# Has Intel lost its crown to AMD



## novaburst (Jan 10, 2020)

There seems to be a lot of noise about the AMD CPU, seems like they finally have taken another step and apparently have the fastest CPU in the world and seem to have left Intel way behind and i mean way way behind.

Have any noticed this big change of the crown being passed to AMD.


https://www.amd.com/en/products/processors-desktop 


https://www.scan.co.uk/products/amd...nq3aL97EmwSJxwDC5b5cujnJm27QQHBBoC7kcQAvD_BwE

So what will your new build be or will you be sticking with Intel


----------



## SBK (Jan 10, 2020)

Intel is working on something to beat AMD


----------



## Symfoniq (Jan 10, 2020)

I do think AMD is better now for many workloads.

However, there is still some question as to whether AMD's resurgence translates into better real-time audio performance, because AMD's CCD/CCX design (like all designs) has certain trade-offs. And relatively speaking, software engineers haven't had a lot of time to optimize their codebases for Ryzen and Threadripper.

For myself, I "stuck with Intel" by buying a new Mac Pro. However, I do hope Apple is giving AMD a serious look for future systems.


----------



## Damarus (Jan 10, 2020)

For now yes, Intel's 10nm should be much better.


----------



## EvilDragon (Jan 10, 2020)

I think Zen 3 is gonna be where it's at. Should be a completely new design. They already reduced the latencies in Zen 2, but this is rumoured to be further improved (if not nigh eliminated) in Zen 3.


----------



## Technostica (Jan 10, 2020)

In general AMD now have the better platforms for Desktop, Workstation, Server and possibly also soon for Laptops based on their announcement from earlier this week; need to wait to see what battery life is like.
Not just slightly better but by a massive margin in many cases; up to twice the performance.

Pete at Scan has tested some of the latest Ryzen chips in a DAW setting:





AMD Ryzen 3600, 3700X & 3900X DaWBench tested – 3 is it the magic number?







www.scanproaudio.info







SBK said:


> Intel is working on something to beat AMD


They are always working on new stuff so time will tell how their new stuff compares to whatever AMD have out at the time they release something new.



Damarus said:


> For now yes, Intel's 10nm should be much better.


I'm sure Intel appreciate your confidence, but considering how late it is, over 2 years and how low the clock speeds are on the current shipping 10nm parts, there is no guarantee that the first generation 10nm desktop parts will be significantly faster than current Intel stuff thus giving them no chance to catch up with even current AMD platforms.
Plus AMD have new platforms due this year which are seemingly on track and built on a 2nd generation 7nm TSMC process.
Intel's massive issues aren't just based on their major fabrication problems, but also that AMD have out thought them in terms of the design of their architectures.

I can't see Intel start to being competitive again until they release their 7nm parts which for desktop might not be until 2022 at the earliest.
By then AMD may well be at 5nm with yet another new architecture.

Note: Roughly speaking, an Intel fabrication node is roughly equivalent to the TSMC node that is one smaller. Therefore:
Intel 10nm = TSMC 7nm.
Intel 7nm = TSMC 5nm.
This can change as due to Intel's issues the design parameters of their 10nm and smaller nodes might change for the worse.

This is the weakest that Intel have been versus AMD for over a decade and maybe ever.
For non DAW content creators, AMD have totally embarrassed Intel this year.









AMD’s 64-Core Threadripper 3990X, only $3990! Coming February 7th







www.anandtech.com


----------



## Damarus (Jan 10, 2020)

No doubt AMD is doing amazing work. I hope Zen3 is great, and I hope Intel's next gens are great too.

But remember Intel still owns the market, so don't dismiss them quite yet. Desktop consumer CPU's are only a fraction of the pie. Intel dominates low power CPU's, laptop CPUs, Servers and they are about even with AMD on Desktop CPUs, despite being on 14nm still (obviously HEDT/high core counts are a different story)


----------



## pderbidge (Jan 10, 2020)

For now, Intel seems behind. The first time AMD had the edge on Intel was when they released Opteron, many years ago. It wasn't long after, less than a year, that Intel came back and pounced on AMD. Since then AMD just hasn't been able to catch up until now and I'm happy to see some healthy competition again. I was about to purchase an 8700k and then Ryzen 3 came out and I decided to go 3700x. For Thunderbolt users, the only option from AMD are the new x570 Asrock boards, so take that into consideration. For some reason the other manufacturers did not add in support for Thunderbolt even though the new AMD chipset supports it. 

