我放弃了英特尔,买了AMD Ryzen 9 950X3D。
I am giving up on Intel and have bought an AMD Ryzen 9950X3D

原始链接: https://michael.stapelberg.ch/posts/2025-09-07-bye-intel-hi-amd-9950x3d/

## 英特尔CPU故障与转向AMD - 摘要 作者的高端Linux电脑连续出现两次英特尔285K CPU故障,因此决定转向AMD。第一次故障发生在尝试构建支持CUDA的layout-parser和tesseract文档转换工具后,但未确认直接关联。尽管CPU温度保持在合理范围(约100°C),电脑仍然无响应,最终需要更换CPU和主板。 对英特尔CPU稳定性的担忧,与网上的评论相呼应,促成了这次更换。作者选择了AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D,因为它具有良好的性能以及在Linux 6.13+中管理3D V-Cache的能力。同时,还需要一块新的华硕TUF X870+主板。 初步测试显示,AMD CPU的性能略有提升。然而,功耗明显更高——在空闲、负载和日常使用情况下都是如此,导致能源成本增加。作者虽然对与英特尔长期以来的良好体验告别感到遗憾,但仍希望未来能有竞争,并且AMD的功耗效率能得到改善。

## AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D 及桌面 CPU 稳定性问题 (摘要) 一位用户从英特尔切换到 AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D,强调了对现代 CPU 稳定性的担忧。作者在 CPU 达到 100°C 时出现故障,尽管英特尔规定的最高温度为 110°C,这引发了对可接受运行限制的质疑。 讨论揭示了一个更广泛的问题:许多用户报告称最近的 AMD 和英特尔 CPU 存在不稳定情况,通常需要大量调整才能实现稳定运行。担忧集中在激进的出厂设置、不足的散热解决方案和固件问题上。 许多评论者强调 ECC 内存对稳定性的重要性,但主板支持不一致。 提到了 Apple Silicon 替代方案,因为它具有更高的功耗效率和稳定性,而另一些人则提倡保守的电源设置和强大的散热。该帖子强调了一种 CPU 运行更接近其散热限制的趋势,可能会为了基准测试性能而牺牲长期可靠性。
相关文章

原文
Table of contents

The Intel 285K CPU in my high-end 2025 Linux PC died again! 😡 Notably, this was the replacement CPU for the original 285K that died in March, and after reading through the reviews of Intel CPUs on my electronics store of choice, many of which (!) mention CPU replacements, I am getting the impression that Intel’s current CPUs just are not stable 😞. Therefore, I am giving up on Intel for the coming years and have bought an AMD Ryzen 9950X3D CPU instead.

What happened? Or: the batch job of death

On the 9th of July, I set out to experiment with layout-parser and tesseract in order to convert a collection of scanned paper documents from images into text.

I expected that offloading this task to the GPU would result in a drastic speed-up, so I attempted to build layout-parser with CUDA. Usually, it’s not required to compile software yourself on NixOS, but CUDA is non-free, so the default NixOS cache does not compile software with CUDA. (Tip: Enable the Nix Community Cache, which contains prebuilt CUDA packages, too!)

This lengthy compilation attempt failed with a weird symptom: I left for work, and after a while, my PC was no longer reachable over the network, but fans kept spinning at 100%! 😳 At first, I suspected a Linux bug, but now I am thinking this was the first sign of the CPU being unreliable.

When the CUDA build failed, I ran the batch job without GPU offloading instead. It took about 4 hours and consumed roughly 300W constantly. You can see it on this CPU usage graph:

CPU usage (measured with Prometheus) CPU temperature (measured with Prometheus)

On the evening of the 9th, the computer still seemed to work fine.

But the next day, when I wanted to wake up my PC from suspend-to-RAM as usual, it wouldn’t wake up. Worse, even after removing the power cord and waiting a few seconds, there was no reaction to pressing the power button.

Later, I diagnosed the problem to either the mainboard and/or the CPU. The Power Supply, RAM and disk all work with different hardware. I ended up returning both the CPU and the mainboard, as I couldn’t further diagnose which of the two is broken.

To be clear: I am not saying the batch job killed the CPU. The computer was acting strangely in the morning already. But the batch job might have been what really sealed the deal.

