How Ryzen has altered the CPU market landscape

[EarthDog]

Whatever Ryzen 6C/12T or 8C/16T Ryzen you get there is a faster and better performing Intel 8th or 9th Gen CPU available.

And also notably more expensive for less cores and threads.

Let me clarify...

Spending the same amount of money, the AMD CPUs will be superior if one utilizes all the threads (or any thread count more than the Intel CPU). Ryzen offers more cores/threads at a lower price point. So again, if users are able to utilize the cores, they are a good value AND perform better than intel's at the same price point. If all around performance is the goal without a budget in mind, Intel will be the superior chip.

The blanket statement below is what got me...

No debate, Ryzen CPUs are absolutely NOT better than current 8th and 9th gen Intels.

There is a debate... it depends on use and price point. One can get comparable or better performance for less when utilizing the cores/threads it has to offer. Otherwise, again, intel is faster.

9900K = $539
2700x = $330

Some prefer to pay ~66% more for the best performance... some don't. You don't want to put like pricing against each other as that AMD will smoke Intel in most cases.

 

[Robert17]

If nothing else, the point made about getting Intel to sit up and take notice that they have some competition in the marketplace is the more appreciated effect in this discussion. I'm still waiting on 64-bit software myself.

 

[EarthDog]

If nothing else, the point made about getting Intel to sit up and take notice that they have some competition in the marketplace is the more appreciated effect in this discussion. I'm still waiting on 64-bit software myself.

Absolutely on your first point...no doubt!

To the second, there is plenty out there. Not all are 64-bit of course, but there is a lot out there. Check file explorer and see what installed as 64-bit. You may be surprised to see that number (or not, LOL).

 

[UltraTaco]

Taco has a question, how come I see a lot of small programs say 64bit, but they go into programsX86 folder?

 

[Kenrou]

No debate, Ryzen CPUs are absolutely NOT better than current 8th and 9th gen Intels.

Whatever Ryzen 6C/12T or 8C/16T Ryzen you get there is a faster and better performing Intel 8th or 9th Gen CPU available. So not sure how the Ryzen can be better, cheaper sure, but not better.

If we're to believe Techspot, in terms of IPC it seems Ryzen 2*** has caught up with Intel, now all it needs is core/memory speed - https://www.techspot.com/article/1616-4ghz-ryzen-2nd-gen-vs-core-8th-gen/

 

[Robert17]

Absolutely on your first point...no doubt!

To the second, there is plenty out there. Not all are 64-bit of course, but there is a lot out there. Check file explorer and see what installed as 64-bit. You may be surprised to see that number (or not, LOL).

I get your point. LibreOffice, Adobe pdf, but from the first roll-out of MS 64bit OS years ago I would have hoped that virtually every developer in the marketplace would have a 64 bit option in their stable. Not that it would be necessary for the most part, or even noticed in use for many users, just sayin'.

 

[EarthDog]

If we're to believe Techspot, in terms of IPC it seems Ryzen 2*** has caught up with Intel, now all it needs is core/memory speed - https://www.techspot.com/article/1616-4ghz-ryzen-2nd-gen-vs-core-8th-gen/

Last I recall... IPC was still a couple of percent behind.

That article really doesn't seem to be comparing IPC as all the test run were multithreaded and the CPUs do not have the same core/thread count. So really, it is comparing core/thread count performance at the same speed... which does test HT efficiency.

If they really wanted to test IPC, they would have run singlethreaded benchmarks at the same clocks.

 

[Woomack]

One of the main reasons (besides the total rig price) anyone can consider Ryzen is generated heat. If someone needs more cores but don't want (or can't have) large water cooling then can pick 6-8 core Ryzen and cheap/small cooler what is hard to do with 9th gen Intels. Not to mention that current Intels are on the edge of stability. These chips are pushed to the limits and highly limited by power saving technology and power limits to keep them within specification. Try to run 9900k on any cheaper cooler and it will throttle or shutdown. Also cheaper motherboards will have problems to keep it stable. Some don't even support more than 95W TDP. Ryzen runs on cheaper B350/450 motherboards which are not limiting OC.
IPC isn't so important nowadays. Not many users can notice the difference between AMD and Intel out of benchmarks. That low % of users will need max FPS for some games or higher max clock for competitive benchmarking. In games, graphics cards count much more anyway.

 

[EarthDog]

These chips are pushed to the limits and highly limited by power saving technology and power limits to keep them within specification.

Its the board though holding it back power limit wise. It isn't cooked into the chip... and temperatures/cooling.

 

[UltraTaco]

Those can be disabled? But then you'd be potentially disabling life saving feature in the event of catastrophic failure(cooler droop?)

 

[Woomack]

Motherboards are forcing Intel specs as long as auto/stock settings are in use. CPUs can make more but are generating much more heat and use much more power once you turn off all limits. Every chip is a bit different. I didn't say you can't unlock all the limits and turn off C states.

