Personal computing discussed

Moderator: JustAnEngineer

 
Klopsik206
Gerbil First Class
Topic Author
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2003 1:28 am
Location: old continent

AMD vs. Intel = any non-performance differences?

Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:34 am

Altough my old C2Q6600 rig (with only a few minor upgades) is doing surprisingly well after almost 10 years :o I am starting considering all new desktop which will hopefully keep working for the next couple of years.

I while think I understand pros and cons going Ryzen (more cores, better value) or Intel i7 (better single thread performance) I wonder if apart of CPU itself, are there any other significant differences between both Intel and AMD plaforms I should be aware of. Things like:
- Stability: Is Ryzen less 'mature' in any way? Is there higher risk of dirvers problems, etc.?
- Compability: Is there greater risk Ryzen it will not be supported by future software (e.g. Windows, apps) than Intel? How about hardware?
- Should Ryzen choice imply Radeon GPU over nVidia?
- How about things like: M2 SSDs, USB 3.1 compability and performace? No difference?

My gut feeling is Intel is slighly safer choice from this point of view, but maybe I am just under Intel branding influence. :roll:
What do you say?
 
Concupiscence
Gerbil XP
Posts: 492
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 7:58 am
Location: Dallas area, Texas, USA

Re: AMD vs. Intel = any non-performance differences?

Tue Sep 19, 2017 9:11 am

>> Stability: Is Ryzen less 'mature' in any way? Is there higher risk of dirvers problems, etc.?

If you're running Windows 10, I'll say no. Depending on the motherboard you choose that may vary for Linux support, but Windows support's been rock solid on my Ryzen 1700.

>> Compability: Is there greater risk Ryzen it will not be supported by future software (e.g. Windows, apps) than Intel? How about hardware?

Nah, compatibility's fine.

>> Should Ryzen choice imply Radeon GPU over nVidia?

Absolutely not. Radeons work fine with Intel and AMD CPUs.

>> How about things like: M2 SSDs, USB 3.1 compability and performace? No difference?

None that I've seen.
Workstation: Ryzen 1700, 16 gigs DDR4-2400, GTX 1050 Ti, Win10 Pro x64
HTPC: i3 4170, 8 gigs RAM, Geforce GTX 750 Ti, Windows 8.1 x64
2008 Mac Pro: 2 Xeon e5462s, 6 gigs ECC RAM, Radeon 2600XT, OS X 10.12
 
just brew it!
Gold subscriber
Administrator
Posts: 48946
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere, having a beer

Re: AMD vs. Intel = any non-performance differences?

Tue Sep 19, 2017 9:44 am

Klopsik206 wrote:
Altough my old C2Q6600 rig (with only a few minor upgades) is doing surprisingly well after almost 10 years :o I am starting considering all new desktop which will hopefully keep working for the next couple of years.

I while think I understand pros and cons going Ryzen (more cores, better value) or Intel i7 (better single thread performance) I wonder if apart of CPU itself, are there any other significant differences between both Intel and AMD plaforms I should be aware of. Things like:
- Stability: Is Ryzen less 'mature' in any way? Is there higher risk of dirvers problems, etc.?

Maybe, maybe not. Intel isn't immune to bugs in new CPU/chipset generations either.

Klopsik206 wrote:
- Compability: Is there greater risk Ryzen it will not be supported by future software (e.g. Windows, apps) than Intel? How about hardware?

I doubt it.

Linux support for certain platform functions (e.g. power management and system health monitoring) may lag a bit if you're not running a "bleeding edge" distro.

Klopsik206 wrote:
- Should Ryzen choice imply Radeon GPU over nVidia?

Only if you plan to use IGP (when Ryzen-based chips with IGP become available).

Klopsik206 wrote:
- How about things like: M2 SSDs, USB 3.1 compability and performace? No difference?

I expect M2 compatibility/performance is comparable (but would love to see hard numbers to back this up).

The AM3+ generation really struggled with USB 3.0, since they were relying on crappy 3rd party USB chipsets. TBH I haven't heard anything pro or con yet regarding USB 3.0/3.1 on Ryzen.

Klopsik206 wrote:
My gut feeling is Intel is slighly safer choice from this point of view, but maybe I am just under Intel branding influence. :roll:
What do you say?

I don't disagree. But for me, at least, the value proposition outweighs the (slight) concern.

I have tended to stick with AMD over the years because they don't play the "segmentation game" as much as Intel. E.g., they generally support ECC RAM across the board (except for the APUs); they also had hardware accelerated virtualization support on their consumer CPUs long before Intel did.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest