Why The Hate On AMD (Prosessors)

[squirrl]

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

 

 

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

There are multiple " II X4" CPUs

[rashdanml]

I recommend based on requirements:

 

If budget is tight, and the user wants decent gaming performance: AMD.

If budget is flexible (or high enough), I automatically go with Intel, specifically the i5 K series processor. Best balance of performance, and with a high enough budget, affordability. I recommend an i7 only if the user wants to render videos on a daily basis. If it's weekly basis or less, and it's back to the i5. 

[JamGorby]

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. 

I wouldn't call it crap. Bulldozer is likely crap to most of us but we are the enthusiasts and, in the grander scheme of the market, we're about 10%. The mainstreamer goes to a store and buys a PC that meets their budget. i'm not just talking low end. Machines in upwards of $1000-$1200 most likely will still use integrated graphics. Most of these people have no idea what a GPU is or what it does. What they will notice, though, is that their kids, who are also mainstreamers who predominantly game on consoles, can play WoW or whatever a little easier than the neighbor who bought a mainstream Intel machine. 

They're not gonna run BF4 at 60fps or do much video editing or run benchmarks. They probably don't know what a benchmark is. If you are that guy who just wants to meet a price point, have a PC that works and don't know what SLI means, AMD Bulldozer is anything but crap. Crap is relative. 

I think there's a lot of unfair comparison between the platforms. Of course Intel is the overall speed king in the upper ends of the spectrum. That's undeniable. But, in AMD's defense, usually wind up comparing old AM3+ chips to Haswells and that's not entirely fair. FX chips don't suck. They're good for what they are which is an older architecture that has somehow still managed to get mentions in our world of the 10% PC building elite. 

What does suck about AMD is they have yet to answer the call of an entire generational step of their competitor. I don't think it would be wise for them to get rid of their APU's altogether. That would be economically disastrous for them. But, they need something on that high end to answer to Haswell or at least whatever comes after that. There is a place for APU's in the market. But, AMD seems to have jumped balls deep into Bulldozer without a contingency plan. Do they even have the resources now to pull it off? 

[Linus_torvalds]

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.

i3 will do better LOL

 

today i know 2 games that can use my 8 threads. they are CRYSIS 3 and BF4. that's it

 

any other game use 1, 2 or max 4 cores. intels latest generation 1 core is faster then AMDs 2 cores, so for example i3 4130 will be faster then fx 6300 even faster then FX 8350 in many many games.

[D.A.]

I actually like AMD more than lintel as a company even though I run a Nvidia + Intel PC (because of heat) AMD comes out with things like Free sync and Mantle, things they probably won't make money on but still help out the industry. 

[JQLeitch]

It's usually uneducated idiots that do. Both Intel and AMD make some fantastic processors, however the mocking happens more on the AMD side with the perception of bad CPUs and high heat production, only the latter is true.

[-iSynthesis]

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

If you oc a 4770k to 5ghz itll draw at least 220w...

[-iSynthesis]

I actually like AMD more than lintel as a company even though I run a Nvidia + Intel PC (because of heat) AMD comes out with things like Free sync and Mantle, things they probably won't make money on but still help out the industry. 

^This. But not because of heat, but because i thought id get a lot more frames with an intel processor. 

[Soplias]

Anyone who asks me what to get to build their first PC I always recommend AMD because of the price to performance

[Johnny K.]

There's no reason to hate, only fanboys hate. I believe you pay the same price for both, Intel - expensive/low power consumtion = AMD cheaper/higher power consumption. btw you wrote processor wrong 

[Migals]

Low heat output?

[Drown]

I think that part of the problem is that people have unrealistic expectations. They expect their cheaper AMD CPU to be on par with an Intel CPU 100$ more expensive, and then they complain when they don't get the performance they expected. You get what you pay for, if you are on a budget you're better off with a cheaper AMD CPU and put more money towards the GPU. Who cares if you can get more performance out of an Intel CPU, if it comes at the cost of a weaker GPU (or other) then at the end of the day you won't be outperforming the AMD build.

[crystal6tak]

Had a similar topic before so I'll just ctrl c + v my post here:

8350 user here. For some of the games I play which are not multithreading friendly (Hawken, Mechwarrior Online, Minecraft, Company of Heroes) I am forced to run at lower settings than what my gpu can achieve (290X). It's a decent chip and a great value for people who uses multithreading friendly softwares but for the average gamer the single thread performance of the 8350 is terrible. It's rare to find games where 8350 matches it's intel equivelant... Most often it trails behind it's equivalent or get harrased by i3... 

 

TL;DR: Single threaded performance which majority of the games still depend on sucks therefore AMD processors are hated.

