Why The Hate On AMD (Prosessors)

[dadog99]

Just to be clear - I'm no fanboy - I would choose an Intel prosesser for gaming any day. But, I usualy choose a AMD prosesser becasue  of the good cost-proformance ratio and low heat output, and the fact that I usualy have a very limited budget. (I usualy use Nvidia GPUs because of their godly performance.)

 

((I once built a gaming-grade gaming computer for under $500 ((mighta been a bit more than 500 after I added 4 GB of RAM (((went from 4-8))) using entirely AMD conponent (HD 7700, 8GB RAM, Athlon II x4 640, forget the Mobo & PSU), and it suprising was a little beast.))

 

Any thoughts on this?

 

(Sorry if this is in the wrong board, just signed up.)

[SageC]

Who's hating on AMD processor, their good performance for the price, simple as that.

[X1XNobleX1X]

Just to be clear - I'm no fanboy - I would choose an Intel prosesser for gaming any day. But, I usualy choose a AMD prosesser becasue  of the good cost-proformance ratio and low heat output, and the fact that I usualy have a very limited budget. (I usualy use Nvidia GPUs because of their godly performance.)

 

((I once built a gaming-grade gaming computer for under $500 ((mighta been a bit more than 500 after I added 4 GB of RAM (((went from 4-8))) using entirely AMD conponent (HD 7700, 8GB RAM, Athlon II x4 640, forget the Mobo & PSU), and it suprising was a little beast.))

 

Any thoughts on this?

 

(Sorry if this is in the wrong board, just signed up.)

AMD CPUs as you said are great for budget builds.

Though I have never had a AMD CPU myself, always had Intel CPUs. 

[dizmo]

They're ok, but don't usually do as well as Intel especially TDP wise.

[NInety]

Power hungry. (100W+)

[aidenrelkoff]

i saw a video compairing the cpus.

 

the guy was addressing the problem of ppl saying "yeah amd is cheaper, but it burns a crap ton more power, so it cost more in the end"

 

its true, amd is less power efficient, but by how much

 

basicly, it costs more in the end if you want to use your cpu for 12 years then upgrade...... he got a 8000 series amd cpu and a 4770k, OC'ed both of them to 4.8GHz and tested power.

 

since amd is about $80-120 cheaper, to burn that extra left over ~$100 it would take you about 10 years.

 

in the end, if both cpus were to be used for 10 years, you would have spent the same price on both, although amd was ALOT cheaper to begin with

[aidenrelkoff]

Power hungry. (100W+)

not nessacary, they make some that are 95 watt, like the FX-4300, but then again there are some 220watt ones

[Flyguygamer]

Welcome. Please read the Code of Conduct lined in my signature.

 

I don't see the hate. Intel just has more market share. Amd usually makes very good price to performance parts but they often are warm running and can't compete with the lower thermals and better per cor and per clock performance of many intel parts. Take for example the 4670k and fx 8320. The 4670k beats the 8320 in benchmarks. It has half the cores and a lower clockspeed. It also costs more. Amd likes to take less powerful cores and ramps up the clockspeed and puts a ton of them on each chip. It really comes down to your budget and needs. As of now amd has nothing to compete with intels x79 platform. it also has nothing as expensive. Just my thoughts and observations. Please take with a grain of salt as many would consider me biased, I have intel in my laptop, desktop, and all of my servers; but i have amd in my siblings rigs, my parents rigs, and the one of the bunch I build from scratch my grandpas rig. It has a 6300 and a gt640. It was a good combo for what he needed. 

 

Enjoy the forum and don't hesitate to ask questions and pm me personally if you want my advice in particular. 

[ForsakenLive]

Where do they have a low heat output?

 

Nobody hates on the AMD chips (except if you read Youtube and Facebook comments, but don't get your tech knowledge from there), they are good performing value options.

[NInety]

not nessacary, they make some that are 95 watt, like the FX-4300, but then again there are some 220watt ones

And intel always under 84W. It's all about saving da world mang!

[Hidden Orange]

I think people are just pissed that AMD hasn't been focusing on or has released CPUs that can combat Intel's. They do, however, have wicked APUs which aren't that beneficial to high-end users, yet, and might not be for a long time. That being said, if they can in like 5 years, have APUs with CPUs and GPUs being the time period's equivalent to a mid-high end CPU and GPU - an i5 and a GTX 760 or R9 280 - then that'd be amazing. For now, APUs are cool, but with their prices and the existence of Athlon X4 and more powerful GPU combos, it's still a weird tech. On a really tight budget, APUs are great. Anyway, we'll see in 2015 and 2016.

