Jump to content

What do AMD CPUs have over Intel?

The answer is simple.....

every processor has specs... you should find out which specs are good enough for you and not choosing between two brands...

If you need cheap physical cores buy from amd a fx or a10, but if you need a high performance cpu (not necessary for gaming) buy an i7....

If your purpose is gaming i highly recommend you don't spend too much money to a cpu.... buy a mid range one... you will see very small performance difference for themoney you will spend....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer is simple.....

every processor has specs... you should find out which specs are good enough for you and not choosing between two brands...

If you need cheap physical cores buy from amd a fx or a10, but if you need a high performance cpu (not necessary for gaming) buy an i7....

If your purpose is gaming i highly recommend you don't spend too much money to a cpu.... buy a mid range one... you will see very small performance difference for themoney you will spend....

All of this is true except the APU and raw core count. Until more than the small current handful of companies implement HSA, you will be on 4 cores, and frankly even the AMD fans have admitted these are weaker chips than quad-core FX chips. It's a good solution for cheap gaming or doing office work without needing a graphics card.

Software Engineer for Suncorp (Australia), Computer Tech Enthusiast, Miami University Graduate, Nerd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

you say that but my 8320 idles at 14-19c and hit about 50-60 when prime 95ing

Aww, why'd you take away such an essential feature? Me, I'd try to get it hot enough so I can cook food while gaming and heating the house.   :lol:

| CPU: An abacus | Motherboard: Tin foil | RAM: 2 Popsicle sticks | GPU: Virtual Boy | Case: Cardboard box | Storage: Cardboard | PSU: 3... Er... Make that 2 hamsters | Display(s): Broken glass | Cooling: Brawndo | Keyboard: More cardboard | Mouse: Jerry | Sound: 2 Cans of SpaghettiO's |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aww, why'd you take away such an essential feature? Me, I'd try to get it hot enough so I can cook food while gaming and heating the house.   :lol:

because you sir give me the opportunity to squash your fun

I did a thing once and it was awsome: https://soundcloud.com/jamese666/junkhead-cover-with-vocals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

because you sir give me the opportunity to squash your fun

Well AMD CPUs have a very well-designed IHS. They do double as heaters, but they dissipate that heat very very well.

Software Engineer for Suncorp (Australia), Computer Tech Enthusiast, Miami University Graduate, Nerd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

because you sir give me the opportunity to squash your fun

Party pooper.  :(

| CPU: An abacus | Motherboard: Tin foil | RAM: 2 Popsicle sticks | GPU: Virtual Boy | Case: Cardboard box | Storage: Cardboard | PSU: 3... Er... Make that 2 hamsters | Display(s): Broken glass | Cooling: Brawndo | Keyboard: More cardboard | Mouse: Jerry | Sound: 2 Cans of SpaghettiO's |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

In heavily multithreaded applications the FX8320 and 6300 are very good value over competing Intel chips.

 

However heavily multithreaded applications are few and far between even in 2014.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

'apart from value'

Value matters to way more people than pure performance. There are few people who can justify high end intel processors, and AMD decimates intel in the budget area (although the new k pentium may change this, if we can get a cheap enough z97 board).

Also I much prefer red and black to blue.

Everything said by me is my humble opinion and nothing more, unless otherwise stated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

'apart from value'

Value matters to way more people than pure performance. There are few people who can justify high end intel processors, and AMD decimates intel in the budget area (although the new k pentium may change this, if we can get a cheap enough z97 board).

Also I much prefer red and black to blue.

well my family has a thing where if u want something and are passionate about something get the best and do it the best u can. Im passionate about my computer as its a new hobby to learn and mess with on the inside. So money isnt to much of a barrier as if its obviously better but a marginal amount and isnt like 3000$ more for 1% difference then ill get it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

All of this is true except the APU and raw core count. Until more than the small current handful of companies implement HSA, you will be on 4 cores, and frankly even the AMD fans have admitted these are weaker chips than quad-core FX chips. It's a good solution for cheap gaming or doing office work without needing a graphics card.

sry man i don't know what cheap gaming is...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

'apart from value'

Value matters to way more people than pure performance. There are few people who can justify high end intel processors, and AMD decimates intel in the budget area (although the new k pentium may change this, if we can get a cheap enough z97 board).

