Amd ryzen vs intel
Choppski
Posts: 627
in The Commons
Might be getting a new computer for rendering. Is amd ryzen ok or should I stick with intel
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Earlier this year I upgraded my PC to get it Windows 11 ready (new motherboard, CPU and RAM) and made the switch from an Intel CPU to AMD (Ryzen 9 7950x). I am seeing no issues with running Daz3D on the upgraded rig, but I do use an NVidia GPU exclusively for rendering (3090 FE) and have not tried CPU rendering, since it is so much slower than GPU in almost every case. The biggest improvement was going from 64 GB or DDR4 RAM to 96 GB of DDR5 RAM--now I can use the full 24 GB of my 3090 and scenes no longer get bogged down because the memory of my system is full, so keep that in mind when upgrading your computer as well (the other cool thing is my motherboard can support the Ryzen 9xxx series CPUs as well which now can handle RAM kits as large as 192 GB, so additional upgrades are possible without replacing the motherboard). In general I don't think there are any issues to be expected with the newest versions of either AMD or Intel CPUs so go with whatever you feel most comfortable with.
For Daz/iRay: the CPU can be AMD or Intel but the GPU MUST be Nvidia
The CPU shouldn't make much difference at all to using Daz. It will speed you around the viewport if you have VERY large or VERY complex sets but that's pretty much all (if you don't have a GPU capable of rendering the scenes you want, then any CPU rendering fallback will be very, very very slow regardless of which cpu you use).
If I was building a rendering-only rig I would trade cpu performance and put the money saved toward a better gpu (with lots of VRAM - which matters most for iRay rendering).
E.G. With a £650 budget for the two components (which would mean a full machine buy for £1300)
CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 7600X 4.7 GHz 6-Core Processor - £156.99
GPU: Asus DUAL EVO OC GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB Video Card - £478.98 <-- if you can stretch to a 24GB card, then do so
NB: The same would provide fairly poor performance for gaming, where CPU-cores and speed matter much more than they do for rendering
Intel 13th and 14th Gen CPUs have a history of stability issues.
I would be reluctant to use those CPUs if I was building a new system.
This, and the performance with the new generation is lackluster - from what I recall, it's performance is all over the map depending upon the application.
I've now got a set up with Ryzen 5 =
Might upgrade to Ryzen 7 in future
(With an RTX 3050)
If you were going to recommend a new processor for a rendering *and* gaming machine that already has a nVidia 4090, do you think a Ryzen 9 9950X 16-core, 32-thread would be a good pick? I have an older Intel that has been rock-solid stable for years, but it's a bit outdated and I've also held off on updating after the latest Intel problems of the last couple of years. I also haven't been looking forward to needing to buy a new motherboard to go along with it. ;)
You'd need to quote the Intel if you'd like a reasoned response? <-- quote, and I'll take a look at perf-curves and reviews etc. And BTW: The R5 I mention has very decent speed stats... but "not very many" cores. It will game, depending on WHICH game (so, you might want to quote the kinda thing you play too?)
[And] You mention one drawback, which would be the likelihood of needing a new mobo... but then that's likely even if you go with "a much newer intel"
I'm in the process of reading up on benchmarks on AMD and Intel and from a lot of the benchmarks AMD is scoring way higher. Of course, it's all dependent on the things you are doing for that benchmarks. Neither my wife's computer nor mine are compatible with Win 11 so gotta get a move on it before support is over, which I believe in Oct. I looked at one set of benchmarks and out of the top 20 most were AMD with only a few Intel. I'm still building my system on versions websites like, New Egg, Microcenter, PC Part Picker, etc so I can get my list of parts that I know for sure that they are compatible with one another.
If changing from an Intel to an AMD CPU you will have to replace the motherboard since they use different chipset sockets (you can't put a Ryzen CPU in an Intel socket or vice versa). Also, check your CPU cooler and make sure it has an AMD AM5 socket adapter for it or else you will have to replace the cooler as well (AMD AM5 and Intel CPU cooler adapters are differently sized from each other). 9950X is currently the top line AMD CPU (well, techically the 9950X3D, but it is more expensive if a touch slower in benchmarks since it doesn't boost to quite as high a clock speed as the 9950X), but you could also consider the Ryzen 7 9700 as well. The 9950X/X3D can support RAM sets up to 192 GB if you are thinking of going very large on your rendering scenes, but RAM kits of 128+ GB are currently really pricey and I would recommend going for 96 GB (2 x 48 GB) to be able to use all 24 GB of VRAM on your 4090 GPU. Also, if you switch your CPU from Intel to AMD and still want to use your existing hard drives, you will have to perform a fresh install of Windows since it won't automatically recognize the updated hardware on your system, so be prepared to have to wipe your boot drive and reinstall the OS and make backups of important data beforehand. Non-boot drives should be fine to use--you will simply have to reassign the drive letters for them in Windows once it is reinstalled.
