Poll: What brand of CPU is in your PC?

It's been a little over a year since AMD began fleshing out its Ryzen CPU lineup. System builders now have a full range of competitive AMD chips to choose from, whether they need APUs with integrated graphics, eight-core mainstream chips, or 16-core high-end monsters. We imagine Intel's Coffee Lake and Skylake-X CPUs have motivated more than a few builders to put together new systems of their own, as well.

Whatever your CPU maker of choice may be, we want to get an idea of just how the battle lines are drawn in this newly competitive market. Tell us what brand of CPU powers your primary system today using the simple poll below.

Comments closed
    • Aranarth
    • 1 year ago

    All the machines currently in use at home are all intel of various ages.

    But if you go back to 1998 to 2005 they were all AMD except for maybe an intel laptop.

    My next major machine will likely be an amd 2600 which should be a nice upgrade from my current intel core i7 2600k.

    Funny thing is the kids machines are both q6600’s
    Mum and My laptops are Lenovo t420
    Wife’s is an HP 8670p laptop.
    My main gaming machine is the Core i7 2600k.
    The living room machine is a acer netbook with an intel dual core pentium.

    All of the machines have 6gb of ram or more up to 16gb.

    • Chrispy_
    • 1 year ago

    I don’t want to sound pretentious, but what qualifies as “my” PC? I use about two dozen on a montly basis. Some of those are “mine” and that is not the same as “PC’s I paid for with my own money”

    Nonetheless, about 4/5ths of them are Intel, mainly because if you look at the the last decade, AMD have only been producing competitive processors for the last 4/5ths of it.

    • Ninjitsu
    • 1 year ago

    All Intel, never owned AMD.

    Family PC back home: Core i5 4690K
    My PC here: Core i5 3570K
    My laptop: Core i5 2400U
    Dad’s MBP: Core 2 Duo (don’t remember which one)
    Another laptop used for office work: Either a SKL/KBL Pentium or Core i3, can’t remember

    Probably a long while before anything is upgraded on the CPU front, although the MBP is due for replacement.

    • farmpuma
    • 1 year ago

    I voted Intel, but my main computer is split between two machines. My main browsing computer is an IBM T43 ThinkPad with one of the original single core Centrino CPUs. My main folding, bill paying, and shopping computer is an AMD A64 X2 4000. I also have all the parts to build an Intel socket 1156 I5-750 and an Intel Xeon Core Q6400 equivalent. And I’m shopping for an AMD Ryzen octo core system with an RX580 folding video card.

    • ermo
    • 1 year ago

    Wintendo: i7-3770k
    Daily Driver (Solus Linux): FX-8350
    Home Server (F27 Srv): PhII 955BE + ECC
    HTPC (Solus Linux): C2D E7500
    Hackintosh: Q9400

    But I really prefer Gouda.

    • Pancake
    • 1 year ago

    The last analysis by the world renowned Mercury Research in last quarter 2017 showed Intel with 88% unit market share in desktop PCs with a total of about 96 million desktop processors sold in 2017 (with AMD accounting for 11.5m).

    Of course, most people buy laptops for their primary PC these days. Anything desirable (and high margin) is powered by Intel but there are lots of AMD powered craptops available.

    • setaG_lliB
    • 1 year ago

    I use all of these on a fairly regular basis.

    Main: i7-4930K @ 4.6GHz
    MAME: i5-3470
    HTPC: i5-7500T
    Work: i5-7500U
    Jukebox: Core 2 E8600
    Server: Pentium M 745 @ 2.4GHz
    DOS/Win98/3DFX: Celeron 1.4GHz
    Speed sensitive DOS: i486DX-33
    Writing: Motorola 68000, 8MHz

    • OptimumSlinky
    • 1 year ago

    Still rolling with an i7-930 Bloomfield, but looking to upgrade to a Ryzen 5 here shortly.

    • crazybus
    • 1 year ago

    My laptop is a Skylake-U i7. My HTPC is an overclocked Q9400.

    If I ever get a proper desk set up I may finally upgrade the desktop. At the moment it does everything I need it to.

    • kloreep
    • 1 year ago

    Still on a 4000 series Haswell with little apparent reason to upgrade. Most demanding apps are just games.

    For anyone buying today, it seems hard to go wrong with either company, which is a great place for the market to be.

    • just brew it!
    • 1 year ago

    Still on my trusty old FX-8350 for my main rig here (no gaming).

    Have most of the parts for an Intel-based Windows build on deck to get back into some gaming, but haven’t gotten around to it.

    Once built the gaming rig will remain a secondary system (main rig will remain Linux-based). Main will probably be upgraded to some Ryzen variant when RAM prices return to sanity.

    Laptop is an old-ish HP EliteBook (Intel based).

    • astrotech66
    • 1 year ago

    My PC: AMD Ryzen 7 2700X
    PC for my kids when they visit: AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
    Wife’s PC: Intel Core i5-6600K
    Stepson’s PC: Intel Core i5-3470
    Currently unused parts: Intel Core i7-2600K

    Even though Intel outnumbers AMD 3-2 in our house, I voted AMD since that’s what I use and will be using in the immediate future for new builds.

    For cheese, I vote pepper jack

    • Logan[TeamX]
    • 1 year ago

    Currently rocking a FX-8320 under a Corsair H70i for cooling. Does everything I need it to do, aside from the GoPro Studio re-render compiler issue where there’s some CPU favouritism going on and not all 8 cores are utilized. Works fine for the initial dump from MP4 to AVI (removing fisheye, etc) – all 8 cores are hit. It’s the going back to MP4 after snipping and colour-correction / effects are applied. Averages 4-6 cores.

    Tested on a fairly-new Dell mobile Precision 7510, all 8 cores (real/HT) are used for each operation. Damn CPUID checks once again.

