Whats the problem with AMD

Gideon said:
I don't know, do some Intel owners have a small penile syndrome that requires them to bash anyone else that did not buy Intel? I find it funny that people that hate AMD are always over here in the AMD section telling people how inferior they are, yet I dont own Intel and I have never trolled that forum even during the prescott days.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing one side or the other. Simply pointing out the obvious. What you spend your money on is your business, but posting to defend your reasoning is kind of sad. If you're happy with what you have, why make a post to defend your purchase?
 
THUMPer1 said:
So a 1680x1050 benchmark is useless? But intel wins those! So intel must be better.

Also, people are also missing the AMD APU based gaming benchmarks. Where Intel fails hard.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you quoted the wrong text to argue with? Not sure what you mean.
 
THUMPer1 said:
Did I forget /sarcasm?
Click to expand...

Guess I am going to have to tag out here. Unless 1680x1050 is a kryptonite resolution for AMD cpu's or something that I have never heard of, sarcastically arguing with someone that is agreeing with you objectively seems to be going over my head.

(Passes the baton to you)

Haha, just for everyone. We all know opening any "Why is AMD this or that" thread is like playing a good round of killing floor. Everyone just runs in spraying :)
 
What problem?

$55 chipset - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157582

$135 CPU - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113376

$360 GPU - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202144

for $550 I have the foundation for an EXTREMELY powerful and future-proof system, that with DX12/Vulkan/threaded-apps will last for YEARS.

With the money saved over an intel build I could go with a bit more ram and a larger SSD and make for an even more future-proof build.
 
I have had my FX 8350 since April, 2013 and even at stock clocks, it runs great. Not one game or program that I have used has had an issue or slowdown. Also, I have had my FX 8320 at work since August 2013 and it has ran fantastic as well. (This one is overclocked to 4.4 Ghz to give me additional performance.)

In the Intel camp, there is only one path worth taking from where I am at now: the 5820K. Every other processor below that would be a waste of money on my part. Although I enjoy occasionally benchmarking, it does not do anything for me in real life. Quad core processors just do not cut it anymore for me.
 
Ruoh said:
I'm not arguing one side or the other. Simply pointing out the obvious. What you spend your money on is your business, but posting to defend your reasoning is kind of sad. If you're happy with what you have, why make a post to defend your purchase?
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but you can't even create a thread discussing your rig on here if it's a AMD without someone popping in and going, oh you got a AMD you must like having a slow computer, should have bought a Intel. With Intels marketing budget I wonder just how many of these people are just marketing shills. People buy what they like for the most part and should be able to talk about it without being harassed about it. Only time I am ok with it is when someone makes a blatant BS statement about something. My bigger point is still the fact that people come into this part of the forum looking to start a flame war. Is it because your insecure with your purchase? Why post to berate someone if your happy with what you have? This is not a unique problem to just Hardocp either, so again I question how much of it is marketing by Intel at work.
 
jamesgalb said:
What problem?

$55 chipset - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157582

$135 CPU - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113376

$360 GPU - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202144

for $550 I have the foundation for an EXTREMELY powerful and future-proof system, that with DX12/Vulkan/threaded-apps will last for YEARS.

With the money saved over an intel build I could go with a bit more ram and a larger SSD and make for an even more future-proof build.
Click to expand...

This particular build, although fast, is not really future proof in my opinion. Mostly because with DDR4 becoming mainstream and Zen coming out next year, this build would get left behind in short order. (Good build nonetheless but still, not quite futureproof.)
 
Gideon said:
My bigger point is still the fact that people come into this part of the forum looking to start a flame war. Is it because your insecure with your purchase? Why post to berate someone if your happy with what you have? This is not a unique problem to just Hardocp either, so again I question how much of it is marketing by Intel at work.
Click to expand...

This was my point exactly. Except the Intel tin foil hat portion. :)
 
Gideon said:
My bigger point is still the fact that people come into this part of the forum looking to start a flame war.
Click to expand...

Inside a thread created by a day 1 noobie troll to start a flame war. I hope the Irony of this point is not lost on you lol.
 
cybrnook said:
Guess I am going to have to tag out here. Unless 1680x1050 is a kryptonite resolution for AMD cpu's or something that I have never heard of, sarcastically arguing with someone that is agreeing with you objectively seems to be going over my head.

(Passes the baton to you)

Haha, just for everyone. We all know opening any "Why is AMD this or that" thread is like playing a good round of killing floor. Everyone just runs in spraying :)
Click to expand...

