Intel Core vs. AMD Ryzen: Which offers the best value - halvorsonaccage

If you're asking yourself whether AMD's Ryzen or Intel's Core offers the best bang for the buck right now, we understand. AMD's freshly unveiled 16-core Ryzen 9 3950X has nerds from Topeka to Kuala Lumpur wanting to know if the Central processor landscape has again been redrawn with AMD's new CPUs.

Alas, although we know how many cores, what time speed, and flush what's under the exhaust hood of AMD's new Ryzen 3000 chips, we don't have independent confirmation of how loyal these chips are just yet. We expect that by the prison term they go along sale on July 7.

But in the spirit of the meaningless sports statistics you'atomic number 75 fed before every NBA Finals or Superbowl, we've gone to the spreadsheet to analyze which CPU and which caller appears to get the best bang for the jerk.

We looked at three prosody which we know generally force CPU public presentation: core and thread count down (or how umpteen CPU cores you feature), and good old megahertz. You might have been told years agone that megahertz doesn't matter anymore, but they were lying, because IT does. The other pillar to square off value is, of course, how much it costs.

AMD

How much appreciate does AMD's new Ryzen 3000-serial publication offer? This much.

AMD or Intel: Best multi-threaded evaluate

To assess multi-rib value, we took AMD's existing card of Ryzen mainstream chips (plus a couple of Threadrippers for reference) and compared them to AMD's unaccustomed Ryzen chips, along with Intel's current stable of CPUs.

For pricing we used the MSRP for the new Ryzen 3000 CPUs. We used street pricing on either Newegg.com or Amazon.com to set our prices for the Ryzen 2000, Threadripper, and Core and Xeon CPUs.

Astonishingly, if you put a line horizontally across our Cost per Thread chart and told AMD CPUs to tread to the value side and told the Intel CPUs to dance step to not-as-good-a-value side, you'd get the results down the stairs.

IDG

AMD continues to dominate in the cost-per-train of thought contest.

No surprise: AMD's multi-threaded time value isn't just healthy, it's insanely good. The amount of value AMD offers on a buck per thread is so healthful, the company should have a couple of wacky waving inflatable electron tube men in front of AMD headquarters declaring, "ALL THREADS MUST Lead!"

The best multi-core deals are AMD's older Ryzen 2000-gen parts, with the 6-core Ryzen 5 2600 victorious overall best deal for the cores. We'd argue, however, that the world power-efficient Ryzen 7 2700 might exist even bettor, because you get 8 cores and 16 threads of public presentation from the chip for just a piffling more dough.

AMD's Ryzen 5 3600 is another contender. With its combining of power efficiency and greater computing efficiency, it offers better overall bang for buck compared to Ryzen 2000 chips.

Atomic number 3 we locomote upfield higher in AMD's new Ryzen 3000 lineup, we can see a large bump in price per core, with the 6-Congress of Racial Equality Ryzen 5 3600X, 8-core Ryzen 7 3700X, and 12-core Ryzen 9 3900X all costing about $21 per train of thought. Interestingly, the refreshing 16-core Ryzen 9 2950X costs entirely $23 per weave, which is slightly better than the chip with the worst multi-core value of the family: the 8-burden Ryzen 9 3800X, at $25 per thread. The Ryzen 9 3800X's treasure per thread is basically the equal equally that of a 32-center Threadripper 2990WX.

Unlike AMD, Intel doesn't look to care to lower berth its rate per thread. The nearest Intel C.P.U. is an 8-core Core group i9-9900 for $27 per thread. It's a low-wattage 65-watt chip, though, so it gives up ground in clock speed performance.

Much of Intel's lack of value comes from the fact that the company doesn't tender Hyper-Threading on umpteen of its middle-range 6-core chips. Without performance-boosting Hyper-Threading, the 6-core Core i7-9700K cost is pushed up to a painful price of $51 per thread. That's more than Intel charges per thread for a $1,200 Core i9-9920X CPU. Ouch.

Obviously the galactic doubtfulness is whether you need so many cores. If you edit video, do many, many another CPU-intensive things at formerly, or picture 3D, then yes, IT's worth it. If you don't, nonetheless, the "value" you're acquiring for these AMD CPUs might not follow quite an thither. Of course, the smart thing to do instead of paying for a $500 12-core Ryzen 9 3900X would be to prefer for a turn down-price Ryzen chip.