    • Vigil80
    • 1 year ago

    Still on my trusty i7-4770k. If I could upgrade today, though, I’d go Ryzen.

    Also, parmesan.

    • moose17145
    • 1 year ago

    Current computers in the house
    Intel i7-6900K (primary, replaced below machine)
    Intel i7-920 (primarily used as a HTPC anymore. Thinking I may install pfSense on it to play with)

    I answered Cheese… because… mmmmm cheese… delicious cheese…

    If I were in the market for a new PC today, I would seriously be looking at a ThreadRipper build.

    • Freon
    • 1 year ago

    Interesting. 35% to 61% right now, which does not reflect the market from my understanding.

      • K-L-Waster
      • 1 year ago

      Yeah… I mean, who knew that 5% of the market has figured out how to compute with cheese?

      • Alexko
      • 1 year ago

      The overall market, no. The DIY desktop market? Possibly.

      • Goty
      • 1 year ago

      You’re assuming the TR audience [i<]is[/i<] representative of the market in this case, which I'd venture isn't all that likely. You have to remember that the vast majority of consumer PC sales are probably low-end laptops and desktops from big box stores (or Amazon/Newegg/etc. at this point, I guess).

      • jihadjoe
      • 1 year ago

      “The market” are those who bought new PCs in the last year/quarter/month. People keep PCs for far longer than that.

    • Bomber
    • 1 year ago

    Intel x8 for me. Three adults in our house.

    My PC: Haswell E 6 core
    Media share server: Westmere 6 core Xeon
    Laptop: Haswell core i7 quad (gaming)
    Laptop: Haswell core i5 dual (portable)
    Wife PC: Haswell core i7 quad
    Wife laptop: Skylake core i5 dual
    Roommate PC: Haswell core i5 quad
    Roommate: Haswell core i5 dual

    All that “old” hardware in my house and aside from the typical MOAR POWER itch, little desire to actually do it. This even leaves out the Surface Pro 2 that is collecting dust as well. This is just what is actively used on a weekly/monthly basis for us all.

      • kuraegomon
      • 1 year ago

      Oh yeah. Now that’s a proper household of PC users – I approve ๐Ÿ™‚

      • anotherengineer
      • 1 year ago

      lol “old” Until about 8 months ago I was still using my AMD 955BE from august 2009. The 256GB plextor SSD just turned 6yrs old this past April. I credit the SSD for getting such a long life outa that PC. My bro’s son is now using it, 1 more year and it will be almost a decade old.

    • Klimax
    • 1 year ago

    Primary workstation is Core i9-7920x, secondary compute station is i7-3930k (soon to be migrated to i7-5960x when I can get DDR4 RAM)
    And then I have number of mini PCs for testing and Artemis (3 AMD and 5 Intel)

      • chuckula
      • 1 year ago

      You don’t mess around!

    • srg86
    • 1 year ago

    I will probably be down-voted into oblivion for this dissenting view.

    As I’ve mentioned in previous comments sections, I used to be pretty much all AMD, but since switching to Intel my machines have been far more reliable. My next system will definitely be Intel, I have no want to go back to quirky chipsets and memory controllers.

    That said, it would need something like 8 cores with iGPU for me to really want anything faster than what I have, at least AMD is giving Intel the competitive kick that’s needed.

      • Pancake
      • 1 year ago

      Here’s an upvote.

      Used to be solidly AMD/Linux but now Wintel. Ain’t ever going back.

      • ferdinandh
      • 1 year ago

      AMD with Ryzen is completely different from AMD with Bulldozer. I have no problems recommending a computer with Ryzen. I have never recommended someone buy a Bulldozer system. My Intel Sandybridge computer is still awesome to this day.

      • Chrispy_
      • 1 year ago

      No downvote from me; AMD processors were a poor choice for six years from early 2011 until early 2017.

      In saying that, your experience of platform stability has little to do with CPU vendor. Both Intel and AMD suffered at the hands of third-party chipset providers in the past, yet now both platforms appear to be rock-solid. There are minor quirks with both options but largely you can just buy stuff, slot it together, and expect Windows Update to sort everything out until you have a completely error-free, smooth experience regardless of vendor.

      Today’s most common problem (IMO) is Micorosoft b0rking stuff with update screw-ups or bluetooth peripherals suddenly being unresponsive because [i]reasons[i].

    • dashbarron
    • 1 year ago

    Still chugging along with the Q9450.

    • willmore
    • 1 year ago

    This is an interesting poll–especially the comments.

    May I suggest that you do another poll about what brand we expect our *next* primary machine will be?

    Between Intel having fairly small generational performance gains for quite a few years, AMD being non-competetive in poorly threaded apps, and memory prices being sky high, a lot of people haven’t upgraded for a while. But, with the increasing price/performance that AMD’s recent improvements have spurred, they’re finally pondering it (or actually doing it).

    Me, I’m still waiting on DRAM prices to come down. Flash prices are coming down nicely, so DRAM shouldn’t be far behind. I hope……

    • bhtooefr
    • 1 year ago

    Voted Intel because it’s what’s in my primary machine, but in things that can be called personal computers, I’ve also got Broadcom, IBM, VIA, Motorola, Western Design Center, I think one of my 8088s is AMD, Sun (fabbed by TI), DEC, and Acorn (ARM before ARM was spun off, and fabbed by VLSI).

    • Zizy
    • 1 year ago

    Only Intel at the moment.

    i7 860 in desktop.
    i5 3210M in laptop.
    i7 4770k in work PC.

    Next one will be probably AMD, I have been itching to upgrade that ancient i7 860 PC for a while… the only problem is that it still works perfectly fine.

      • gerryg
      • 1 year ago

      Bah! Lame excuse to not upgrade. If you slow the train down, it might stop, then you’ll be stuck in the PC past forever!