From my own observations it seems that Intel has been more and more focused on developing a chip that can scale really well on a mobile platform and from a long term financial perspective I think they're probably right to pursue that, even if it means temporary lost sales against AMD for now. As much as we all want the most powerful machine we can get for our studios, even in our own industry we see musicians and mix engineers needing to be more mobile so I think that's the future and Intel knows it. I contracted with Intel back when Opteron was a threat so I have first hand knowledge as to how they handled things internally and these guys have 10+ year roadmaps they work off of so I guarantee they already have a solution to counter AMD but they are just weighing out the options that will benefit the company the most in the long run.


----------



## kitekrazy (Jan 10, 2020)

Hopefully it will stop Intel from being pricey. My last CPUs I bought were AMD FX6300 - $100, Intel 4790 - $300. I've always look to AMD as a budget alternative. But if AMD gets pricey I will choose Intel because it just always works when building a DAW.


----------



## tack (Jan 10, 2020)

SBK said:


> Intel is working on something to beat AMD


In parallel, AMD is also working on something to beat AMD.


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 10, 2020)

EvilDragon said:


> I think Zen 3 is gonna be where it's at. Should be a completely new design. They already reduced the latencies in Zen 2, but this is rumoured to be further improved (if not nigh eliminated) in Zen 3.



Sure seems like it.
They’re unifying the cache now too so it’s not two separate 16MB pools but a 32MB all access pass.
They didn’t really steal the CES show until this week.

Intel is not going to have anything to knock out Zen 3.
They are losing desktop gamers, server clients, mobile clients.
Stockholders had proxy votes on moving forward with AI and other more profitable sectors, selling cheaper CPUs doesn’t appeal to investors.

I hope not. I like competition.
Its why we saw Matisse.


----------



## tabulius (Jan 10, 2020)

If you are building a daw today I think both AMD and Intel are good options. Ever since Intel core2duo I’ve bought Intel and now I’m using i7 6700K and it is having a bad time keeping up with larger Vi-projects. It seems from the Scan Pro audio tests that Intel still have some edge over AMD with max polyphony at least. I might wait for Zen 3 before jumping in to Cascade Lake X or whatever was the latest ”generation”.


----------



## brojd (Jan 11, 2020)

I’ll hold off and see how the new AMD processors handle low latency workloads.


----------



## novaburst (Jan 11, 2020)

brojd said:


> I’ll hold off and see how the new AMD processors handle low latency workloads.





EvilDragon said:


> I think Zen 3 is gonna be where it's at. Should be a completely new design. They already reduced the latencies in Zen 2, but this is rumoured to be further improved (if not nigh eliminated) in Zen 3.



Is this one of the side effects of the AMDs great for gaming but not so much for audio i also find to get an ok MB is kind of pricey and the max ram is not always clear on some MB and CPUs


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Jan 11, 2020)

tack said:


> In parallel, AMD is also working on something to beat AMD.


you beat me to it Jason.


----------



## kitekrazy (Jan 11, 2020)

Damarus said:


> No doubt AMD is doing amazing work. I hope Zen3 is great, and I hope Intel's next gens are great too.
> 
> But remember Intel still owns the market, so don't dismiss them quite yet. Desktop consumer CPU's are only a fraction of the pie. Intel dominates low power CPU's, laptop CPUs, Servers and they are about even with AMD on Desktop CPUs, despite being on 14nm still (obviously HEDT/high core counts are a different story)



Both have its share of fanboys.


----------



## kitekrazy (Jan 11, 2020)

novaburst said:


> Is this one of the side effects of the AMDs great for gaming but not so much for audio i also find to get an *ok MB is kind of pricey* and the max ram is not always clear on some MB and CPUs



A lot of hardware is pricey. A lot of it is more about aesthetics than performance. Our cases need to glow and look great from a window.


----------



## novaburst (Jan 11, 2020)

novaburst said:


> i also find to get an ok MB is kind of pricey and the max ram is not always clear on some MB and CPUs



This is generally the AMD set up i find that there pricey MB quote max ram size but the cheaper boards are not so clear so you may get stuck with a 32gib max, also the zen is not very clear with max ram size until you go for the very high speed Zens or high speed thread rippers


----------



## Allen Constantine (Jan 11, 2020)

novaburst said:


> This is generally the AMD set up i find that there pricey MB quote max ram size but the cheaper boards are not so clear so you may get stuck with a 32gib max, also the zen is not very clear with max ram size until you go for the very high speed Zens or high speed thread rippers




So, I guess that the 3900x would be a good deal? Don't really want to switch over to AMD but what options for Intel would I still have? The i9 9900k is just an eight core...


