Whats the problem with AMD

drescherjm said:
I think dual Intel core or dual AMD module systems are fine for a lot of users.
Click to expand...

Yep, office work such as Word, Outlook, email or QuickBooks work fine on them with enough ram. However, most recommendations on these forums and the like are usually towards gamers and enthusiast. That is where I find a dual core CPU to be inadequate.
 
Oh man, I remember trying to install 768MB (3x256MB) PC133 SDRAM on my Biostar M7VKD... That was the worst hell I've ever been through.

I really miss the days of the Thunderbird.
 
XoR said:
hmmm... Linux as main OS on iGPU on LCDs and HD7950 on CRT with Windows inside VM... that would certainly be nice setup :cool:

Too bad it does not work on K. Oh well, I like my 4.8GHz more so I won't change CPU to have inferior performance ...
Click to expand...
5820k supports VT-d, so you can keep your OC.



defaultluser said:
Why would anyone really be interested in doing this sort of thing?

The only thing you save by sharing the same system is the cost of the hard drive and case. Everything else scales-up in cost too much (i.e. price premium for more cores, motherboards with more x16 PCIe slots, etc).

So you could put two gaming instances on a Core i7 4790....or you could pay for two Core i3s for the same price and get the same number of threads.

So you could buy an SLI z97 motherboard for $150...or just get a 2 B85 motherboards each for $75

Memory use between virtual machines scales linearly. GPUs between virtual machines scale linearly. PSU price usually scales linearly in capacity up until the 850w level, so you could drop $100 for 850...or $50 each for 430w.

Hell, even the case cost would increase if the choice was between a cheap case with minimal cooling for i3 + GPU, and a case that could handle i7 + dual GPUs fully-loaded. And of course you get all the fun of managing the complexity of these virtual machines before you ever get to play a single game.
Click to expand...

This is hardforum right? If games aren't going to max out 8 cores, then run multiple games.

AMD might be a good choice for the price.

Anyway it would be a very cool benchmark for consumer CPUs. the articles I posted are all very expensive Xeons, but it would be really cool if consumer processors could perform decently.
 
The FX8320 in my HTPC has never let me down for 60fps gaming, but if you have a high refresh 120hz or higher monitor, I wouldn't settle for anything less than an i5.
 
ManofGod said:
Yep, office work such as Word, Outlook, email or QuickBooks work fine on them with enough ram. However, most recommendations on these forums and the like are usually towards gamers and enthusiast. That is where I find a dual core CPU to be inadequate.
Click to expand...

The real question is why is it even necessary to have a dual core for office type work? Maybe I'm out of the loop, but are office users doing THAT much more than they did back in 2000-2005? Wouldn't they be fine with a Pentium 4 and Office 2003? :p I mean lets be real here, the author of A Song Of Ice and Fire makes millions and he writes it on a DOS machine. You don't want your users at work sitting on YouTube? Give them Windows 98, a Pentium 3 and Office 97. :p
 
PornoSatan said:
The real question is why is it even necessary to have a dual core for office type work? Maybe I'm out of the loop, but are office users doing THAT much more than they did back in 2000-2005? Wouldn't they be fine with a Pentium 4 and Office 2003? :p I mean lets be real here, the author of A Song Of Ice and Fire makes millions and he writes it on a DOS machine. You don't want your users at work sitting on YouTube? Give them Windows 98, a Pentium 3 and Office 97. :p
Click to expand...

Actually where I work this is the very issue we are having. The main computer for orders and shipping (small business) is a 2 core Intel. Fine if you are doing one task at a time, but add another and all hell breaks loose. Seriously I never advise less than 4 cores of any make for any desktop use. Laptops either for that matter. Hell don't see the need for them to exist today with so many 4 or more core chips in existence at very adequate prices.
 
Thanks everyone for turning this discussion around my intent was not to start a flame war I just wanted some genuine feedback about how people felt and really wanted to hear from the AMD users if they were satisfied with what they were using. In the future when the budget allows I may build an intel system especially since I'll be picking up a 4k dslr camera and need that extra juice to handle the editing but as for now my AMD does what I need it to do... I can game as well as edit a whole music video full of layers, effects, and transitions in Premiere Pro CC 2014
 
OP, since many of your points hinge on best value and overclocking, I will remind you that anybody can easily buy a used i5 2500k for ~$130-140, or a 3570k for $150-160.

We are talking about best bang for the buck, right? Buy a used i5 and overclock it. Then there's absolutely no question that the i5 would have better performance and the price difference would be negligible.
 
