robertmo3 wrote on 2024-06-08, 06:18:

amd is twice slower than intel in emulators
this single argument eliminates amd for me

Not as slow as you think. https://hothardware.com/news/this-is-the-best … ording-to-rpcs3

The last Intel "Hail Mary" (PS3 emulation) has fallen

Call me crazy....call me old....

But I just never really cared who's name was on something. If it does what I want, how I want, fits in my budget, then I'm good. 😀

That being said, all 4 "modern" systems in my home are Ryzen/Radeon powered and work wonderfully. The bang v buck was just too good and I wanted all the systems I take care of to be uniform. Makes it so much easier to manage and maintain. Before 2021, it was a mix of Intel/AMD/Nvidia.

Also, can't have an Intel vs AMD thread without a meme! 😜

that chart doesn't show any numbers, just compares latest most expensive tuned amd with ancient budget intels

amd is not good for emulators.

robertmo3 wrote on 2024-06-08, 06:18:

amd is twice slower than intel in emulators
this single argument eliminates amd for me

Oh wait so you were actually serious.
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen- … 7800x3d/16.html

Seems like AMD is in a pretty good spot, i don't care too much about either but empirically talking at this point, there's really no reason to claim intel victory over this, they are either equal in emulation or AMD is better.

updated:
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core … 14900ks/15.html

robertmo3 wrote on 2024-06-08, 08:49:

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core … 14900ks/15.html

I told you about them being equal, 1-2 fps difference is nothing to write home about and that's only for PS3, but hey if it makes you happy...

i just updated your link, but it is way different for dosbox and qemu

StriderTR wrote on 2024-06-08, 06:52:

Call me crazy....call me old....

But I just never really cared who's name was on something. If it does what I want, how I want, fits in my budget, then I'm good. 😀

That's how I am, and I don't think I'm old. I don't think I was too clear in my other post, but I buy based on what should have the fewest problems. Then I run it into the ground, so I won't be upgrading anyway until my i5-8500 is too slow or the motherboard dies. I guess I never got out of "starving student" mode, so I don't want to take any risks when I spend that much money. My comment on buying an AMD CPU if my current system suddenly dies is just based on the problems Intel has been having with 12th-gen and newer. However, I'm concerned that AMD chipsets might have bugs that nobody talks about (maybe that's why USB ports faster than 5Gbps for my external SSD are so uncommon on AMD platforms), and I've heard of stability problems unless you drop RAM clocks to the point where it severely hurts performance.

Strangely, I have nothing but trouble with the hardware that gets widely recommended, such as Sandy Bridge (so slow in the applications I ran in school that it didn't feel like it was worth the money over the Athlon XP-M 1400+ that I had before it) or Dell laptops (even the Precision 7000 series has cooling problems and random WHEA_UNCORRECTABLE_ERROR BSODs while passing all hardware diagnostics). That's why I end up with less common brands (not Amazon six-letter brands, but not Asus or Samsung either).

lti wrote on 2024-06-08, 18:22:

That's how I am, and I don't think I'm old. I don't think I was too clear in my other post, but I buy based on what should have the fewest problems. Then I run it into the ground, so I won't be upgrading anyway until my i5-8500 is too slow or the motherboard dies. I guess I never got out of "starving student" mode, so I don't want to take any risks when I spend that much money. My comment on buying an AMD CPU if my current system suddenly dies is just based on the problems Intel has been having with 12th-gen and newer. However, I'm concerned that AMD chipsets might have bugs that nobody talks about (maybe that's why USB ports faster than 5Gbps for my external SSD are so uncommon on AMD platforms), and I've heard of stability problems unless you drop RAM clocks to the point where it severely hurts performance.

Strangely, I have nothing but trouble with the hardware that gets widely recommended, such as Sandy Bridge (so slow in the applications I ran in school that it didn't feel like it was worth the money over the Athlon XP-M 1400+ that I had before it) or Dell laptops (even the Precision 7000 series has cooling problems and random WHEA_UNCORRECTABLE_ERROR BSODs while passing all hardware diagnostics). That's why I end up with less common brands (not Amazon six-letter brands, but not Asus or Samsung either).

I'm a very middle of the road kinda guy. Ryzen 5600's, Radeon 6600's, and 32MB of good 3200 or faster RAM. I will run these systems for many years. I have no need for top-tier hardware, thus can't justify the crazy cost of it. We all game at 1080P in my house, and none of us have any problems droppings settings we don't care about to boost framerates.