Also I much prefer red and black to blue.

In the hot deals section someone found a G3258 bundle with a Z97 board for only $110, so, yeah.

Software Engineer for Suncorp (Australia), Computer Tech Enthusiast, Miami University Graduate, Nerd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

sry man i don't know what cheap gaming is...

Cheap gaming in modern terms would be not buying a discrete graphics card, which you can get away with on 1080p and medium settings in high-end games. Even though the following build is $1500, you could strip it back to the cheapest Z97 board, nix the liquid cooling (4 noctua fans, reservoir, EK waterblock), go for a much cheaper processor (4690k), and go with a cheaper monitor and cheap case;

http://pcpartpicker.com/user/patrickjp93/saved/gGFXsY

Expensive build as-is, but you could cut this by 35% and be able to game on any MMORPG, RTS, and probably a number of FPS games on medium settings, maybe ultra low for Watchdogs and Crysis 3.

Software Engineer for Suncorp (Australia), Computer Tech Enthusiast, Miami University Graduate, Nerd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the hot deals section someone found a G3258 bundle with a Z97 board for only $110, so, yeah.

The cheapest amd motherboard compatable with their x4 is 32 pounds. The cheapest intel motherboard for the pentium k to be overclocked (to get comparable performance) is 80 pounds.

Also, that's on a special deal, and there are deals for AMD products as well, your point is?

AMD offers comparable performance at a lower price in the budget area of computing. Simple as that, until intel actually innovate for the lower end the same way AMD did with their APU's or significantly reduce entry cost it's not going to change.

 

 

well my family has a thing where if u want something and are passionate about something get the best and do it the best u can. Im passionate about my computer as its a new hobby to learn and mess with on the inside. So money isnt to much of a barrier as if its obviously better but a marginal amount and isnt like 3000$ more for 1% difference then ill get it

 

Count yourself extremely lucky, there aren't many people in the position to spend much on a PC.

Everything said by me is my humble opinion and nothing more, unless otherwise stated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

The cheapest amd motherboard compatable with their x4 is 32 pounds. The cheapest intel motherboard for the pentium k to be overclocked (to get comparable performance) is 80 pounds.

Also, that's on a special deal, and there are deals for AMD products as well, your point is?

AMD offers comparable performance at a lower price in the budget area of computing. Simple as that, until intel actually innovate for the lower end the same way AMD did with their APU's or significantly reduce entry cost it's not going to change.

 

80 pounds? If you don't get a Z97 board you can get a board compatible with G3258 for only $45. You just won't be able to overclock the chip on it. Now, of course this is a mini ITX board and cheaper by virtue of its size, but the point remains.

 

The thing about Intel and AMD is this: Intel goes from the top level of existing performance down to the bottom 25%. AMD goes from Intel's upper mid-range chips down to the bottom of the barrel. Yes, Intel left behind the poorest chunk of the market, but frankly, as a business, what did you expect? AMD can have the scraps at the low end of the consumer PC market. Intel has most of the gamers, and 95% of the big server/super computer clients. They also have about 80% of the laptop/notebook market. Now they're pushing power efficiency to break into the mobile phone market.

 

Intel doesn't have time to waste on the smallest chunk of markets it's currently not competing in. Any CEO who focused on it in Intel's position would be ousted by the shareholders without a doubt.

 

Be glad you have AMD if you are poor, and don't get pissed at Intel because it chooses to focus on its broader markets.

Software Engineer for Suncorp (Australia), Computer Tech Enthusiast, Miami University Graduate, Nerd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

80 pounds? If you don't get a Z97 board you can get a board compatible with G3258 for only $45. You just won't be able to overclock the chip on it. Now, of course this is a mini ITX board and cheaper by virtue of its size, but the point remains.