----------



## Quasar (Jan 11, 2020)

Symfoniq said:


> I do think AMD is better now for many workloads.
> 
> However, *there is still some question as to whether AMD's resurgence translates into better real-time audio performance*, because AMD's CCD/CCX design (like all designs) has certain trade-offs. And relatively speaking, software engineers haven't had a lot of time to optimize their codebases for Ryzen and Threadripper.
> 
> For myself, I "stuck with Intel" by buying a new Mac Pro. However, I do hope Apple is giving AMD a serious look for future systems.



I plan to do another build this year to replace my aging i7 Sandy Bridge machine, and this is the specific question I've been unable to find a clear answer to. For parallel processing, AMD would seem to be the clear winner at the moment at any given enthusiast CPU price point, but for serial processing I'm not sure that, say, an i9 9900k wouldn't outperform a similarly priced (I get that the prices are jumping all the time) Ryzen 3900x. 

It's confusing when trying to translate all of the specs into the scenario of a DAW loaded with VIs and effects processing smoothly in real time and low latency is a must.


----------



## Technostica (Jan 11, 2020)

novaburst said:


> Is this one of the side effects of the AMDs great for gaming but not so much for audio i also find to get an ok MB is kind of pricey and the max ram is not always clear on some MB and CPUs





novaburst said:


> This is generally the AMD set up i find that there pricey MB quote max ram size but the cheaper boards are not so clear so you may get stuck with a 32gib max, also the zen is not very clear with max ram size until you go for the very high speed Zens or high speed thread rippers


Even the cheapest Zen 2 desktop chip supports 128GB of RAM.
Some smaller form factor motherboards will support only 2 sticks of RAM and that will limit you to 64GB maximum; this is the same for Intel and AMD platforms.
The newest AMD X570 chipset boards are more expensive and mainly because they support PCIe 4.0 and the added complexity of that can’t be ignored. So in that sense they are more like a cross between a desktop and HEDT board and the latter aren’t cheap either, starting at a much higher price.
There is no need for an X570 board to use the Zen 2 chips as the older and cheaper boards will support them but without PCIe 4.0 support. You’d be stuck on PCIe 3.0 alongside Intel’s whole range.


----------



## Technostica (Jan 11, 2020)

Quasar said:


> I plan to do another build this year to replace my aging i7 Sandy Bridge machine, and this is the specific question I've been unable to find a clear answer to. For parallel processing, AMD would seem to be the clear winner at the moment at any given enthusiast CPU price point, but for serial processing I'm not sure that, say, an i9 9900k wouldn't outperform a similarly priced (I get that the prices are jumping all the time) Ryzen 3900x.
> 
> It's confusing when trying to translate all of the specs into the scenario of a DAW loaded with VIs and effects processing smoothly in real time and low latency is a must.


This is the best I've seen: http://www.scanproaudio.info/2019/0...00x-dawbench-tested-3-is-it-the-magic-number/


----------



## Technostica (Jan 11, 2020)

kitekrazy said:


> Hopefully it will stop Intel from being pricey. My last CPUs I bought were AMD FX6300 - $100, Intel 4790 - $300. I've always look to AMD as a budget alternative. But if AMD gets pricey I will choose Intel because it just always works when building a DAW.



They will sell you a $4,000 64 core HEDT chip but it is faster than dual Intel Xeon chips costing $10,000 each.






The more relevant scenario for most is that Intel are having to cut costs on their HEDT chips by up to 50% as they are now left competing with AMD's desktop chips rather than HEDT.






At the tiers lower than that AMD are still offering better performance, value and power efficiency.


----------



## easyrider (Jan 11, 2020)

AllenConstantine said:


> So, I guess that the 3900x would be a good deal? Don't really want to switch over to AMD but what options for Intel would I still have? The i9 9900k is just an eight core...



Had a 9900k sold it and got a 3900x brilliant chip


----------



## Quasar (Jan 11, 2020)

Technostica said:


> This is the best I've seen: http://www.scanproaudio.info/2019/0...00x-dawbench-tested-3-is-it-the-magic-number/



Thanks for posting. Yes I have seen this, and am not sure I'm comfortable with the caveats regarding the 3900x at buffer sizes of 128 or lower. But it does _appear_ to beat out the 9900k in any event, at least assuming no current "unknown unknowns" with other component (hard or soft) compatibility. I should probably websearch whether anyone has had problems with Ryzen and the RME HDSPe AIO card, and a few other things along those lines...

...AFAIK, Before Ryzen AMD hadn't been competitive since Intel released the Core 2 in 2006, long enough to where switching seems subjectively and perhaps irrationally just a bit risky... If I were a video editor I'd jump to AMD without so much as a blink, but attaining glitch-free, real-time audio processing is more about every component working in harmony & stability than it is about raw power. I'm glad I'm not in any particular hurry. My 7+ year-old rig is still happily chugging along...


----------



## novaburst (Jan 11, 2020)

Quasar said:


> "unknown unknowns" with other component (hard or soft) compatibility. I should probably websearch whether anyone has had problems with Ryzen and the RME HDSPe AIO card, and a few other things along those lines...



All the testings with the AMDs are with gaming and video editing and frame rate, what i would like to know is it black and white difference when it comes to gaming an Video Vs audio editing, 



Quasar said:


> old rig is still happily chugging along.



I guess this has a play in it too from rock solid old i am wanting to go to impregnable new and i cant quite put the AMD tech knowledge together at the moment its not all a 100 % simple when it comes to research


----------



## Technostica (Jan 12, 2020)

novaburst said:


> All the testings with the AMDs are with gaming and video editing and frame rate, what i would like to know is it black and white difference when it comes to gaming an Video Vs audio editing.


I've already given the link a few times to the Scan DAW tests by one of their staff who specialises in Pro Audio; they sell workstations including for DAW usage:





AMD Ryzen 3600, 3700X & 3900X DaWBench tested – 3 is it the magic number?







www.scanproaudio.info


----------



## novaburst (Jan 12, 2020)

Technostica said:


> I've already given the link a few times to the Scan DAW tests by one of their staff who specialises in Pro Audio; they sell workstations including for DAW usage:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



thanks for bringing this to my attention i did note they test with babyface


----------



## Technostica (Jan 12, 2020)

Damarus said:


> Intel dominates low power CPU's, laptop CPUs, Servers and they are about even with AMD on Desktop CPUs (*obviously HEDT/high core counts are a different story*)


Saying that is like saying ‘obviously high clock speeds are a different story’.
Performance is mainly related to IPC, clock speed and core count, so to downplay one of those is to ignore the actual performance which makes little sense.
So in performance terms, AMD now dominate all those sectors and in some cases by massive margins; twice the performance.
High core counts is where the real performance is and where the big margins are; see Enterprise gear such as servers.
If you own that area you can dictate the marketplace beneath it at least in terms of pricing.
This is what is happening now with Intel forced to cut some HEDT pricing points by 50%.
With Server chips the wholesale pricing is less meaningful as the real-world pricing there is dictated by individual bulk orders that the few large customers place directly with Intel.
So we may not see what is going on behind the scenes, but when you look at the published performance, power efficiency and pricing data, if you are still in the market for Intel server chips can you imagine how much leverage you have?
For bread and butter systems and the mid-range beneath the level where AMD dominates, Intel have still have the marketing, brand awareness and manufacturing volume to dominate.


----------



## kitekrazy (Jan 12, 2020)

novaburst said:


> All the testings with the AMDs are with gaming and video editing and frame rate, what i would like to know is it black and white difference when it comes to gaming an Video Vs audio editing,
> 
> 
> 
> I guess this has a play in it too from rock solid old i am wanting to go to impregnable new and i cant quite put the AMD tech knowledge together at the moment its not all a 100 % simple when it comes to research



Since I don't work with video I don't see the need for a zillion cores. Last I heard core usage is also depended on who develops the software. As for gaming it's the video card that makes the difference in gaming than the CPU.


----------



## easyrider (Jan 12, 2020)

kitekrazy said:


> Since I don't work with video I don't see the need for a zillion cores. Last I heard core usage is also depended on who develops the software. As for gaming it's the video card that makes the difference in gaming than the CPU.



Well it depends on the resolution you game at...at 1080p with say a 2080ti gaming card you are cpu bound...

Gaming at 4K you are GPU bound.


----------



## novaburst (Jan 12, 2020)

The message i am getting is DAWs will not use all the given cores available on the AMDs this also may be an issue on Intel too, but it seems AMD are going a bit to fast in the future for software developers to catch up, also with some of the better AMD are having issues with low buffer 128 and lower but the whole DAW performance looks ok.

Conclusion is ether AMD slow down or software developers catch up to take advantage of AMD CPU as it is now its only the gaming community that are having a blast of a time with AMD


----------



## easyrider (Jan 12, 2020)

novaburst said:


> The message i am getting is DAWs will not use all the given cores available on the AMDs this also may be an issue on Intel too, but it seems AMD are going a bit to fast in the future for software developers to catch up, also with some of the better AMD are having issues with low buffer 128 and lower but the whole DAW performance looks ok.
> 
> Conclusion is ether AMD slow down or software developers catch up to take advantage of AMD CPU as it is now its only the gaming community that are having a blast of a time with AMD



Daws Will use the cores...


