In general, I've had good luck with Intel chips anyway. I really like
AMD CPUs - they're often the better design - but there have been compatibility issues and Intel was the 'safe' choice. Sure, it might
not have been the 'best' or 'fastest', but a 13900K was still 'fast
enough' and - I thought - was more likely to be problem free.
On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 07:26:46 +0200, "Werner P." <werpu@gmx.at> wrote:
Am 13.04.24 um 21:06 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:
In general, I've had good luck with Intel chips anyway. I really like
AMD CPUs - they're often the better design - but there have been
compatibility issues and Intel was the 'safe' choice. Sure, it might
not have been the 'best' or 'fastest', but a 13900K was still 'fast
enough' and - I thought - was more likely to be problem free.
Have been running on AMD CPUs now since the first Ryzen Gen... what
compatibility issues?
AMD really pulled it off with the ryzen design and left Intel in the dust! >> (not speedwise though, but technically)
There have been a number over the years, although I mostly recall them
from the days of XP and Athlon. They were rarely show-stopper bugs,
but there were a number of games where you'd need to download a patch
to run a game on AMD, or to get maximum performance. But even more
recently, AMD CPUs have needed patches (for instance, a year back
there was a patch for people running AMD CPUs on Windows 11 because
the L3 cache wasn't being properly utilized, reducing overall speed. Cyberpunk 2077 also had issues on some AMD Ryzens on launch).
Again, that's not to say that Intel CPUs were necessarily any better
or didn't need specific patches, but it seemed to happen less often
(probably because Intel had much greater marketshare, so developers
tested more thoroughly against Intel CPUs, fixing problems before the software was released). Rarely (probably never?) did having an AMD CPU prevent you from running any software. But all this added an
impression - at least to me - of Intel CPUs being the more
'worry-free' option; the one that wouldn't require me to have to
fiddle with compatibility shims or extra patches just to get it
running properly on my software.
The impression is basically not feasible anymore, given that AMD Ryzen
is the baseline of the consoles.
I cannot remember any game where I had to wait for a patch.
Certain emulators were using out of date obskure intel instructions to
gain a performance boost though, which intel itself pulled in later
revisions of their processors for security reasons but even that was optional. Newest SSE versions or lack thereof were I think an issue in
the early Ryzen versions but again optional.
What sometimes happened in the early Ryzen revisions was that due to the >chiplet architecture some games were performing slightly worse due to
threads shifting between the chiplets, nothing serious though, but even
that has been fixed with some scheduler patches to my knowledge on the
other hand Intel got a ton of performance loss in the same area thanks
to security fixes they were forced to do. (not that AMD is not hit >occasionally also by security issues they have to fix)
The two chiplet problem with games is fundamental to the design and
hasn't been fixed. The two chiplet AMD Ryzen 9 59xx and 79xx CPUs all perform significantly worse in games compared to the much cheaper Ryzen
7 single chiplet 5800X3D and 7800X3D CPUs of the same generation.
Right now that means the 7800X3D is the fastest all around gaming CPU
money can buy. Paying more for a 7950X or 7950X3D will actually get
you worse performance in many games.
Right now that means the 7800X3D is the fastest all around gaming CPU
money can buy. Paying more for a 7950X or 7950X3D will actually get
you worse performance in many games.
These seem to be a "citation needed" type of claims. What do you base
these on? With a quick look, tomshardware and anandtech don't seem to
agree.
Have been running on AMD CPUs now since the first Ryzen Gen... what >compatibility issues?
AMD really pulled it off with the ryzen design and left Intel in the dust! >(not speedwise though, but technically)
rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Ross Ridge) writes:
Right now that means the 7800X3D is the fastest all around gaming CPU
money can buy. Paying more for a 7950X or 7950X3D will actually get
you worse performance in many games.
Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> wrote:
These seem to be a "citation needed" type of claims. What do you base
these on? With a quick look, tomshardware and anandtech don't seem to >>agree.
Should've been too hard to find this statement in Tom's Hardware's
CPU Rankings:
Well, to be exact, I really wanted you to support your snipped claim, >specifically this:
The performance seems slightly lower but that isn't significantly worse.
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 15:06:16 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
This isn't really news - in fact, I posted about the problem being
reported back in February - but the story* is gaining more traction >>recently.
Just a bit of an update on this story:
Intel is working on a microcode update that should prevent this bug on
future 13900K/14900K CPUs. It turns out not /all/ the blame can be
laid on motherboard manufacturers, as there were issues in the CPUs' microcode and manufacturing which allowed the CPU to overvolt.
Unfortunately, people who already are experiencing crashes won't find
relief from these updates; the damage has been done. The only way to
restore stability is to undervolt/down-clock the CPU through the BIOS. However, long term the only real solution would be to replace the CPU.
Despite acknowledging the flaw was at least partially to blame on
Intel, they've steadfastedly refused to recall the chips, replace them
at Intel's cost, or even extend the warranty. Real classy, Intel.
Obviously I'm a bit sore about this. I really don't want to have to
spend $500 on a new CPU. But I might have to.
Read more details here: https://www.theverge.com/2024/7/26/24206529/intel-13th-14th-gen-crashing-instability-cpu-voltage-q-a
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 15:06:16 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
This isn't really news - in fact, I posted about the problem being
reported back in February - but the story* is gaining more traction
recently.
Just a bit of an update on this story:
Intel is working on a microcode update that should prevent this bug on
future 13900K/14900K CPUs. It turns out not /all/ the blame can be
laid on motherboard manufacturers, as there were issues in the CPUs' microcode and manufacturing which allowed the CPU to overvolt.
Unfortunately, people who already are experiencing crashes won't find
relief from these updates; the damage has been done. The only way to
restore stability is to undervolt/down-clock the CPU through the BIOS. However, long term the only real solution would be to replace the CPU.
Despite acknowledging the flaw was at least partially to blame on
Intel, they've steadfastedly refused to recall the chips, replace them
at Intel's cost, or even extend the warranty. Real classy, Intel.
Obviously I'm a bit sore about this. I really don't want to have to
spend $500 on a new CPU. But I might have to.
Read more details here: https://www.theverge.com/2024/7/26/24206529/intel-13th-14th-gen-crashing-instability-cpu-voltage-q-a
In the meantime, there's even less reason to pick Intel now. They
haven't really been the 'best' or most cost-efficient processors for a
while, but they were often the 'safe' choice compared to AMD; you knew
that if it was x86/x64 code, it would run on Intel, and the company
had a reputation for stability and reliability. Certainly the 1994
Pentium FDiv bug --where Intel replaced every affected Pentium-60 free-of-charge-- cast a long shadow on the industry, suggesting that
Intel would stand by their products if there was a problem with them.
Obviously, 2024 Intel is not the same company.
TL;DR: there's absolutely no reason to ever choose Intel anymore.
My i5-12400F is 12th generation, so my slow adoption works in my favor
this time (although didn't I read something that older CPUs may be
affected too?)
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 483 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 174:30:09 |
| Calls: | 9,596 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 13,679 |
| Messages: | 6,150,344 |