Anyone thinking of switching companies?

[FoldingAddict]

I'm still dreaming of a Core 2 Duo level jump from Intel...I said dreaming ok?

 

[Woomack]

I doubt you would see the difference nowadays as in home/office environment, current hardware generation is really fast. Back in the P4->C2D switch, the hardware was still very slow and we could say that multithreading was something new. Now most 8+ core CPUs have nothing to do for most of the time.
The main difference for most people makes the main storage device. SSDs were a huge improvement and probably the only one worth mentioning in the last 10-15 years.
The main problem is with software which isn't optimized. CPUs have more cores/threads, but the performance gain is visible only in very demanding, multithreaded tasks. Sometimes I feel that everything goes the wrong way. I'm not sure why manufacturers are deciding on these product lines, but stupid products are one of the reasons why people don't upgrade computers. PC sales go down, and there is no real reason to spend money (unless you have a really old PC or any problems).

 

[don256us]

I go where the performance goes.

Same here. The brand that I buy into depends on the total cost of that eco system. CPU, RAM and MB. The rest is interchangeable. For now I'm AMD because they gave me the most for the dollars I was willing to spend.

 

[Sologuy]

Thing that pisses me off with Intel is the change in sockets & chipsets nearly with every generation. However it has been a bit surprising to see LGA 1700 having the life it has so far. But the end of the road now with raptor lake refresh. So this lead me to AM5 socket, of course according to AMD so far support until 2026. Also the lower energy requirements are a nice thing too of course but the heat density & the thickness of Zen 4 IHS is a the bug in the pudding imo. If it wasn't for undervolting via CO, their products would be a toss up between them & Intel in 2023.

 

[Woomack]

Thing that pisses me off with Intel is the change in sockets & chipsets nearly with every generation. However it has been a bit surprising to see LGA 1700 having the life it has so far. But the end of the road now with raptor lake refresh. So this lead me to AM5 socket, of course according to AMD so far support until 2026. Also the lower energy requirements are a nice thing too of course but the heat density & the thickness of Zen 4 IHS is a the bug in the pudding imo. If it wasn't for undervolting via CO, their products would be a toss up between them & Intel in 2023.

If you look at AMD, then they're not any better. The same socket for longer, but each new CPU has different requirements. You could see that especially in AM2/AM2+ and AM3/AM3+ when some CPUs were compatible, some not, and some required stronger power design. Ryzens are, in theory, compatible, but there were big problems with newer CPUs on older motherboards, or support was added with a huge delay, so most of those who wanted only the new and faster CPU already bought a new motherboard. AMD failed most premieres of CPUs for existing sockets (this is a long topic, so I will skip it). It wasn't so bad if the motherboard was from a high series. If it was from a low series or less popular, you could wait for long months for a proper BIOS without significant issues. I say it's AMD's fault as they always provide firmware less than a month before the premiere, so motherboard manufacturers don't have enough time to fine-tune or add anything other than support for new CPUs ... so they could start not to work optimally.

 

[Sologuy]

If you look at AMD, then they're not any better. The same socket for longer, but each new CPU has different requirements. You could see that especially in AM2/AM2+ and AM3/AM3+ when some CPUs were compatible, some not, and some required stronger power design. Ryzens are, in theory, compatible, but there were big problems with newer CPUs on older motherboards, or support was added with a huge delay, so most of those who wanted only the new and faster CPU already bought a new motherboard. AMD failed most premieres of CPUs for existing sockets (this is a long topic, so I will skip it). It wasn't so bad if the motherboard was from a high series. If it was from a low series or less popular, you could wait for long months for a proper BIOS without significant issues. I say it's AMD's fault as they always provide firmware less than a month before the premiere, so motherboard manufacturers don't have enough time to fine-tune or add anything other than support for new CPUs ... so they could start not to work optimally.

No argument there but it becomes a bit of "lesser of 2 evils" kind of thing doesn't it? I mean both companies have a monopoly on the x86 market, so the rest of us DIY enthusiasts just have to 'suck it up' as they say....

 

[EarthDog]

To me, it's just how this works. Each company has some sort of growing pain every time something new is released. Some are worse than others, but it depends on the generation. I'd lean towards Intel's side of being more stable out of the gate too. But AMD has improved over the years and isn't far enough behind to make that a consideration, IMO.

My upgrade cycle never depended on a 3rd+ generation of CPU being available. Realistically, I don't want to be on my 3rd-gen CPU on a several-year-old platform. At that point, you're missing so much. To me, it doesn't make sense to drop a 3rd CPU in the same platform unless it's purely a financial decision, or the CPU upgrade is negligible if you had the 2-gen in already. If I was making a choice to upgrade to Ivy bridge on Z77 just a couple of years ago (to fit that 'several/7 years thought), that leaves so much on the table (DDR4, DDR5, PCIe 4.0/5.0, M.2 sockets, fast USB) and that's not even considering the huge performance difference between the generations. Now, some people don't care about the latest and greatest, I get that, but this is an enthusiast forum, so many users are coming from a place of at least wanting, if not needing, better performance and features.

 

[don256us]

I do recall days when AMD did keep sockets around longer and you could buy a high end MB with an entry level CPU. Then just upgrade the CPU in a few years, save some money and stay current. AMD busted that for me a long time ago. What was it skt 939 or 754 maybe. There was just one iteration of CPU and the spread was not great. The difference between the low end and the high end was minimal and the cost never went down on the high end. While you can still plan to buy hardware i this way, the cost savings and the performance increase are just not that great like they once were.

 

[Tír na nÓg]

Same as many, going for price to perf ratio (incl. support, drivers, etc...).

And as Woomack wrote, for the past 3 years, CPU's are so fast and powerful, that I don't think I would notice a difference between Intel and AMD on competing products.

Heck, the laptop I use currently (12700H), is as fast (muti) than my old 5820k [email protected] when feed with 15 watts only (tweaked with GHelper) when on battery. And as fast as a stock 4790K (single).

 

[Railgun]

Whoever meets the needs or wants for that particular cycle wins. I usually go for HEDT, not including some one-offs.

IIRC, not including the length of time I stuck with a particular vendor with iterative setups, I’ve gone I, A, I, A. From a dual Celeron with an ABIT BP6 as my very first build ( I think) to the current setup in my sig.

As it stands, I’ll be sticking with AMD with the new Threadripper line.