Intel owners who have switched to AMD

[biffzinker]

If they do a refresh and find a way to get the heat out of the chips easier (improved solder TIM?) these things will get even better.

The smaller the process tech (7nm to 5nm?) is the harder it will be to remove the concentrated heat from a eight cores die irregardless of the solder tim used.

 

[birdie]

One thing which I've noticed is that my PC idle power consumption has increased vs. my previous Intel build. That's caused by the fact that Ryzen 3000/5000 CPUs have an IO chip which never really idles and consumes from 10 up to 27W. In my case it's around 17W.

Another thing which I'm not a fan of, is the fact that Ryzen 3000-5000 CPUs "idle" at much higher temps vs. previous Intel CPUs. To eliminate the issue I've disabled boost on my Ryzen 3700X CPU and by doing that I've limited the CPU frequency to 3600MHz and lowered the idle temps from the 45-57C range to the 33-45C range.

Other than that, everything has been smooth.

 

[Frick]

Another thing which I'm not a fan of, is the fact that Ryzen 3000-5000 CPUs "idle" at much higher temps vs. previous Intel CPUs. To eliminate the issue I've disabled boost on my Ryzen 3700X CPU and by doing that I've limited the CPU frequency to 3600MHz and lowered the idle temps from the 45-57C range to the 33-45C range.

Does this have an effect on power consumption? And what do you mean with "idle"?

 

[birdie]

Does this have an effect on power consumption? And what do you mean with "idle"?

By "idle" I mean e.g. browsing light web sites (I'm using NoScript + uBlock Origin, which means I don't see banners and pages are generally static, i.e. no animations, WebGL or anything like that), working with text documents and using a file explorer. So, the PC is not 100% idle but the load is generally very very low.

Of course, power consumption is a whole lot lower.

I do enable boost when I have to run long-running applications which create a decent load, e.g. video re/encoding, compression, compilation, etc. This way I'm OK with my CPU consuming as much power as it really needs to because the CPU temperature is steady and high (60-65C).

 

[Frick]

By "idle" I mean e.g. browsing light web sites (I'm using NoScript + uBlock Origin, which means I don't see banners and pages are generally static, i.e. no animations, WebGL or anything like that), working with text documents and using a file explorer. So, the PC is not 100% idle but the load is generally very very low.

Of course, power consumption is a whole lot lower.

How much lower compared to when boost is on?

 

[birdie]

How much lower compared to when boost is on?

A quick and dirty test:

7z b with boost disabled: ~53W (~4.5W per core)
7z b with boost enabled: ~90W (~9W per core)

Of course you're losing quite a lot of performance.

 

[freeagent]

Awesome! Hey you guys thanks for sharing your experiences, this is the kind of stuff I was hoping to see. I saw Intel dropped their prices.. impressive. I also saw AMD raised their prices.. dammit! Lol. I’m going to try an AMD build. I don’t have anything against Intel, they treated really well for the most part. So my old crap is worthless eh? Should I try to get a hundred bucks for that complete x58 setup and maybe 50 for the x48? Seems a bit low but then again it’s pretty old stuff.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Definetly get the most you can for your old stuff but try to at the very least go ryzen 3000 or wait for cheaper ryzen 5000 stuff like the rumored 5600 non X it really is a very large jump over Ryzen + and especially Ryzen 1st gen. I did a lot of 1st/+/2nd gen builds and have to say I'm by far the most impressed with the 3000 series so much so that I'm replacing my 9900k with a 5950X when I can get one....

I really like my 3900X system but my wife has mostly claimed it as her own.

 

[freeagent]

Wow that really says a lot. Ok it’s a bit more than I wanted to spend but I’m worth it and honestly I would rather spend the money on new stock rather than new old stock. Yay new toys

 

[Bill_Bright]

The top of the line does not define the entire brand

But you can grade the overarching core design on IPC, which is what he was referring to, pretty certainly.

No! Come on! Let's be realistic here, okay? You are suggesting the design of the maker's upper-most flagship processor is the same design used all the way down the line to their lowest level, entry models. That's not reality. And grading any product on one spec alone is just as unrealistic.

Is the fastest car in the world the best car in the world? What if the buyer is looking for the "smoothest" ride? The most quiet interior? The best gas mileage?

And is the best CPU for playing Warhammer 2 the best CPU for playing Far Cry 5? What about for AutoCAD? Or Maya? Or Ableton Live 10?

