New Processor Choice

[wraper]

I could save $80 and buy a superior Intel based board if I was that worried about the motherboard budget.

Dunno where you got this strange idea but intel boards are more expensive than AMD for the same feature set.

[MK14]

What about voting option(7). WAIT A BIT.
Wait a few weeks (timing unknown precisely), for the new AMD cpus to come out, which are rumoured to be up to 17% faster, hopefully at the same price.
Assuming people don't have initial problems with them (best to watch at first, and see), it might be the best option for someone, about to upgrade to a new system.

[KungFuJosh]

Sure, but I'm only going to be spending about $1000 or so

It's a pretty tight budget so blowing almost third of this money on a very expensive motherboard which does not make any difference is insane IMHO.

Seriously? Did you not see how any of the boards I like fit in my budget with the best chip options? If you understand how math works, spending less on the motherboard means my budget lowers, not that I get a better chip. You want me to spend $60 less on a board, so I can buy the 3900XT for $80 more instead of the 3900X? How does that make sense to you?

It's not just the PCIe4 that I want. I like the i/o panels, slot options, USB 3.2gen2 etc... Y'all are missing the point. If I drop the board budget then it will cost me MORE in PCIe cards to make up the difference. FFS, move on.

[KungFuJosh]

I could save $80 and buy a superior Intel based board if I was that worried about the motherboard budget.

Dunno where you got this strange idea but intel boards are more expensive than AMD for the same feature set.

Perhaps you should look at the boards I listed as my options. The Intel boards are both better, and cheaper.

[MK14]

Seriously?

Did you start this thread to get ideas and opinions/advice, or to start a fight ?

[Halcyon]

Pretty much 0 reason to go with Intel nowadays, for almost any use case.

Depends what you are running. There are still some compatibility issues with some Linux or FreeBSD versions.

You also have a much larger selection of motherboards in the Intel-based market, particularly when you're looking at higher-end consumer and enterprise gear.

Having been bitten several times by "general AMD instability and failures" in the past for both CPU and GPU products, I find it hard to trust their products as a whole. As for speed, it has always been a cat and mouse game between Intel and AMD.

Funny to hear since AMD GPUs on Linux are the least problematic

Whilst more compatible generally, I've had many more AMD GPUs simply fail due to heat related issues than NVIDIA. That being said, Nvidia support on Linux has vastly improved even in the last 12 months. I currently run Ubuntu with an Nvidia Quadro T2000 and it's been absolutely perfect right out of the box.

[KungFuJosh]

What about voting option(7). WAIT A BIT.
Wait a few weeks (timing unknown precisely), for the new AMD cpus to come out, which are rumoured to be up to 17% faster, hopefully at the same price.
Assuming people don't have initial problems with them (best to watch at first, and see), it might be the best option for someone, about to upgrade to a new system.

Exactly! This is what I said above. This is the reason I'm hesitating to buy anything now. Some sites think September will see the release of the new toys. The question is whether or not my current system lives long enough. I'm hoping my issue is really the PSU, but I won't know until I replace it. Either way, I'm using it as a reason to upgrade.

Thanks,
Josh

[KungFuJosh]

Seriously?

Did you start this thread to get ideas and opinions/advice, or to start a fight ?

The thread is titled "New Processor Choice" - because I wanted to hear about processor experience with new gen stuff. I didn't ask for people to harp about their opinions on motherboards I'm not interested in. I think this concept I'm going for is known as "staying on topic."

When somebody disagrees with an opinion, about an off-topic thing that the OP stated over and over again that they're not interested in, it's not that anybody is trying to start a fight. It's that somebody sharing their unsolicited opinion is too dense to understand that they're not being helpful.

[wraper]

I could save $80 and buy a superior Intel based board if I was that worried about the motherboard budget.

Dunno where you got this strange idea but intel boards are more expensive than AMD for the same feature set.

Perhaps you should look at the boards I listed as my options. The Intel boards are both better, and cheaper.

You took a few of the most ridiculous motherboards and declared that Intel motherboards are cheaper  . None of those Intel boards offer PCI-E 4.0 which you care so much about and which is present even on cheapest B550 boards for $80. Not to say on chipset IC level like X570. I dare to say that Z490 is more crippled that B550  . Nor do I see any features on those Intel boards which are better than on AMD boards of the same price.

[MK14]

The thread is titled "New Processor Choice" - because I wanted to hear about processor experience with new gen stuff. I didn't ask for people to harp about their opinions on motherboards I'm not interested in. I think this concept I'm going for is known as "staying on topic."

When somebody disagrees with an opinion, about an off-topic thing that the OP stated over and over again that they're not interested in, it's not that anybody is trying to start a fight. It's that somebody sharing their unsolicited opinion is too dense to understand that they're not being helpful.