 

[EarthDog]

Right, but that is what we do here as a norm, like others breathe oxygen.

So in reality, they are simply limited by our cooling since we of course overclock and raise those limits as a given.

 

[Woomack]

Point is that at ambient temps you can barely OC 9th gen Intels for 24/7 stable work. Most users "here" have 9700K/9900K at about 5GHz so stock or not much above stock and are keeping power saving etc because these chips are getting too hot. So yes as overclockers we do these things but 9th gen Intels simply won't let us to do that if we wish to keep reasonable temps or don't want to spend a lot of money on cooling itself. It's totally different story on LN2 or for competitive benching when CPU doesn't have to be stable.

 

[Robert17]

There's a point of diminishing returns on compute cycles @ wattage vs demand excepting the OC community which is not what the mass producers play to. I've yet to see an article regarding someone overclocking the SoC in their automobile. This example may sound absurd but there are a lot of chips being manufactured profitably going into such machines and devices. And these uses don't need the extra heat and maintenance that comes with it. So on the high end of the scale where we play there is a pretty good selection for extreme throughput and I'm frankly amazed that it is addressed as well as it is. Methinks that we're the bleeding edge that help the engineers refine their craft as we're paying to be guinea pigs.

 

[DaveB]

And also notably more expensive for less cores and threads.

Let me clarify...

Spending the same amount of money, the AMD CPUs will be superior if one utilizes all the threads (or any thread count more than the Intel CPU). Ryzen offers more cores/threads at a lower price point. So again, if users are able to utilize the cores, they are a good value AND perform better than intel's at the same price point. If all around performance is the goal without a budget in mind, Intel will be the superior chip.

The blanket statement below is what got me...
There is a debate... it depends on use and price point. One can get comparable or better performance for less when utilizing the cores/threads it has to offer. Otherwise, again, intel is faster.

9900K = $539
2700x = $330

Some prefer to pay ~66% more for the best performance... some don't. You don't want to put like pricing against each other as that AMD will smoke Intel in most cases.

You need to stop confusing the issue. Price has nothing to do with what's better. You run the benchmarks and the CPU with the highest scores wins, whatever the price difference. Price has to do with value and that's where AMD shines. Intel's CPUs are better … price/performance is a completely different topic. While I wouldn't pay the extra $ for an Intel i9 9900K rig, it would certainly outperform that cheaper Ryzen 7 2700X. You can't buy an inferior performing product and then claim it is better because it is cheaper. It's not better, it's cheaper and arguably a better value.

Anyway enough of this because I'm tired of this silly dispute. I went for value today at Microcenter and picked up the $99 6C/12T Ryzen 5 1600 and that $39 MSI B450M mobo with 2 x 8GB G.Skill DDR4-3000 for under $260 including VA sales tax. A nice system for less than either of those high priced CPUs! Got it to 4 GHz and it runs nice and is a good fit with the XFX RX 570 I picked up for under $90 on ebay. But it's nowhere close to the 5 GHz 6C/12T i7 8700K rig I was running last year. A comparison of the benches proves it!

But here's a bad photo of the new build!

 

[EarthDog]

Like a horse running with blinders, they are better dollars not withstanding. I agree.

Also Dave, to me this isnt a silly dispute but what I thought to be a discussion between like minded people. What forums are about discussion and understanding (or agree to disagree).

 

[Alaric]

The CPU (and usage) landscape has changed a lot in the last 10+ years. "Better" as a blanket statement doesn't exist any more than it does with most things. A Ferrari is "better" than a Ford pickup truck-unless you're moving furniture. And leaving cost out of the equation puts you in some rarefied air compared to the vast majority of consumers. The "better" argument for the Intels only holds water if you're generating income at the bleeding edge of performance, and generating enough additional income to justify the sizable price difference. Since most people aren't benching for money, Intel's advantage is questionable in a lot. if not most, of scenarios.

 

[Robert17]

Nice build Dave.

 

[DaveB]

Nice build Dave.

Thanks. One of my typical 30 minute builds. Used a Crucial M.2 SSD with Win 10 Pro already on it, installed the assembled motherboard/RAM/M.2 SSD/CPU/CM Hyper 212 EVO in my trusty Corsair Carbide Clear 400C case with a 450W EVGA PSU, plugged in the RX 570 and it booted right up. Loaded the latest AMD driver then updated the BIOS to the current version. After that it was into the BIOS for overclocking incrementally up to 4 GHz, run a few benches, then declare victory! I see a bit of dust in the case on the PSU cover so I'll have to wipe it down tomorrow.

 

[mjw21a]

Eh, I went 1800x soon as it was available here in Australia.... It's going to be a looong time before I upgrade again. This thing is lightning fast. Of course not much was known about compatible RAM etc at the time of purchase so it's sub-optimal performance compared to what it could be getting though doesn't really matter to me.