, and they likely would have specified that they wanted high refresh....

Why should they do that? You often see people specify 4K builds because it's difficult to run at a low budget, so it's quite obvious that they want people to choose parts based on that point. But 144 hz is not a change in demanding parts, it's just a monitor upgrade - you wont see people running 1080p on a 4K monitor unless their PC can't handle it. But you'll always see people running 120/140 Hz on a 144 hz monitor because it doesn't change the load that is put on your GPU.

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

If they don't plan on going for high refresh rates, then your advice of Intel over Ryzen due to it's more effective high refresh performance is misguided.

Yes, it is. If it's useless to them, it's misguided to suggest.

Well, I think we can all agree that the lower refresh rate the better, right? /s

I have no idea what relevance this statement had to them stating it was an upgrade or not. A + B != C here for some reason.

By that I meant if you choose to not get a 144hz monitor simply because you have a spiritual connection to 60 hz, it's odd. It's just an opinion, which isn't something I'll recommend parts off of.

Okay, that makes sense. I, personally, am fine with 75 Hz. I don't plan on exceeding that for quite some time. I'll probably build a new system by then. So, for me, it wouldn't make any sense to worry about that now. It would make more sense for me to worry about making sure I get the most performance (for what I'll actually be doing) for the least amount of money.

If they never plan on getting a monitor higher than 60 Hz, then sure. But that doesn't mean that there could potentially be a time where they have the option to upgrade to 144 Hz without changing their processor. "Sure, I'll stick to 60 Hz for a while" is completely fine, but if they change their mind and think that "Alright, 144 hz seems pretty interesting, I'll try it out", they'd be stopped because of a potential CPU upgrade instead. I don't want that to happen.

While I get that, Ryzen won't limit them from using a 144 Hz monitor. It will prevent them from taking as much advantage of it as Intel would, but it would still hit high refresh rates at times, depending on games and settings. And, it would still do very well for older games at higher refresh rates. It's all about their needs, really. Planning for the future is great, but only to a certain premium point.

Why should they do that?

I could say the exact same things to them wanting 1440p or up in regard to your statement. The short answer is, we can't expect them to state all their needs, and shouldn't attempt to predict them. They may state if they want high refresh, 1440p, frame sync. But, it's not a given that they will.

But 144 hz is not a change in demanding parts

Yes, it is. It's an increased demand upon the CPU just like higher resolutions are an increased demand on the GPU.

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

Thanks I'll take it into account! Pengu ilysm lol

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

Finding out what your budget would be is key. If you have money to spare go INTEL, if you are on more of a strict budget i would go AMD. it all depends what you are really going to do with it.

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

I'll take that into consideration. Thank you

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

Get an i5-8400 with a h310 or a b360 motherboard. Best price-to-performance than anything AMD has to offer (Gaming Wise). Do no listen to anything else, because they are braindead if they tell you to go AMD for your needs. Hopefully I wasn't too late!

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

Not late at all! I think I'll go with an i3-8100 as I want to keep spending to a minimum and I believe the i3 is as good as previous gen i5's due to it having four cores.

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

Reality check "better for gaming" and "better for productivity" sound like twice told internet tales...

Gaming is all about creating a simulation and feeding API calls to a GPU. The GPU is almost always the limiting factor in gaming, although recent "144Hz" fads might effect this a bit (there are a lot of ways of fixing latency that don't involve 144fps, but most of them lack marketing punch. Brute force fps simply stinks for it, and will certainly hold back VR [AMD Vega boards improve latency a lot over older AMD GPUs, but I can't accurately say that cutting a frame of latency improves things over nvidia cards or not].

Productivity is almost never limited by the CPU, unless graphics heavy or numerical heavy engineering tasks that were done on expensive RISC workstations before the rise of Pentium Pros and WindowsNT. If you've even seen a school or library machine slow down to run Word, I'd assume minimal RAM and lack of an SSD or similar wimpiness. Any (non-Atom based) Pentium should handle such easy jobs.

Compiling I can't help you with. I'm more on the hardware side, and only remember compiling being trivial (I wrote small programs) but linking to big libraries could take forever. More threads should work, but I'm less sure about the linking stage.

As far as Intel's advantage, I'd recommend ignoring it unless going all the way to 5GHz (find a chip that ends with "K"). At that point, you should see an improvement over the AMD chips for low-core usage. "Low core usage" is key, and I'd probably avoid i5 7???K chips with their 4 cores over higher core chips (this may be wildly optimistic, increased thread usage has been pushed since the 1980s and results have been slow*. But understand: the moment the number of threads exceed the number of cores an Intel chip has, the advantage swings to AMD.

  • multi-chip 1980s machines were exclusively supercomputers, and by 1994 NASA Goddard started the Beowulf project which permanently changed supercomputing from big Crays to networks of computers. The "core2duo" was shipped 12 years ago, so maybe computing might be finally architected around multiple cores. Don't hold your breath, and expect to learn a lot of reasons such programming is hard if you study such things at school.
  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

Thanks for the insane amount of info. I'll take it all on board and digest it as best as I can.

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

To be honest, the only reason it is so complicated is that either of them will be very good at any thing you throw at them. It isn't like the bad old bulldozer days when you could just say "buy Intel" or the Pentium 4 days when you'd say "buy AMD". You really can't go wrong.

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

I see. Thank you very much

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/ZHj89J AMD build https://pcpartpicker.com/list/BCcQP3 Intel build so these both builds are for gaming on medium-high setting on higher frame (144) for gaming i reccomend the intel and productivity amd's :)

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