Amd Why?

vict0r

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
1,024
I am not trying make a chaos, but I am just wondering, why would ANYONE interested in a nice computing experience buy an AMD CPU ?

Seriously, AMD is just not doing their job right, so why keep buying their pos stuff? Except for ATI though...ATI is doing good.. but why an AMD CPU instead of Intel?
 

Version_3

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 19, 2007
Messages
4,076
It is good for budgeteers. My system runs my things just fine, and have no desire for anything to replace it until Nehalem is mainstream.
 

Dangman

Ninja Editor SuperMod
Joined
Dec 15, 2005
Messages
46,062
I am not trying make a chaos, but I am just wondering, why would ANYONE interested in a nice computing experience buy an AMD CPU ?

- For a person who doesn't want to overclock and want the most performance for their buck, AMD is a good choice below $100. The $66 X2 5000+ will beat the $70 E2180 at stock speeds. So that's one situation where it's a good idea to get an AMD CPU

- Another situation: low power HTPC. Right now, AMD's 780G chipset is one of the best chipsets and IGP out there for HD content. For roughly $400 to $500, one could easily have a lower power HD capable HTPC. Intel doesn't have anything comparable to the 780G chipset that could offload most of the HD decoding.

- Love for the underdog
 

Tom128

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 9, 2008
Messages
246
There is no way you posted this thread for any other reason than to start the 1,000,000th flame thread. These posts are just getting silly. You make it seem like AMD cannot boot DOS. There is no game on earth my system cannot play at the moment where my CPU is bottlenecking my GPU, its the other way around at my native res of 1680x1050 and I have the formerly godly 8800GT. Seriously, Crysis, TF2, CoH, all of them are being stunted by my GPU not my CPU. Stop with this silly threads.
 

Valset

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
6,533
Fanboy here. but really there are a lot of good AMD systems out, intel is probably putting in the last nails with this new price drop. ATI may be the only survivor
 

Rugeroni

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 9, 2002
Messages
482
htpc - i just got one and went AMD - i use a mac for personal use. dont give a rip about the company i care about my pocket first.

yes i knew about the issues and not up to par performace. but really price is more important then bragging rights.

i got a quad core 2.4 to my door for 136 and the mobo was 90 bucks with HDMI (780g).

just hd drive,memory,psu, case, and hard drive and i was done.

getting the same system and performance with intel was 350 bucks more... now tell me why you wouldnt with the deals going on?
 

hstuehmeyer2000

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
1,739
because intel systems run games at high res like shit, i have been though so many systems in the past two years to get something that plays games smooth its not even funny i have had,
Processors
2xe6600
e4300
3xe2140
e2160
e2180
e6400
e6300
motherboards
Biostar T-Force p965
Asus P5B Plus
Asus P5K Deluxe
2xBiostar TP35D2-A7
Asrock Wolfdale1333-D667
Abit ip35-e
Gigabyte P35-DS3R
Asus X38 motherboard
and the list probably is longer than that, but i had a few amd systems in that time frame and they did not experience the same problems, the problem i had and it especially occurred in cs was the the game was kind of jerky, idk how to explain it, but every one said intel was faster so i eventually when back to them after the amd systems but was not satisfied with any of them, the amd systems always ran smoother, i have just bought a phenom and have no plans of owning a c2d system ever again!
 

brons2

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
503
I am not trying make a chaos, but I am just wondering, why would ANYONE interested in a nice computing experience buy an AMD CPU ?

Seriously, AMD is just not doing their job right, so why keep buying their pos stuff? Except for ATI though...ATI is doing good.. but why an AMD CPU instead of Intel?

AMD makes some very high performance chips. Intel is slightly high(er) performance but in most cases AMD is quite enough to do the job. Who can tell between 120 and 130 FPS in a game anyways?

Plus I like to support the underdog.