For those needing/looking to go from Windows 10 to Windows 11, Microsoft isn't advertising it but you can extend support for Windows 10 for an additional year past October 2025 for free--it requires a Microsoft account and jumping through a few hoops to qualify for the offer, but you can find it if you dig around the Microsoft website. So those of us still running Windows 10 aren't completely up against a hard requirement to update our OS by October of this year if we don't want to...
Alright, thanks.
My CPU is an Intel i9-10900, 10 cores, I believe 10th generation. I know I'd need to replace the motherboard, I just said I wasn't looking forward to it. ;) Games I play, mostly AAA stuff (Cyberpunk, Assassin's Creed), all at near max settings at 2560x1440 (I can run at 4k, but I'd prefer the stabilty and less heat).
I have 128 GB of RAM, but it's on 4 sticks of 32GB each. I read that performance can suffer if you use more than two sticks, do you know if that's true and what sort of performance hit it might be? Also didn't know you'd need to reinstall the OS, that's terrific. :\ I heard someone say that the 9950X3D is better for rendering, but how much better can it be when the majority of the heavy lifting is done by the GPU?
Thanks for any information, I appreciate it.
Thanks for the info :-)
If want decent gaming and decent rendering - the bang-for-buck sweetspot is probably a 13-gen Intel.
The intel benchmarks at around 4% - 10% "better", across the range, than the AMD
That intel chip was released Q4 2022 (so is "reliable" too)
If you get the AMD, it's a new mobo. Going from a 10gen to a 13+ Gen intel will also mean you're getting a new mobo. You WILL almost certainly be able to keep your GPU (again, either way). You __might__ get away with the RAM you already have (it'll be a bottleneck in speed terms if you do).
Go here: pcpartpicker.com - pick your country - "buy" the parts you'd like to keep first, then see what new you need to add (so put your GPU in first) <-- When you've selected cpu and mobo, remove your GPU
Keeping your 4090; getting new mobo, intel-13900k cpu, liquid-cooler and 2x48gb (DDR5 6600) ram will cost ~ £890 (that's not too shabby at all)
2 v 4 sticks of ram... You'll find little hard info and much hearsay (all ways). I have no evidense to support 4 sticks being any worse than 2... there is some it is "a bit" cheaper. YMMV.
" I heard someone say that the 9950X3D is better for rendering, but how much better can it be when the majority of the heavy lifting is done by the GPU?"
(Missed this bit).
Not everything renders only on GPU. iRay effectively renders on GPU-only. So, if you were to render-in-blender, you'd prob be able to make much more use of a whizz-bang CPU (probably!)
Do you have any information on how much of an upgrade for the CPU that 13th gen Intel would be over mine? It doesn't seem like it would be worth all the cost and trouble to be honest, since I'm not really having any issues with my current build. I was just wondering if it really could be improved all that much.
LOL I will absolutely be keeping my GPU because I won't even think of upgrading if I couldn't. ;) 4090s are lost treaures now, you build a system around it, not the other way around.
~ 29% -<-- quick result from the benchmarking site I use (it's a Top-10 chip, still)
(Going 3-gens is very usually "worth your money").
However, that site also lists "scores from other Review Sites". These are the increases quoted, yours v the 13900... for games if you can work out the acronymns!
If you're not feeling limited by your current build, keeping your money feels like the best solution.
KPR: Thanks, those percentages are interesting because they're so varied. Borderlands 3 and Far Cry 6 got 44 and 52% increases, but Cyberpunk 2077 and Elden Ring only got 1 and 7%? I'm not reinstalling Windows for a 1% increase in Cyberpunk's frame rate, especially after already finishing it twice. ;D Thanks again for the data!
Elor: Certainly, but as it's been so long since I've upgraded my CPU, I don't know what sort of increases in performance I might be missing out on.
