Author Topic: AMD vs Intel CPUs  (Read 3453 times)

Capt Ringrose

  • 11F3B Fighter Pilot
  • Aviation Element
  • Posts: 2074
AMD vs Intel CPUs
« on: April 23, 2019, 12:13:43 AM »
With the failure of my laptop, I am looking into getting a desktop, I have heard a lot of people, including work colleagues that the AMD Ryzen Threadripper's are the way to go for the performance I am looking for.
As an overview, I do a lot of work with image processing, in particular, LPR (License Plate Recognition) and FRS (Facial Recognition Systems) which are stressful on both the CPU and GPU side, I have already decided on an RTX 2080 as I know our programs already support some of the features of that card and know either the Intel i9-9900K or AMD Threadripper 2950X are probably the best way for me to go.

I have my PhD in Computer Science and have little knowledge of the performance differences in terms of gaming so any help is appreciated.

Does anyone currently run any of the Ryzen processes after switching from an Intel, have you had any issues, have you seen a difference in performance (in things like Arma)?
Does anyone have any better suggestions than this?
Capt, USAF
Reserve Platoon, 1-506 Infantry

SGT A. Hawkins

  • 11B Infantryman
  • Combat Element
  • Posts: 844
Re: AMD vs Intel CPUs
« Reply #1 on: April 23, 2019, 12:46:49 AM »
I switched from Intel to AMD. I am running 6 cores at 4.1 GHz per core. Though my computer is way lower spec-ed than the one you are looking at, I can vouch for the quality of AMD. The extra cores gained have made multitasking enjoyable compared to what I see from my Intel counterparts. I run the AMD Ryzen 5 2600 with the new gen non-rtx GTX 1660TI and haven't had a problem. Keep in mind that the CPUs you're looking at cost about 2/3s my entire build.
Reserve Platoon, 1-506 Infantry

CPT Bowman

  • 15A Aviation Officer
  • Aviation Element
  • Posts: 565
Re: AMD vs Intel CPUs
« Reply #2 on: April 23, 2019, 12:54:50 AM »
Intel is faster at single-core performance, and is usually better for gaming. AMD is getting better.

AMD offers cheap multi-core performance. You can get more bang for your buck with an AMD workstation build, but it sounds like you need a gaming build.

Because it's 2019, even a "slower" processor can run games. AMD is a safe bet if you want to go that route.

Some games are multi-core heavy. Streaming is multi-core heavy.

Arma is single-core heavy.

Intel still overall outperforms AMD if you are willing to pay for it.

I run Intel, and do not see that changing any time soon.

Intel i7 and i9, 8th generation or better, will make you happy for a while. Intel is expected to release their 10th generation processors late this year. They will be solid.
Reserve Platoon, 1-506 Infantry

1LT (Ret) J. W. Sullivan

  • 11A Infantry Officer
  • Retired
  • Posts: 423
Re: AMD vs Intel CPUs
« Reply #3 on: April 23, 2019, 01:58:21 PM »
I used to use AMD (older processor) and had really bad luck playing Arma.  I recently have switched over to Intel and I'll never go back.  I noticed a drastic improvement in Arma going from 12-15 FPS during official events to 30-40 FPS.  I'm running an Intel i7-9700K with an old GTX 960 SSC GPU.  I'm also overclocking my cores to 4.9 Ghz on each core.

Like stated above, AMD is definitely making a comeback with their CPU's.  However, in almost any benchmark testing on single core performance, Intel wins out.  There are a few benchmarks with multitasking that AMD pulls a little ahead, but it's not by much.  So if you have the money to spend on Intel, I'd suggest going that route.

SGT Price

  • 11B Infantryman
  • Combat Element
  • Posts: 1143
Re: AMD vs Intel CPUs
« Reply #4 on: April 23, 2019, 04:09:34 PM »
Intel is also reliable. In my experience, an almost 10 year old i7-970 3.2Ghz 6 core, is still kicking ass today. Changed nothing but the video card and it's galloping like a wild horse.
Infantryman, 1-506 Infantry

SFC (Ret) Heckman

  • 11B4O Infantryman
  • Retired
  • Posts: 479
Re: AMD vs Intel CPUs
« Reply #5 on: April 24, 2019, 05:23:40 PM »
For what you are describing I would for sure look into the compatibility of threadripper with what programs YOU specifically run. Intel has better program compatibility and thats just a  fact of life. In synthetic multi-threaded workloads threadripper is the king. But practically speaking it has some issues running certain programs. Not horrible performance mind you but it will have technical issues and hiccups that intel doesn't have. It is why a lot of editors stick with intel. So I would go on forums for your programs and see what they have to say because unless someone here works in your field we cannot really give you the best advice on a purchase so big.