To be honest, I rarely have hardware problems, most of the issues I deal with at any given time are almost always software or driver related. 😜

In terms of the OP talking about emulation, I don't emulate much beyond PS2 when it comes to consoles, but I do emulate a wide variety of computers and run quite a few virtual machines, use source ports for older games when available, and one of my Ryzen 5600 builds is a deducted family game server hosting games like Minecraft and Ark Survival Evolved. All I can say is I have yet to have any performance issues using this hardware. Everything runs as intended, or better. So yeah, I'm still that "it works good, it's stable, so I'm happy" guy.

😀

So AMD still lags behind in single-threaded performance? My Phenom II X4 920 probably still classifies as slow space heater compared to today's 65W Ryzens. I was a bit surprised several years back when I tried Drakan with modded levels to double drawing distance, otherwise a 1999 game on a slightly newer cheaper laptop from 2012 with integrated graphics, and the laptop ran it better than my gaming desktop, hovering around 40 FPS with more stuff on screen on desktop vs smooth 60 FPS on a laptop in an equal scene.

UCyborg wrote on 2024-06-09, 15:31:

So AMD still lags behind in single-threaded performance? My Phenom II X4 920 probably still classifies as slow space heater compared to today's 65W Ryzens. I was a bit surprised several years back when I tried Drakan with modded levels to double drawing distance, otherwise a 1999 game on a slightly newer cheaper laptop from 2012 with integrated graphics, and the laptop ran it better than my gaming desktop, hovering around 40 FPS with more stuff on screen on desktop vs smooth 60 FPS on a laptop in an equal scene.

No, if anything AMD is actually king of single threaded performance with the X3D cpus.

this does not confirm what you say
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

Passmark is a pure shit test.

7950X/7950X3D at 170W TDP is on par with 13900KS/14900KS (they are the SAME CPU) at 250W TDP

Performance-wise, AMD is on par. Performance/price, Performance/power AMD absolutely DESTROYS Intel. In gaming, where the VCache actually kicks in, even the 7800X3D makes a joke out of 13900KS/14900KS.

Intel is a sinking ship and I love watching them crash and burn to the ground.

Trashbytes wrote on 2024-06-07, 08:01:

robertmo3 wrote on 2024-06-07, 07:48:

1. intel 3nm+, amd 4nm 2. E-cores gonna be in 3nm just like P-cores, so overheating is gone 3. just look how good intel single c […]
Show full quote

1. intel 3nm+, amd 4nm
2. E-cores gonna be in 3nm just like P-cores, so overheating is gone
3. just look how good intel single core was on its ancient 10nm (7nm)
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html
i think 3nm could be way better single core now,
but of course it depends whether it was intel process better or cpu design that was better
if tsmc process is worse than intel, than intel was better not cause of cpu design.

Overheating wont be gone because Intel drives its cores hard as hell to beat AMD, they really dont have any other choice either as their whole setup is highly inefficient.

I dont expect this to change anytime soon either, they seem to be getting stuck in the Pentium 4 mentality again of driving their CPUs for top speed over everything else.

Correct. Because that is ALL they have. They can't compete in any other way.
AMD has them beat in efficiency, IPC, thermals, gaming chips, workstation chips, enterprise space with server chips....list goes on.

It's kind of like we're back in 2005. I wonder if it will last. Actually I think in 2005 AMD had an even greater advantage.

Though yeah it is hard to come up with really valid reasons to need an upgrade these days.

appiah4 wrote on 2024-06-10, 06:10:

Intel is a sinking ship and I love watching them crash and burn to the ground.

Now this DEMANDS to be read in a Zapp Brannigan voice

https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/cpu_benchmark-g … h_6_single_core
https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/cpu_benchmark-c … _17_single_core
https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/cpu_benchmark-c … 024_single_core
https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/cpu_benchmark-c … r23_single_core
https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/cpu_benchmark-c … r20_single_core

AlaricD wrote on 2024-06-10, 15:11:

appiah4 wrote on 2024-06-10, 06:10:

Intel is a sinking ship and I love watching them crash and burn to the ground.

Now this DEMANDS to be read in a Zapp Brannigan voice

I felt like i had to do it.

intel wins in all above benchmarks even though it is only 10 nm while ryzen is 5 nm
next ryzen gonna be 4 nm, while intel will be 3 nm