The chips work well and are definitely not POS.
 

skizzled

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 13, 2007
Messages
1,945
Unless, of course, you are into the whole rebate scene. At which point, the price comparison might become mute. Although, the way I see it, nothing out there really taxes the current CPUs out there except the very specialized programs (ala encoding or 3d rendering). You probably won't see too much of a difference in gaming unless you compare a top dog extreme edition overclocked to the brink against AMD's offerings.
 

brons2

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
503
It's MOOT not MUTE. There is no such thing as a 'mute' point. It's a MOOT point dammit!
 

merlingt1

Weaksauce
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
93
because intel systems run games at high res like shit, i have been though so many systems in the past two years to get something that plays games smooth its not even funny i have had,
Processors
2xe6600
e4300
3xe2140
e2160
e2180
e6400
e6300
motherboards
Biostar T-Force p965
Asus P5B Plus
Asus P5K Deluxe
2xBiostar TP35D2-A7
Asrock Wolfdale1333-D667
Abit ip35-e
Gigabyte P35-DS3R
Asus X38 motherboard
and the list probably is longer than that, but i had a few amd systems in that time frame and they did not experience the same problems, the problem i had and it especially occurred in cs was the the game was kind of jerky, idk how to explain it, but every one said intel was faster so i eventually when back to them after the amd systems but was not satisfied with any of them, the amd systems always ran smoother, i have just bought a phenom and have no plans of owning a c2d system ever again!

ahhhh yes, you must be from the "AMD is slower but smoother" camp, LOL

Now, I remember why I hit the [H] once every month or so it is all about comic relief :rolleyes:
 

Valset

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
6,533
not that this redeems AMD but there may be a partial truth to that given the way the architecture works. Of course at the end of the day my cpu and my system i is still sower then my intel counterpart. .
 

ALL4AMD

I Go to Court for Fun.
Joined
Jun 5, 2002
Messages
7,076
ahhhh yes, you must be from the "AMD is slower but smoother" camp, LOL

Now, I remember why I hit the [H] once every month or so it is all about comic relief :rolleyes:

maybe u should have been around for HT on the p4. god thats all i hear that was soooo good

:rolleyes:
 

merlingt1

Weaksauce
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
93
maybe u should have been around for HT on the p4. god thats all i hear that was soooo good

:rolleyes:

no thanks, I can only take so much laughter.... I skipped P4 altogether.

There are definitely cases where AMD is indeed the better buy as stated by a few above.

OT: I am starting to believe that all these people with the "slower but smoother" statements are simply having problem with their PCIe link width defaulting to x1 instead of x16 when overclocking their Intels. It has happened on the last 3 boards I have had (650i, and 2 P35). The problem is easily solved with some NB tweaking (my current board and OC requires 1.4V).
 

hstuehmeyer2000

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
1,739
no thanks, I can only take so much laughter.... I skipped P4 altogether.

There are definitely cases where AMD is indeed the better buy as stated by a few above.

OT: I am starting to believe that all these people with the "slower but smoother" statements are simply having problem with their PCIe link width defaulting to x1 instead of x16 when overclocking their Intels. It has happened on the last 3 boards I have had (650i, and 2 P35). The problem is easily solved with some NB tweaking (my current board and OC requires 1.4V).

my pci-e link ran at 16x and my nb volt was at 1.45, still ran like crap, explain that
the desktop was snappy, but the games were not

my setup was
e2140@3.36ghz
2x2gb DDR1050
ip35-e
HD 4850
Corsair HX 520
 

merlingt1

Weaksauce
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
93
my pci-e link ran at 16x and my nb volt was at 1.45, still ran like crap, explain that
the desktop was snappy, but the games were not

my setup was
e2140@3.36ghz
2x2gb DDR1050
ip35-e
HD 4850
Corsair HX 520

dunno ... but the nearly infinite amount of benchmarks out for the last 2 years say you are wrong. This is not an opinion it's a fact, fix your problem and quit throwing carpet statements.
 

hstuehmeyer2000

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
1,739
dunno ... but the nearly infinite amount of benchmarks out for the last 2 years say you are wrong. This is not an opinion it's a fact, fix your problem and quit throwing carpet statements.

