> $400 is an arbitrary price ceiling and you’re not looking at dollars per performance unit, you’re just cutting off with a maximum price. So if there’s a $430 AMD CPU that’s 20% faster you’re going to forego that better price per performance value just because it’s slightly above your price target.
My choice of CPU currently has the best value / performance on this benchmark aside from two very old AMD processors which are very slow and just happen to be extremely cheap. No new AMD processors are even remotely close.
It's also currently $285 no top tier performers are even close except SKUs which are slight variations of the same CPU.
> benchmarks don’t pick up unique CPU features nor they pick up real world application performance. For example, Intel has no answer to the X3D V-cache architecture that makes AMD chips better for gaming.
Happy to be convinced that there's a better benchmark out there, but if you're trying to tell me it's better but in a way that can't be measured, I don't believe you because that's just "bro science".
> If you’re looking for integrated graphics, you’re pretty much always better off with AMD over Intel
I never have been looking for integrated graphics, sometimes I have bought the CPU with it just because it was a little cheaper.
> You can’t really ignore motherboard cost and the frequency of platform socket changes. AMD has cheaper boards that last longer (as in, they update their sockets less often so you can upgrade chips more and keep your same board)
I've always bought a new motherboard with a CPU and either repurposed, sold, or given away the old CPU/motherboard combination which seems like a much better use of money. The last one went to somebody's little brother. The one before that is my NAS. There's not a meaningful difference to comparable motherboards to me, particularly when the competing AMD CPUs are nearly double the cost or more.
It’s hard to take you seriously if you’re going to claim equivalent AMD processors cost double or more.
Your example of tossing your motherboard away is not a very good one here. That was your choice to act illogically. My AMD AM4 motherboard started with a Ryzen 1600, 3600, and now runs a 5600X3D.
Basically I’ve had this same motherboard for something like 6 or 7 years and the performance difference between a Ryzen 1600 and 5600X3D is completely wild. I’ve had no need to buy a new board for the better part of a decade. If you’re buying a new board with every processor purchase that’s a huge cost difference.
When I say that generic benchmarks are bad I mean that cpu benchmarks like the one you are just now linking are bad. You need more practical benchmarks like in-game FPS, how long a turn takes in Stellaris, how long it takes to encode a video or open an ZIP file, etc.
That is where the X3D chips play in as well. You might be able to buy an Intel chip with more cores and better productivity performance, but if you’re eyeing gaming performance like I imagine most desktop DIY builders are, you’d rather get better gaming oriented performance and sacrifice some productivity performance.
If you are gaming and buy a 9800X3D, Intel literally doesn’t not make anything faster at any price. You can offer Intel $5,000 and they won’t have anything to sell you that goes faster at playing games.
At lower price points, AMD still ends up making a lot of sense for their long-supported sockets, low cost boards, better power/heat efficiency, and X3D chips performing well in gaming applications.
My choice of CPU currently has the best value / performance on this benchmark aside from two very old AMD processors which are very slow and just happen to be extremely cheap. No new AMD processors are even remotely close.
It's also currently $285 no top tier performers are even close except SKUs which are slight variations of the same CPU.
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_available.html
> benchmarks don’t pick up unique CPU features nor they pick up real world application performance. For example, Intel has no answer to the X3D V-cache architecture that makes AMD chips better for gaming.
Happy to be convinced that there's a better benchmark out there, but if you're trying to tell me it's better but in a way that can't be measured, I don't believe you because that's just "bro science".
> If you’re looking for integrated graphics, you’re pretty much always better off with AMD over Intel
I never have been looking for integrated graphics, sometimes I have bought the CPU with it just because it was a little cheaper.
> You can’t really ignore motherboard cost and the frequency of platform socket changes. AMD has cheaper boards that last longer (as in, they update their sockets less often so you can upgrade chips more and keep your same board)
I've always bought a new motherboard with a CPU and either repurposed, sold, or given away the old CPU/motherboard combination which seems like a much better use of money. The last one went to somebody's little brother. The one before that is my NAS. There's not a meaningful difference to comparable motherboards to me, particularly when the competing AMD CPUs are nearly double the cost or more.