I went 10700K and DDR4 to 13700k and DDR5. In DS unless you had them side by side you wouldn't notice the small difference in loading, saving or interface speed. Renders start much quicker though which is nice if you're doing lots of test renders. Benchmark scene from here starts in < 1 sec on new system, 6+ sec on old system.
Gaming is going to go from no difference at all to a big difference depending on the games you play and the resolution and refresh rate that you use. I'm playing on a 4k 120fps screen and the 4090 is always maxed out. With the 10700k there were games where I'd hit a hard limit of CPU power and I'd be stuck at 70 FPS with the 4090 sitting at 60-70% utilization regardless of graphics settings. Some games make better use of the CPU or are just not as power hungry. If you're happy with the FPS you get in the games that you play then an upgrade seems pointless.
Sounds like you are leaning towards staying with Intel for the CPU which is totally fine. If you do decide to go AMD for new CPU, get an X870 motherboard (stay away from the X670 motherboards since that was the first generation to officially support DDR5 RAM and the build quality is very questionable on them). I am assuming your old RAM was DDR4 and you are wanting to upgrade to DDR5--one thing about DDR5 RAM is that it stresses the CPU voltage controllers quite a bit more than DDR4 did (make sure you use both 8 pin power connectors for the CPU on the new motherboard to avoid possibly underpowering the CPU and blowing it out like I accidentally did to my rig) and so until recently stability of a 4 DIMM RAM configuration was not particularly good because of issues with the CPU designs. 2 DIMM operations on X870 motherboards are rock solid (always look at the motherboard websites to check for compatible CPU/RAM kits to be sure), which is why I recommended 2 x 48 GB for the system (I think there may now also be 2 x 64 GB options as well but they weren't officially supported earlier this year when I did my upgrade). The latest AMD Ryzen 9 9950X/X3D appears to now be able to support 4 DIMM operation, which allows for 4 x 32 or 4 x 48 GB kits (at 6000 or 6400 MT/s speeds) to be officially supported (haven't yet seen a 4 x 64 GB officially supported but wouldn't be surprised to see them soon or with the next generation of AMD chips). If you want the really fast DDR5 RAM (8000+ MT/s) you will still be limited to mostly 1 DIMM or a very limited number of 2 DIMM configs there--Intel might actually be a little ahead of AMD right now in that department, so check the various motherboard vendors to see what it officially supported.
I was upgrading from an Intel i7 6850x CPU (6 core but super ancient) on my old rig along with 64 GB DDR4 3000 RAM (8 x 8 GB on an X99A motherboard), so going from that to a Ryzen 9 7950x and 96 GB of DDR5 6400 RAM has been a major upgrade for gaming, and also in Daz I don't see as much viewport lag when working with large scenes (I run scenes with up to 26 Gen 8 figures in them) because I am not pushing up against the system RAM limits any more. As others have mentioned, scenes do load a little faster now and setting renders on my 3090 are smoother as well with the new rig. The cool thing is my motherboard can run the 9950X or X3D so if I want to upgrade the CPU again it is still an option down the road.
Thanks Oddbob and Jbdminnie, I will copy your posts into a notepad file to keep for when I do decide to upgrade. Very useful information. I'm trying to learn Blender more now, so I'll probably plan an upgrade around whether I have any issues with using that in the future, as I do not really have any problems with Studio or with gaming. I guess it just seems unusual to me that my system can still handle whatever I ask it to do even after quite a few generations of CPUs and other potential upgrades have come along.
I've thought similar since I got the current machine a little more than two years ago.
Daz/iRay just wants decent GPU speed and then enough VRAM to encapsulate whatever scene you render. Even when it does get released, I don't think there'll be a huge performance increase from 4xxx card to 5xxx cards (maybe 6xxx or definately 7xxx cards, though).
As for games: It depends, heavily, on the techs employed by the games you play. So, benchmark sites that go into enough depth to provide that info are useful. I still think it's reasonable to figure that
I found the surprising stat in the game-list to be Elden-Ring... you'd anticipate that its many AI-calculations etc would be CPU intensive... I wonder what the hard-limiting-factor is with the title?
And no-problem with providing the stats, I did a long-look-see a few days ago for very similar purpose to yours, so sites and data were all "easy to hand" <-- glad they were useful (in saving you some cash!) ;-)