I don't blame you as such. When a thread is about something on the lines of "Which programming language is best", or "Which is the best car to get". There are often, lots of heated opinions.

Although the thread is solely about cpu choice, the other factors, such as motherboards, soon become deciding factors as well.

Also, Intel vs AMD, is often a common arguing point on technically related websites.

I suspect there is no real firm 100% answers. It just depends on so many different factors (and opinions).

On the point of motherboards, I suspect you need a good one, so you get good VRMs, to support a power hungry 12 core (3900X) cpu, or Intel equivalent.

[MK14]

Back on topic. For most things, most people will do, most of the time, an 8 core 3700X is fast/good enough.
But, the price increase to get a full 12 cores (3900X), has become so relatively small (12 cores, use to cost a huge fortune), that it could well be worth it. Even if it only occasionally helps you, speed wise.
In the UK, it is little more than a £100, to go from an 8 core (3700X), to the 3900X. I would imagine, that equates to around $100 to $135 more, in the US.

[wraper]

I suspect you need a good one, so you get good VRMs, to support a power hungry 12 core (3900X) cpu, or Intel equivalent.

The thing is, 12 core AMD is not power hungry at all. It consumes less power than 6 core intel. Ryzen 9 3900x TDP is 105W but measly 6 core i5-10600K TDP is 125W.

[MK14]

I suspect you need a good one, so you get good VRMs, to support a power hungry 12 core (3900X) cpu, or Intel equivalent.

The thing is, 12 core AMD is not power hungry at all. It consumes less power than 6 core intel. Ryzen 9 3900x TDP is 105W but measly 6 core i5-10600K TDP is 125W.

Speaking from memory. The VRMs on the Zen AMD motherboards, are under a huge amount of stress (electrically speaking). Because of the rather low output voltages, and yet very high currents, that they need to produce. The relatively low power ratings of the cpus, don't do the hard work, modern VRMs have to endure, justice.

Also, the 105W for the 12 core, is a fair bit higher, than the 65W of the 8 Core (3700X), if I remember, correctly.

[wraper]

Speaking from memory. The VRMs on the Zen AMD motherboards, are under a huge amount of stress (electrically speaking). Because of the rather low output voltages, and yet very high currents, that they need to produce. The relatively low power ratings of the cpus, don't do the hard work, modern VRMs have to endure, justice.

Also, the 105W for the 12 core, is a fair bit higher, than the 65W of the 8 Core (3700X), if I remember, correctly.

You probably shouldn't put 3900x on the cheapest motherboards in $60-90 range although it will work. FWIW This $60 A320 mobo supports 16 core 3950X
https://www.amazon.com/ASRock-Compatible-Motherboard-A320M-HDV-R4-0/dp/B07MNSP7PB.
https://www.asrock.com/MB/AMD/A320M-HDV%20R4.0/index.asp#CPU
EDIT: it actually costs $50 in shops where I live.
But somewhere at $120+ you should be safe enough, especially without overclocking. But it's worth to check what you are buying of course. Even at the same price you can get VRM significantly better or worse than average.

[0db]

The IT guy here has just bought a dozen new workstations for the new tasks planned for September.
And they are all HP Z4 Workstation (4th gen) based on Intel Xeon W-2123 Quad Core.

I guess he must have no love for AMD 

[MK14]

The IT guy here has just bought a dozen new workstations for the new tasks planned for September.
And they are all HP Z4 Workstation (4th gen) based on Intel Xeon W-2123 Quad Core.

I guess he must have no love for AMD 

I don't think he has much love for Intel, either. Not at 4 cores for a workstation, that is.
That chip can take up to 512 Gb (apparently) of memory, maybe that is why. Some applications need huge amounts of memory.

[wraper]

About Intel and AMD motherboard price difference. Here are two enthusiast series boards, as similar as you can possibly get, and price is... the same.
ASUS ROG Strix X570-E Gaming https://www.newegg.com/asus-rog-strix-x570-e-gaming/p/N82E16813119111
ASUS ROG Strix Z490-E Gaming https://www.newegg.com/asus-rog-strix-z490-e-gaming/p/N82E16813119268

[0db]

I don't think he has much love for Intel, either. Not at 4 cores for a workstation, that is.
That chip can take up to 512 Gb (apparently) of memory, maybe that is why. Some applications need huge amounts of memory.

Yes, probably that's the reason. He said there is 64Gbyte of ram on each workstation.

My colleagues are going to have a brand new workstation with Xeon and a lot of ram, lot of whistles and bells, but IT guy seems to have no upgrade for me, thus it looks I will likely stay with 4Gbyte of ram on a Wolfdale Pentium Dual Core E6600 for still a long while.

That means they don't waste a penny if they haven't already planned to exploit the hardware to the bones.

So, I am not competent, but it looks weird to me that they don't consider Amd.

[olkipukki]

The IT guy here has just bought a dozen new workstations for the new tasks planned for September.
And they are all HP Z4 Workstation (4th gen) based on Intel Xeon W-2123 Quad Core.

Did IT guy bought for a huge discount or HP give him a free pass to any golf club in the world? 

There must be a reason why stick with 3+ years old CPU these days 

[bd139]

HPE only sell you rancid old shit.

[olkipukki]

About Intel and AMD motherboard price difference. Here are two enthusiast series boards, as similar as you can possibly get, and price is... the same.
ASUS ROG Strix X570-E Gaming https://www.newegg.com/asus-rog-strix-x570-e-gaming/p/N82E16813119111
ASUS ROG Strix Z490-E Gaming https://www.newegg.com/asus-rog-strix-z490-e-gaming/p/N82E16813119268

AMD - In stock. Limit 5 per customer.
Intel - In stock. Limit 2 per customer.

 

[olkipukki]

... but it looks weird to me that they don't consider Amd.

Actually, can you buy any AMD-based workstation?

[KungFuJosh]

You took a few of the most ridiculous motherboards and declared that Intel motherboards are cheaper  . None of those Intel boards offer PCI-E 4.0 which you care so much about and which is present even on cheapest B550 boards for $80. Not to say on chipset IC level like X570. I dare to say that Z490 is more crippled that B550  . Nor do I see any features on those Intel boards which are better than on AMD boards of the same price.

All of the Gigabyte Z490 boards have PCIe 4.0 hardware, and will be functional/compatible with 11th gen Intel chips, which will (finally) support PCIe 4.0.

Back on topic. For most things, most people will do, most of the time, an 8 core 3700X is fast/good enough.
But, the price increase to get a full 12 cores (3900X), has become so relatively small (12 cores, use to cost a huge fortune), that it could well be worth it. Even if it only occasionally helps you, speed wise.
In the UK, it is little more than a £100, to go from an 8 core (3700X), to the 3900X. I would imagine, that equates to around $100 to $135 more, in the US.

I was impatient and picked up the 3900X today for $400 locally. I've got 15 days to return it if something nicer poops up.

About Intel and AMD motherboard price difference. Here are two enthusiast series boards, as similar as you can possibly get, and price is... the same.
ASUS ROG Strix X570-E Gaming https://www.newegg.com/asus-rog-strix-x570-e-gaming/p/N82E16813119111
ASUS ROG Strix Z490-E Gaming https://www.newegg.com/asus-rog-strix-z490-e-gaming/p/N82E16813119268

Both of those boards are just okay. I like the I/O panel better on the AMD version (which was my backup plan). I don't know why they made a shittier version for the Intel chip. Maybe the processors can't handle as many USB 3.2 ports or something? Either way, it's annoying. I/O panel is a big deal for me in MB choice.

I actually like the I/O panel on the MSI MPG X570 GAMING PLUS much better than most of the boards, and it's only $170, which is nice. I've already got an AX200 PCIe card, but I didn't want to use it. I might go this way and be lazy about it. I dunno. I like MSI a lot, and my current board is an MSI, but I haven't been a big fan of their BIOS updates.

Thanks,
Josh

[KaneTW]

Pretty much 0 reason to go with Intel nowadays, for almost any use case.

Depends what you are running. There are still some compatibility issues with some Linux or FreeBSD versions.

You also have a much larger selection of motherboards in the Intel-based market, particularly when you're looking at higher-end consumer and enterprise gear.

Having been bitten several times by "general AMD instability and failures" in the past for both CPU and GPU products, I find it hard to trust their products as a whole. As for speed, it has always been a cat and mouse game between Intel and AMD.

I've never seen any compatibility issues on either Windows or Linux with both a Threadripper 1950X and a 3900X. In fact, I chose AMD specifically for the second system due to superior VFIO support for Linux-based virtualization.

Motherboard selection? What feature set were you looking for? I've been pretty happy with the feature set of the offered AMD motherboards, so I can't say I particularly cared about that.

AMD has been rock-stable for 2.5 years on my 1950X machine. And at that time, AMD was the only vendor offering ECC and good performance for a non-insane price. Intel still doesn't.

I don't really care for the brand. I care for features and price/performance, and AMD delivers handily right now.

[KaneTW]

... but it looks weird to me that they don't consider Amd.

Actually, can you buy any AMD-based workstation?

Yes, there's even certified ones by now: https://www.lenovo.com/us/en/thinkstation-p620