    • ET3D
    • 1 year ago

    My ‘primary system’ is the family laptop, which is Lenovo Y70-70 with a Core i7 4710HQ. The second most used system (mostly by my son, for gaming) is the HTPC, with a Pentium G4560. So voted Intel.

    I currently have two AMD systems, an old Phenom II X6 1090T one, and a new Ryzen 3 2200G one. These are my personal PCs but don’t get as much use as the other PCs.

    • ronch
    • 1 year ago

    My 8350 runs King’s Quest 3 well enough but someday I’m gonna get a Ryzen when they’ve really abolished the memory compatibility quirks and then I’ll see if it runs King’s Quest 3 any better.

      • ptsant
      • 1 year ago

      I believe I played King’s Quest 3 on a PC XT (8088 at 4.77MHz with 1024KB RAM).

      My Ryzen 1700X can probably run at least 2^10 instances of King’s Quest 3 in parallel. So, upgrade without fear.

      Disclaimer: Haven’t actually tried to run 2^10 instances, but I might do it some time for fun using FreeDos.

      • K-L-Waster
      • 1 year ago

      Does KQ3 respond better to higher bandwidth RAM, or lower latency?

        • ronch
        • 1 year ago

        Yes. And it really taxes all 8 cores. Truly a game well ahead of its time.

    • sumang007
    • 1 year ago

    Voted Intel, but imminently will be replaced with a Ryzen 2000 system ๐Ÿ™‚

    • EdwardJamesAlmost
    • 1 year ago

    I have an E8400 desktop that needs replacement. When FreeSync-supporting graphics card and RAM prices come down, I’ll likely replace it with one that runs Ryzen.

    • albundy
    • 1 year ago

    Cyrix is not on your list. Cheese may be faster, but it dont taste as good.

      • ronch
      • 1 year ago

      Back in the day Cyrix was the [i<]other [/i<] other x86-compatible CPU maker. Despite their lackluster performance I found the FPUs in their M1 and M2 designs quite interesting.

    • renz496
    • 1 year ago

    Intel. Still rocking my 2500K@4.5Ghz. Considering an upgrade but it is most likely be another intel build. Strange things is Ryzen usually much more expensive compared to it’s intel counter part in where i live.

      • ronch
      • 1 year ago

      So where do you live?

    • Leader952
    • 1 year ago

    [quote<]What brand of CPU is in your PC?[/quote<] Why is this question singular? I for one have many different processors from Both AMD and Intel.

    • Tumbleweed
    • 1 year ago

    Dorito

      • Krogoth
      • 1 year ago

      [url<]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpMvS1Q1sos[/url<]

      • uni-mitation
      • 1 year ago

      Kudos for your reference. It is all about the Pentiums for me!

      uni-mitation

      • willmore
      • 1 year ago

      That would fall under ‘cheese (flavored)’.

    • End User
    • 1 year ago

    Why no Apple? Why no Samsung? Why no Qualcomm?

      • Mr Bill
      • 1 year ago

      Say “Cheese!”

      • Spunjji
      • 1 year ago

      You’d struggle to find a PC with any of those in…

      • K-L-Waster
      • 1 year ago

      A Mac would be Intel.

      The others would be tablets or smart phones, so out of scope for the poll.

        • Duct Tape Dude
        • 1 year ago

        End User right now: [url<]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQB2NjhJHvY[/url<]

          • cygnus1
          • 1 year ago

          The first time I saw that and heard the girl say “What’s a computer”, I about lost my shit and even with my iPhone in hand literally said out loud “Go f*ck yourself Apple”.

            • kuraegomon
            • 1 year ago

            This. God yes, this. I hadn’t seen that ad until today. I was pretty damned triggered, until I noticed that it had 66k likes … and 68k dislikes! The PC master race lives!!!

    • Chrispy_
    • 1 year ago

    If I had any reason to upgrade I would definitely be buying AMD.

    The problem is that 5 year old CPUs are still 100% fine and 5 years ago AMD churned out nothing but poo.

      • Srsly_Bro
      • 1 year ago

      Only 5? Sandy bridge 2600K came out January 2011.

      What’s wrong with Sandy Bridge CPUs?

        • tenortim
        • 1 year ago

        Yep. My main system is still a core i7-2600k (reasonably overclocked).
        I’ve thought about upgrading, but it’s hard to justify given how decent my ancient system still is.
        The SSD has been upgraded multiple times as has the video card. The CPU still pulls its weight.

          • odizzido
          • 1 year ago

          same here, though mine is an i5-750. I’ve looked at getting a ryzen CPU but when I think about the effort/cost vs reward it’s just not worth it. There is very little reward really.

          Like you I also got a new GPU…maybe two I don’t quite remember anymore.

          • Ryhadar
          • 1 year ago

          Same here. Although I opted not to keep my 2600K overclocked after pushing it a bit (I think mine did 4.5 without much effort). I prefer the stability/cooler temperatures at the moment. Don’t really play many games lately where the CPU is the bottleneck and Freesync smooths out the rough points anyway.

        • Chrispy_
        • 1 year ago

        [b<]Nothing at all![/b<] I run an i7-2600 at work, a 3770K in my HTPC and i7-4790 in my home office. As far as I'm concerned, they all perform equally and the IPC improvements between those three generations are approximately zero in perceptible real-world use.

        • dragontamer5788
        • 1 year ago

        Sandy Bridge doesn’t support AVX2 or BMI2 instructions. So my chess engine (Stockfish) analyze things slower. Sandy Bridge does support AVX (floating-point 256-bits), but is 1/2 the speed or slower compared to modern processors.

        DDR3 is roughly 1/2 the bandwidth of DDR4, which is important in some tasks. DDR4 also supports more “banks”, so highly-threaded programs can issue more independent memory requests. In any highly-threaded task that’s memory-bound, you’ll want DDR4 support, especially now that 3200 MT/s CAS 16 DDR4 is basically the same cost at 2666.

