Intel or AMD? Fight!
Source
All of my PCs have been self built. I first started building as I simply didn't have the money to buy a computer outright. I remember buying a component once every few weeks or so, slowly assembling my computer as I went. Motherboard one week, a few weeks later the processor, then one stick of memory, then another and on and on. My first was built around an AMD Athlon - the cheaper option. It served me well for several years until I felt the need to upgrade. I then switched to Intel and have stuck with them ever since. Yes, they are the more expensive option, but the performance has been top notch.
My current system has an Intel i5-4690K. Officially it's a 3.5GHz chip but being a K series, it's unlocked and has sat at 4.5 GHz more or less since I bought it. The system is no slouch but I feel the need to upgrade it.
It's yuge! Air cooling for my overclocked i5
Source
I am doing more and more 3D graphics work and I also have plans with @rhondak and The Writers' Block to make 3D animations. 3D rendering demands more cores, threads and faster processing. For example, this took 110 minutes to render in Arnold in Maya.
It has been around three years since I built my current system. In computer terms that's several generations ago and technology has moved on. Intel have introduced ever more powerful CPUs, changed and introduced new technologies. DDR4 memory is now common place - and twice as expensive as it should be - and after a lull, AMD have struck back and given Intel competition once more. I'm slowly getting up to speed with the marketplace as it has advanced over this time.
Source
My dilemma is which route to take: if I went the AMD route, I would buy a Threadripper 1900x. It has 8 cores and 16 threads. Its base clock speed is 3.8 GHz and it turbos up to 4GHz. On the other hand, if I went the Intel route I would choose the i7-8700K - this has 6 cores, 12 threads and its base clock speed is 3.7GHz, turbo boosting up to 4.70 GHz. At first glance, the numbers would indicate that AMD would be the better choice. However, thread count is not as important as the clock speed, and at full load the i7-8700k runs all cores at 4.7GHz compared to the Threadripper's 4GHz. Add into the mix that the Intel K series are unlocked and this particular chip can easily reach 5GHz with good cooling, the case for Intel seems strong.
Source
Either system would be an incredible upgrade over my quad core i5.
BUT
Source
Meltdown and Spectre Kernel Vulnerabilities have created a headache for Intel and Operating Systems are being patched to try to address a problem that's at a hardware level.
According to recent reports, Intel and ARM processors suffer a serious hardware-level vulnerability that the vendors cannot patch via a microcode update. Addressing the vulnerability requires a significant retooling of operating systems, in particular Windows, Linux, and macOS, which reportedly causes up to a 30% reduction in performance in some workloads.
However, that number is likely overblown. The overall impact of the performance regression and the specific programs impacted are poorly defined. As with many pre-release security patches, the details surrounding the bug are under NDA for now, but we expect an official update from Intel soon. Both Microsoft and Linux already have patches in the pipeline. AMD's exposure to the bug remains undefined, with some reports indicating the company's processors are immune and others stating that some models are impacted.
Source
Admittedly, the impact on performance will be felt more in older CPUs. However, it could impact newer chips like the i7-8700k.
I'd like to hear opinions from other Steemians. Should I stick with Intel or go to the dark side of AMD? I am really torn on this one.
Source
Like what I do? Vote for my witness https://steemit.com/~witnesses - scroll below top the 50 witnesses and enter my name in the text box, then click vote. Thanks for your support.
The other factor to consider is to make sure the software you're planning to use will actually utilise all those cores and threads. Look for real world examples.
Also if you're planning to be doing a lot of rendering, consider building a separate rendering machine - so your main PC is still fully usable while it's running. You can also look at more specific graphics cards for rendering rather than the gaming style cards.
The software I use does prefer more cores and threads.
You make a great point about building a separate machine for rendering...something I hadn't considered.
Because of Meltdown and Spectre i do not want use Intel more. As far as i can i change my system. I support your desicion 👏
What's wrong with the Texas Instruments you've had since 8th grade?
BOO
good day, pay attention to my account, I pay a fee for your votes from 50 to 70 % of the program sbdgiveaway, I will be glad to meet and communicate further)))
I accidentally just delegated only 3 steem. Is it a 20 steem minimum or will I still get 5% upvote?
Meltdown and Spectre was not dangerous for years but now we talk about them. If they are dangerous its late yı change anything. Go on with Intel.
I own a core i5 3rd generation processor... the option of building one's pc is rare over here as parts are not readily available....
Even though AMD is making some pretty impressive CPU and GPU ... the intel i7 8700k is just the best option between those two and since it ends with a "k" that means it has been unlocked and it can even surpass the turbo boost of 4.70Ghz
The main issue why so many vulnerabilities are linked to Intel is because it's the most widely used. Same thing with windows....most spyware, malware, etc. are designed to attack windows-based systems. Why? Because they are the most widespread...making finding a target, or mass of targets to infect easier.
Back to the point....I have always bought Intel, not because I think their tech is better, it's because of location. I live in South Africa and AMD kind of disappeared here a few years back.
stormrider is correct, you just need to look at the performance specs for the individual programs you're looking to use. Generally the more cores you have the better, even if per core speed is slower, if you're going to do anything that maxes out how many cores are in use. AMD doesn't have locked versions of their modern cpus, so in this case either option will be overclockable. Speaking of overclocking, overclock.net has a community of ultra-nerds and many of them test the hell out of everything, especially cpus/gpus. Personally I'd go AMD, but it's your call and there are a lot of factors involved. Raw core speed's biggest advantage is usually when you're looking to get the most FPS possible in games.