----------



## EvilDragon (Jan 12, 2020)

novaburst said:


> The message i am getting is DAWs will not use all the given cores available on the AMDs



Reaper will use up to 128 cores automatically (and you have a manual override in case you somehow have a CPU with _more_ than 128 cores). It is perfectly scalable.


----------



## Damarus (Jan 12, 2020)

Technostica said:


> Saying that is like saying ‘obviously high clock speeds are a different story’.
> Performance is mainly related to IPC, clock speed and core count, so to downplay one of those is to ignore the actual performance which makes little sense.
> So in performance terms, AMD now dominate all those sectors and in some cases by massive margins; twice the performance.
> High core counts is where the real performance is and where the big margins are; see Enterprise gear such as servers.
> ...



Lol they dont dominate until the majority of products contain their CPUs. My statement about HEDT chips being excluded was because Intel does have any high core count HEDT "workstation" CPU's to really compete with the likes of the zen2 Threadrippers.

AMD has always had higher core counts - that's only beneficial to applications that benefit more cores to the speed of cores, like CAD. Virtualization as well, but you'd want both to be most efficient. AMD's clock speeds to core count is whats making them competitive again. Most other applications rely on clock speed per core.

Again, AMD is doing well at this moment but that does not mean that suddenly everyone goes out and buy's AMD chips to replace their Intel ones. It just means there is close competition when building a new rig. It will be a while before you see AMD EYPC's replacing the majority of Xeons in a production server environment.


----------



## novaburst (Jan 12, 2020)

EvilDragon said:


> Reaper will use up to 128 cores automatically (and you have a manual override in case you somehow have a CPU with _more_ than 128 cores). It is perfectly scalable.



The most favorable test with AMD were with Reaper


----------



## EvilDragon (Jan 12, 2020)

It's because Reaper utilizes CPUs probably the best among all DAWs, Intel or AMD it doesn't care much.


----------



## tack (Jan 12, 2020)

Damarus said:


> It will be a while before you see AMD EYPC's replacing the majority of Xeons in a production server environment.


That's only because those servers commonly operate on 5 year leases. The data centers of my current employer are beginning to roll over and all those Xeon boxes are getting replaced with EPYC.


----------



## novaburst (Jan 12, 2020)

EvilDragon said:


> It's because Reaper utilizes CPUs probably the best among all DAWs, Intel or AMD it doesn't care much.



Reaper has some secret advantage, while other DAWs concentrate on face lift Reaper concentrate on where it really matters


----------



## Technostica (Jan 12, 2020)

Damarus said:


> Lol they dont dominate until the majority of products contain their CPUs.


You specifically mentioned the performance in the quote I used not marketshare which is a separate issue.


Damarus said:


> My statement about HEDT chips being excluded was because Intel does NOT (Added by me) have any high core count HEDT "workstation" CPU's to really compete with the likes of the zen2 Threadrippers.


They don’t have any higher core count chips to address the regular desktop market, HEDT, Workstation or Server.


Damarus said:


> AMD has always had higher core counts.


That’s just plain wrong but there have been some periods when they have.


Damarus said:


> AMD has always had higher core counts - that's only beneficial to applications that benefit more cores to the speed of cores, like CAD. Virtualization as well, but you'd want both to be most efficient. AMD's clock speeds to core count is whats making them competitive again. Most other applications rely on clock speed per core.


You have overlooked IPC which is equally important.
For software that only requires a few high speed cores then buy a cheap unlocked dual or quad core chip and over-clock it. That’s more of a niche these days than software that scales to more cores. Even games are benefiting from CPUs with 12 or more cores, virtual or real. With the next gen consoles due this year both using Zen 2 with 8/16 C/T this trend is likely to continue.


Damarus said:


> Again, AMD is doing well at this moment but that does not mean that suddenly everyone goes out and buy's AMD chips to replace their Intel ones. It will be a while before you see AMD EYPC's replacing the majority of Xeons in a production server environment.


AMD and their fabrication partners couldn’t meet the demand if it ramped up very quickly.
Enterprise buyers are conservative but when you see the differential between AMD and Intel at the moment in terms of performance, power efficiency and price it’s too hard to ignore for many. 


Damarus said:


> It just means there is close competition when building a new rig.


At the lower end it doesn’t matter which you use as they both have you covered, but for performance desktop, HEDT, Workstation and Server, in most areas there is no real competition from Intel. Not sure what you are referring to!

I’ve been all Intel for about 15 years but if I was buying this year it would be hard to ignore AMD.


----------