No, it wasn’t the heat wave

Tom’s Hardware recently reported that “Intel Raptor Lake crashes are increasing with rising temperatures in record European heat wave”, which prompted some folks to blame Europe’s general lack of Air Conditioning.

But in this case, I actually did air-condition the room about half-way through the job (at about 16:00), when I noticed the room was getting hot. Here’s the temperature graph:

temperature graph (measured with HomeMatic sensors)

I would say that 25 to 28 degrees celsius are normal temperatures for computers.

I also double-checked if the CPU temperature of about 100 degrees celsius is too high, but no: this Tom’s Hardware article shows even higher temperatures, and Intel specifies a maximum of 110 degrees. So, running at “only” 100 degrees for a few hours should be fine.

Lastly, even if Intel CPUs were prone to crashing under high heat, they should never die.

Which AMD CPU to buy?

I wanted the fastest AMD CPU (for desktops, not for servers), which currently is the Ryzen 9 9950X, but there is also the Ryzen 9 9950X3D, a variant with 3D V-Cache. Depending on the use-case, the variant with or without 3D V-Cache is faster, see the comparison on Phoronix.

Ultimately, I decided for the 9950X3D model, not just because it performs better in many of the benchmarks, but also because Linux 6.13 and newer let you control whether to prefer the CPU cores with larger V-Cache or higher frequency, which sounds like an interesting capability: By changing this setting, maybe one can see how sensitive certain workloads are to extra cache.

Aside from the CPU, I also needed a new mainboard (for AMD’s socket AM5), but I kept all the other components. I ended up selecting the ASUS TUF X870+ mainboard. I usually look for low power usage in a mainboard, so I made sure to go with an X870 mainboard instead of an X870E one, because the X870E has two chipsets (both of which consume power and need cooling)! Given the context of this hardware replacement, I also like the TUF line’s focus on endurance…

Performance

The performance of the AMD 9950X3D seems to be slightly better than the Intel 285K:

In case you’re curious, the commands used for each workload are:

  1. cd src; ./make.bash
  2. make test
  3. gokr-rebuild-kernel -cross=arm64

(I have not included the gokrazy UEFI integration tests because I think there is an unrelated difference that prevents comparison of my old results with how the test runs currently.)

Power consumption

In my high-end 2025 Linux PC I explained that I chose the Intel 285K CPU for its lower idle power consumption, and some folks were skeptical if AMD CPUs are really worse in that regard.

Having switched between 3 different PCs, but with identical peripherals, I can now answer the question of how the top CPUs differ in power consumption!

I picked a few representative point-in-time power values from a couple of days of usage:

CPU Mainboard idle power idle power with monitor
Intel 12900k ASUS PRIME Z690-A 40W 60W
Intel 285k ASUS PRIME Z890-P 46W 65W
AMD 9950X3D ASUS TUF GAMING X870-PLUS WIFI 55W 80W

Looking at two typical evenings, here is the power consumption of the Intel 285K:

Power consumption of the Intel 285K-based PC

…and here is the same PC setup, but with the AMD 9950X3D:

Power consumption of the AMD 9950X3D-based PC

I get the general impression that the AMD CPU has higher power consumption in all regards: the baseline is higher, the spikes are higher (peak consumption) and it spikes more often / for longer.

Looking at my energy meter statistics, I usually ended up at about 9.x kWh per day for a two-person household, cooking with induction.

After switching my PC from Intel to AMD, I end up at 10-11 kWh per day.

Conclusion

I started buying Intel CPUs because they allowed me to build high-performance computers that ran Linux flawlessly and produced little noise. This formula worked for me over many years:

On the one hand, I’m a little sad that this era has ended. On the other hand, I have had a soft spot for AMD since I had one of their K6 CPUs in one of my early PCs and in fact, I have never stopped buying AMD CPUs (e.g. for my Ryzen 7-based Mini Server).

Maybe AMD could further improve their idle power usage in upcoming models? And, if Intel survives for long enough, maybe they succeed at stabilizing their CPU designs again? I certainly would love to see some competition in the CPU market.

Did you like this post? Subscribe to this blog’s RSS feed to not miss any new posts!

I run a blog since 2005, spreading knowledge and experience for over 20 years! :)

If you want to support my work, you can buy me a coffee.

Thank you for your support! ❤️

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com