J Macker said:
OP, since many of your points hinge on best value and overclocking, I will remind you that anybody can easily buy a used i5 2500k for ~$130-140, or a 3570k for $150-160.

We are talking about best bang for the buck, right? Buy a used i5 and overclock it. Then there's absolutely no question that the i5 would have better performance and the price difference would be negligible.
Click to expand...

Using DX12/Vulkan or Mantle on games which use high batch count not to sure it will still be good value ....
 
J Macker said:
OP, since many of your points hinge on best value and overclocking, I will remind you that anybody can easily buy a used i5 2500k for ~$130-140, or a 3570k for $150-160.

We are talking about best bang for the buck, right? Buy a used i5 and overclock it. Then there's absolutely no question that the i5 would have better performance and the price difference would be negligible.
Click to expand...

You seemed to miss the part he just mentioned: ARE OWNERS OF AMD HARDWARE SATISFIED? Those of us here that own AMD hardware have spoken and said yes. It isn't always a comparison nor is a comparison always warranted. Go back a page or two and read my in depth post and comment on that. Criteria is always pertinent.
 
durquavian said:
You seemed to miss the part he just mentioned: ARE OWNERS OF AMD HARDWARE SATISFIED? Those of us here that own AMD hardware have spoken and said yes. It isn't always a comparison nor is a comparison always warranted. Go back a page or two and read my in depth post and comment on that. Criteria is always pertinent.
Click to expand...

Yep. So far, at least in this thread, I have not read any reason where it would make financial sense to switch from AMD to Intel. The ROI would be very poor going from my FX 8350 and FX 8320 to anything that Intel has to offer at this time.

There was a time when I would not have cared but, now I do because I am older and wiser than I once was. (At least in this one area anyways. :D ) I am looking forward to Zen though because, by then, I will have been on the processor for 3 years and an upgrade may make sense at that time.
 
ManofGod said:
Yep. So far, at least in this thread, I have not read any reason where it would make financial sense to switch from AMD to Intel. The ROI would be very poor going from my FX 8350 and FX 8320 to anything that Intel has to offer at this time.

There was a time when I would not have cared but, now I do because I am older and wiser than I once was. (At least in this one area anyways. :D ) I am looking forward to Zen though because, by then, I will have been on the processor for 3 years and an upgrade may make sense at that time.
Click to expand...

AGREED!!!
 
ManofGod said:
The ROI would be very poor going from my FX 8350 and FX 8320 to anything that Intel has to offer at this time.
Click to expand...
To be fair the ROI is very poor going from anything made since the i7-2600k to anything current, since most silicon improvements in the last 4 years have mostly gone to power savings to fit higher performance CPUs in smaller and smaller devices, iGPU improvements, and specific instruction set improvements (AVX).
 
I went from an FX 8150 to an i7-4790K and the differences in Civ V are very noticeable. The game play is much smoother and the turns progress faster.
 
PornoSatan said:
The real question is why is it even necessary to have a dual core for office type work? Maybe I'm out of the loop, but are office users doing THAT much more than they did back in 2000-2005? Wouldn't they be fine with a Pentium 4 and Office 2003? :p I mean lets be real here, the author of A Song Of Ice and Fire makes millions and he writes it on a DOS machine. You don't want your users at work sitting on YouTube? Give them Windows 98, a Pentium 3 and Office 97. :p
Click to expand...

You obviously haven't seen a modern office machine. It isn't so much about the work that people are doing, but all the security software, anti-virus, disk encrpytion software and monitoring agents running in the background that kill performance.
 
For anyone with knowledge, there is only one brand that manufactures CPUs - Intel.

AMD isn't even a player in the game right now, they have been losing money for a decade on CPUs.

The only reason most people buy AMD is because they don't know shit, and see 4 GHZ OCTA CORE AMD vs 3 GHZ QUAD CORE INTEL for the same price.

200$ i5 outperforms 200$ 8350 oced to the max in gaming atleast.




For those of you say desktop apps run fine and snappy, and you can open 100000000 tabs in chrome with no problem on your AMD? - I can do that just fine on my 2nd Gen i5 in my office.

And i can do that just fine on a 1000$ intel cpu too, it will be hard to notice the difference.

That means intel sucks, my 100$ old i5 is same as the 1000$ enthusiast CPU in daily use.
 
a3venom said:
For anyone with knowledge, there is only one brand that manufactures CPUs - Intel.

AMD isn't even a player in the game right now, they have been losing money for a decade on CPUs.

The only reason most people buy AMD is because they don't know shit, and see 4 GHZ OCTA CORE AMD vs 3 GHZ QUAD CORE INTEL for the same price.

