971
submitted 1 month ago by mox@lemmy.sdf.org to c/technology@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 41 points 1 month ago

Amd processors have literally always been a better value and rarely have been surpassed by much for long. The only problem they ever had was back in the day they overheated easily. But I will never ever buy an Intel processor on purpose, especially after this.

[-] mox@lemmy.sdf.org 38 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The only problem they ever had was back in the day they overheated easily.

That's not true. It was just last year that some of the Ryzen 7000 models were burning themselves out from the insides at default settings (within AMD specs) due to excessive SoC voltage. They fixed it through new specs and working with board manufacturers to issue new BIOS, and I think they eventually gave in to pressure to cover the damaged units. I guess we'll see if Intel ends up doing the same.

I generally agree with your sentiment, though. :)

I just wish both brands would chill. Pushing the hardware so hard for such slim gains is wasting power and costing customers.

[-] SpaceCadet@feddit.nl 9 points 1 month ago

That’s not true. It was just last year that some of the Ryzen 7000 models were burning themselves

I think he was referring to "back-in-the-day" when Athlons, unlike the competing Pentium 3 and 4 CPUs of the day, didn't have any thermal protections and would literally go up in smoke if you ran them without cooling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRn8ri9tKf8

[-] RdVortex@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Some motherboards did have overheating protection back then though. Personally I had my Athlon XP computer randomly shut down several times back then, because the system had some issue, where fans would randomly start slowing down and eventually completely stop. This then triggered overheat protection of the motherboard, which simply cut the power as soon as the temperature was too hight.

[-] mox@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 month ago

When I started using computers, I wasn't aware of any thermal protections in popular CPUs. Do you happen to know when they first appeared in Intel chips?

[-] SpaceCadet@feddit.nl 3 points 1 month ago

Pentium 2 and 3 had rudimentary protection. They would simply shutdown if they got too hot. Pentium 4 was the first one that would throttle down clock speeds.

Anything before that didn't have any protection as far as I'm aware.

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Yeah. I just meant AMD cpus used to easily overheat if your cooling system had an issue. My ryzen 7 3700x has been freaking awesome though. Feels more solid than any PC I've built. And it's fast AF. I think I saved over $150 when comparing to a similarly rated Intel CPU. And the motherboards generally seem cheaper for AMD too. I would feel ripped off with Intel even without the crashing issues

[-] Deway@lemmy.world 29 points 1 month ago

rarely have been surpassed by much for long.

I've been on team AMD for over 20 years now but that's not true. The CoreDuo and the first couple of I CPUS were better than what AMD was offering and were for a decade. The Athlon were much better than the Pentium 3 and P4, the Ryzen are better than the current I series but the Phenom weren't. Don't get me wrong, I like my Phenom II X4 but it objectively wasn't as good as Intel's offerings back in the day.

[-] deltapi@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

My i5-4690 and i7-4770 machines remain competitive to this day, even with spectre patches in place. I saw no reason to 'upgrade' to 6/7/8th gen CPUs.

I'm looking for a new desktop now, but for the costs involved I might just end up parting together a HP Z6 G4 with server surplus cpu/ram. The costs of going to 11th+ desktop Intel don't seem worth it.

I'm going to look at the more recent AMD offerings, but I'm not sure they'll compete with surplus server kit.

[-] Deway@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

I'd say that regardless of the brand, X86 CPU don't need to be upgraded as often as they used to. No awesome new extension like SSE or something like that, not much more powerful, power consumption not going down significantly. If you don't care about power consumption, the server CPU will be more interesting, there's no doubt about that.

[-] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

My issue with surplus server kit at home is that it tends to idle at very high power usage compared to desktop kit. For home use that won't be pushing high CPU utilization, the savings in cost off eBay aren't worth much.

This is also why you're seeing AM5 on server motherboards. If you don't need to have tons of PCIe lanes--and especially with PCIe 5, you probably don't--the higher core count AM5 chips do really well for servers.

[-] floofloof@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

They're still useful, but they're not competitive in overall performance with recent CPUs in the same category. They do still compete with some of the budget and power-efficient CPUs, but they use more power and get hotter.

That said, those 4th gen Intel CPUs are indeed good enough for most everyday computing tasks. They won't run Windows 11 because MS locks them out, but they will feel adequately fast unless you're doing pretty demanding stuff.

I still have an i5-2400, an i7-4770K and an i7-6700 for occasional or server use, and my i7-8550U laptop runs great with Linux (though it overheated with Windows).

I buy AMD now though.

[-] edgesmash@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

The only problem they ever had was back in the day they overheated easily.

Very easily.

In college (early aughts), I worked as tech support for fellow students. Several times I had to take the case cover off, point a desktop fan into the case, and tell the kid he needed to get thermal paste and a better cooler (services we didn't offer).

Also, as others have said, AMD CPUs have not always been superior to Intel in performance or even value (though AMDs have almost always been cheaper). It's been a back-and-forth race for much of their history.

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Yeah. I never said they were always better in performance. But I have never had an issue other than the heat problem which all but one time was fully my fault. And I don't need a processor to perform 3% better on random tasks... which was the kind of benchmark results I would typically find when comparing similar AMD/intel processors (also in some categories amd did win). I saved probably a couple grand avoiding Intel. And as another user said, I prefer to support the underdog. The company making a great product for a lot less money. Again I say: fuck Intel.

this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2024
971 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

58066 readers
2878 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS