VOGONS

Common searches


To end the AMD v. Intel debate.

Topic actions

  • This topic is locked. You cannot reply or edit posts.

Reply 20 of 181, by Intel486dx33

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

I would NOT buy a NEW AMD Ryzen CPU over Intel.
Just my personal preference.
I think it has more to do with compatibility and stability with motherboards and cards. Hardware and drivers.
I'll take Intel over AMD anyday.
AMD seems to be okay for the desktop for gamers but for office productivity people and servers.
Most professionals and admins will choose Intel.

Reply 22 of 181, by Anonymous Coward

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Both AMD and Intel are lame. Loongson is where it's at!

"Will the highways on the internets become more few?" -Gee Dubya
V'Ger XT|Upgraded AT|Ultimate 386|Super VL/EISA 486|SMP VL/EISA Pentium

Reply 23 of 181, by appiah4

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

I haven't bought a non-AMD CPU since Athlon days. I wish I knew about AMD in the 486/586/686 era. I knew about Cyrix, but conventional wisdom was that Cyrix 386/486 PCs crashed and burned and their 6x86 CPUs 'sucked'. What a load of bullshit in hindsight. I wasted a SHITLOAD of money on useless Intel 486DX, Pentium and Pentium II/III Slot-1 stuff that could have been used for much better graphics hardware..

leileilol wrote:

If only UMC weren't legal'd to CPU oblivion 🙁

Oh yeah, the U5S was an amazing CPU in hindsight - I had never even heard about them before joining Vogons. My main 486 is a U5S-SUPER33, and I love it. I hope to stumble across a cheap SUPER40 some day..

Intel486dx33 wrote:
I would NOT buy a NEW AMD Ryzen CPU over Intel. Just my personal preference. I think it has more to do with compatibility and st […]
Show full quote

I would NOT buy a NEW AMD Ryzen CPU over Intel.
Just my personal preference.
I think it has more to do with compatibility and stability with motherboards and cards. Hardware and drivers.
I'll take Intel over AMD anyday.
AMD seems to be okay for the desktop for gamers but for office productivity people and servers.
Most professionals and admins will choose Intel.

Why don't you just stick to your iPad for your workstation and server tasks? I hear it's great at everything. Also, did you know that Apple stopped using Intel CPUs? (Someone call suicide watch..)

Retronautics: A digital gallery of my retro computers, hardware and projects.

Reply 25 of 181, by eL_PuSHeR

User metadata
Rank Moderator
Rank
Moderator

Interesting and amusing read. Right now I only have Intel cpus and I am starting to regret this decision. It's well known that Intel CPUs (even latest generation) are plagued with more vulnerabilities than their AMD counterparts so I am noticing a big decrease in performance for my Intel CPUs. AMD is also affected but to a lesser degree. And boy, those new Ryzen CPUs are really nice. I shelled out 1000€ for my now aging i7-5960x cpu and now a first generation Ryzen 3 cpu is even faster when playing csgo.

Intel i7 5960X
Gigabye GA-X99-Gaming 5
8 GB DDR4 (2100)
8 GB GeForce GTX 1070 G1 Gaming (Gigabyte)

Reply 26 of 181, by Scali

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
eL_PuSHeR wrote:

I shelled out 1000€ for my now aging i7-5960x cpu and now a first generation Ryzen 3 cpu is even faster when playing csgo.

That's progress 😀
Can you name any piece of hardware that wasn't more expensive and less feature-rich/performing than the next generation?
Doesn't have that much to do with Intel vs AMD if you ask me. Just whoever offers the best price/performance at a given moment.

http://scalibq.wordpress.com/just-keeping-it- … ro-programming/

Reply 27 of 181, by Firtasik

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
eL_PuSHeR wrote:

I shelled out 1000€ for my now aging i7-5960x cpu and now a first generation Ryzen 3 cpu is even faster when playing csgo.

Ryzen 3000? Possible. 1st gen Ryzen 3 (1200 or 1300X)? I don't think so.