The $100 Ryzen 3 3200G 4-Core 65W is nothing like the $800 Ryzen 9 5950X 16-Core 105W processor other than the fact they both branded AMD and use the AM4 socket (comparison). And you certainly cannot compare the R3 3200G with a $2000 i9-9880XE 18-Core 165W processor.

In terms of efficiency and power consumption at idle, is that really a factor in buying decisions? I mean how many hours and hours on end each day is the computer sitting at idle, being non-productive and wasting energy?

Set aside the facts the CPU is but one component sucking power and that often the graphics solution is the most power hungry devices in our systems. If my system is idle, that means I'm sitting there doing nothing too. At that point my two lit-up monitors are pulling more power than my idle processor. And if my computer is idle, in 15 minutes those monitors are going to sleep and 5 minutes later, my computer is goes to sleep too.

I'm using my computer ~5 to 6 hours each day. And when I am using my computer, very little of that time, in comparison, is my computer sitting there idling and doing nothing. It is minutes versus hours. Is that really different from how most people use their computers? I'm betting not.

The tree-hugger side of me does worry about energy consumption. I'm not an extremist in this matter, but I do believe in the science; global warming is real and we need to do our parts to heal and protect the Earth for future generations. So I am concerned about power consumption and energy efficiency (and of course, heat) - but when my computer is being tasked, not at idle. For this reason, I go for the gold - 80 PLUS Gold, that is.

 

[freeagent]

Big shocker the new AMD CPUs are sold out. The last time I looked at 3rd gen zen prices were a bit lower. Intel has some decent deals. I’ll hold my horses for a bit. I’ve got my spare parts for sale locally so maybe I’ll sell something. I’ve got the x58 with CPU and ram listed for 250 and the X48 listed with cpu and ram for 150, obo on everything of course. Also that is in beaver bucks so here’s hoping

It’s really easy to blow through a budget so I’ll do some more reading.

 

[Glaceon]

I prefer my Ryzen 9 3900X build to my i7-8700 build by a TON. Quieter, draws less overall power and fantastic performance. Waiting on my quad 3600 16-16-16-36 kit now.

 

[Bill_Bright]

I prefer my Ryzen 9 3900X build to my i7-8700 build by a TON. Quieter, draws less overall power and fantastic performance.

Oh? And each has a comparable motherboard, the exact same CPU cooler, the exact same case and the exact same case cooling setup with the exact same graphics solution, RAM and power supply, right? If not, then your statement is just anecdotal at best, meaningless more likely. It certainly does not suggest all AMD are better (whatever that means) than Intels. It just means you like your AMD better. Nothing wrong with that, its just meaningless for this discussion.

 

[Glaceon]

... that's exactly what I mean

I like this build better

I'm not here to explain why AMD is better than Intel or vice versa

I answered the question of the thread. Sometimes I feel like not even visiting this forum at this point

I also did not use the exact same CPU cooler and RAM. Only things that were transferred between builds were GPU and PSU. The others are irrelevant

 

[EarthDog]

I prefer my Ryzen 9 3900X build to my i7-8700 build by a TON. Quieter, draws less overall power and fantastic performance. Waiting on my quad 3600 16-16-16-36 kit now.

Sorry for the OT, but no idea how your new system draws less power. A 3900x uses a lot more power than a locked 8700... even an unlocked 8700K... by quite a fair margin too.

AMD Ryzen 9 3900X Review

The flagship of AMD's new Ryzen 3000 lineup is the Ryzen 9 3900X, which is a 12-core, 24-thread monster. Never before have we seen such power on a desktop platform. Priced at $500, this processor is very strong competition for Intel's Core i9-9900, which only has eight cores.

www.techpowerup.com

 

[Glaceon]

Ran the same Prime95 test on both builds, 3900X drew 120W while my 8700 rated at """65W""" drew 130W+

But I am out of this thread as I'd like to preserve my sanity, answered the title question, moving on

 

[Bill_Bright]

I answered the question of the thread. Sometimes I feel like not even visiting this forum at this point

I understand your feeling and I apologize if my comment was upsetting. But the question of the thread is invalid because it is WAY WAY to general. The question of the thread was about the "smoothness" and "stability" of AMD vs Intel - as in the entire brand of AMDs vs Intel. That's not a valid comparison because each maker produces many processors and frankly all are smooth and stable when properly used in compatible setups. Plus stability and smoothness has as much to do with the motherboard, RAM, graphics, power, cooling and more as it does with the CPU itself.