Now I'm confused.
 
Ruoh said:
This was my point exactly. Except the Intel tin foil hat portion. :)
Click to expand...

Who said I was defending the op. But as you might notice you felt the need to run right on over to the thread and post something insulting.. why? Should we have a poll and see which one has the bigger inferiority complex? This is no doubt a bait thread, however you dont even need a bait thread in the AMD forum for the insults from the Intel side or at the very least the "you could have got a more powerful computer if you bought a Intel cpu instead" comment. It gets old, AMD does not make the fastest cpu (duh) but at the same time Intel is not exactly light years ahead either, faster yes but not by enough for quite a few people to care.
 
gr8 b8 m8 i r8 8/8.
no h8 for fx-8, but intel is better in todays d8, many can rel8 and apprec8.
hope zen is gr8 and can decide amds f8, with the 300 launch they got a lot on their pl8, all we can do is w8
 
ManofGod said:
This particular build, although fast, is not really future proof in my opinion. Mostly because with DDR4 becoming mainstream and Zen coming out next year, this build would get left behind in short order. (Good build nonetheless but still, not quite futureproof.)
Click to expand...

DDR4 wont make much if any difference for gaming outside of APUs, which wont be as powerful as CPU/GPU combinations.

While Zen will indeed be more powerful, that wont suddenly mean that all FX or older i5/i7 processors will become slow...

We are STILL yet to get to properly threaded gaming design. AMD FX processors have for a long time been unable to use both cores on their modules... New coding coming around is essentially going to turn on AMDs equivalent to hyper threading on ALL of their chips... FX's that perform like SandyBridge i5s today will be running next generations games like SandyBridge i7s...
 
jamesgalb said:
DDR4 wont make much if any difference for gaming outside of APUs, which wont be as powerful as CPU/GPU combinations.

While Zen will indeed be more powerful, that wont suddenly mean that all FX or older i5/i7 processors will become slow...

We are STILL yet to get to properly threaded gaming design. AMD FX processors have for a long time been unable to use both cores on their modules... New coding coming around is essentially going to turn on AMDs equivalent to hyper threading on ALL of their chips... FX's that perform like SandyBridge i5s today will be running next generations games like SandyBridge i7s...
Click to expand...

we have been hearing those exact words since 2010, that is too much of an optimistic expectation
 
AMD can certainly do better in power consumption.

The AMD APU 7850k and 7800 have a pretty good edge over a Celeron + GPU.

For the price 8320E seems like a great hypervisor/virtualization CPU, you can get one for 99 at Microcenter, and supports passthrough and ECC by force loading modules in linux on consumer hardware. DIY for intel+ECC will cost way too much.

24/7 server or nas I would go with intel, if electricity is too cheap (it isn't for me) then who cares.

If Zen can pull it off, we will see good competition and pricing from both companies, I can't wait.
 
a3venom said:
we have been hearing those exact words since 2010, that is too much of an optimistic expectation
Click to expand...

If you liken recent DX12/Vulkan/Mantle movement to the talk over the last 5 years of a desire to have more threaded games/coding, then you are completely ignoring all progress that has been made in order make a 'jab' just before the guaranteed change has even taken place... Cmon man..

That said. You've been hearing these exact words for 5 years, with still having yet to reach full potential? Sounds like there is more future proofing and value than was originally expected, no?
 
trizc said:
AMD can certainly do better in power consumption.

The AMD APU 7850k and 7800 have a pretty good edge over a Celeron + GPU.

For the price 8320E seems like a great hypervisor/virtualization CPU, you can get one for 99 at Microcenter, and supports passthrough and ECC by force loading modules in linux on consumer hardware. DIY for intel+ECC will cost way too much.

24/7 server or nas I would go with intel, if electricity is too cheap (it isn't for me) then who cares.

If Zen can pull it off, we will see good competition and pricing from both companies, I can't wait.
Click to expand...

if zen can close the gap [ or almost close the gap] between the performance with the respective gen of intel, it will be a win for consumers as it will force intel to compete hard [right now it is as good as a monopoly]

Might see more K series SKUS, maybe even i3 - K series someday if that happens.
 
Last edited:
jamesgalb said:
If you liken recent DX12/Vulkan/Mantle movement to the talk over the last 5 years of a desire to have more threaded games/coding, then you are completely ignoring all progress to make a point before the guaranteed change has even taken place... Cmon man..

That said. You've been hearing these exact words for 5 years, with still having yet to reach full potential? Sounds like there is more future proofing and value than was originally expected, no?
Click to expand...