200$ i5 outperforms 200$ 8350 oced to the max in gaming atleast.




For those of you say desktop apps run fine and snappy, and you can open 100000000 tabs in chrome with no problem on your AMD? - I can do that just fine on my 2nd Gen i5 in my office.

And i can do that just fine on a 1000$ intel cpu too, it will be hard to notice the difference.

That means intel sucks, my 100$ old i5 is same as the 1000$ enthusiast CPU in daily use.
Click to expand...

Calm, down chap, your parents will be along shortly to take you home.
 
a3venom said:
For anyone with knowledge, there is only one brand that manufactures CPUs - Intel.

AMD isn't even a player in the game right now, they have been losing money for a decade on CPUs.

The only reason most people buy AMD is because they don't know shit, and see 4 GHZ OCTA CORE AMD vs 3 GHZ QUAD CORE INTEL for the same price.

200$ i5 outperforms 200$ 8350 oced to the max in gaming atleast.




For those of you say desktop apps run fine and snappy, and you can open 100000000 tabs in chrome with no problem on your AMD? - I can do that just fine on my 2nd Gen i5 in my office.

And i can do that just fine on a 1000$ intel cpu too, it will be hard to notice the difference.

That means intel sucks, my 100$ old i5 is same as the 1000$ enthusiast CPU in daily use.
Click to expand...

I game and use desktop applications on my AMD all the time. This goes for my APU's and my FX8320 in my main gaming rig. And yes I can have endless tabs open in Chrome with no problems.

Why is it that people take these things to the extreme. Without AMD you would not have a 2nd Gen i5 in your office, because it simply would not exist. So you have some sort of negative reaction to AMD for whatever reason? Great, keep it to yourself. We know AMD does not perform on PAR with Intel, but the fact remains we get every bit of performance, and more, that we need with AMD.

If a situation ever came up that I just did not get an acceptable level of performance with AMD and had to switch to Intel, I would, but the fact is AMD has always given me more than enough performance to complete anything I throw at it.
 
Warstopper said:
I game and use desktop applications on my AMD all the time. This goes for my APU's and my FX8320 in my main gaming rig. And yes I can have endless tabs open in Chrome with no problems.

Why is it that people take these things to the extreme. Without AMD you would not have a 2nd Gen i5 in your office, because it simply would not exist. So you have some sort of negative reaction to AMD for whatever reason? Great, keep it to yourself. We know AMD does not perform on PAR with Intel, but the fact remains we get every bit of performance, and more, that we need with AMD.

If a situation ever came up that I just did not get an acceptable level of performance with AMD and had to switch to Intel, I would, but the fact is AMD has always given me more than enough performance to complete anything I throw at it.
Click to expand...

And then some as well. :) I am uncertain why he finds the need to respond emotionally to a topic that has nothing to do with emotions. In this instance, it would be the first time I will say that he is probably trying to justify his purchases. Why else would he put others down unless he is just trying to make himself feel better.

He also may not be aware that cheap Intel stuff does not support VT-d and other virtualization technology.
 
ManofGod said:
And then some as well. :) I am uncertain why he finds the need to respond emotionally to a topic that has nothing to do with emotions. In this instance, it would be the first time I will say that he is probably trying to justify his purchases. Why else would he put others down unless he is just trying to make himself feel better.

He also may not be aware that cheap Intel stuff does not support VT-d and other virtualization technology.
Click to expand...

I'm just adding fuel to the fire? why do I need to justify my purchase? I use a $100 i3 and it performs same as the $200 FX 8 core cpu for games, and i am sure it will be snappier in desktop uses unless I am multitasking heavily (which I don't).
 
a3venom said:
I'm just adding fuel to the fire? why do I need to justify my purchase? I use a $100 i3 and it performs same as the $200 FX 8 core cpu for games, and i am sure it will be snappier in desktop uses unless I am multitasking heavily (which I don't).
Click to expand...

*sigh* Keep digging away, keep digging away. You are sure how? Serious question: How in depth is your experience in these things? It really does not seem to be particularly in depth based upon the posts you have done so far.

That's ok, your machine, your opinion, right or wrong. :D
 
I love my FX chips, and I build with them all the time for other people. I've probably used more AMD chips in the last year than most people posting in this crap have in their entire computer using lives, everything from the 7850K APU to the FX9590.

For my own personal rig, I use an intel chip though. The fact is, for the games I personally like to play that are very single threaded, even my 8320 clocked to 5250mhz wasn't enough to deliver even 75% of the frames I get with a mildly OC'd Haswell.