        There have been severe IPC improvements over the last 7 years, in addition to +Ghz. So you can reasonably expect +30% speed lifts if you upgrade to Coffee Lake, and Coffee Lake even offers +2 cores (+4 threads) for your trouble.

        M.2 Drives were invented after 2011. If you want an M.2 connector as a boot drive, you need something more recent (4th Generation Intel or later).

        PCIe 2.0 -> PCIe 3.0… kind of isn’t a big change. It happened but its strangely ignorable despite the 2x higher bandwidth.

        ———-

        7-years of computer advancements aren’t what they used to be. Compare Prescott (Pentium4, 2004) against Sandy Bridge (2011) and you’ll see what I mean. Still, I think Coffee Lake and Ryzen make a strong case to upgrade from Sandy Bridge.

        ~Haswell is the new “legacy” system IMO. I don’t see much reason to upgrade from Haswell. You’ve got DDR4, PCIe 3.0, M.2, and AVX2 on those 2014-era chips. Furthermore, there are cheap M.2 SSDs all over the place now, so you can really take advantage of the M.2 format. And you know, programs that actually use AVX2 as well.

        Haswell -> Coffee Lake only nets you +2 cores and a very minor uptick in IPC / GHz.

          • Chrispy_
          • 1 year ago

          Haswell was DDR3.
          Haswell-E was DDR4

          In saying that, I don’t think it matters too much because at the time Haswell was selling, DDR3 was dirt cheap and 2133MHz RAM was only very slightly cheaper than the cheapest stuff that tended to be either old-stock 1600MHz or loose-timing 1866MHz stuff.

          So yeah, it’s definitely slower than DDR4, but at today’s RAM prices, it’s not *that* much slower.

      • brucethemoose
      • 1 year ago

      DDR4 pricing is turning me off. Otherwise I would’ve jumped on a 1700 long ago.

        • Spunjji
        • 1 year ago

        This. Although I’m running a Haswell system and it doesn’t do any particularly heavy lifting, so really the performance justification just isn’t there.

        Which is irritating because I have been itching for a good reason to buy AMD ever since the Core Duo hit the market.

        • jihadjoe
        • 1 year ago

        Ditto. That’s why I picked up a used E5-2690 as an in-place upgrade for my X79 system. Gonna get a GPU upgrade in a few months, and hopefully I’ll be good until DDR5 comes out.

      • Kretschmer
      • 1 year ago

      It depends. I found some games that went from being all over the place to a steady 100 FPS going from a 3570K to 7700K. It’s certainly not 2003, again, but there have been gains.

        • K-L-Waster
        • 1 year ago

        This.

        The biggest difference I find after going to an 8700K is I don’t get much in the way of lag spikes and fps drops anymore. The average FPS hasn’t changed much, but the bad frames are much fewer and farther between.

        • Chrispy_
        • 1 year ago

        Threads matter.

        So does IPC, but you can have all the IPC in the world and when your game engine needs to run a thread that your CPU doesn’t have available, everything goes to hell in a handcart ๐Ÿ˜‰

          • Kretschmer
          • 1 year ago

          Some of the best improvements were in lightly-threaded games that really craved the extra IPC. We get bored with 10-15% improvement each generation but 5 generations of +10% is 60% of gains.

          For games, I’d still pick IPC over excess threads, but we’re rapidly hitting the point where such a choice isn’t as stark as it was with Bulldozer vs Sandybridge or Ryzen v1 vs Coffee Lake. This is the first time in about nine years where I would be comfortable building a gaming box around an AMD CPU, and that’s pretty rad.

          It was really cool to see games like Diablo 3 that would struggle in mass melees turn into a fluid experience.

            • K-L-Waster
            • 1 year ago

            Q: do you want IPC or threads?

            A: yes please.

            Both have their uses — it’s just a question of which CPU has the balance of each that best matches your use case.

      • DarkMikaru
      • 1 year ago

      It’s crazy to me how old hardware is still super viable now a days. A while back Hardware Unboxed did a comparison video with the old i5-2600k vs the new 8700k and I was shocked.

      [url<]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9R64UcOew0A&t=38s[/url<] Basically, like a few of you have said. There is very little reason to upgrade to the new platform. Check out those benchmark scores with both overclocked to 4.8Ghz. Just wow.

      • demani
      • 1 year ago

      Yeah- I have an 8-core Westmere system. Still does most everything without slowing down noticeably. I wish I had faster storage interfaces, but a PCIe slot dedicated to that isn’t the worst thing. Graphics card upgrades keep me happy.

      • cygnus1
      • 1 year ago

      Agreed. My 32GB of cheap DDR3 in my Haswell i7 would be overly expensive to reproduce with overpriced DDR4. The cost of the CPU, motherboard, AND RAM don’t justify the minor performance bump I’d get over what I have now.

      But… if I was building today for some reason, it’d be Ryzen of some sort, maybe TR.

    • JosiahBradley
    • 1 year ago

    Kinda difficult to answer if you use more than one machine. Home currently has an older gen Intel, while work is nearly all AMD. Building 5 Ryzen systems this week alone.

    • blitzy
    • 1 year ago

    i5-3570k that I’d like to replace, tough choice for the next system since both AMD and intel have their strong points. (e.g. I’m interested in DAW performance for music, but also having more cores is really nice in many scenarios). Will see how thing are in about 6 months

    • Chaserx
    • 1 year ago

    I am running an Intel 5820K and now that AMD has brought multi-core to the forefront of the mainstream I’m very happy right with what I have.

    • bthylafh
    • 1 year ago

    i7-8700K. If the news about Spectre et al had come sooner, there’d be an excellent chance I’d have chosen AMD instead.

    • modulusshift
    • 1 year ago

    Intel, because it’s a six year old build. If I were building today I’d get an AMD for sure.