 

The other reason is this: people are stupid.

[Prodigydeadeye]

Anything above the FX 8320, just isn't at a competitive price point. Any Intel cpu priced competitively will outperform it in most games. Yes there are rare exceptions.

[dadog99]

AMD CPUs as you said are great for budget builds.

Yeah, I put the II X4 from the budget build in my current one (with a 680), still works great.

 

 

Where do they have a low heat output?

In my II X4, the hottest Ive seen it get is about 60C under full load torture, my 680 easily gets +76C.

[dadog99]

The other reason is this: people are stupid.

Exactly. There are a very low percentage of pepole who even bother to do even 30 secs of critical thinking before speaking/posting. I have seemed to notice that a high number of those pepole tend to come here.

 

Edit: (By 'here' I mean Linus Tech Tips, not this thread)

[Syntaxvgm]

Three words

Pin Grid Array

In all seriousness I am, given the leaks/rumors surrounding the coming AMD cpus, including their own version of hyperthreading, hopeful they will again be a direct challenge to intel performance, not just a cost saving option. 

[Guest]

Just to be clear - I'm no fanboy - I would choose an Intel prosesser for gaming any day. But, I usualy choose a AMD prosesser becasue  of the good cost-proformance ratio and low heat output, and the fact that I usualy have a very limited budget. (I usualy use Nvidia GPUs because of their godly performance.)

 

((I once built a gaming-grade gaming computer for under $500 ((mighta been a bit more than 500 after I added 4 GB of RAM (((went from 4-8))) using entirely AMD conponent (HD 7700, 8GB RAM, Athlon II x4 640, forget the Mobo & PSU), and it suprising was a little beast.))

 

 

OK dude.

 

First off, just because you're supporting AMD, doesn't necessarily mean that you will be branded a fanboy. Especially in this forum, where we are expected to be civilized unlike those over at the hellholes of Tom's Hardware and PCPartPicker. And those who would pollute LTT with uneducated, narrow-minded fanboy talk deserve to be banned.

 

Secondly, most of the hate in fact comes from uneducated Intel fanboys who believe that Intel is and always will be #1, that Intel is god, that AMD is single-handedly crushed in every department. I think those fanboys need to be reminded of the Prescott days, when the roles were the polar opposite of what they are now: Intel made the hot, loud and slow chips, and AMD single-handedly crushed them. So, throwback to the Prescott days, before the advent of Core 2 Duo.

 

There are a few problems with AMD processors. AMD made a huge gamble with Bulldozer, thinking that deviating from traditional SMT would yield great performance. Of course, this isn't what happened, and it's why AMD is struggling to catch up. Their single-core design and performance (single-thread performance, IPC, whatever you call it) was greatly set back because of the new architecture. Since Bulldozer, AMD's CMT architecture has come a long way through the various improvements brought by Piledriver (FX-8300/6300/4300, A10-5000/6000 series) and Steamroller (A10-7000 series) which have greatly optimized the architecture to better compete with Intel's Core lineup. Except in the most CPU-bound workloads like Arma3 (can't blame AMD here, Arma is always a horribly optimized game), FX is quite capable.

 

Now, here's where we have to draw the line between objective views and fanboyism. The claim that AMD is cooler-running is simply not true. 32nm process is only partly to blame. AMD is quite behind the curve in terms of power consumption and heat; I'm not exactly sure what causes this other than 32nm, because Steamroller is a 28nm part and it still draws considerable power compared to Haswell quad-cores. AMD also makes really bad temp sensors in their CPUs, which causes absurd idle temperature readings such as 8°C under a AIO cooler, which isn't physically possible unless you live in an extremely cold environment. You also can't compare a GPU to a CPU; just because your GTX 680 runs hotter doesn't mean that your Athlon X4 is cool.

 

Not sure what you mean by "godly performance" on Nvidia's part; their GTX 700 lineup is pretty damn overpriced compared to their R9 counterparts, and with the exception of Nvidia's optimizations and PhysX in certain Nvidia-supported games, the lower cards generally get wholly whipped by AMD at the moment. GTX 660 is inferior and more expensive than the R9 270/270X, GTX 760 is generally slower than the R9 280, GTX 770 is about the same as the R9 280X but has 1GB less VRAM and is priced a weird $30-80 higher. Of course AMD doesn't have as powerful a single-GPU card as the GTX 780 Ti, but the Titan Z is a $3000 joke compared to the R9 295X2. Lower than the GTX 750 Ti (which loses out to the R7 265, but that's another story), Nvidia has nothing to compete with the likes of the R7 250X/260/260X, which are generally the same card as they can offer the same price point at times.