I would say your build has good value, but future proofing for most would be the ability to upgrade after some time, which this build lacks.

Very few people think of "future proofing" as the existing hardware doing better in the future.
 
a3venom said:
I would say your build has good value, but future proofing for most would be the ability to upgrade after some time, which this build lacks.

Very few people think of "future proofing" as the existing hardware doing better in the future.
Click to expand...

You can upgrade the memory, GPU, SSD, etc... The CPU will make better use of its cores with future gaming APIs and threaded apps, so it would increase in performance over the next couple years (more so than other CPUs, as it has more that goes un-used currently)...

Is an i7 Haswell build also NOT future proof in your mind?
 
jamesgalb said:
You can upgrade the memory, GPU, SSD, etc... The CPU will make better use of its cores with future gaming APIs and threaded apps, so it would increase in performance over the next couple years (more so than other CPUs, as it has more that goes un-used currently)...

Is an i7 Haswell build also NOT future proof in your mind?
Click to expand...

i7 Haswell build is future proof in the sense it is nearly top - tier of its time, while the fx 8320 or anything from the series is a mid range of its time.

you are 100% sure that i7 haswell will be relevant for 3 years, but can only hope for the best in case of the FXs.
 
lets not also forget..

Power usage AMD vs Intel
Heat Dissipation AMD vs Intel and the need to buy coolers..

How much does that factor in?

Many of you probably don't care cause mommy and daddy pay the power bills... but for those who pay the bills, this can matter in the long run.

Thinking more cores is future proof is not a good train of thought because in the future a quad core will come out that is much more efficient clock for clock.

I would say go back and play some news games on older AMD 6 core rigs and compare those to modern day CPU's and i am sure you will see a large performance difference at non GPU bound resolutions.
 
a3venom said:
i7 Haswell build is future proof in the sense it is nearly top - tier of its time, while the fx 8320 or anything from the series is a mid range of its time.

you are 100% sure that i7 haswell will be relevant for 3 years, but can only hope for the best in case of the FXs.
Click to expand...

In terms of running threaded apps and day-to-day use, the FX will remain relevant for just as long as the i7 Haswell...

In terms of running new gaming APIs, the FX will remain relevant for as long as a i7 Sandy/Ivy, which really have no shorter life span than a Haswell...

You claim 'future proof' is about ability to upgrade... and then claim its about ability to last... The FX provide every bit the same thing a Haswell does in both of those departments... Seemingly you really care about just claiming epeen badassery and ignore any logical reason people would have for going with an AMD build...

You spend your extra $200 on a processor and Ill spent my extra $200 on some more more valuable GPU power... The FX certainly wont have any need to upgrade before a Haswell, unless you just have a need to be 'that' badass.
 
This was not a bait thread I just wanted to know peoples input and I wanted to hear from the AMD users about their performance and if they feel like their machines are not fast enough because they don't have intel or are they content with their machines because it does what they need it to do.
 
rellyrale said:
Whats the deal with so much hate out there for AMD bulldozer CPUs? I understand that Intel is faster but AMD is still has some powerful CPUs especially the bulldozer gen if you have the right balance in parts to go along with it. Whats the big deal? Why shouldn't someone on a budget purchase a FX series cpu in 2015?
Click to expand...
There are a couple of minor issues primarily associated with larger OEMs due to higher power consumption at various price tiers, necessitating larger coolers and possibly bigger wattage power supplies (costs are likely mostly insignificant when balanced against the CPU cost savings), but the real problem is lack of demand. Not having basic advantages like performance, plus little meaningful advertising outside nerd sites, gives little buzz or other reason for people to seek out products with AMD inside.

For techies like on this site, I think it's more basic. Despite a few benchmarks where AMD does well in at the high end, in most real world things people want a high performance PC for, AMD severely lags behind. There's really nothing wrong with buying an AMD big core if it suits your needs, but expectations are distorted and having speed in reserve is prized. In the scheme of things, $100-ish extra for a faster CPU isn't a huge deal. And it's probably worth noting the huge differences in power consumption plays a factor too.

The funny thing is the same arguments were made in the Netburst era, especially with Northwood. The economics are different now, because someone can get pretty top performance in the ~$350 range (mainstream socket), versus $700 - $1000 back then.
 
Last edited:
MrGuvernment said:
lets not also forget..

Power usage AMD vs Intel
Heat Dissipation AMD vs Intel and the need to buy coolers..