    • auxy
    • 1 year ago

    I have a Core i7-5775C (@ 4.1 GHz all-core) and a Ryzen 7 1700. Which one is my main PC? (‘ฯ‰’)

    I do my gaming on the Core i7 machine and my work on the… well, on the Core i7 machine. Actually I don’t do anything on the Ryzen machine. N-not that there’s anything wrong with it or anything… I just don’t need it.

    I was gonna set it up to be an encode box for [url=https://gaming.youtube.com/user/azazelleblack/live<]my streaming hobby[/url<] but Blackmagic cards are expensive... ( ;โˆ€;) [super<]I'm so sorry to my wasted parts![/super<]

      • ptsant
      • 1 year ago

      How do the machines compare for gaming and productivity?

        • auxy
        • 1 year ago

        Pretty similar, I guess. (;’โˆ€’)

        They don’t “feel” much different on the desktop or when doing my usual productivity tasks which are just document and basic (web) image editing. I would say the i7 “feels” faster, but, that could also be ‘cuz it has an NVMe SSD where the Ryzen has a SATA drive. The i7 also has more RAM (32GB) vs. the 16GB of the Ryzen. But really they’re both super quick.

        As far as gaming, the i7 is clearly better. It’s not really a fair comparison because it’s overclocked and tweaked to f-k and back with fancy overclocked memory while the Ryzen is running 2666 memory and otherwise bone stock. It even has the stock cooler, which I never do, hehe.

        I put my 1080 Ti in the Ryzen machine for a while to see how it plays and it’s fine, but, when the going gets tough the i7 maintains a higher framerate more consistently than the Ryzen box, which drops harder and more often. I have a 240Hz monitor so it’s really obvious.

        The #1 example is PSO2, which is coded by idiots and thus has performance problems in certain circumstances even on my machine despite being a port of a 2012 PS Vita game. It virtually never drops below 100 FPS on my i7, but on the Ryzen machine it would chug down to 60-70 FPS at times, and had trouble staying over 200 FPS much.

        It’s worth repeating that the games I play are almost exclusively very lightly threaded tho. (‘ฯ‰’) The above example of PSO2 is a literally 100% single-threaded DX9 game. So the extra cores of the Ryzen aren’t doing anything at all for me.

        I love my PC (the i7) but I wouldn’t cry about it if I had to use the Ryzen instead. It’s a nice computer! (*’โ–ฝ’)
        [super<]I'd definitely want my 1080Ti tho... right now it has a GT 730... [i<]*shivers*[/i<][/super<]

      • Kretschmer
      • 1 year ago

      This is interesting…how has the i7-5775C machine held up? I remember them being blisteringly fast in games at the time.

        • Freon
        • 1 year ago

        I think initially Skylake looked slower in games by a handful of percent, but I’m guessing Kabylake remade the ground that we lost by not having the bonus iGPU cache by now via improved clocks.

        edit: also might be interesting to know how bad Meltdown/Specter affected Broadwell.

          • auxy
          • 1 year ago

          Much to the annoyance of the forums here (yet another reason why I’m not as active as I used to be… so intolerant), I don’t run an updated version of Windows with the security patches so I really couldn’t tell you. โ”(๏ฟฃใƒผ๏ฟฃ)โ”Œ

          The only data points I have really are some of my customers’ computers, which are based on Haswell, Ivy, and Core 2 stuff. None of the patches seem to have made a relevant difference in their desktop performance save for on the Core 2 stuff where it’s a little bit noticeable if you toggle the Meltdown patch off using InSpectre but otherwise it’s still fine for desktop work.

        • auxy
        • 1 year ago

        Seems fine. (‘ฯ‰’)

        Mine’s delidded and running 4.1~4.3 GHz (turbo mults, 43x on 1-2 cores and 41x on 3-4). I haven’t found anything it doesn’t absolutely obliterate in terms of CPU requirements. I don’t really play AAA games tho.

        I guess the most demanding thing I’ve ever run on it is probably… hmm… Rise of the Tomb Raider? I guess? or Doom. I don’t really like either one that much though. (I HATE the newer Tomb Raider games, and Doom is OK, but inferior to the classic game with mods… 12 enemy limit… so lame…) AAA games are pretty crap these days IMO. It’s basically shovelware with nice graphics.

        I have a 1080 Ti in it and I run every game in 4K using DSR on my BenQ XL2546 240Hz monitor. Most of what I play runs at >200 FPS constantly, like Warframe and Phantasy Star Online 2. It’s fun. (‘โ—‡’)ใ‚ž

        I’ve tested it with the eDRAM enabled/disabled… CPU benchmarks show a little difference but in games it makes absolutely no difference in performance either way. (;’โˆ€’) It could be because I have DDR3-2133 memory. I dunno. I tried disabling it so I could overclock my system agent (ring bus) but it didn’t help… going past 3.3 GHz there instantly causes a POST fail. Meh. โ”(๏ฟฃใƒ˜๏ฟฃ)โ”Œ

          • RAGEPRO
          • 1 year ago

          Poor form comparing a game with 25 years (yes, 25 years) of mods to a game that came out 2 years ago and has no modding tools available. ๐Ÿ˜›

            • Zizy
            • 1 year ago

            Poor form that a game from 2 years ago has no modding tools available ๐Ÿ˜›

            • RAGEPRO
            • 1 year ago

            You are not wrong. Especially given that it’s both an Id game and a Zenimax/Bethesda game.

      • jihadjoe
      • 1 year ago

      5775C was an awesome chip. I’d like to see it included in benchmarks against Coffee Lake and Ryzen when TR does a new review.

