• Log In
  • Register

What is your preference: Ryzen or Intel CPU's?

Forum Search


  • Be respectful to others
  • No spam
  • No NSFW content
  • No piracy or key resellers
  • No link shorteners
  • Offensive content will be removed


MrGuccu 8 days ago

Just a bit curious to see what others think about these two brands. I personally like Intel more than AMD, but all my friends think otherwise. What do you guys think?

Thanks, MrGuccu

Comments Sorted by:

Gilroar 1 Build 11 points 8 days ago

Brand preference is never a good thing and will lead You down the wrong path as often as not.

Performance in Your uses is what matters.

I've run a 1700@3.9ghz+3600mhz which "Common Knowledge" would have as a great gaming CPU but it wasn't able to achieve the performance of My I3 in My title selection.

Change that title selection and suddenly the performance of the two changes as does which is better.

Unlike several years ago now when there was only a choice between Intel and Bad now We actually have choices with advantages from both companies and it is more which advantages are more suitable to Your needs.

Radox-0 5 Builds 5 points 8 days ago

Don't care, buy whatever suits my needs and requirements regardless of it being Intel or AMD.

vagabond139 5 Builds 5 points 8 days ago

Neither. You should not pick parts by brand, it will only end up hurting you.

DrLitch 1 Build 2 points 8 days ago

It does not matter. You can find a chip from both brands that will hit the performance targets you want (as long as you have reasonable expectations). It is no longer a choice between a Ferrari and a Pushbike.

bucketofcrud12 4 Builds 2 points 8 days ago

depends on use case. if you wanted to do normal 1080p 60hz (even up to consistent 100hz) gaming, then any decent Ryzen or Intel CPU would pretty much do fine. for high-refresh gaming, generally Intel has an upper hand, but by how much is really debatable depending on the game. I don't really like one more than the other at all, though I freely admit that the only AMD chip I've ever used was a Ryzen 5 1600 for a couple of days while I was fixing it for a friend, and i guess an A10-5745M mobile chip in my first laptop (don't think that counts). I think that both brands have ups and downs. that's why (as Gilroar stated) you should not base a choice off of branding. when you decide on a product, you should be focusing on what makes the product good and what makes it not-so-good for your uses. I use intel currently because I like high-refresh gaming. I mainly play shooters and having those extra 20 FPS is nice not for the average framerate, but to keep the 1% lows up.

Planet_shone 1 point 8 days ago

Ryzen has much better price for performance. especially in the budget range. Intel tends to have better quality chips, and the tend to hold their value better. Intel also has better "future proof" options, from what i've seen in the past. I personally have an r5 1600x, but that's because it was what I could afford... I've also noticed that intel has more expensive motherboards... It all really comes down to your budget.

InsertNameHere² 3 Builds 1 point 8 days ago

HUGELY depends on the usage case.

However, for pure gaming, I'd go with Intel. Otherwise, Ryzen.

DaMysteryMan 1 Build 1 point 8 days ago

If putting aside performance/price definitely AMD, they are a more consumer sided company, don’t lie about their performance, and also only force motherboard upgrades when absolutely necessary.

Gilroar 1 Build 3 points 8 days ago

AMD, they are a more consumer sided company, don’t lie about their performance, and also only force motherboard upgrades when absolutely necessary.

Not totally true.

Ryzens launch they showed slides pushing their products only being 6% behind at 1080p which was wrong and when they were called out on it told reviewers to ignore that resolution and test well GPU bound and CPU performance didn't matter. They were also demoing the X99/X299 CPU configured as dual channel.

FM2+/AM3+ were forced upgrades but were backwards compatible.

Being the underdog they tend to get a free pass on more but there really isn't anyone in the business who isn't trying to get as much money of the consumers money as they can.

DaMysteryMan 1 Build 1 point 7 days ago

Let’s also not forget their drivers are open source. That’s a huge deal, and nvidia drivers are a pain in the *** to install on Linux.

Gilroar 1 Build 1 point 7 days ago

RTG is no longer part of CPU but even they have enough misleading attempts in recent years.

