Which CPUs should I get?

I was poking around Google trying to figure out what kind of setups or processors the folks over at AMD or Intel actually use on their workstations scattered throughout the various campuses... I mean, if I were working at Intel, would I even be allowed to build a machine with a Ryzen for my workstation, whether I was out on the floor or just sitting in an office, simply because I'm an AMD fan? I guess I'm just wondering if that's even permitted...

You can't just build your own rig at some mid-sized firm with a few hundred employees, let alone at a massive tech giant.
It’s not about picking a processor; it’s about the fact that you can't even bring your own computer into the office without security shutting things down by 3 PM. Everything is procured centrally, everything has to clear security protocols, and most likely, everything is an OEM PC.
Especially in manufacturing plants where they won't even let you step foot inside with a cell phone, much less your own desktop.

That doesn't mean they aren't using the competition's gear, though. I'm pretty sure Intel processors are all over AMD's offices, mostly because finding an OEM PC loaded with AMD chips is a nightmare.

wiredotter14 said:since it’s actually pretty tough to find an OEM PC equipped with AMD processors.

So, while they're busy engineering those new Ryzen and Threadripper chips, the development teams are likely running on i9s or Xeons...
What exactly qualifies as an OEM PC?

A development team with thousands of people coding and designing on "their own" machines? They’re probably just running i5s or i7s, exactly like every other firm out there.
An OEM PC is just a machine put together by manufacturers like HP or Lenovo.
It makes zero sense. A programmer writing code doesn't need some high-end, specialized PC.
So, those are the PCs every single company uses.

And now, when they tackle the heavy lifting... who knows? We’re talking high-end enterprise stuff here. Those kinds of calculations aren't happening on some guy's desktop PC; they're running on massive servers.
It’s easy to assume they're rolling out new servers with Epyc processors now that it's actually feasible, but I highly doubt they were buying those archaic AMD servers just a few years back instead of sticking with something like Broadwell-E.

At the end of the day, an employee isn't the one building their own PC, nor do they have any say in which processor goes into a server that costs five figures.

Exactly. We're talking about public procurement here, not gamers who spend their weekends hand-picking individual components to build custom rigs. These organizations likely just buy massive fleets of Dell or HP OEM PCs through government contracts—wherever the discount is deepest, that's who wins the bid. It’s highly improbable that AMD developed Ryzen using FX chips; they were almost certainly using high-end Xeon setups during development. Of course, a typical secretary or an accountant isn't running a Xeon or an i7 at their desk; they're probably just using some newer AMD APU or similar. While they might be transitioning to more competitive processors nowadays, they haven't replaced everything yet. Those older workstations equipped with Xeon or i7 chips can still get the job done for a while longer.

Isn't there something kind of ironic about using Intel to build out a competitor like AMD... It gives Intel every reason to laugh at them, really. Just imagine the sheer absurdity of it all, especially when you consider they used to be part of the exact same company...

They actually used Intel hardware for the preliminary testing of their GPUs before sending them out to reviewers (take the Fury, for example). They did this because Intel chips yielded higher FPS—the FX series was just a massive bottleneck, and obviously, they want their GPUs to look as impressive as possible). Fast forward to today, and they even have a joint product click, following their previous click, click collaboration. It’s nothing surprising; at the end of the day, it’s all just business 🤷

Thinking of them as sworn enemies is just something found in the heads of childish fanboys. In reality, money moves wherever it needs to move, and companies cooperate whenever it serves their interests. I’d even bet that AMD and NVIDIA have colluded on GPU pricing (at least when they occupied the same market segment)—a classic cartel tactic designed to squeeze as much cash as possible from consumers. There is a huge amount of talent shuffling between Intel, AMD, and NVIDIA. For instance, NVIDIA's founder and current CEO used to work at AMD, and Roy Taylor served as a marketing director for both NVIDIA and later AMD (not a great guy, if you ask me). Then you have people like former AMD architect Jim Keller, who designed those legendary Athlons and the current Zen architecture, Raja Koduri, the former Radeon director (who worked on Polaris, Vega, and the upcoming Navi), and even the Radeon marketing chief, all of whom moved over to Intel. Word is, those last two will be working on Intel's upcoming discrete GPUs. Even the current leadership at AMD mostly hails from places like IBM and HP

William Fowler13 said:Isn't it kind of ridiculous? Using Intel to build up a competitor like AMD. Intel actually has a reason to laugh. Just imagine. Pathetic. And they used to be one single company.

😵😵😵

It’s not funny. It’s just business, not some fanboy ideology.

Besides, AMD still uses the 7700K for their latest FPS testing in their drivers.
Why? Probably because it gives them consistent results. No point switching to a Ryzen or an 8700K if the 7700K still delivers reliable GPU benchmarks.

We're talking about a top-tier global industry here. There's no room for ego.

Right, I also forgot to mention that NVIDIA used to manufacture chipsets for AMD processor motherboards—I actually had one myself until recently. On this current AM4 board I'm running (an ASUS Prime Pro), for instance, I've got Intel's LAN

Intel actually put out motherboards using ATI/AMD chipsets back in the day too.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...82E16813121308

William Fowler13 said:Isn't there a certain irony in seeing them use Intel technology just to build out their competition against AMD? It gives Intel plenty of ammunition for some mockery, if you ask me. Just imagine the sheer absurdity of it all, especially considering they used to be part of the same entity.

And does Intel feel any sense of shame at all when they leverage the 64-bit x86 architecture—those specific instruction set extensions originally pioneered by AMD?🙂