The rudimentary upshot is that AMD continues run the entire field in multi-nucleus value over Intel chips. And if you motivation that multi-effect performance, that means AMD is exit to go you fashio more bang for the buck over Intel right at present.

Does it mean information technology's faster? No, we can't determine that until we in reality test AMD's newest chips. Based on previous AMD Ryzen 2000 chips, however, and the curve price and thread advantage, we're pretty comfortable saying AMD wins this hands-down.

AMD vs. Intel: Best megahertz bang for the buck

As we said, gainful for a tremendous, pubescent multi-core chip is pointless unless you actually use that knap to its fullest extent.

For all but people WHO play games, run some web browser windows, or engage in mainstream productivity tasks, a CPU's time speed may glucinium more valuable in determining CPU value and performance. The sticky start out with that equation is that each CPU's clock will vary determined on load and cooling. Unlike our previous multi-threaded-per-buck chart, which we have fairly high confidence will come just about reality for heavily-threaded tasks, this is a lot looser.

Lul, IT's interesting to see which of the CPUs gives you the best eff for the megacycle per second. To do that, we practice each CPU's stated Turbo Boost or Boost time speed. We opted not to admit AMD's Precision Boost musical score, because that's highly contingent on conditions, and instead stuck with the company's stated top boost clock.

IDG

Does AMD Beaver State Intel offer more appreciate per time? To find out, we calculated the street price vs. the advance time of the CPUs to learn which chip gives you the best dollar per boasting megahertz.

If you look closely at cents per M, you finally see Intel's chips at least come in into rivalry. The winners again, however, are AMD, specifically the older Ryzen 6 2600 and 2600X parts.

We'd like to signalize that if you spirit at the one-third-best value per clock, it highlights an general weakness with trying to judge the chips on megahertz lone. The Ryzen 5 3600 is a low-wattage part, but information technology's actually rated to hit the same 4.2GHz as the higher-wattage Ryzen 5 2600X. With just a $20 difference to get AMD's leading-edge 7nm process vs. the Ryzen 5 2600X, we'd probably go with the newer Ryzen 5 3600 instead.

With this metric you likewise have to think out really hard or so how you use your computer. Intel's CPUs still offer decent clock rates at OK prices, but you do give dormie Hyper-Threading. For tasks that need more threads, such as 3D rendering or video encoding, that's substantial performance likely irrecoverable. Settled purely on clock speeds, Intel still has a compelling argument for why you might want to buy one. But AMD has its own persuasive message for why you mightiness want to pass over Intel this time.

AMD takes the prize for megahertz rate as well, but remember that's based on the older CPUs. Formerly you undergo to AMD's stigmatize-new Ryzen 3000 chips, the megahertz/buck race is closer than we expected. Frankly, we'd say it's a tie if you'rhenium looking only at Meat vs. Ryzen 3000.

The intangibles

This exercise is amusing and gives us a general feel for where the chips might fall, but it does miss a hatful of intangibles. When you consider bang for buck you have to bet everything. AMD's had the advantage of including enough coolers with popular features such as RGB. Intel's stock fans typically aren't enclosed on any high-end parts, and if you do buy one with a fan, the fan is about as vanilla as you can receive.

Go Patrick James Murray/IDG

The other part of the equation to consider is the cost of the motherboard that the CPU goes into. AMD has had a microscopic cost reward all over Intel-founded motherboards, just that seems to be leaving with the new Ryzen 3000 chips due to the pricier x570 motherboards. Those motherboards also offer PCIe 4.0 substantiate, which can't be had on Intel CPUs.

For its part, Intel continues to have a very healthy lead in applications that do video encoding or decoding on the integrated graphics. Called QuickSync, Intel's dedicated computer hardware inside its GPUs take over finally become a feature to be reckoned with. Simply Intel's newest "KF" CPUs give birth the IGP sour off, so yea, there goes that advantage.

It's best to wait for independent testing ahead making any buying decisions. Overall, however, it's gain AMD shut up leads the room on multi-threaded value. The competition gets a spate closer when you search only at respective-rib prise.

Source: https://www.pcworld.com/article/397637/intel-core-vs-amd-ryzen-which-offers-the-best-bang-for-buck.html

Posted by: halvorsonaccage.blogspot.com

Share this post