 

Anyway, I digress. AMD makes good parts, but I believe that they need to work harder to regain the top spot on the market. It has been proven in the past that they can be top gun and beat Intel; however, they have a lot to improve before that happens, namely power consumption, smaller process, better thermal management, better boards & chipsets, etc.

[aidenrelkoff]

And intel always under 84W. It's all about saving da world mang!

explain how having a hotter cpu is destroying the world?

 

Here in BC canada we have "BC hydro" (electricity company) its run all off of hydro dams, we dont have reactors, or burn fossil fuels. 

[NInety]

explain how having a hotter cpu is destroying the world?

 

Here in BC canada we have "BC hydro" (electricity company) its run all off of hydro dams, we dont have reactors, or burn fossil fuels. 

I'm talking about using more wattage. That uses more power. Over time, it adds up. The US also uses hydroelectric power as well as others.

[Linus_torvalds]

i saw a video compairing the cpus.

 

the guy was addressing the problem of ppl saying "yeah amd is cheaper, but it burns a crap ton more power, so it cost more in the end"

 

its true, amd is less power efficient, but by how much

 

basicly, it costs more in the end if you want to use your cpu for 12 years then upgrade...... he got a 8000 series amd cpu and a 4770k, OC'ed both of them to 4.8GHz and tested power.

 

since amd is about $80-120 cheaper, to burn that extra left over ~$100 it would take you about 10 years.

 

in the end, if both cpus were to be used for 10 years, you would have spent the same price on both, although amd was ALOT cheaper to begin with

and a lot slower! 

[aidenrelkoff]

and a lot slower! 

no, no... 

 

take a $150 cpu from both companies, the amd one will have a faster clock speed and most likely more cores. mainly because $150 only really buys a i3 where as $130 can buy a nice FX 6300(or better) which has 6 cores at 3.6ghz.

[Sintezza]

i a bit disagree with some things up here lol.

 

- I love my FX8350

- it performs realy well

- I can does everything i trow at it very smoothly

- i can play every game on it, very smoothly

 

Last but not least!!

 

- it also heats up my room, so i dont need to put my heating on during cold day´s

 

So why is it less power efficient?  lol

[Syntaxvgm]

no, no... 

 

take a $150 cpu from both companies, the amd one will have a faster clock speed and most likely more cores. mainly because $150 only really buys a i3 where as $130 can buy a nice FX 6300(or better) which has 6 cores at 3.6ghz.

The i3 would be better for gaming and single thread performance. 

Higher clockrate != better performance. All to do with arch. 

Not hating on Amd or anything, but it is the truth. 

You can overclock the 6300 though. 

Amd will get a boost when multithreaded gaming finally goes past 4 threads for average games. Additionally when they finally drop bulldozer. 

The reason the 6 cores is not better for gaming is the same reason an i7 will not provide any advantage over an i5 with half the threads. 

[Pomfinator]

The hate on AMD was basically a product of how reddit and by extension the internet works.  After a couple disappointing first reviews of the 8350, reddit and the internet at large just began to shat on AMD for making an inferior processor.

 

While Logan did stir some crap up when he did that whole 8350 isn't so bad video, it did manage to get people to rethink the 8350 and see it as the chip it really was.  But of course some people on the internet always refuse to listen, so there's still huge arguments about this topic.

[Syntaxvgm]

The hate on AMD was basically a product of how reddit and by extension the internet works.  After a couple disappointing first reviews of the 8350, reddit and the internet at large just began to shat on AMD for making an inferior processor.

 

While Logan did stir some crap up when he did that whole 8350 isn't so bad video, it did manage to get people to rethink the 8350 and see it as the chip it really was.  But of course some people on the internet always refuse to listen, so there's still huge arguments about this topic.

The thing is AMD really has been crap since bulldozer. All of the arcs since bulldozer are just bulldozer revisions. AMD took a gamble with the R&D of bulldozer and lost. Price is really the only reason to get them. 

~2015 Amd will prob have a completely new arc, and it sounds good. I'm hopeful AMD will once again become a competitor for performance against Intel's top CPUs. 

I'd like to see that. 

[That Norwegian Guy]

I take offense to AMD's marketing of core numbers (which are false) and that they have fooled people into thinking the overall platform cost is lower due to letting board partners use lower quality components (especially caps and chokes) in motherboards; leading to very high failure rates. Plus, their chipsets are feature-bare.

 

I mean there are some AMD motherboards with 2-layered PCB and garbage VRMs that people overclock on, absolutely horrifying.

 

If you're buying into an AMD platform, at least overlook the absolute entry level motherboards.