Intel CPU or AMD CPU?

I have an AMD, but I believe AMD is much better price for performance vs intel when it comes to cpu

you should get an amd ryzen it has a much better price and since the new generation of ryzen cpus it has more performance then intel cpu.

intel cpus are more built specifically for gaming and because of this theyre a bit more expensive. get an amd if you want to save some more money

It depends on what you are trying to do, if its game's then definitely intel, if its rendering and other stuff then amd.

I am on intel right now but AMD is making a case to switch. Glad there is competition between them two now.

Intel cpu cause of stability and temperature performance. It's a lot of reasons so.... But i guess amd cause i had at first place, it's a cheap and good cpu.

In terms of value, it's easy to make the case for AMD's Ryzen CPUs. You can get an 8-core/16-thread Ryzen 7 CPU starting at just $160, and that includes a cooler that works well with the CPU. Step down to 6-core/12-thread Ryzen 5 and they start as low as $120. AMD also makes budget-friendly APUsa 4-core CPU combined with a modest integrated graphics solution that's typically twice as fast as Intel's current integrated graphics. For each category, Intel's equivalent CPUs cost anywhere from $25 to $300 morea budget Core i3 won't cost that much more than a Ryzen 3 APU, but the high-end Core i9-9900K costs substantially more than the Ryzen 7 2700X.

Intel CPUs are typically the favorite choice for performance and overclocking enthusiasts. While the overclocking range for the latest 8-core parts is limited (4.9-5.1GHz being the typical maximum without exotic cooling solutions), the 8th Gen parts hit similar overclocks but start at lower base clocks. Intel's top CPUs cost more than their AMD counterparts, especially once you add in a decent cooler, but they're also faster. AMD has nothing that can beat the Core i9-9900K, in games or other applications... but the Ryzen 7 3800X might change that.

How much are you willing to pay for the final boost in performance that Intel offers? And are you willing to wait for AMD's upcoming Ryzen 3000, which could close the gap and potentially even beat the 9900K? For multithreaded workloads (eg, video editing and encoding), AMD's Ryzen CPUs are very competitive. I'd also be remiss if I didn't point out how long Intel sat at 4-core/8-thread mainstream desktop CPUs. It's mostly thanks to AMD and it's Ryzen processors that Intel has started shipping 6-core and 8-core CPUs at far more reasonable prices.

Right now, the competition for CPU dominance between AMD and Intel is closer than we've seen since the first Athlon 64 parts in 2003. AMD hasn't held the performance crown since 2006not in every meaningful category at leastbut with 7nm Ryzen 3000 CPUs coming on July 7, and Intel still stuck at 14nm with Coffee Lake, this year is AMD's best shot at the title. Let's hope Ryzen 3000 can live up to the hype.

AMD consume too much power and so more expensive on the long term maybe more noisy not sure

To add to what @darelorg is saying above me, AMD's new Ryzen 3000 series CPUs perform better than 9th generatoin Intel, even without Meltdown and Spectre patches (Patches for major flaws that require a loss of performance to fix). The new CPUs are also priced very well, with their flagship 12C/24T 3900X priced at $499. Ryzen CPU's also come with their own decent stock coolers, which should work well enough for some moderate overclocking.

30-07-2019, 07:38 PM

nollers Wrote: AMD consume too much power and so more expensive on the long term maybe more noisy not sure

AMD consumes less power, is less expensive, and will maintain backwards compatibility and support for 4 years, while Intel maintains for less than two. AMD's stock coolers also perform much better and are much quieter than Intel's equivalents.

Please refrain from sending low quality and misinformed spam that serves no other purpose than to increase your credits and posts.