How much does that factor in?

Many of you probably don't care cause mommy and daddy pay the power bills... but for those who pay the bills, this can matter in the long run.

Thinking more cores is future proof is not a good train of thought because in the future a quad core will come out that is much more efficient clock for clock.

I would say go back and play some news games on older AMD 6 core rigs and compare those to modern day CPU's and i am sure you will see a large performance difference at non GPU bound resolutions.
Click to expand...

if it isn't running 24/7 electricity isn't a big deal.
I think both intel and amd are future proof. if zen really makes a difference, competition increases, our current processors could be "ancient" in two years.

I think the pricing and features available fit the current market. You can't get a Haswell DDR3 unlocked intel with ECC + VT-d but the 5820k does have VT-d (perhaps to match what Zen will offer, considering VT-d is supported on all FX processors and most FM2 with unofficial ECC support on AM3).


AMD isn't the best, but is priced accordingly, which makes it worth considering. Have intel drop the i7 to $150 and AMD would be quickly out of business. Anyway, for gaming AMD is fine. If you are a power user, encoding videos, running some VMs 24/7, intel out performs, but if electricity is cheap then AMD does the same a bit slower, who cares.

It will be interesting to see how Zen improves AMD's APU platform. if it can match even an i3 would be impressive with iGPU. Would be a very nice SFF pc or laptop
 
pxc said:
For techies like on this site, I think it's more basic. Despite a few benchmarks where AMD does well in at the high end, in most real world things people want a high performance PC for, AMD severely lags behind
Click to expand...

What does AMD 'severely' lag behind in enough to justify 2x (or more) in price, or an extra $100-$200?

The most noticeable thing an AMD would lag behind an Intel in is gaming...

1) If I'm going to pay more than $10 per fps, Id rather put it into the GPU side.

2) That 'lag' will shrink in the future as the AMD has more unused processor to utilize with new APIs and apps.
 
Last edited:
jamesgalb said:
for $550 I have the foundation for an EXTREMELY powerful and future-proof system, that with DX12/Vulkan/threaded-apps will last for YEARS.

With the money saved over an intel build I could go with a bit more ram and a larger SSD and make for an even more future-proof build.
Click to expand...

Or, you could spend the little bit extra money for the stronger Intel system and have an even more future-proof system over that AMD system because DX12 and Vulkan gives a favorable boost to all hardware, regardless of brand and model. Unless a lower budget is super critical, then by all means go with AMD.

As of late, I tend to keep a mobo/chipset and CPU for 4-7 years between overhauls. Been using AMD since the AM386 days, then went with a Cyrix during the 6x86 era, then back to AMD with the K6-2, on to a vast variety of Durons, Thoroughbreds, Thunderbirds, and Bartons...and finished up with a Venice 3000+, a Denmark Opteron 185, and finally a Windsor X2 6400+. Held off for a Bulldozer. 8150 more expensive than a 2600K and performed worse than the 1100T. Son, I am disappoint. Hello 3770K purchased on release day and going strong since. I still have no need for a socket and processor overhaul because my i7 is kicking ass...and I have yet to even dip in to running it OC'd, which I might do (even though I don't have to) sometime later this year or next as I've been researching WC AIO kits to keep that bitch cool. Alas, I'll probably upgrade the GPUs one more time before a full overhaul. Hopefully Zen got game. I really want the claims of 40% more IPC and much less power consumption to be true (and they NEED to be, for AMDs sake).
 
rellyrale said:
This was not a bait thread I just wanted to know peoples input and I wanted to hear from the AMD users about their performance and if they feel like their machines are not fast enough because they don't have intel or are they content with their machines because it does what they need it to do.
Click to expand...

in gaming amd 8 cores hit their stride at 5ghz. lower than that and they get pushed around by the superior ipc of the intel chips. i don't know why, but that's what i've observed. i've built quite a few budget gaming systems recently around the fx 8320e and amd 970 chipset boards. at 4.5ghz they are fairly formidable gaming systems. sure they trail an intel in a few titles at 1080p, but my clients are happy they can afford nicer video cards with their savings on the computing platform.

at the high end though; and we're talking about multi gpu and high res gaming. scroll to post #25 for my results at 4k. the amd needs to be at 5ghz to compete. and even then, the intel only needs to be at 4.5ghz. getting an amd 8-core to 5ghz is not easy and not cheap. There are few amd devotees on this forum who have had their 8's at 5 ghz but down clock them because they don't have the cooling to run that speed 24/7.
 
jamesgalb said:
What does AMD 'severely' lag behind in enough to justify 2x (or more) in price, or an extra $100-$200?