 

[INSTG8R]

Went from 4790K to 3700X saw some minor FPS losses in my benches but overall pleased with performance the BIOS feels very old school compared to Intel as far as settings etc.I built it for Zen3 anyway so this setup is just a placeholder.

 

[freeagent]

Ran the same Prime95 test on both builds, 3900X drew 120W while my 8700 rated at """65W""" drew 130W+

But I am out of this thread as I'd like to preserve my sanity, answered the title question, moving on

Is that at the wall or software?

 

[thesmokingman]

Is that at the wall or software?

Did you not know that Intel cpus and their advertised tdp is a joke?

 

[NoJuan999]

I understand your feeling and I apologize if my comment was upsetting. But the question of the thread is invalid because it is WAY WAY to general. The question of the thread was about the "smoothness" and "stability" of AMD vs Intel - as in the entire brand of AMDs vs Intel. That's not a valid comparison because each maker produces many processors and frankly all are smooth and stable when properly used in compatible setups. Plus stability and smoothness has as much to do with the motherboard, RAM, graphics, power, cooling and more as it does with the CPU itself.

His post was absolutely valid, the OP just asked for personal experiences and opinions:

Hi, just curious how you like the AM4 platform? Is it as smooth as running an Intel? Any quirks? Regrets? Would you do anything different?

 

[EarthDog]

Is that at the wall or software?

I'd imagine actual. When I've reviewed B550/X570 using a 3900x, using AIDA64 stress test (CPU/FPU/Cache), Those systems peaked around 210W at the wall.

Did you not know that Intel cpus and their advertised tdp is a joke?

Indeed.

You may want to read my link though. There isn't a situation that W1z tests with (including a stress test) where the 95W 8700K (other dude has a locked 65W 8700) uses more power. It could depend on the test? Who knows... but gaming and other real world, it doesn't seem to.

 

[8BitZ80]

Ran the same Prime95 test on both builds, 3900X drew 120W while my 8700 rated at """65W""" drew 130W+

But I am out of this thread as I'd like to preserve my sanity, answered the title question, moving on

IIRC Intel calculates their TDP from the base clock. Once boost is enabled you're going to see more power draw than you expect. It's so utterly dumb.

One thing which I've noticed is that my PC idle power consumption has increased vs. my previous Intel build. That's caused by the fact that Ryzen 3000/5000 CPUs have an IO chip which never really idles and consumes from 10 up to 27W. In my case it's around 17W.

Another thing which I'm not a fan of, is the fact that Ryzen 3000-5000 CPUs "idle" at much higher temps vs. previous Intel CPUs. To eliminate the issue I've disabled boost on my Ryzen 3700X CPU and by doing that I've limited the CPU frequency to 3600MHz and lowered the idle temps from the 45-57C range to the 33-45C range.

Other than that, everything has been smooth.

Ryzen 3000 also consumes more power at idle when the memory frequency is 3600MHz or higher. Details in my signature.

Are you just disabling PBO? I've tried disabling it myself but I still get all-core of 4.0GHz and single core boosting to 4.6GHz. Which is fine by me, but it's not being limited to base clock like others are saying.

 

[birdie]

Are you just disabling PBO? I've tried disabling it myself but I still get all-core of 4.0GHz and single core boosting to 4.6GHz. Which is fine by me, but it's not being limited to base clock like others are saying.

I've never enabled any OC'ing including PBO ;-) The CPU cost me too much to play any "Void my warranty" games.

As to disabling boost: you go to Power Options, choose your current power plan and limit your Processor power management->Maximum Processor State to 99%. That effectively disables Boost (i.e. frequencies above 3600MHz). No BIOS shenanigans are required.

 

[R-T-B]

You are suggesting the design of the maker's upper-most flagship processor is the same design used all the way down the line to their lowest level, entry models.

The base core design has been that way across the product stack for years bill. They don't make different core architectures for different pricepoints, they simply downclock or disable this or that. It's
all the same uarch. But they sometimes (rarely) reuse last gen in the current product stack as a budget product. Either way my point applies.

And grading any product on one spec alone is just as unrealistic.

IPC is used as a standard for this for a reason.