    • DragonDaddyBear
    • 1 year ago

    I’m running an i5 4th gen T series. It was what I was looking for at the time (NAS/DVR primary and gaming secondary rig). That said, I voted cheese. Why? I use my main system once a week, if that. If I needed another computer rebuild I’d roll AMD. The low TDP 8-core CPU is appealing because I could replace my use for a big server with tons of VM’s running on it for pen testing labs. It also supports ECC so repurposing it in the future as a server would be an appealing option (it’s not “needed” but I like it for my home servers).

    • Kretschmer
    • 1 year ago

    My numbers all line up; running a 7700K on the desktop and a 7700HQ on the laptop. Both less-than-fortuitously bought right before release of their successor chips but still quite adequate for my needs.

      • chuckula
      • 1 year ago

      BUY ANOTHER ONE NOW!
      WE NEED ICELAKE TO BE READY FOR LAUNCH!

    • dragontamer5788
    • 1 year ago

    Just upgraded my Intel i7-2600k to Threadripper 1950x.

    I was [b<]strongly[/b<] considering the i7-8700k, but Blender benchmarks (a current hobby) shows that 16x AMD Cores really do beat 6x Intel Cores. And yes, 3d modeling requires [b<]all[/b<] the CPU power. Also, I discovered that Microcenter offers the Threadripper 1950x for only $699 (!!). [url<]http://www.microcenter.com/product/483132/Ryzen_Threadripper_1950X_34_GHz_16_Core_TR4_Boxed_Processor[/url<] The i9-7900x doesn't seem to perform as well in Blender, and Microcenter's deal is "only" $799, so you don't get as big of a discount on Intel's HEDT platform. Microcenter's deals played a heavy role in my decision making process. If the pricing were different (or if I were primarily interested in say, Adobe products, which seem to favor Intel), things could have swung the other way. But Blender seems to prefer the high-core count of AMD, Blender doesn't seem to use AVX512 (so Intel doesn't benefit much) and Microcenter also offers better prices on that platform at the moment.

      • Airmantharp
      • 1 year ago

      Hard to recommend Intel if you’re not gaming and can use lots of compute!

        • DragonDaddyBear
        • 1 year ago

        Even if you’re gaming, Intel’s lead kinda shrinks to “meh” levels in the higher-end resolutions on consumer-focused CPU’s. HEDT is another animal, though.

          • dragontamer5788
          • 1 year ago

          [quote<]HEDT is another animal, though.[/quote<] Indeed. AMD's latency increases dramatically due to infinity fabric-based latencies. Some of the RAM is closer to only some of the cores, so configuration of your setup is all sorts of tradeoffs. I've personally decided to run in NUMA mode (called "Local" mode in AMD's configuration settings). I've also done a few experiments, and Blender runs extremely well when you have multiple instances of Blender working together. Lets say you are making 500-frames of animation (roughly 20 seconds). I've found that running ~4 or even ~16 instances of Blender, each with ~8-threads actually works pretty well for Threadripper's architecture. Each instance of Blender works on alternating frames. (Blender#1 works on frame 1, while Blender #2 works on frame #2, etc. etc). Pretty easy to do with "overwrite = false" and "make placeholder files". Of course, RAM is an issue. I only have 32GB of RAM at the moment. My toy examples and tests only use ~500MB to ~1GB of RAM per scene, so that's why I'm able to get 16x Blenders running at the same time. But production scenes can go up to 10GB+. Which would limit me to 3-instances or 2-instances. Threadripper [b<]really[/b<] likes those extra instances, I'm talking about 200% faster rendering on 16x instances compared to 1x instance. It took a bit of practice to configure those instances correctly. When running 16x instances, I set thread-affinity to 8-threads (representing the L3 cache), so each of those instances only "float" around a singular Zen CCX. I also force the instances to stay on a single NUMA node. This is done through the "start" command, with the /node and /affinity flags. I experimented with "Process Explorer" a bit to learn how to use those flags, I couldn't find much documentation on this important Windows feature. Ultimately, its just a .bat file that launches multiple Blender instances in a way that follows Threadripper's architecture. Take the layout of L3 / CCXes into account, as well as NUMA, and yeah, Blender certainly renders faster overall because of it. It does use up a LOT more RAM, but my experiments seem to make this kind of setup way faster. Like, 200% faster. Although I'm using the "Blender Internals" rasterization engine and I'm not doing any complicated raytracing, so a good chunk of the time is single-threaded physics simulations. -------- I guess what I'm trying to say is... its kinda hard to use this machine "correctly". Lol. There is a huge difference between using Blender's default settings, and my slightly tweaked setup with regards to animation rendering performance. EDIT: Here's the TLDR. [url=https://imgur.com/c7nzB2r.png<]One Instance of Blender[/url<] vs [url=https://i.imgur.com/VuHo4Pz.png<]16x Instances of Blender[/url<]. Utilization is clearly better in the 16x case and dramatically improves rendering speed overall.

        • Chrispy_
        • 1 year ago

        Intel’s niche seems to be shrinking to “high-refresh, low-resolution gaming” since the minute you up the resolution in a modern game, even 1080Ti’s struggle to hit three-digit framerates.

        • Klimax
        • 1 year ago

        If you can use lots of compute then Intel is still excellent choice. (Especially if you value time over money)

          • Chrispy_
          • 1 year ago

          Threadripper begs to differ.

          • dragontamer5788
          • 1 year ago

          Intel’s HEDT line ranges from ~$1000 i9-7900x to $2000 for the 18-core i9-7980XE.

          While the higher-end stuff looks faster than the Threadripper 1950x, I have my doubts if they’d compete against EPYC, which seems to be best in the ~$1000 to $2000 price points. EPYC 7551P is 32-cores for $2300 and probably offers better performance than the 18-core i9-7980XE ($1,800 at Microcenter).