[Guest]

I wouldn't call it crap. Bulldozer is likely crap to most of us but we are the enthusiasts and, in the grander scheme of the market, we're about 10%. The mainstreamer goes to a store and buys a PC that meets their budget. i'm not just talking low end. Machines in upwards of $1000-$1200 most likely will still use integrated graphics. Most of these people have no idea what a GPU is or what it does. What they will notice, though, is that their kids, who are also mainstreamers who predominantly game on consoles, can play WoW or whatever a little easier than the neighbor who bought a mainstream Intel machine. 

They're not gonna run BF4 at 60fps or do much video editing or run benchmarks. They probably don't know what a benchmark is. If you are that guy who just wants to meet a price point, have a PC that works and don't know what SLI means, AMD Bulldozer is anything but crap. Crap is relative. 

I think there's a lot of unfair comparison between the platforms. Of course Intel is the overall speed king in the upper ends of the spectrum. That's undeniable. But, in AMD's defense, usually wind up comparing old AM3+ chips to Haswells and that's not entirely fair. FX chips don't suck. They're good for what they are which is an older architecture that has somehow still managed to get mentions in our world of the 10% PC building elite. 

What does suck about AMD is they have yet to answer the call of an entire generational step of their competitor. I don't think it would be wise for them to get rid of their APU's altogether. That would be economically disastrous for them. But, they need something on that high end to answer to Haswell or at least whatever comes after that. There is a place for APU's in the market. But, AMD seems to have jumped balls deep into Bulldozer without a contingency plan. Do they even have the resources now to pull it off? 

 

They don't have a Plan B because Bulldozer was meant to test the market anyways. One could say that Bulldozer's demise was the result of AMD's own fanboys pumping up the market for a 'revolutionary, powerful, monstrous, Intel-crushing' chip when it was just a novel idea, nothing more.

 

Where AMD sits right now is the result of FM2+ not being fast enough to compare to LGA1150, and AM3+ being too old to compare to LGA1150 (especially in terms of boards, where AMD absolutely sucks sh*t).

 

Bulldozer is not an old architecture, you may be thinking of K10.

 

- I love my FX8350

- it performs realy well

- 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

 rofl

 

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.

 

FOR THE LAST TIME, BULLDOZER FX-6300 DOES NOT HAVE THREE TIMES THE CORES OF AN i3, IT'S A 3M/6T CPU

 

Clockspeeds don't mean jack sh*t in the world of AMD because CMT Bulldozer has really bad IPC compared to Haswell, even after Piledriver's optimizations.

 

Put both of them at stock speeds and the i3-4130 will beat out the FX-6300 in most games which are single- or dual-threaded games. The FX-6300 does have quite the leg up in multi-threaded capabilities but you should be considering the FX-8350 for those tasks anyways.

 

About BC Hydro, that's a good point you raise there but hydroelectric power is not without its environmental impacts.

[Syntaxvgm]

I wouldn't call it crap. Bulldozer is likely crap to most of us but we are the enthusiasts and, in the grander scheme of the market, we're about 10%. The mainstreamer goes to a store and buys a PC that meets their budget. i'm not just talking low end. Machines in upwards of $1000-$1200 most likely will still use integrated graphics. Most of these people have no idea what a GPU is or what it does. What they will notice, though, is that their kids, who are also mainstreamers who predominantly game on consoles, can play WoW or whatever a little easier than the neighbor who bought a mainstream Intel machine. 

They're not gonna run BF4 at 60fps or do much video editing or run benchmarks. They probably don't know what a benchmark is. If you are that guy who just wants to meet a price point, have a PC that works and don't know what SLI means, AMD Bulldozer is anything but crap. Crap is relative. 

I think there's a lot of unfair comparison between the platforms. Of course Intel is the overall speed king in the upper ends of the spectrum. That's undeniable. But, in AMD's defense, usually wind up comparing old AM3+ chips to Haswells and that's not entirely fair. FX chips don't suck. They're good for what they are which is an older architecture that has somehow still managed to get mentions in our world of the 10% PC building elite. 

What does suck about AMD is they have yet to answer the call of an entire generational step of their competitor. I don't think it would be wise for them to get rid of their APU's altogether. That would be economically disastrous for them. But, they need something on that high end to answer to Haswell or at least whatever comes after that. There is a place for APU's in the market. But, AMD seems to have jumped balls deep into Bulldozer without a contingency plan. Do they even have the resources now to pull it off? 

I'd agree with that, but the problem is Intel chips on the low end are usually much more efficient and perform better as far as heat and power go usually. Plus amd does not have a lot of the laptop market.

I do like their pursuit of APUs. Intel graphics have been a joke for years, and it's nice to see laptops with AMD apus. Even while they are not meant for gaming, the performance intel gma graphics provide are still inexcusable, and if intel had a solution as good as AMDs, almost every laptop out there above say 400$  (not the extremely cheap) would be able to play games very reasonably. Intel GMA graphics are responsible for people being stuck with machines that simply cant game. The joke called the hd 3000 aside, the HD line was the first real attempt to make something gaming capable, but they are still years behind what is available now from amd, or what you should consider acceptable for low end laptop graphics. I'm hoping intel steps it up, way past the iris line even, to make gaming more accessible and provide a product worth the money like AMD has. 