 

The thing about Intel and AMD is this: Intel goes from the top level of existing performance down to the bottom 25%. AMD goes from Intel's upper mid-range chips down to the bottom of the barrel. Yes, Intel left behind the poorest chunk of the market, but frankly, as a business, what did you expect? AMD can have the scraps at the low end of the consumer PC market. Intel has most of the gamers, and 95% of the big server/super computer clients. They also have about 80% of the laptop/notebook market. Now they're pushing power efficiency to break into the mobile phone market.

 

Intel doesn't have time to waste on the smallest chunk of markets it's currently not competing in. Any CEO who focused on it in Intel's position would be ousted by the shareholders without a doubt.

 

Be glad you have AMD if you are poor, and don't get pissed at Intel because it chooses to focus on its broader markets.

Who's getting annoyed at intel? And i think you are completely misunderstanding the whole PC market.

I am in no way shape or form talking about only gamers. I'm talking about the market as a whole. If you sincerely think those PC's used by workplaces, governments, and most homes will even have discreet graphics, you are sorely mistaken. If you think Intel's onboard graphics hold a candle to AMD's APU's for even home use, you are also mistaken.

I'm talking about COMPARABLE PERFORMANCE. In caps so it's not misunderstood. In order to get comparable performance, you need an overclockable board.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/pentium-g3258-overclocking-performance,review-32974-17.html

Intel has the pentium and maybe the i3's for the 90% of people who are not using a PC for intensive work or gaming, but still need a decent experience. AMD has pretty much it's entire lineup here, because here is where the majority of the market is. imho it was a mistake to focus on the high end on intel's part, because now as a PC vendor, for a budget experience I would have to choose AMD for value. And make no mistake - most PC's in the world will fall under the budget moniker.

I am running an i5 because I find the performance justifiable for the cost. Most people cannot justify this. My main mobile device is a razr i -  a smartphone with an atom inside from about two years ago, clocked at 2ghz. I know full well intel was innovating for mobile, but they have almost given up - where are their high performance mobile chips? ARM is going to dominate this space because AMD doesn't seem bothered and intel can't get it's shit together. If not for their deep ties with PC vendors, I doubt they could have even survived in the budget space when they are pretty much destroyed by APU's in most regards.

Intel and AMD both have a lot of work to do if they want to shake up the competition, today's static market is far more from convention than actual value or performance. They need to innovate properly, but to be honest intel and AMD are both in pretty comfortable positions.

Everything said by me is my humble opinion and nothing more, unless otherwise stated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who's getting annoyed at intel? And i think you are completely misunderstanding the whole PC market.

I am in no way shape or form talking about only gamers. I'm talking about the market as a whole. If you sincerely think those PC's used by workplaces, governments, and most homes will even have discreet graphics, you are sorely mistaken. If you think Intel's onboard graphics hold a candle to AMD's APU's for even home use, you are also mistaken.

I'm talking about COMPARABLE PERFORMANCE. In caps so it's not misunderstood. In order to get comparable performance, you need an overclockable board.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/pentium-g3258-overclocking-performance,review-32974-17.html

Intel has the pentium and maybe the i3's for the 90% of people who are not using a PC for intensive work or gaming, but still need a decent experience. AMD has pretty much it's entire lineup here, because here is where the majority of the market is. imho it was a mistake to focus on the high end on intel's part, because now as a PC vendor, for a budget experience I would have to choose AMD for value. And make no mistake - most PC's in the world will fall under the budget moniker.

I am running an i5 because I find the performance justifiable for the cost. Most people cannot justify this. My main mobile device is a razr i -  a smartphone with an atom inside from about two years ago, clocked at 2ghz. I know full well intel was innovating for mobile, but they have almost given up - where are their high performance mobile chips? ARM is going to dominate this space because AMD doesn't seem bothered and intel can't get it's shit together. If not for their deep ties with PC vendors, I doubt they could have even survived in the budget space when they are pretty much destroyed by APU's in most regards.

Intel and AMD both have a lot of work to do if they want to shake up the competition, today's static market is far more from convention than actual value or performance. They need to innovate properly, but to be honest intel and AMD are both in pretty comfortable positions.

I like how the market is. if ur a casual web browser/ micro processer then go amd, most of the market is there and amd gets a good profit from getting lets say 70% of the market (NOT SAYING THIS IS TRUE JUST SAYING IT A MARKET SITUATION) but they sell there chips for about 100-150$ for average decent cpu.

Intel has this 30% (AGAIN NOT TRUE YOU TROLLS) but in this 30% its the governments and high end gamers/workbench ect that pay 500+ for a cpu. when u almost triple in some cases cost 5 times more and have 1/4th the market ur still making the same or more then AMD while giving options to the comsumers. that way if i want a high end because i have spare money i go intel, or i go amd if i just want a cheaper reliable cpu. I think they CPU market is fine as is for now. if intel makes more budget cpus like theyre new pentium and amd doesnt get on the boat with hyperthreading and faster cpus then intel might just win. personally i think amd makes great GPUs and intel makes great CPUs and nividia has its group over in the corner  :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who's getting annoyed at intel? And i think you are completely misunderstanding the whole PC market.

I am in no way shape or form talking about only gamers. I'm talking about the market as a whole. If you sincerely think those PC's used by workplaces, governments, and most homes will even have discreet graphics, you are sorely mistaken. If you think Intel's onboard graphics hold a candle to AMD's APU's for even home use, you are also mistaken.

I'm talking about COMPARABLE PERFORMANCE. In caps so it's not misunderstood. In order to get comparable performance, you need an overclockable board.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/pentium-g3258-overclocking-performance,review-32974-17.html

Intel has the pentium and maybe the i3's for the 90% of people who are not using a PC for intensive work or gaming, but still need a decent experience. AMD has pretty much it's entire lineup here, because here is where the majority of the market is. imho it was a mistake to focus on the high end on intel's part, because now as a PC vendor, for a budget experience I would have to choose AMD for value. And make no mistake - most PC's in the world will fall under the budget moniker.

I am running an i5 because I find the performance justifiable for the cost. Most people cannot justify this. My main mobile device is a razr i -  a smartphone with an atom inside from about two years ago, clocked at 2ghz. I know full well intel was innovating for mobile, but they have almost given up - where are their high performance mobile chips? ARM is going to dominate this space because AMD doesn't seem bothered and intel can't get it's shit together. If not for their deep ties with PC vendors, I doubt they could have even survived in the budget space when they are pretty much destroyed by APU's in most regards.

Intel and AMD both have a lot of work to do if they want to shake up the competition, today's static market is far more from convention than actual value or performance. They need to innovate properly, but to be honest intel and AMD are both in pretty comfortable positions.

It's not about being better if the graphics aren't utilized fully. Intel HD 4600 is a plenty strong graphics solution if you're not gaming, and it can handle even 4K movies just fine. Intel's integrated graphics are "good enough" for HTPC. And I, being a current college student, see nothing but Intel CPUs and discrete GPUs in most universities in the state of Ohio, and this is a cheapskate state. Businesses also trust Intel more the vPro technology and its inherent protections given to distributed systems. AMD has no security features in its CPUs that I'm aware of. My dad also works at Munich Reinsurance America and no computer there or at any of their competitors' offices uses AMD except some ARM chips in its servers for lightweight patch deployment.

 

AMD has the lowest end of the gaming market, a good chunk of the video rendering market, and almost none of the server mainboard market. ARM is an accessory, not a keystone, in that market.

 

Each company has its strengths and markets, but you've blown AMD's usefulness way out of proportion.

Software Engineer for Suncorp (Australia), Computer Tech Enthusiast, Miami University Graduate, Nerd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like how the market is. if ur a casual web browser/ micro processer then go amd, most of the market is there and amd gets a good profit from getting lets say 70% of the market (NOT SAYING THIS IS TRUE JUST SAYING IT A MARKET SITUATION) but they sell there chips for about 100-150$ for average decent cpu.

Intel has this 30% (AGAIN NOT TRUE YOU TROLLS) but in this 30% its the governments and high end gamers/workbench ect that pay 500+ for a cpu. when u almost triple in some cases cost 5 times more and have 1/4th the market ur still making the same or more then AMD while giving options to the comsumers. that way if i want a high end because i have spare money i go intel, or i go amd if i just want a cheaper reliable cpu. I think they CPU market is fine as is for now. if intel makes more budget cpus like theyre new pentium and amd doesnt get on the boat with hyperthreading and faster cpus then intel might just win. personally i think amd makes great GPUs and intel makes great CPUs and nividia has its group over in the corner  :ph34r:

And in fact the only reason Intel is pushing its integrated graphics is to make sure AMD can't gain more than a toehold in the HTPC market. With Nvidia pushing AMD's graphics division and going toe to toe, Intel sees no reason to jump in until AMD is battered and on the verge of death. Knight's Landing is just the preamble to that push. Nvidia doesn't want to compete directly with Intel, which is why the two generally stay out of each other's way apart from supercomputer accelerators, where AMD is also fighting.

 

I'm sure Nvidia also doesn't want to pay for the R&D to catch up to its competitors' x86 architectures. AMD is the oddball in all this. They're trying to keep 5 major markets (PC processor, PC GPU, Server processor, server accelerator(GPU-based), and mobile processor) from becoming monopolies, and with pressure from Intel, Nvidia, Qualcom, and now Apple as well, it just can't expand in all directions at once very well.

Software Engineer for Suncorp (Australia), Computer Tech Enthusiast, Miami University Graduate, Nerd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheap gaming in modern terms would be not buying a discrete graphics card, which you can get away with on 1080p and medium settings in high-end games. Even though the following build is $1500, you could strip it back to the cheapest Z97 board, nix the liquid cooling (4 noctua fans, reservoir, EK waterblock), go for a much cheaper processor (4690k), and go with a cheaper monitor and cheap case;

http://pcpartpicker.com/user/patrickjp93/saved/gGFXsY

Expensive build as-is, but you could cut this by 35% and be able to game on any MMORPG, RTS, and probably a number of FPS games on medium settings, maybe ultra low for Watchdogs and Crysis 3.

This my friend is not cheap gaming... many people don't have the flexibility to buy a high end pc....

 so they buy a mid end pc.... The "Cheap Gaming" is a little offensive in my ears...

Also having a high end GPU and a mid end CPU is just fine....

People are not rich... We have economical crisis.... And spending money isn't common nowdays.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

This my friend is not cheap gaming... many people don't have the flexibility to buy a high end pc....

 so they buy a mid end pc.... The "Cheap Gaming" is a little offensive in my ears...

Also having a high end GPU and a mid end CPU is just fine....

People are not rich... We have economical crisis.... And spending money isn't common nowdays.....

I would not exactly say an AMD 7850k constitutes a high-end PC... You can build a "decent" gaming computer for $700 including case, monitor, keyboard, and mouse. That's cheap gaming to me.

Software Engineer for Suncorp (Australia), Computer Tech Enthusiast, Miami University Graduate, Nerd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Be glad you have AMD if you are poor, and don't get pissed at Intel because it chooses to focus on its broader markets.

 

I just lost a shit tonne of braincells reading this idiotic comment. How much did Intel pay you to say dumb crap like that?

Case: Phanteks Enthoo Pro | PSU: Enermax Revolution87+ 850W | Motherboard: MSI Z97 MPOWER MAX AC | GPU 1: MSI R9 290X Lightning | CPU: Intel Core i7 4790k | SSD: Samsung SM951 128GB M.2 | HDDs: 2x 3TB WD Black (RAID1) | CPU Cooler: Silverstone Heligon HE01 | RAM: 4 x 4GB Team Group 1600Mhz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not exactly say an AMD 7850k constitutes a high-end PC... You can build a "decent" gaming computer for $700 including case, monitor, keyboard, and mouse. That's cheap gaming to me.

decent pc in my opinion isn't a pc that you play btf4 ultra in 6 4k monitors with 843650456 fps.........