There is no one best thing for everyone, you have to decide what tradeoffs you feel comfortable with, be it upgrade ability, performance, price, etc. The biggest downfall of the FX line -besides the poor single thread performance - is the age of the 990FX chipset and the quality of many of the cheaper boards. Those CPU's need good power delivery, so you either get a good VRM with crap features (970A-UD3P anyone?) or you pay just as much as a decent Intel board.
 
You don't need experience or knowledge to tell a shit product from a decent product.
You need to be able to read numbers.

$ numbers
and then FPS / Frame time numbers once u fix at a $ number
 
a3venom said:
You don't need experience or knowledge to tell a shit product from a decent product.
You need to be able to read numbers.

$ numbers
and then FPS / Frame time numbers once u fix at a $ number
Click to expand...

Well, that basically answers my question then, thanks. :) For everyone else, enjoy AMD if you have purchased them, I know I do and have.
 
a3venom said:
Very simple solution.
But we all know this thread will go on for 999 pages
Click to expand...

Well, of course it will since you seem to enjoy shouting everyone down that does not agree with you. Look, you do not like AMD processors, fine, that is why there is an Intel forum. Although, your responses seem to answer the original posters question pretty well.

I rather enjoy this thread and what seems to be your attempts to kill it will not succeed. :D I have no need to debate with you since you already have shut your mind to anything contrary to what you have said anyways. But, I have enjoyed those who have come into this thread with an open and honest mind with no need to put others down.

Oh, and the simple solution is to use what works best for you. I realize that is contrary to what you want everyone else to see that is in this thread but hey, that's the way it goes.
 
ManofGod said:
Well, of course it will since you seem to enjoy shouting everyone down that does not agree with you. Look, you do not like AMD processors, fine, that is why there is an Intel forum. Although, your responses seem to answer the original posters question pretty well.

I rather enjoy this thread and what seems to be your attempts to kill it will not succeed. :D I have no need to debate with you since you already have shut your mind to anything contrary to what you have said anyways. But, I have enjoyed those who have come into this thread with an open and honest mind with no need to put others down.

Oh, and the simple solution is to use what works best for you. I realize that is contrary to what you want everyone else to see that is in this thread but hey, that's the way it goes.
Click to expand...


I enjoy it too, that's why I am posting on it while at work.
I am just trying to debate with logical arguments, but since the other side did post illogical statements, so i returned the favor.

I am not trying to kill it, I am trying to keep it alive.

You seem to know a lot, you probably know that in most situations, Intel wins, even being at same $. That doesn't means that the AMD will run like shit, it will probably run very close, but still not faster in those particular situations.
 
AMD isn't doing itself any real favors by holding on to all that backwards compatibility IMO. I mean due to the cross compatibility between some AM2 and AM3 products their platform is effectively almost 9 years old. Disregarding the theories that the AMx socket is holding back power efficiency and cooling, it's definitely holding back things like PCIe 3.0, USB 3.0, and now M.2 support. I imagine the number of CPUs AMD managed to sell that people wouldn't have otherwise purchased is fairly trivial to the sales they lost from people who thought "should I go AM3 for a faster CPU with more cores, FM2+ for better chipset support, or Intel for both" and then picked the latter.

I seriously hope AM4 is a complete redesign (DDR4 not being pin compatible with DDR3 should help here).
 
-Dragon- said:
AMD isn't doing itself any real favors by holding on to all that backwards compatibility IMO. I mean due to the cross compatibility between some AM2 and AM3 products their platform is effectively almost 9 years old. Disregarding the theories that the AMx socket is holding back power efficiency and cooling, it's definitely holding back things like PCIe 3.0, USB 3.0, and now M.2 support. I imagine the number of CPUs AMD managed to sell that people wouldn't have otherwise purchased is fairly trivial to the sales they lost from people who thought "should I go AM3 for a faster CPU with more cores, FM2+ for better chipset support, or Intel for both" and then picked the latter.

I seriously hope AM4 is a complete redesign (DDR4 not being pin compatible with DDR3 should help here).
Click to expand...

Well, we already know that AM4 is a complete redesign since it will support both the new CPU and APU's. FM2+ is fantastic with a 860k or whatever the Excavator cores will have. AM3+ was no longer supported past 2013 but, it is nice to see the motherboard manufacturers giving us some AM3+ love anyways. (M.2 and USB 3.1 support.)

Edit: I am also doing this posting at work as well. However, I work in IT so being on this and many other computer related forums and videos helps my employer and myself. I love working in IT and on computers well helping others.