 

Besides laptops, I don't think AMD's future looks bright on the CPU end until they go beyond bulldozer and it's variants. Which is to bee soon, like late 2015. 

[Guest]

I'd agree with that, but the problem is Intel chips on the low end are usually much more efficient and perform better as far as heat and power go usually. Plus amd does not have a lot of the laptop market.

I do like their pursuit of APUs. Intel graphics have been a joke for years, and it's nice to see laptops with AMD apus. Even while they are not meant for gaming, the performance intel gma graphics provide are still inexcusable, and if intel had a solution as good as AMDs, almost every laptop out there above say 400$  (not the extremely cheap) would be able to play games very reasonably. Intel GMA graphics are responsible for people being stuck with machines that simply cant game. The joke called the hd 3000 aside, the HD line was the first real attempt to make something gaming capable, but they are still years behind what is available now from amd, or what you should consider acceptable for low end laptop graphics. I'm hoping intel steps it up, way past the iris line even, to make gaming more accessible and provide a product worth the money like AMD has. 

 

Besides laptops, I don't think AMD's future looks bright on the CPU end until they go beyond bulldozer and it's variants. Which is to bee soon, like late 2015. 

 

I think that if AMD shaves off the power consumption a bit, they can make it into ultrabook form factor. Their mobile A10s are really good value, but way too power hungry.

 

Intel still has a very long way to go in order to compete; there's a reason they're asking AMD for in to their Mantle program.

[harrynowl]

I think that if AMD shaves off the power consumption a bit, they can make it into ultrabook form factor. Their mobile A10s are really good value, but way too power hungry.

 

Intel still has a very long way to go in order to compete; there's a reason they're asking AMD for in to their Mantle program.

The FX-7600P is a 37W beast basically a A10 7850K @ 2.9(I think)GHz.

 

Both AMD and Intel have CPUs ranging from approx 15W (Intel do have 5w CPUs) to 37W on the mobile size- Intel actually have 45w+ i7s).

[KingKeith55]

The thing is, theres basically 2 sides to Intel CPU's:

 

One, is the cheap low power consumption ones that provide entry-level to mid performance levels. 

The second one, is High end expensive CPU's for high to very high performance levels. Intel has this stereotype thing where everyone spending only 100-200$ on a cpu is probably someone who doesnt need alot of power and wants to build a small form factor PC or a energy saving one, and that everyone who wants to spend more is going to be a major power hog who does very intensive tasks.

 

 

Most of the CPU's in the first category are around 100-200$

Most of the CPU's in the 2nd category are 200-300$

 

 

 

With AMD, its not as categorized like this. They actually have cheaper budget CPU's that pack a bit more of a punch and a bit more cores  than you would see from an Intel CPU at the same price. However once you get to more expensive CPU's some of Intel's CPU's are a better price to performance ratio.

[aidenrelkoff]

i3 will do better LOL

 

today i know 2 games that can use my 8 threads. they are CRYSIS 3 and BF4. that's it

 

any other game use 1, 2 or max 4 cores. intels latest generation 1 core is faster then AMDs 2 cores, so for example i3 4130 will be faster then fx 6300 even faster then FX 8350 in many many games.

were not just talking games here... just in general.

 

U wanna run 4 server off of one pc using different ports, you WANT more cores, screw clock speed and rendering capability 

[aidenrelkoff]

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. 

true, you are wright, its like how for a gaming machine more the 8gbs of ram is stupid, same here most games only use 1,2 or MAYBE 4 cores, so yea, for gaming a FX4100 and a FX8350 will be almost the same. but if you wanna do massive multitasking more cores=better (usually, but not always)

[Syntaxvgm]

true, you are wright, its like how for a gaming machine more the 8gbs of ram is stupid, same here most games only use 1,2 or MAYBE 4 cores, so yea, for gaming a FX4100 and a FX8350 will be almost the same. but if you wanna do massive multitasking more cores=better (usually, but not always)

You mentioned servers in your last post. Opterons are so cheap on ebay it's a great server solution a lot of people over look. Hell they are even reasonable new. 

[aidenrelkoff]

You mentioned servers in your last post. Opterons are so cheap on ebay it's a great server solution a lot of people over look. Hell they are even reasonable new. 

true, but amd makes some beast 16 core cpus

[dev893]

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

My A6 5400K with integrated graphics an oc'd to 4.3ghz with voltage set to 1.36 has the same tdp as a stock i5-4690k

[Syntaxvgm]

My A6 5400K with integrated graphics an oc'd to 4.3ghz with voltage set to 1.36 has the same tdp as a stock i5-4690k

right but the i5 creams it even with the AMD oced except for the graphics. 

[dev893]

right but the i5 creams it even with the AMD oced except for the graphics. 

ok but you were talking about how AMD has worse TDP not performance