11 1 111 11 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 111 1 111 1 1 1 1 111

Reply 28 of 181, by The Serpent Rider

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Spectre and Meltdown fiasco showed that Intel had very questionable engineering all this time, which finally bited them in the ass. That and the continuing struggles with 10nm process are major blow to their market domination.

Get up, come on get down with the sickness
Open up your hate, and let it flow into me

Reply 29 of 181, by Scali

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
The Serpent Rider wrote:

Spectre and Meltdown fiasco showed that Intel had very questionable engineering all this time

I couldn't disagree more.
Spectre and Meltdown signify a paradigm shift in terms of exploits.
Before these exploits arrived, nobody had considered that these covert channels could be detected and exploited. And as such, no engineer could consciously avoid these covert channels in their designs.
Which also explains why these attacks affected pretty much all CPUs on the market, not just Intels, and not just x86-based ones.

Why was Intel hit harder than AMD? Because Intel's CPU designs were more advanced, and were more aggressive in terms of caching and speculative execution, resulting in better performance.
Basically what bit Intel is that they have better performance in specific scenarios, and it is possible to measure this performance, and deduce which scenario is running.

That has nothing to do with 'questionable engineering'.

http://scalibq.wordpress.com/just-keeping-it- … ro-programming/

Reply 31 of 181, by appiah4

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
Firtasik wrote:
eL_PuSHeR wrote:

I shelled out 1000€ for my now aging i7-5960x cpu and now a first generation Ryzen 3 cpu is even faster when playing csgo.

Ryzen 3000? Possible. 1st gen Ryzen 3 (1200 or 1300X)? I don't think so.

He says 1st gen Ryzen and you go directly to 1200? Some weird logic there. Ryzen 1800X would match 5960X in pure CPU performance but would also bring things like a non-dead end platform, more PCIe lanes, better memory controller and MUCH better power efficiency to the table.

Oh, and 5960X cost $999 vs 1800X costing $499.

I sincerely hope AMD completely destroys Intel and forces them out of the x86 market in a couple of years.

Retronautics: A digital gallery of my retro computers, hardware and projects.

Reply 32 of 181, by 386SX

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
Firtasik wrote:

Yeah. For example, Zen CPUs are vulnerable to Variant 4 (speculative store bypass), but older (and slower) CPUs like Phenom II are not.

Aren't there any "mitigation" (never thought I'd have heard such word in the it security world, not to mention "hardware mitigation" 🤣 ) for these cpus? And the newer one how they works?
At the end I'd call this whole story the revenge of the Atom cpus! 😁

Reply 35 of 181, by appiah4

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
leileilol wrote:
appiah4 wrote:

forces them out of the x86 market in a couple of years.

No. Competition's important

As counter-intuitive as it sounds AMD by themselves in the x86 market would probably be more innovative than Intel being the dominant competitor again sometime down the line.

Just look at the shit we've been through for the five years prior to Ryzen. Today Intel can cut the price of their $2000 CPUs by half to $1000 just because AMD can actually compete again. That means Intel has been sitting on their asses milking the consumers like the suckers we are for years and years and years even though there was a smaller competitor in the market, there is no other explanation to this. This is what they always do. They can crash and burn and I will watch it happen happily.

Retronautics: A digital gallery of my retro computers, hardware and projects.

Reply 36 of 181, by Scali

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
appiah4 wrote:

AMD alone in the x86 market would probably be more innovative than Intel being dominant again sometime down the line.

It would?
As it stands, pretty much everything we have today, is an innovation done by Intel (x86, MMX, SSE, AVX, HyperThreading, SATA, USB, PCIe etc etc).
The innovations that AMD has added to the mix are extremely limited. There's x64, but Intel and HP had developed IA-64, which was far more innovative. Its main downside was that its x86 compatibility wasn't that good.
x64 was the opposite: good at x86, but x64 was more-of-the-same. Basically AMD rehashing what Intel had done with the introduction of the 386.