I am use you meant USB 3.1 support is being held back. After all, all AM3+ boards have full USB 3.0 support which is not a new thing. For a gaming only machine, the 860K with a $100 FM2+ board would work great. (Not Ultra High End but still great.) Personally, I want to build one just because but I do not need to so I will not.
 
ManofGod said:
I am use you meant USB 3.1 support is being held back. After all, all AM3+ boards have full USB 3.0 support which is not a new thing.
Click to expand...
I was referring to USB support directly from the chipset not via 3rd party chips, which for whatever reason always seem to work better, not require extra drivers, and are cheaper for the OEMs to implement. Asus claims to have a AM3+ PCIe 3.0 board but it uses one of those mutliplexers to provide the PCIe 3.0 link to the video cards but obviously can't feed PCIe 3.0 to the CPU. Could add M.2 support via addon chips too I imagine but to get an 990FX to support all the same things, lets say the X99 for ridiculousness sake, supports, that's a lot of addon chips.
 
USB 3.0 + support is still such a mess. I really don't know what went wrong after USB 2.0 which just works.

Back in the old USB 2.0 days the only thing you had to worry about was the VIA USB chipsets that didn't supply enough power to ADSL modems and similar. Used to spend lunchtimes hunting out NEC chipsets for buddies to use. But that was 12+ years ago.
 
jamesgalb said:
FX 8320 + GTX 980
i7 4770 + GTX 970

Which do you rather own?

FX 8320 + r9 290x
i7 4770 + GTX 960

Which do you rather own?

Yeah, some people tend to budget a target price for their new PCs. MOST people don't have endless income, or a desire to take incremental steps by buying a Pentium and still 'sitting on the sidelines' after spending their money...
Click to expand...

For gaming, I'd take the Intel setup any day. Because at the end of the day, GPU's are obsolete far quicker than CPU's. That 4770 will still be good when I eventually upgrade my GPU.

When it comes to AMD FX CPU's there are two types of buyers - those who need its good price/performance ration in the specific applications they excel at, and those who are still sitting on AM3 and don't want to build a new system. As a person who mainly games on his PC at home, I couldn't imagine building a gaming machine with an AMD system as its base right now.
 
I have nothing against AMD CPUs used them through the Athlon days but when the Core 2 came out.. there was no compelling reason to use AMD so I switched back to Intel. Now I have an i5 4690K and an AMD 280.. the best of both worlds without breaking the bank.

to answer the question about the problem with AMD, they never really recovered from Intel knocking them out with the Core 2 Duo chips


Edit my spelling sux
 
Last edited:
a3venom said:
I'm just adding fuel to the fire? why do I need to justify my purchase? I use a $100 i3 and it performs same as the $200 FX 8 core cpu for games, and i am sure it will be snappier in desktop uses unless I am multitasking heavily (which I don't).
Click to expand...

The i3 is not a bad CPU. The FX CPU's or for the most part better unless your talking about power usage. There are more games out than not that will run better with more cores now. Encoding a Blueray or DVD the FX will shine. That's unless you use a software that uses your AMD or Nvidia graphics card to do the encoding.
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
I have nothing against AMD CPUs used them through the Athlon days but when the Core 2 came out.. there was no compelling reason to use AMD so I switched back to Intel. Now I have an i4 4690K and an AMD 280.. the best of both worlds without breaking the bank.

to answer the question about the problem with AMD, they never really recovered from Intel knocking them out with the Core 2 Duo chips
Click to expand...

You are wrong, there was a compelling reason. Just not a compelling reason for you. Speak for yourself and stop stating your opinions as fact. A quad athlon ii x4 was half the price of a core 2 quad and matched it's performance.
 
I was considering moving from my X58 platform (which had an un-overclockable 920 C0) to a FX8350 and overclock the shit out of it. But then, I found the Xeon X5650 for $65. 6-core, overclocked now at 4.18ghz (need to update my sig). Absolutely stomps the AMD offerings.

That said, I think AMD brings good value to the table for budget and mid-tier systems. The APU setup is a good alternative for those with low gaming needs. However, with Broadwell releasing in June, and incorporating Iris graphics, the APU setup may become rather irrelevant, except for those on a tight budget.
 
ZodaEX said:
You are wrong, there was a compelling reason. Just not a compelling reason for you. Speak for yourself and stop stating your opinions as fact. A quad athlon ii x4 was half the price of a core 2 quad and matched it's performance.
Click to expand...
Wait so a CPU AMD introduced in September to October 2009 was able to out perform an Intel processor introduced in January 2007 for less money? After almost 3 years? Neat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top