The most noticeable thing an AMD would lag behind an Intel in is gaming...
Click to expand...
Transcoding, and plenty of other things where moar cores! don't help. Let's be honest here.

The power consumption thing is kind of a big deal too. ~$100 difference in build price isn't a huge deal vs the top FX, particularly on a forum like this.

I don't doubt that some people are price sensitive and don't care about top performance, despite buying a high end processor and other components. ;) Nobody ever claimed everyone is logical.
 
pxc said:
Transcoding, and plenty of other things where moar cores! don't help. Let's be honest here.

The power consumption thing is kind of a big deal too. ~$100 difference in build price isn't a huge deal vs the top FX, particularly on a forum like this.

I don't doubt that some people are price sensitive and don't care about top performance, despite buying a high end processor and other components. ;) Nobody ever claimed everyone is logical.
Click to expand...

well it does when you save up and buy your parts over time that's my build below I used an Athlon II x4 645 for about 3 years before I became a gamer for video editing and with my GPU I produced a lot of projects with my old machine and saved up for parts over time.

http://pcpartpicker.com/b/bdPscf
 
pxc said:
The power consumption thing is kind of a big deal too. ~$100 difference in build price isn't a huge deal vs the top FX, particularly on a forum like this.

I don't doubt that some people are price sensitive and don't care about top performance, despite buying a high end processor and other components. ;) Nobody ever claimed everyone is logical.
Click to expand...

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...
 
Last edited:
Which do you rather own?
Click to expand...

For me in both cases the i7 system. However my primary usage is not games. It is medical imaging research / software development for medical imaging.
 
for me it was the budget I was looking at intel since I was on an outdated system but I just couldn't cough up the $300 at one time for a I7 processor, i5s wasn't impressing me with video editing so it was either fx83xx or i7 and I had 4 disk drives to transfer over and SSDs to add so I needed plenty of Sata controllers. The only part that I have that I paid over 200 for at one time was my gtx 970 and that's the only reason why I even started gaming
 
jamesgalb said:
Which do you rather own?
Click to expand...
Neither and I prefer not to be constrained by false dilemmas, twice. ;) However, if I were building a new high end system from scratch, the difference between spending $1200 and $1300 is insignificant given the other benefits of a faster system which uses less power.

Everyone else: I understand you prefer to buy AMD for whatever reasons you choose. But don't ignore the point of this thread: questioning why so many people choose not to buy AMD FX processors, given their quasi-competitiveness and lower price. The problems have been clearly laid out by me and others. There's no point countering that an AMD fan will want an AMD processor. It's irrelevant to the larger problem.
 
Last edited:
THUMPer1 said:
Well, you're wrong according to these two reviews.

http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedi...80-sli-vs-gtx-980-sli-at-2560x1440/index.html

http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedi...g-gtx-780-sli-vs-gtx-980-sli-at-4k/index.html

So, the AMD setup is $319 and the Intel setup is $1052 - this makes the Intel setup 329% more expensive. Yes, over 300% more expensive. For 300% more cost, we're not getting more than around 10-20% more performance. This is where you really have to think about the money you're spending. Sure, you might not have gone for two GeForce GTX 980s in SLI, and opted for the Intel processor, spending an additional $600+ on the Intel setup. But why?

For the money saved on the CPU and motherboard combo, you could purchase yourself an entire second GPU. This second GPU will provide far more noticable performance in your games, compared to spending it on a CPU.
Click to expand...

I would not hesitate using AMD for a gaming system.
Click to expand...
Wow. Comparing an overpriced Extreme line Intel CPU to the FX-8350? That makes a lot of sense...

They say the AMD mobo+CPU cost them $319. At time of purchase, my i7-4770 cost $280 and a Z87 mobo cost $110. $390 for both together. A fairer gaming performance comparison here would have been i5-4670k + Z87 (for SLI/Crossfire comparison), or $210 + $110 = $320. Wow, the exact same cost (within margin of error :p)! And the Intel platform still would have had a 10-20% advantage over AMD.

The bias is strong in that Tweaktown article. But then again, Tweaktown has always been a shady publication.

pxc said:
Neither and I prefer not to be constrained by false dilemmas, twice. ;) However, if I were building a new high end system from scratch, the difference between spending $1200 and $1300 is insignificant given the other benefits of a faster system which uses less power.
Click to expand...
So much this, as demonstrated above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top