Has Intel lost its crown to AMD

Technostica

Active Member
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
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

Active Member
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/2019/07/12/amd-ryzen-3600-3700x-3900x-dawbench-tested-3-is-it-the-magic-number/



 

Technostica

Active Member
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.

Intel Cascade Lake-X.JPG

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

Quasar

Senior Member
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...
 
OP
novaburst

novaburst

Senior Member
"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,

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

Active Member
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:
 

Technostica

Active Member
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

Senior Member
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

Active Member
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.
 
OP
novaburst

novaburst

Senior Member
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

Active Member
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...
 

Damarus

Active Member
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.
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.
 

tack

Damned Dirty Ape
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.
 
OP
novaburst

novaburst

Senior Member
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

Active Member
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.
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.
AMD has always had higher core counts.
That’s just plain wrong but there have been some periods when they have.
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.
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.
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.