          Heck, the EPYC 7401P is 24-cores for $1300 and beats the [url=https://openbenchmarking.org/embed.php?i=1710246-AL-EPYC7401P28&sha=64c39b2&p=2<]20-core Xeon Gold 6138[/url<], and even beats the [url=https://openbenchmarking.org/embed.php?i=1710246-AL-EPYC7401P28&sha=4d6f0c2&p=2<]Dual Socket 2x Xeon Gold 6138 (40-cores)[/url<] in some benchmarks (The important C-Ray 3d rendering benchmark). I don't know how 24-cores beat 40x Intel Cores, but the benchmarks don't lie. Maybe AMD's infinity fabric scales really well at these sizes or something, or maybe Intel's off-die UPI communication is inferior compared to same-interposer infinity fabric. EPYC 7401P was my "next step up" btw, if I managed to scrape together more money. I ultimately decided against it, but its an incredibly impressive chip on paper. I think you're right in that Intel's HEDT line is priced higher and scales higher than Threadripper. But EPYC vs Intel i9 might be a more apt-comparison. The downside to EPYC is the 4x NUMA configuration, but NUMA also offers its own advantages. 4x NUMAs for the 8x memory controllers you get on an EPYC build will surely lead to improved rendering performance under the right configurations ([url=https://techreport.com/news/33687/poll-what-brand-of-cpu-is-in-your-pc?post=1079264<]see here for details[/url<]). You'd need like 128GB of RAM to pull this off correctly, but hell, that's what "high end" is all about, right? Intel's primary advantage is that its a singular chip with a superior mesh that connects the cores together. EPYC has relatively latencies for core-to-core communications, going off die and over the infinity fabric. Intel will also have higher single-threaded performance (7980XE can still hit 4.2 GHz turbo if only one core is being worked). In short: Intel i9 or Xeon Gold is going to have better single-thread performance. But AMD's Threadripper and EPYC machines just seem to scale better out to the high end. With good configuration and some thought, you can often avoid the inter-process communication problem by running more instances of your rendering engine... assuming you have the boatloads of RAM to support it. Only if you need to scale to ~$10,000+ CPUs with Xeon Platinum does it seem like its worth it.

            • Chrispy_
            • 1 year ago

            Intel moved to mesh transport architecture in their larger CPUs after stagnating on ring buses for far too long.

            Mesh is different, and allows easier/more linear scaling to higher core counts but it’s not necessarily better. It’s probably better ‘on average’ but there are some pretty huge overheads and associated chokepoints that could really REALLY slow it down if the software isn’t optimised for it.

      • Srsly_Bro
      • 1 year ago

      I’m going to wait it out until zen 2 TR. I have a history of hitting refreshes instead of new archs. Gtx 570 and 2700k come to mind.

      Congrats on the great CPU. Make sure you keep those cores happy by constant 100% CPU utilization.

        • dragontamer5788
        • 1 year ago

        [quote<]Congrats on the great CPU. Make sure you keep those cores happy by constant 100% CPU utilization.[/quote<] Easier said than done, lol. Blender under default settings only reaches [url=https://i.imgur.com/c7nzB2r.png<]~50% utilization[/url<]. At least, this 50% utilization probably only exists in my personal models and examples. I guess my scenes are still too small, and a larger-proportion of the time is on single-threaded physics calculations instead. I wrote up how I got Blender closer to [url=https://i.imgur.com/VuHo4Pz.png<]100% utilization[/url<] elsewhere [url=https://techreport.com/news/33687/poll-what-brand-of-cpu-is-in-your-pc?post=1079264<]in this thread[/url<], and my test render [b<]really did[/b<] take 1/2 the time (!!!). Just running "start /node 0 /affinity 0x00FF" to take advantage of AMD's CCXes, NUMA layout and stuff can really improve render speeds. At least, in the case of animations where multiple Blender instances can work on independent and separate frames, and you have enough RAM to handle all of those instances.

      • ptsant
      • 1 year ago

      Being able to upgrade to a 2950X down the road is probably a nice bonus. Rumored to come out in 2018.

        • Zizy
        • 1 year ago

        TR-2 is confirmed by AMD to come in “summer” 2018. It is not just a rumor ๐Ÿ™‚

        • Freon
        • 1 year ago

        Would it be worth the cost? How much is a used 1950X going to sell for? After just 6 months of use?

          • ptsant
          • 1 year ago

          I’m a fan of deferred upgrades. If a faster chips exists you may get it on sale, after a price drop or even from ebay 3 years later. If it doesn’t, you’re stuck with what you bought.

        • dragontamer5788
        • 1 year ago

        Possibly.

        I jumped on the 1950x even with the immediate “threat” of the 2950x for the following reasons.

        1. $699 is a severe discount from Microcenter. I have doubts that the 2950x will reach that price in a short time.

        2. The L2 tweak from 17-clocks of latency to 12-clocks of latency (in Zen+) was applied to Threadripper. This is probably one of the bigger reasons why Zen+ got an IPC increase.

        So I don’t think the 2950x will be much faster than the 1950x. Of course, its hard to know for sure. But I’m guessing price/performance wise, the 1950x is in a good spot.

    • crystall
    • 1 year ago

    I’m still on a IvyBridge-based Xeon E3 which I bought at the time because of its excellent ST performance and I needed ECC support. I’ll probably switch to a high-end Ryzen soon since I can use the extra threads while getting ECC memory support without having to pay the premium Intel charges for it.

    • biffzinker
    • 1 year ago

    Picked up a Ryzen 5 2600X on sale at $209.99 last Wednesday. Already installed as of Friday, and so far it’s running slightly faster than the benchmark reviews posted after the NDA expired.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 1 year ago

    Both, but since this is a website about DIY PCs, I voted AMD. Intel is in the laptop, since it’s all Apple offers. The desktop running Windows 10 is very happy with a Ryzen 5 2400G, though. It’s been solid for all I need.

    • davidbowser
    • 1 year ago

    70-30 Intel to AMD right now (not counting the cheese).

