Is it true that AMD is now better than Intel?
Intel used to be much better than AMD a few years ago but my friend said AMD is better now.
- RichardLv 61 day ago
No, Intel does more charity work, making them better
- Anonymous3 weeks ago
AMD is so close to being better than Intel right now that it's not even funny. When AMD launches Zen 3 in November, they will finally overtake Intel. Then Intel will become Infail.
- 3 weeks ago
it depends on your preference.
- PCMRLv 44 weeks ago
Nope, whoever told you that is drinking the AMD Kool-Aid because Intel processors are still better for gaming. AMD processors now have better IPC but AMD loses when memory bandwidth and cache counts. In these situations Intel further buries them with higher clocks. The problem here is no one wants to read benchmarks, their information is old and outdated, or they just read the specs on the box and then call it a day.
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- 4 weeks ago
to me the same, it just Intel cost way more
- fodaddy19Lv 74 weeks ago
AMD has made huge strides in recent years. With Zen 2 they've pretty much gained IPC parity with Intel. Intel's current CPU's typically run at higher stock clock speeds and tend to have higher ceiling when it comes to overclocking. Intel still holds a slim margin in gaming benchmarks but get beaten in heavily threaded workloads. Currently AMD is a better value for money when comparing apples to apples. 5 years ago if you built and AMD-powered rig you were probably doing it to make some kind of political statement (given the performance delta), but these days AMD is a fine choice for just about any kind of desktop computer build.
- Robert JLv 74 weeks ago
Yes, and they have been for many years - if you consider performance vs. cost.
They concentrated on multi-core performance while intel kept trying to make single cores faster.
Single core speed is irrelevant for most things that actually need overall performance.
Also, the present 64 bit architecture and instruction set is an AMD invention, originally "AMD64" starting in 2003.
Intel's version was incompatible with existing software & they adopted the AMD one, just without the name...
AMD would also have got ahead some years earlier, if it were not for Intels attempts to illegally put them out of business or make AMD CPUs look slower than they are..
eg. Some examples:
- m8xpayneLv 74 weeks ago
It's for the best to look up benchmarks and decide for yourself because most people online are still in a debate over which one is better. IMHO, AMD and Intel are now even. AMD's FX series was a bust when it came out and they held on the FX and A-Series for too long. That's where Intel got the reputation of having significantly better processors because Intel was ahead in 2011/2012 With Sandy/Ivy Bridge and they only further increased their lead with Haswell and Skylake. Intel has been fairly stagnate over these last 5 years and all they've done is tweaked Skylake by changing the names, adding more cores, and increasing clock speeds. AMD has managed to catch up in the last 3 years by bringing out an updated version of Ryzen each year since 2017.
Which one has better performance depends on the application you're using and which platform you're choosing. In gaming, you'll get higher framerates with Intel's "K" and "KF" processors that have higher clocks, but they aren't blowing the doors off AMD in every game. Intel's lower clocked parts like the Core i5-10400 are even with AMD's offerings in gaming. Some Video Editing programs can leverage the iGPU in Intel processors that have them. AMD processors do better with rendering and other programs that can use all cores. Intel leads in some areas but AMD leads in other areas.
However in the HEDT (High End Desktop) segment, AMD's Ryzen Threadripper 3000 series is the clear winner over Intel's Socket 2066 line. The only advantage Intel has in the HEDT segment is with programs that can use AVX-512, because Ryzen processors don't have the AVX-512 Instruction set.
Intel's mainstream processors from the Socket 1151 or 1200 lineup still use a Ringbus to connect the cores and cache. This works well when the number of cores is limited. AMD Ryzen and Intel's HEDT processors use a cross-connection that works better with higher cores but has higher cache latency.
AMD's upcoming Ryzen 4000 series will might be the Gamechanger that everyone has been waiting for but only time will tell. I think most everyone got tired of Intel offering $320 quad-cores for years that were only 5% to 10% better than the previous generation. There's not a lot of Intel love, wonder why???
IMO, Intel has their processors priced too high. I don't see much of a reason to buy a 10-core Intel CPU for $530 when I can buy a 12-core AMD CPU for $400. AMD's $400 3900x is going to beat Intel at most everything except gaming, and that gaming difference is only going to matter if I'm playing e-sports games on a 240hz monitor. At 144hz or trying to keep framerates between 120fps-144fps Intel does have the lead but AMD has eroded that lead to the point that it makes selling people on Intel difficult. Intel has managed to keep the price of their processors high by claiming that there's a shortage. Intel cheated the last time AMD was beating them, and I don't see things being any different this time around. Wonder what they'll try this time.
- Bill-MLv 74 weeks ago
It depends on what your using the PC for. Only the High End Gamers would notice a difference. I have a Dell Laptop with Intel i5 and a HP Laptop with AMD. Don't notice any difference at all. I don't do High End Game or video editing or CAD.
- PLv 74 weeks ago
You can look at the benchmarks, but you should probably only look at benchmarks you actually care about like frame rates to your favorite game. AMD beats Intel in multi-core benchmarks, but Intel beats AMD in single core benchmarks. Also Intel tends to be able to be overclocked more than AMD if you are into that. However AMD tends to offer a much better value at this point in time.