It depends on your budget and more importantly, your intended use case.

Right now AMD offers the fastest cpu's in the form of the 9800x3d, but, is a bit less stable with more frequent 0.1 and 1% lows, it can also have issues with frame gen for some reason in some titles.

But, you only need a cheap other board and cheap 6000MHz cl28 ish memory to get the most out of the platform, overclocking helps, hit its far more limited than with intel.

Intel on the other hand, is slower at the max fps range, but tends to be more stable and have less frequent 1 and 0.1% lows or dips.
The downside is to get the most out of Intel you need more expensive hardware in the form of faster memory 7200 to 8000MHz or faster with more expensive motherboards to help support such things, then Intel tends to ship with more headroom for overclocking, so that takes time and effort to dial it all in.

So you really have AMD being faster, cheaper but a bit less stable (far better on 9000 series than earlier) vs Intel being ultimately a bit slower, but more stable at extra cost and effort to get the lost out of it.

For the majority of people, AMD is the better option and why even though I run Intel myself, I won't usually recommend it to others, as you really have to enjoy tinkering to get the most out of it.

The "color" team and the mentioned unknown benchmark are the deal?

userbenchmark scores are bias toward intel

some people also did not enjoy their intel 13/14 gen cpus failing...

userbenchmark is just good to check if your hardware runs properly if you compare to other similiar systems like amd vs amd and intel vs intel but past that you should avoid it...

x3d cpus are the best for gaming currently...

Oprindeligt skrevet af Xamurai:

I always had team blue. I hear alot AMD is better. But if i go to benchmark sites such as Benchmarkdotcom. Intel looks alot better from 13thgen up to 14th gen. and even Ultra Cores.
So whats the deal?

The deal is that synthetics are synthetics. If you want the shorter version, jump to the bold "the problem" below.

When it comes to CPUs, there are two things that determine its performance.

One is clock speed. This has a single, objective, always-the-same number.

The other is instructions per clock. This does NOT always have the same "number" because the amount of instructions it can do will depend on the workload. Designing a chip is a balancing act; maybe you made the chip faster at one thing but as a result its slower at another. Maybe you can make it 20% faster at a pretty uncommon thing but it needs so much more die space that it might make it 40% to 80% slower at many other things.

You add the two together to get (single) "core performance". In other words, let's say if in a particular application, a CPU does 10 instructions per second. Let's say it's operating at 100 Hz (way slow in today's terms, but I'm keeping the number low to keep the resulting number easier). So it does 10 instructions-per clock, and 100 clocks per second, so you multiply that and get 10,000 instructions per second.

In short, IPC (instructions per clock) x frequency = IPS (instructions per second).

Some other CPU might only do 5 instructions per second, but be clocked at 400 Hz. Despite doing half the instructions per clock, it will therefore do twice the work in the end owing to its higher clock speed at 20,000 instructions per second. The Pentium 4 was infamous for a "high clock speed, low instructions per clock" approach.

So what synthetic software does is ATTEMPT to put a number on something that can't really have a number put on it. It might get you ballpark-close... sort of.

The problem - The problem with synthetics shows up with games in particular (but not only games). The synthetic stuff will usually feed the core in a way where it can always be busy. After all, this is the "correct" way to measure it because you want to isolate other variables when testing one thing (it's the same reason CPU's are benchmarked at low resolution with the fastest GPU, even though few people play that way).

The reason this is a problem is because in the real world, cores won't always be fed. Remember when I said earlier a CPU might be able to do XX instructions per second? Remember how I said that number varies? Part of the reason it varies is because CPU cores aren't always able to be work because they need to wait on information from elsewhere. CPUs work with memory as cache (commonly L2 first, then L3, then RAM). Lower levels are faster, but smaller. If information the CPU needs to work with right now isn't available in a particular level, it has to move onto the next level, which takes an increasingly longer time. As the CPU is waiting on information (say, from RAM), it is spending cycles DOING NOTHING (and CPU "utilization" will often be represented as 100% despite this, which is one of many reasons why it's hard to know if a CPU is truly at 100% or not).

And here is where we get to the example you brought up.

I'm simplifying here, but AMD's cache philosophy is closer to a "smaller but faster" whereas Intel's is more of a "slower but larger". Namely, Intel already has a reasonably fast and spacious L2. AMD has faster cache, but it's smaller. This is where X3D comes in. It compliments this... but this benefit won't show up much, if at all, in those synthetics that grade "core performance". This is also why Intel hasn't rushed to add a spacious L3 cache. it's because their current design is ALREADY getting the majority of the benefits through their current L2 approach. But after X3D happened, Intel no doubt noticed, and CPUs take years to design, so Intel is rumored to be having their own redesign coming with a larger L3, which would indicate AMD had the better approach.... at least in some regards.

This isn't even an Intel vs AMD thing because you see the same thing with Intel (old 14th generation) and Intel (current Core 200 series). The latter will also show up as having "faster cores"... but uh oh, there's latency and this drags back gaming performance. So the benchmark will make them look faster, but in games, they are slower.

TL;DR: You have to keep in mind that "core performance" results are an attempt to boil down performance to a single number. You trade off accuracy (and when it comes to games, a lot of accuracy) with this lazy approach. The correct approach is to not be lazy and research real world results with games. They will tell you the real story. And those results will tell you why you hear a lot that AMD is better.

the usual deal, you buy into GIGO.

Do you compare performance per CPU price?
Do you compare performance per CPU+other needed stuff price?
Do you compare performance for realistic workloads?
Do you compare performance for workloads you actually use?

safe bet you just cherry pick some unrelated numbers from the table and call it a day.

And yeah, if you pay the extraorbitant price for i9-K, its mobo, 300W worth cooling and all you do is running 7zip in 7/24 (probably limited to half year of service till it burns out due to volting config shenanigans), by all means go intel.

