- Jan 8, 2011
- 22,361
Title.
Aren't they more or less the same, performing the same actions, for the same purpose?
Aren't they more or less the same, performing the same actions, for the same purpose?
How do you know if you want an Intel or AMD processor?
- Thread starter Ink
- Start date
Please provide comments and solutions that are helpful to the author of this topic.
In the past Intel was the choice for performance reasons but that changed now.
AMD made real good hardware and they're always cheaper.
Also AMD wins in security easily.
I don't know any reason why someone should buy Intel nowadays
AMD made real good hardware and they're always cheaper.
Also AMD wins in security easily.
I don't know any reason why someone should buy Intel nowadays
- Nov 26, 2016
- 699
If gaming is your thing, Intel still has some edge thanks to stupid high clocks, especially if you're overclocking and you run all cores at 5.2 or 5.3 GHz which is what their 10th gen CPU's are capable of hitting.
If you need crunching raw power via MOAR CORES, there really isn't anything else than AMD as 3950X is already killer for anything Intel has and if you up that to Threadripper, there just isn't any competition really.
If you need both, gaming and raw compute, you can go with either. AMD has really good IPC which gives them good performance even at lower clocks and they still have enough cores for raw compute. Intel has some edge with clock, but their IPC is rather poor in comparison. Higher end models still have enough cores for more demanding tasks.
If you need value, AMD hands down imo, something like 3700X or 3800X. A lot of power for everything at relatively modest price. Hell, even 3600X has plenty of cores and clock to do most tasks anyone would ever need at home (speaking as user of Core i7 5820K which has same core count and rough performance).
If you need crunching raw power via MOAR CORES, there really isn't anything else than AMD as 3950X is already killer for anything Intel has and if you up that to Threadripper, there just isn't any competition really.
If you need both, gaming and raw compute, you can go with either. AMD has really good IPC which gives them good performance even at lower clocks and they still have enough cores for raw compute. Intel has some edge with clock, but their IPC is rather poor in comparison. Higher end models still have enough cores for more demanding tasks.
If you need value, AMD hands down imo, something like 3700X or 3800X. A lot of power for everything at relatively modest price. Hell, even 3600X has plenty of cores and clock to do most tasks anyone would ever need at home (speaking as user of Core i7 5820K which has same core count and rough performance).
I don't believe you have TB3 ports on AMD laptops yet
Last edited:
Not a laptop board but desktop:
ASRock X570 Phantom Gaming-ITX/TB3
anyway Thunderbold is a big security desaster and specially dangerous on laptops
Every hardware eg. routers, Nvidia chip, WiFi 3, Intel/AMD cpu etc also has security vulnerabilities
Last edited:
Sure. USB too
But some has hardware design flaws which can't be fixed. And Thunderbold and USB fall into that category
TB flaw doesn't affect latest intel cpu like the Icelake. I believe anything that comes after it will not be affected. Also,
Quote
Update: Intel responded to Thunderspy stating that newer versions of Windows 10, Mac OS X and Linux supported a feature called Kernel Direct Memory Access (DMA) protection which mitigated against attacks outlined in the research paper. Microsoft published an article about this here on its Docs website. On systems running at least Windows 10 version 1803, administrators may go to Start > Settings > Update & Security > Windows Security > Open Windows Security > Device security > Core isolation details > Memory access protection to verify that memory access protection is enabled; this requires a UEFI firmware support and is not compatible with other BitLocker DMA attacks countermeasures.
Unquote
Thunderspy: find out whether your device is vulnerable to (local) Thunderbolt security issues - gHacks Tech News
Security researcher Björn Ruytenberg published a security analysis of the Thunderbolt protocol on April 17, 2020 entitled "Breaking Thunderbolt Protocol Security: Vulnerability Report".
www.ghacks.net
Quote
In 2019, major operating systems implemented Kernel Direct Memory Access (DMA) protection to mitigate against attacks such as these. This includes Windows (Windows 10 1803 RS4 and later), Linux (kernel 5.x and later), and MacOS (MacOS 10.12.4 and later). The researchers did not demonstrate successful DMA attacks against systems with these mitigations enabled. Please check with your system manufacturer to determine if your system has these mitigations incorporated. For all systems, we recommend following standard security practices, including the use of only trusted peripherals and preventing unauthorized physical access to computers.
Unquote
More Information on Thunderbolt(TM) Security
Hi everyone, In February 2020, researchers from Eindhoven University of Technology reached out to Intel with a report on Thunderbolt™, which they refer to as “Thunderspy”. In the report, they discussed issues related to invasive physical attacks on Thunderbolt™ hosts and devices. While the...
blogs.intel.com
- Jun 23, 2018
- 434
AMD laptops have usually been cheaper than comparable Intels, but with poorer performance with the mobile chips. I've also read that Linux works better with Intel chips w/ integrated graphics, though I have not had the chance to run any Linux distro on AMD for comparison.