I was using fraps and it was at a solid 60fps in CS:S but something just wasn't right, it wasn't smooth at all, I know this sounds stupid but its hard to describe it to someone else, you just have to see it for yourself;)
 

brons2

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
503
its a moo point, like a cow's opinion. it just doesn't matter. it's moo.

that I can identify with, I went to college at Texas

HOOK EM!!!! MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

oh and GO AAAAY EMMM DEEEE!!! They've got major operations here. Buy AMD, KEEP AUSTIN WEIRD! W00t w00t!!
 

ALL4AMD

I Go to Court for Fun.
Joined
Jun 5, 2002
Messages
7,076
no thanks, I can only take so much laughter.... I skipped P4 altogether.

There are definitely cases where AMD is indeed the better buy as stated by a few above.

OT: I am starting to believe that all these people with the "slower but smoother" statements are simply having problem with their PCIe link width defaulting to x1 instead of x16 when overclocking their Intels. It has happened on the last 3 boards I have had (650i, and 2 P35). The problem is easily solved with some NB tweaking (my current board and OC requires 1.4V).

on my buddys q6600 system we built there isn't any overclocking what so ever. his system stock and mine. mine just feels better in windows. unless u have these 2 systems in front of u ull understand what im talking about. yes the benchmarks point to intel as the king but my minesweeper sure does load up faster. :p
 

anime4u

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
1,137
Great prices with comparible real world performace is the reason why AMD is still a buyable processor. Right now they are getting a beating from Intel, but a good processor can turn things around in a hurry! :)
 

brons2

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
503
comparible real world performace

that's exactly it...AMD may be 5-15% slower clock for clock but it's still a very, very usable processor, for everything I need to do.

Now back in the day when we had Cyrix processors, they didn't even come close to holding a candle to the Pentium MMX or Pentium II. K5 was out at the same time, but not even in the picture. K6 same deal, pretty slow compared to Intel. Meanwhile we're all buying Celeron 300a's and overclocking them to 450, 504 or even 566 if you're really daring. First processor that really was worth buying for intensive usage such as gaming, CAD, etc was the Athlon and then on the A64 the tables were even turned on Intel for some time. Although in retrospect, this was more due to missteps by Intel as they worshipped at the P4 altar of megahertz without actual performance to back it up.

So anyways I bought a Core2Duo laptop last month...lol. It wasn't so much a question of Intel vs AMD, more along the lines of, what's more compatible with Linux. With a Centrino Duo and all Intel parts there wasn't much question, whereas if you get something with a Broadcom or SIS or some other less well supported part, Linux is going to be a headache. It may be only 1.5 Ghz (T5250) but it runs well in Vista and Linux.

I'm still hoping my next desktop proc will be an AMD, think I'm waiting for 45nm at this point and see how they do with that...hopefully well.
 

RamonGTP

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
8,150
I am not trying make a chaos, but I am just wondering, why would ANYONE interested in a nice computing experience buy an AMD CPU ?

Seriously, AMD is just not doing their job right, so why keep buying their pos stuff? Except for ATI though...ATI is doing good.. but why an AMD CPU instead of Intel?

While I agree that there is little reason to build an AMD rig, I HIGHLY doubt you're not trying to make chaos.

No offence, but you're an idiot

Now, did you really think I didn't mean to offend you by that comment? Because that's pretty much how your post and your claim to not want to start chaos comes off.
 

DTN107

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
4,829
There are only two real processor companies. Just because Intel is doing better doesn't deem AMD as "shit".

AMD X2 5000+ Black Edition for $67? Doesn't sound so crappy now eh? :)
 

harpoon

Gawd
Joined
Jul 14, 2006
Messages
829
Currently, AMD makes sense if you don't plan to overclock and your CPU budget is below $100, or if you require integrated video, where the 780G dominates. Anything above the $100 mark, I think Intel has AMD covered, especially with the latest round of price cuts.

The bad news for AMD is that it appears Intel wants to dominate the budget market as well.The low end X2s have generally offered better bang for buck than the E2000s (with no overclocking), though I think AMD may have a hard time countering the upcoming E5200 chip, which is supposed to sell for $84.

