• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

AMD vs Intel for the same money, within 5%.

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

Trypt

Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2003
Location
Mississauga, Ontario
I believe Intel/Nvidia still have quite a lead here in absolute terms, but I wonder, and can't find for the life of me.

Firstly, say you build the best consumer grade AMD system you can get, and compare that to the same Intel/Nvidia system with all similar priced parts for the particular system (mobo ram etc), what then?

In fact, this is what I want to see. Say you build a 2700x with Vega 64 system, with 16gb ram and whatever else.

It comes to some price, whatever it is.

Then you take that money and you go and try and build the same system but with Intel/Nvidia inside, so different mobo, cpu and graphics, with the rest as similar as possible.

Who wins then?

How about Intel vs AMD, same as above, but graphics is up to the user, Nvidia in both? Say you build a 2700x with a 1080ti, can you build a similar or better Intel system with a 1080ti for the same price or not?
 
Firstly, say you build the best consumer grade AMD system you can get, and compare that to the same Intel/Nvidia system with all similar priced parts for the particular system (mobo ram etc), what then?
If you can use all the cores and threads the AMD CPU has to offer, then AMD wins. If not, Intel.

Who wins then?
Same question twice.

Say you build a 2700x with a 1080ti, can you build a similar or better Intel system with a 1080ti for the same price or not?
Better in what? That matters. Same price, no. Take a trip to newegg and build one out and see! :)
 
If you're allowing overclocking I believe Intel will win this battle as they are overclocking considerably better in recent generations. If you're talking stock only and same price than Ryzen will win out.

As far as GPU's go, I can't really say. Since the 10xx series GPU's nVidia has won me over again and I haven't even considered Vega as an option. I guess that makes me a fan boi again.
 
I did go away from ATI for a while and got 2xGTX580 and while performance is great I always found ATI/AMD looked better, colours and everything else really. So, if I had to sacrifice 10fps to play at 120 instead of 130, I'll do it in a second to go with Vega 64 over a 1080. But of course I have no way of getting either so forget it, I'm happy with my RX580 at the moment.

I will try to build two different systems at newegg and see, but i really wanted to see someone compare two similarly priced systems head to head in performace/price, I thought youtube would have that.
 
If you're allowing overclocking I believe Intel will win this battle as they are overclocking considerably better in recent generations. If you're talking stock only and same price than Ryzen will win out.

As far as GPU's go, I can't really say. Since the 10xx series GPU's nVidia has won me over again and I haven't even considered Vega as an option. I guess that makes me a fan boi again.

even stock, gaming the intel equivalently priced cpu wins in just about every game even if its only a few fps, but others its quite a few fps.

reference(8600k vs 2700): https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2341?vs=2274

but in multi threaded applications the ryzen wipes the floor.
 
If that's the case it makes sense why Ryzen is making such waves. In games, 100fps vs even 120fps is not noticable, but encoding video or recording, or unzipping, whatever, every minute counts, so I at least now feel better about being an AMD fanboy. I play games currently at 50fps since my cpu is a bottleneck (I'm guessing the upgrade will get more out of my RX580 since the fps is the same no matter what settings or res I use in games, it can't go above 50fps in Shadow of the Tomb Raider for example) and I love it, and of course I'd like 100fps but beyond that I just don't see the point, so unless we're talking 240Hz monitor or something silly, the Ryzen advantage in everything else far surpasses any down side in gaming when we're talking no way to tell the difference.

I do game quite a bit but since I am already enjoying myself now at 1440p, any improvement will be huge. But I do video encoding a lot and other cpu intensive tasks and I can't stand waiting this out, so if I can shave an hour off a 4 hour encode that would be huge, and Ryzen does that in spades.
 
The CPU isn't holding you back much at 1440p... its hte GPU. ;)

Intel holds an advantage in gaming and that can sometimes mean a bump in settings for the same PFS or more smooth gameplay for high hz (100+) gaming.

If a user has the ability to use all the c/t, Ryzen is a no brainer. :)
 
Earthdog, the reason why I think it may be the CPU is because of the exact same numbers I get no matter the settings. I have found the sweetpoint now at 1440p with High settings on SofTR, and I don't ever get under 30fps even in cutscenes, and the average is high 40s, with no drops mostly, maybe one scene every 10 mins gets under 40fps, but it's all smooth.

So when I first noticed this, I tried different settings. First I put everything on normal, same thing. Then I tried DirectX 11 instead of 12, same thing. Then I put the settings on LOW to try to get as much performance as possible, and even turned off 4xAA, and no, same thing exactly, 50fps or so, still dropping every so often.

Lastly I even dropped the res to 1080p, tried again with all different settings, and yet again same avg. fps.

In Tomb Raider from 2014, GOTY edition, and Skyrim, I get well over 70fps with high settings on 1440p (Tomb Raider I get over 90, avg about 80fps with high settings with AA), but again, even in those games, lowering the res or settings gains almost nothing.
 
The standard answer for this type of question is: it depends on your use case and local pricing.

To my visibility, in overall CPU potential (like Cinebench R15 scores) AMD will give you more for your money. If the metric is high fps in games, that then swings over to Intel, although you're paying for it.

GPU side is arguably a bit simpler. Very roughly I think they're price-performance comparable. Maybe AMD has a slight edge but it isn't significant outside of ultra-budget builds.

For encoding tasks, it is further complicated in that it depends on how your software can make use of all compute resources. If the software can make use of GPU, that can negate CPU to a degree.
 
Back