- Dec 12, 2016
- 1,148
4000 chips have better performance per watt then 10th gen Intel.
- Aug 22, 2013
- 827
Not anymore with Ryzen 4000 series chips ( exception being gaming). some of them can give you more than 10 hours of battery backup. If you want Linux to run without hassles choose something with AMD graphic card and not NVIDIA. Only pop os installer has builtin support for Nvidia drivers for installation media (i do not mean the driver support after installation, which every linux versions has support.) The problem with a linux distro without having closed source proprietary Nvidia drivers is that you will need to enforce the open source driver while booting from the live usb media, which is a pain at times and Without user intervention you will not get GUI while booting. come on Nvidia, its high time you should properly support linux and open source community.
Last edited:
- Oct 1, 2019
- 298
AMD processors tremendously improved, especially this year.
The performance became better that Intel processors installed on high-end devices.
For instance, Asus AMD powered devices Ryzen 5 4500 processor performance better that Apple Mac Book.
If you are looking to purchase a new Laptop, I recommend this device.
The performance became better that Intel processors installed on high-end devices.
For instance, Asus AMD powered devices Ryzen 5 4500 processor performance better that Apple Mac Book.
If you are looking to purchase a new Laptop, I recommend this device.
- Dec 12, 2016
- 1,148
Why did Asus use a mx 350 doesn't it cost them near 30$ to put that GPU ?
Ryzen apu performance is not far behind while having better performance per watt (Nvidia has better performance per watt only on newest architectures )
Upgradable ram and slightly bigger battery would probably be a better idea even cheaper for Asus to do so over using mx 350.
Last edited:
- Jul 3, 2015
- 8,153
Intel chips still have better single core performance, so Intel will be faster at certain tasks.
Many AMD chips do not come with integrated graphics, so you need to go for a GPU and all the headache involved with its setup and updates and potential compatibility issues. But intel always offers you good ol' integrated graphics and that's good enough for the non-gamers in most cases. For instance, Linus Torvald says that Intel integrated graphics is good enough for him. That means it's sure good enough for me.
Many AMD chips do not come with integrated graphics, so you need to go for a GPU and all the headache involved with its setup and updates and potential compatibility issues. But intel always offers you good ol' integrated graphics and that's good enough for the non-gamers in most cases. For instance, Linus Torvald says that Intel integrated graphics is good enough for him. That means it's sure good enough for me.
- Aug 22, 2013
- 827
Amd has Apu chips which has integrated graphics.
- Dec 12, 2016
- 1,148
Not per clock cycle though .
Anyway gaming is dependent among so many factors .
Anyway games use more then one cores nowadays and older ones can use more cores via something like DXVK.
Intel has really interesting prototypes though mostly AI related that will crush Nvidia and amd badly in that segment(more cash then consumer stuff).
But wait 3-5 years and Intel might crush and CPU in every budget segment as well.
- Jul 3, 2015
- 8,153
For traditional productivity tasks, Intel with integrated graphics can be a good choice. If I was a gamer I would go down the Ryzen road.
- Dec 12, 2016
- 1,148
The current integrated graphics of both amd and Intel are too weak for some productivity tasks .
But for CPU you should go for a cheap Xeon combo from AliExpress or an ammd ryzen depending on budget/ usage (Xeon have lower power efficiency then ryzen especially older gens ).
- Aug 22, 2013
- 827
If you are not a professional fps Gamer then the minimal frame rate advantage offered by Intel processor over ryzen is immaterial. Anything over 144 fps on a 144hzs monitor is imperceptible by mere mortals like us. ( For me even a 60hzs display is dam good enough, I can't even last 10 minutes in doom..I find happiness in playing witcher series and elder scrolls) So for those casual gamers and semi professional ones the more rounded Ryzen offerings with something like 2070ti would be sufficient. Apart from that the bundled cpu cooler on Intel sucks bigtime. You need to add a 30 to 40 dollars to buy a decent after market cooler if you intend to keep your cpu under thermals.
Last edited:
- May 29, 2018
- 2,607
AMD always been for people that like multitasking, editing, programming, people that stream live its nice to have many cores
Intel is more for gamers , single core power is insane
Im playing old java based games wich only uses one core, it sucks because i have 6 cores
Intel is more for gamers , single core power is insane
Im playing old java based games wich only uses one core, it sucks because i have 6 cores
Similar threads
