AMD vs INTC

Performance & energy efficiency of the new AMD Zen 4 Ryzen 7000 series desktop CPUs:

The new Ryzen 9 7950X CPU in benchmark multi-core applications uses max 88 Watts and is faster than the older Ryzen 9 5950X that uses 142 Watts for the same task.

And when limiting its power usage to 65 Watts, it still is faster than the Intel Core i9-12900K with 241 (!) Watts

This 16core/32threads desktop CPU currently is the fastest CPU. It's even almost as fast as a 32core/64threads Ryzen Threadripper 3970X (Zen 3) workstation CPU! Intel CPUs have no chance to beat this CPU!

It's expected that the upcoming mobile versions of these new CPUs will be similarly revolutionary as well.

Source (in German): https://www.computerbase.de/2022-09...7600x-test/8/#abschnitt_leistung_vs_effizienz

 

A misinterpreted metric is often multicore performance where logically numbers are higher the more cores a cpu has. I had terrible experience with the first gen Threadripper cpu in terms of single core performance. That was my only excursion to the AMD side and I went back to Intel after a short while. In the past AMD was significantly cheaper than Intel but nowadays AMD has become very greedy and I see no reason why to steer away from Nvidia in regard to GPUs and Intel for CPUs. But I do welcome the competition especially Intel entering the GPU market. I still run on a Pcie 3.0 bus and will wait until Pcie 5.0 is fully utilized. CPUs have anyway not made a whole lot of progress over the past 5 or so years.

 

You should not give up so fast

 

On AMD? Well I see no compelling reason why to try AMD again. Intel leads in terms of advanced vector extensions, something my math heavy and vectorized data based applications really benefit from

 

It seems you are not up-to-date since then, b/c AMD has similar vector units (AVX-512) in its recent CPU and GPU models. And also having so called "compute accelerators" (expansion cards for HPC and supercomputers). You should check the AMD website.

And AMD has bought some more advanced technology when it overtook the FPGA company Xilinx, so expect also more advanced products as result from this important tech merger.

And, AMD recently built the first exascale supercomputers in the US. Intel tried and tries too, but can't deliver...

 

No question that AMD makes some "hellacious" performance CPUs.

Intel often works in a different space... "multi-function".

Some overlap, but not exactly the same.

Both are very good. Pick the one that suits your task.

Personally, I've bought only Dell workstations with Intel Xeon CPUs in the last many years. They have been excellent... FWIW

 

They caught up, but Intel usually leads in terms of development in this area.

 

AMD's server CPUs are called EPYC, and the HPC workstation CPUs are called Threadripper.

 

As far as investing goes INTC is a steal. Retail investors are very focused on what new items are hitting the retail shelves but the development and excitement is in silicon that will not be in our hands for a good while. If Intel executes well the next few years look very bright.

 

I agree, INTC is a much etter investment than amd at current multiples.