Ray Tracing isn't worth it and We won't develop it even though they open sourced a compute based ray tracing toolkit a matter of weeks before.

VII isn't and never was "engineered for gamers from the ground up".

Vega was built as a compute product not as a gaming focused product.

Polaris prelaunch hype with it being demo as only needing slot power for high-max settings 1080p and running 4k in Witcher 3.

Fury X being a Titan killer.

They had a great marketing team till Raja headhunted them over to Intel.

But just like on the CPU side if they can get the money for it they will try VII is a great example of that alone.

DaMysteryMan 1 Build 1 point 6 days ago

Both running on open source drivers RX 580 beats 2080 Ti on linux, unless you install nvidia's weird proprietary driver that somehow never installs right because it integrates itself into the linux kernel. Either way, my point was that some of the moves AMD is making is paying off for their consumers. Vega 64 is a more expensive and more powerful 2060, just under 2070 territory, and Radeon VII provides a decent competition for the 2080 if you play 4k games which eat up VRAM. At the very minimum they will hopefully spark competition with nvidia and drive prices down.

Gilroar 1 Build 1 point 6 days ago

Only problem with that is it only applies to Linux which has very low adoption.

And doesn't apply in a CPU topic, or change that AMD isn't a "Good Guy" in the industry.

pcbldragain 1 point 8 days ago

I like amd because they are the only competition to intel, and if amd goes away you will pay double for everything. Note price changes when ryzen came out. Lack of competition is bad, its bad for you and me. That said I'd buy Intel if amd chips suck which they have at some times, but I will give amd the benefit if they are close or workable. I have two PCs running right now that are Intel refurbs, not for gaming really so they work great for price. I have an ancient athlon x2 being replaced by a ryzen I'm building. Its over 10yr and I can still browse, amazing, but its on the edge of usable. One of the first PCs I bought was a 486dx2, when the pentiums came out I stuffed a 5x86 overdrive in there with a fan and it worked really well (saved me tons of cash), put a lot of years on that system. Intel put the DX4 in the trash and made you buy a whole new pentium $$$ system. Also amd is better at socket changes and OC stuff usually. And no I was never a hard core AAA gamer who just needs the best no matter what, I understand that. I was happy to wait for price to relax and then buy almost the best.

heyanil673 1 point 7 days ago

Actually, if you are building a gaming PC then you should definitely go for AMD because it very cheap and affordable for every gamer but if you want to build a Hackintosh build to use Mac OS on your PC then you should definitely go for Intel because Hackintosh builds only works with Intel and one more thing that AMD heats a bit more than Intel otherwise AMD is pretty affordable.

_Roller_ 1 point 6 days ago

Whatever is going to give me the best bang for my buck, which right now is Ryzen.

TARUNRMAROONR -2 points 8 days ago

I like intel better because even though they are overpriced, they have better architecture. Intel reminds me of apple, both of their products are overpriced but amazing.

Tetsuclaw 5 Builds 4 points 7 days ago

Well if it was the days of the FX CPUs I would agree about Intel having a better architecture. Ryzen was a huge jump forward and brought forth a new way of making CPUs with AMD's infinity fabric. There is more to CPUs than just raw performance as you have to factor in price too. Though there are many workloads that Ryzen does better on than Intel, namely anything that can utilize all the cores and threads. Sure there is the 9900x but the price for that is just ridiculous compared to the 2700x.

As for Apple they do everything in their power to make their tech disposable if anything breaks on them and denies any wrongdoing despite how many class action lawsuits they lost in the past. Here is a youtube channel that sums up what apple does in countless videos: https://www.youtube.com/user/rossmanngroup

Just because something is more expensive and looks premium doesn't mean it is premium. Becoming a fanboy to a brand only hurts the users when the companies take advantage of that. This is what happens when Intel runs amuck: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osSMJRyxG0k . Intel had actually used its monopoly to block AMD by paying companies to not sell AMD at all such as Dell and HP. Keep in mind that was in the early 2000s when the AMD CPUs were actually much better than Intel. There are many other examples in that video but it is a good watch. Competition is mandatory in the open market.