Looking at its specs, it'll just about outperform the entire X2 lineup (maybe the 6400+ will match it, but it costs $150 currently) I really wouldn't wanna be working at AMD's pricing department right now! :eek:
 

harpoon

Gawd
Joined
Jul 14, 2006
Messages
829
There are only two real processor companies. Just because Intel is doing better doesn't deem AMD as "shit".

AMD X2 5000+ Black Edition for $67? Doesn't sound so crappy now eh? :)

If you run stock perhaps, if you're overclocking an E2180 for about the same price would easily outperform it - and it comes with a HSF too.
 

MrWizard6600

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 15, 2006
Messages
5,779
my pci-e link ran at 16x and my nb volt was at 1.45, still ran like crap, explain that

be glad to:
your an idiot.

I've seen twice as much hardware in the past 2 months, and your story's a load of bull. Although, like I always say, there's alot to be said for psychosomatic effects...
 

MrWizard6600

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 15, 2006
Messages
5,779
that's exactly it...AMD may be 5-15% slower clock for clock but it's still a very, very usable processor, for everything I need to do.

Now back in the day when we had Cyrix processors, they didn't even come close to holding a candle to the Pentium MMX or Pentium II. K5 was out at the same time, but not even in the picture. K6 same deal, pretty slow compared to Intel. Meanwhile we're all buying Celeron 300a's and overclocking them to 450, 504 or even 566 if you're really daring. First processor that really was worth buying for intensive usage such as gaming, CAD, etc was the Athlon and then on the A64 the tables were even turned on Intel for some time. Although in retrospect, this was more due to missteps by Intel as they worshipped at the P4 altar of megahertz without actual performance to back it up.

more to do with the 2 billion transistor sinkhole than the P4, but yes, in the consumer rings Intel had decided more clocks rather than more performance/clock. That was, until the israelis came up with the Pentium M. AMD stuck with X86, and its eventual evolution to X64 ment Opteron based customers could expand capacity massively and relatively cheaply --or you could buy the $30,000 more untested IA64.
 

kassler

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
289
I am not trying make a chaos, but I am just wondering, why would ANYONE interested in a nice computing experience buy an AMD CPU ?

If you have worked with one intel and one amd using demanding work (having some applications going and maybe viewing a movie in the background) then there is no chance you go back to intel. AMD runs very smooth and it doesn’t matter how many applications you start, or it feels like that. Of course it has limits also.

If Intel users can run one single task better if no other applications is working, then let them do that. That isn’t the way I am using my computer.


http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1032758898&postcount=128
 

bfellow

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
1,082
- Another situation: low power HTPC. Right now, AMD's 780G chipset is one of the best chipsets and IGP out there for HD content. For roughly $400 to $500, one could easily have a lower power HD capable HTPC. Intel doesn't have anything comparable to the 780G chipset that could offload most of the HD decoding.
Ironically I have a HTPC set up with a crappy P4 that does 1080p HD offloaded to ATI 2600XT due to UVD. Soon I'll replace it with a cheap ATI 4600 series card for LPCM 7.1 surround sound. So thanks AMDD/ATI!
 

vict0r

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
1,024
guys i am not trying to come up with a flame thread, i just wanted to know how everyone else sees this...
 

brons2

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
503
While I agree that there is little reason to build an AMD rig,.

Oh come on now I think that's a little over the top. The performance gap is there but it's not that huge like everyone makes it out to be. Read my post above about Intel alternatives back in the day. If you had a Cyrix chip, you couldn't even play games all all, the Cyrix FPU was extremely weak.

The average non-enthusiast will not notice the difference between an AMD and an Intel for email, web surfing, office productivity apps, etc. Even for a power user, the difference between the Q6600 and the BE9850 is likely to be measured in the single digits, percentage points wise.

For the enthusiast, yes, the AMD chips do not overclock as well. Oh well, what are you going to do. Even though my Opty hasn't gone as far as I wanted, I still have a 500 mhz overclock out of an1800 mhz part, that's not too shabby, 27%.
 

modi123

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
6,442
My two cents - I can max out my AM2 board with a dual core 6400+ for the cheap... I don't see a need for quad so 3.2ghz will be fine by me. Going intel would require quite a bit more change to come up to the 3ghz range.
 
Top