Yeah, if you go Intel 13th / 14th you need to lock cores and sort voltages atleast.

I forgot to mention the added cost of a better cooler for Intel, though three are some great value 360 aio's out these says, I just picked up a thermalright one for only £40!

It depends on your budget and more importantly, your intended use case.

Mainly Gaming.

Oprindeligt skrevet af pasa:

Do you compare performance per CPU price?
Do you compare performance per CPU+other needed stuff price?

Nope, I always take the best parts regardless of price. Though combined into a full PC (there is cap i don't want to cross.) but more than enough to buy a high end PC. But i have alot of dilemma's.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Xamurai:

It depends on your budget and more importantly, your intended use case.

Mainly Gaming.

Oprindeligt skrevet af pasa:

Do you compare performance per CPU price?
Do you compare performance per CPU+other needed stuff price?

Nope, I always take the best parts regardless of price. Though combined into a full PC (there is cap i don't want to cross.) but more than enough to buy a high end PC. But i have alot of dilemma's.

Well as I explained it, AMD is faster with a bit less stability, but cheaper, Intel costs more, is a bit slower, but more stable and NEEDS to be tuned / tinkered with.

By the sounds of it AMD is best for you (and most), so the next question is, what are you planning to play and at what res and refresh?

If you are serious about competitive e sport games with a 360 or 480Hz monitor then the 9800x3d is king.

If you are more into large open world stuff and 120 to 240fps is enough for you, then save the cash and get a 9700 and put the saving toward stepping up the gpu or towards the next gen gpu and upgrade it when it drops.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Xamurai:

I always had team blue. I hear alot AMD is better. But if i go to benchmark sites such as Benchmarkdotcom. Intel looks alot better from 13thgen up to 14th gen. and even Ultra Cores.
So whats the deal?

Depends on your budget, your needs, your expectations as usual.

Back when AMD wasn't the top CPU for gaming they where still good at giving you bang for the buck.

Whatever you can say about alderlake and its gaming performance vs AMD's best... the 265k model as seen some great sales and combos (on newegg at least) that are great value if you value an all rounder chip that can do it all well.

If you value having an easy to use PC for gaming that can play them optimally with minimum of fuss and you got the budget for it though 9800x3D is also there as an option.

They both got their pros and cons. If you value upgradability with the socket AM5 will get one more gen while the alderlake socket is just getting a refresh (might be good down the road to get some cheap good performing chips though).

So it depends. Imo fi you don't want to think too much about it just get a 7700 or a 9600x based system and go from there. No need to spend almost 500 bucks on a CPU just for gaming if you aren't getting the best elsewhere.

Oh yeah, If you live near a microcenter in the US, the Intel 265k could be worth considering, I've seen some insane bargains on mobo / cpu / ram combos on three online, that would make suggesting that as an option very viable l, though, if it's jot available cheap, not so much.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Monk:

Oh yeah, If you live near a microcenter in the US, the Intel 265k could be worth considering, I've seen some insane bargains on mobo / cpu / ram combos on three online, that would make suggesting that as an option very viable l, though, if it's jot available cheap, not so much.

Got a good combo off newegg in July... 265k + free AIO, asrock lightning and 3 games for 370 bucks. Only way to come close on the am5 platform is to get a discounted 9600x and supposedly sometimes you can get a 7700 for 150 dollars, never found one.

I like to game but not obsessed with getting the highest framerates, also didn't get a 4090 or 5090 to pair with it either.

its not about just the cpu and what brand its about building a balanced system for what
your going for.consentrate more on matching up all hardware and you will get great results
with either.as far as what i like intel / nvidia all the way.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Monk:

It depends on your budget and more importantly, your intended use case.

Right now AMD offers the fastest cpu's in the form of the 9800x3d, but, is a bit less stable with more frequent 0.1 and 1% lows, it can also have issues with frame gen for some reason in some titles.

But, you only need a cheap other board and cheap 6000MHz cl28 ish memory to get the most out of the platform, overclocking helps, hit its far more limited than with intel.

Intel on the other hand, is slower at the max fps range, but tends to be more stable and have less frequent 1 and 0.1% lows or dips.
The downside is to get the most out of Intel you need more expensive hardware in the form of faster memory 7200 to 8000MHz or faster with more expensive motherboards to help support such things, then Intel tends to ship with more headroom for overclocking, so that takes time and effort to dial it all in.

So you really have AMD being faster, cheaper but a bit less stable (far better on 9000 series than earlier) vs Intel being ultimately a bit slower, but more stable at extra cost and effort to get the lost out of it.

For the majority of people, AMD is the better option and why even though I run Intel myself, I won't usually recommend it to others, as you really have to enjoy tinkering to get the most out of it.

Monk... You really need to start sourcing your info because frankly, I have to ask, where do you get your (flawed) view point?

Reality is that the whole "amd stutter" issue is non existant on the 9800x3d and you are on about nothing and seemingly showing what you dont seem to actually know.

Case in point:

https://gamersnexus.net/cpus/rip-intel-amd-ryzen-7-9800x3d-cpu-review-benchmarks-vs-7800x3d-285k-14900k-more

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-9800x3d/21.html

https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/amd-ryzen-7-9800x3d-review-devastating-gaming-performance/2

All three review sites tested minimum FPS, specifically 1% lows, and all three show consistently that the 9800x3d leads the pack against both Intel Ultra and Intel Core lines.

You cannot, reasonably, expect your view to be taken seriously when you show nothing to back it and it goes bltantly against everything that is published in regards to both average and minimum fps.

: /

As for OP, either work well enough, though currently AMD is king for games, and high end productivity. Intel holds a sweet spot for people who want productivity without going threadripper while also want decent gaming.