The current Ryzen chips are also not exactly innovative. They basically just copied what Intel has been doing for years with the Core series (just standard HyperThreading with 2 threads per core, and cores optimized for high IPC).
Heck, AMD's previous architecture was supposed to be innovative, where AMD did something entirely different from what Intel did. And that was a horrible failure.

AMD is still a much smaller company than Intel, so my money would be on Intel for innovation, at least for the coming years. They have a lot more engineers working on the problem, and a lot more money to invest into R&D.

appiah4 wrote:

Today Intel can cut the price of their $2000 CPUs by half to $1000 just becaues there is competition. They've fucked us all over more than enough.

And the exact same happened in the few moments that AMD was on top.
Take for example their Athlon FX series. Those were $1000+ as well, because Intel had trouble reaching those performance levels with the Pentium 4.
Once Core2 arrived, Athlon FX prices were slashed. They dropped to $300 almost overnight.

And already with the success of Ryzen 2, we see AMD moving into ever higher price echelons.

Really, Intel or AMD makes no difference in terms of pricing. They ask the prices that people are willing to pay for their products. That's simple economics.

http://scalibq.wordpress.com/just-keeping-it- … ro-programming/

Reply 37 of 181, by appiah4

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Calling x64 a limited innovation? Maybe you would've liked to live on with shit like Itanium, but no thanks.

Also Ryzen is not innovative? That's where I stopped reading. Seriously. The chiplet approach by itself is probably the most groundbreaking CPU innovation of the decade.

Retronautics: A digital gallery of my retro computers, hardware and projects.

Reply 38 of 181, by Scali

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
appiah4 wrote:

Calling x64 a limited innovation?

Yes, it's just a 386 with 64-bit registers basically.
How is that innovative?

appiah4 wrote:

Maybe you would've liked to live on with shit like Itanium, but no thanks.

It was certainly innovative, with its sets of code bundles.
How well it could have been in practice, we'll never know.

appiah4 wrote:

Also Ryzen is not innovative?

No it isn't. As I said, it's basically a copy-paste of Intel's Core architecture. Care to prove me wrong?
Then name innovative features.

appiah4 wrote:

The chiplet approach by itself is probably the most groundbreaking CPU innovation of the decade.

It is? To me it looks like AMD just invented the 'chiplet' marketing name to do essentially the same as what Intel and others have been doing for years with multi-chip modules.
Like the Intel Westmere with the CPU and GPU on two separate 'chiplets':

Two-New-Westmere-Based-CPUs-Surface-on-Intel-s-Website-2.jpg
Filename
Two-New-Westmere-Based-CPUs-Surface-on-Intel-s-Website-2.jpg
File size
79.19 KiB
Views
693 views
File license
Fair use/fair dealing exception

Intel currently actually stacks their 'chiplets' in 3D, with what they call Foveros technology.

Besides, clearly the context was CPU architecture, not manufacturing. Name any CPU architecture features that can be considered innovative.

http://scalibq.wordpress.com/just-keeping-it- … ro-programming/

Reply 39 of 181, by Firtasik

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
appiah4 wrote:
Firtasik wrote:
eL_PuSHeR wrote:

I shelled out 1000€ for my now aging i7-5960x cpu and now a first generation Ryzen 3 cpu is even faster when playing csgo.

Ryzen 3000? Possible. 1st gen Ryzen 3 (1200 or 1300X)? I don't think so.

He says 1st gen Ryzen and you go directly to 1200? Some weird logic there. Ryzen 1800X would match 5960X in pure CPU performance but would also bring things like a non-dead end platform, more PCIe lanes, better memory controller and MUCH better power efficiency to the table.

1st gen Ryzen 3. Not Ryzen 7 1800X.

386SX wrote:
Firtasik wrote:

Yeah. For example, Zen CPUs are vulnerable to Variant 4 (speculative store bypass), but older (and slower) CPUs like Phenom II are not.

Aren't there any "mitigation" (never thought I'd have heard such word in the it security world, not to mention "hardware mitigation" 🤣 ) for these cpus?

Yeah, there are software and microcode mitigations for some CPUs.

11 1 111 11 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 111 1 111 1 1 1 1 111