    As competitive as the options are, and based on enthusiast refresh, I think this will be close to 60-40 Intel-AMD in 6 months. I spec-ed a Ryzen desktop recently but needed to refresh the wife’s laptop first.

      • chuckula
      • 1 year ago

      [quote<]I spec-ed a Ryzen desktop recently but needed to refresh the wife's laptop first.[/quote<] Just press F5 on her laptop then order RyZen!

    • jokinin
    • 1 year ago

    Right now an intel i5 3550 but just ordered a new machine with an AMD Ryzen 5 2600X

    • Pitabred
    • 1 year ago

    Voted Intel because I’m still running a 3770k, and a 2500k in the wife’s machine. If I had the money to upgrade now, though, I’d go AMD, no questions.

    • brucethemoose
    • 1 year ago

    Only the best of the best for me. The bleeding edge of x86:

    [url<]https://www.viatech.com/en/boards/mini-itx/epia-m920/[/url<]

      • chuckula
      • 1 year ago

      Don’t click that link if you haven’t had a Tetanus shot!

        • brucethemoose
        • 1 year ago

        It took me 3 tries just to get the page to load anyway.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 1 year ago

          their servers must be running VIA CPUs as well.

      • Spunjji
      • 1 year ago

      Someone did say Cyrix earlier! Ahh, joy.

    • roqz
    • 1 year ago

    I voted for and prefer AMD since the Athlon XP, but I’m not a dedicated fan of the company, therefore I have a mix of stuff at the moment:

    Linux development (main machine/work): AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
    Windows gaming: Intel Core i7-6700K (no contender from AMD at the time)
    Rotating stock for experiments/testing/QA/24ร—7 stuff: AMD AM1 5350, VIA Eden X4 (Artigo A1250), Intel Core i3-5010U (Gigabyte Brix), AMD A4-6300, and a Raspberry Pi 3 B+
    Laptop: Intel Core m3 6Y30 (Asus Zenbook)

    Also, had AM2, AM3 and FM2 systems, while the last Intel machine before the i7 was a Tualatin based Socket 370 machine. And before that had a Socket 3 (with Cyrix too) and Slot 1 machines.

    And I guess nobody of you guys have tried Turrialba cheese?

      • Wirko
      • 1 year ago

      Oh, you have lots of AMD, lots of Intel, and lots of Cheese.

    • Captain Ned
    • 1 year ago

    I personally prefer a nice Camembert or Brie, though they substantially increase cooling requirements to prevent damage.

      • chuckula
      • 1 year ago

      At least it isn’t fava beans and a nice Chianti.

      • nanoflower
      • 1 year ago

      I find that storing them within the confines of my stomach does wonders at lowering the cooling requirements.

    • Usacomp2k3
    • 1 year ago

    Intel 7-series for work laptop. AMD A-series APU for the wife’s home desktop.

      • Goty
      • 1 year ago

      I’m kind of in the same boat. My desktop? AMD. My laptop? Intel. My other laptop? Intel. Wife’s desktop? Intel. Wife’s laptop? Also Intel.

      So, I put AMD as my answer here as my “best” PC is powered by Ryzen, but I definitely own a lot more products with Intel CPUs.

        • DeadOfKnight
        • 1 year ago

        My PC: Intel. My PS4: AMD. My XB1: AMD. My Wii U: IBM. My Ipad: Apple. My Pixel: Qualcomm.

        The dominance of Intel over the tech industry has been greatly exaggerated, as have the rumors of a dying AMD.

          • auxy
          • 1 year ago

          Simmer down, AMD Defense Force. (‘ฯ‰’)

          Anyway, your Wii U is powered by IBM. ( ๏ฝ€ใƒผยด)ใƒŽ

            • DeadOfKnight
            • 1 year ago

            Simmer down yourself, fanboy police. I’m not a fan of AMD, personally. Not yet anyway. You got me on the Wii U though.

            • Wirko
            • 1 year ago

            Your comment made it to the top comments list but your advanced use of Unicode has confused TR’s bad words filter (I suppose?) a little.

        • DPete27
        • 1 year ago

        So the MAJORITY of your PCs are Intel, but you voted AMD because 1 out of 5?

          • gerryg
          • 1 year ago

          The poll asked for “Primary CPU”, I think he answered correctly given his description. Many people these days have multiple computers, but one is the “go-to” system used most.

            • DPete27
            • 1 year ago

            Ah, I missed that. I have an AMD machine and an Intel machine and I naturally answered Intel since it was my gaming PC.

            • willmore
            • 1 year ago

            If we had to vote based on majority of CPUs, then someone better add ARM to the poll as that’s what we would all have to reply. You probably have twice as many of them in your house as you think you do. They’re in everything. Washing machine, Coffee pot, dishwasher, microwave, as well as phones, tablets, TVs, etc.

          • Goty
          • 1 year ago

          Basically what gerryg said. My desktop is the machine I use most often and is what I think of as “my computer.” Additionally, were I to upgrade any of the other computers mentioned at this time, they would likely contain AMD processors as well (unless I were to somehow scrounge up enough money for a decked out XPS 15.)

      • gerryg
      • 1 year ago

      My main desktop is an AMD, likely to be replaced by Zen+ soon, and my son in college has a quick AMD gaming/compiling/media editing machine (he says he will upgrade at Zen2 release).

      Mixed bag for other machines I and the family use, most of them didn’t need to fit in a specific performance range and were selected #1 for price, #2 for features (e.g. min RAM/HD/Screen), so didn’t really care what CPU. We have a Chromebook, Windows AIO, Windows laptop (netbookish but larger/faster), business Windows laptop. I think 3 of those are Intel and one is AMD.

    • chuckula
    • 1 year ago

    AMD wins the day.

    But Cheese wins the war.

    #AndYouThoughtSteamHardwareNumbersWereWacky

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This