also as i told you before.... people don't have money to spend... you may have a good salary that allows you to buy more expensive items..... but most people don't!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not about being better if the graphics aren't utilized fully. Intel HD 4600 is a plenty strong graphics solution if you're not gaming, and it can handle even 4K movies just fine. Intel's integrated graphics are "good enough" for HTPC. And I, being a current college student, see nothing but Intel CPUs and discrete GPUs in most universities in the state of Ohio, and this is a cheapskate state. Businesses also trust Intel more the vPro technology and its inherent protections given to distributed systems. AMD has no security features in its CPUs that I'm aware of. My dad also works at Munich Reinsurance America and no computer there or at any of their competitors' offices uses AMD except some ARM chips in its servers for lightweight patch deployment.

 

AMD has the lowest end of the gaming market, a good chunk of the video rendering market, and almost none of the server mainboard market. ARM is an accessory, not a keystone, in that market.

 

Each company has its strengths and markets, but you've blown AMD's usefulness way out of proportion.

 

I think you are still failing to see the market AMD is aiming at, and I really don't like your choice of words. AMD is more useful than most people care to realise, and are absolutely necessary in the current market. Competition is absolutely necessary. We are in a terrible situation right now, with intel and AMD basically marketing to completely different people without much competition - AMD don't need to innovate, intel don't need to innovate, and we lose out if they take advantage of this (which intel is imho by the constant delays of new processors and technology, and AMD also with their stale lineup). Unless we all turn communist, we need AMD.

AMD markets to a specific audience and have been doing it very well. Please note, I am talking specifically about processors, I still consider their GPU division mostly ATI with better R&D. They have been getting out processors which can handle a huge amount of graphics-heavy tasks without needing discrete graphics, i.e. rendering, video playback and gaming - don't brush it off as if it's useless, it's absolutely necessary for any modern system to have the ability to do a varied amount of work, and in most situations except gaming and content creation, this eliminates the need for discrete graphics. Intel's onboard solution doesn't hold a candle to AMD's in terms of horsepower and in terms of versatility.

You mentioned mobile, NOT any other situation, in which intel is pushing into. This is wrong. Intel have been pushing into it for the past four years or so, and have got nowhere and have been dialling down their efforts recently, while AMD still remain king for most low to mid laptops and most low to mid desktops - i.e. a huge chunk of the market. It's not aimed at you, no one is saying it is, but at least appreciate what they are doing.

There is no use justifying your clear bias for intel, it's absolutely undeserved. Intel and AMD have both been doing badly in innovation recently, where it counts, and both need to step their game up. AMD isn't objectively better than intel because of value, nor is Intel objectively better than AMD because of performance, though arguments can be made they are exactly that - arguments, not facts. I run intel in all my builds because I need to, i imagine you are in the same situation, but surely you must recognise that there are tons of people who do not need intel, and have far more justification for purchasing an AMD product.

 

I would not exactly say an AMD 7850k constitutes a high-end PC... You can build a "decent" gaming computer for $700 including case, monitor, keyboard, and mouse. That's cheap gaming to me.

 

Again, your problem is you refuse to have a larger persective. To most people, a console - which can last up to 8 years, garaunteed to work with a large catalogue of games, practically no maintenance needed - is not justifiable as a purchase because of cost. A lot of people, like I did a few years ago, will have a budget of around £300 (500$ ish) and will get the components they can afford. At that price, not getting an AMD chip is mad. Intel do not offer a comparable experience at the budget end, where most people buy.

Everything said by me is my humble opinion and nothing more, unless otherwise stated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are still failing to see the market AMD is aiming at, and I really don't like your choice of words. AMD is more useful than most people care to realise, and are absolutely necessary in the current market. Competition is absolutely necessary. We are in a terrible situation right now, with intel and AMD basically marketing to completely different people without much competition - AMD don't need to innovate, intel don't need to innovate, and we lose out if they take advantage of this (which intel is imho by the constant delays of new processors and technology, and AMD also with their stale lineup). Unless we all turn communist, we need AMD.

AMD markets to a specific audience and have been doing it very well. Please note, I am talking specifically about processors, I still consider their GPU division mostly ATI with better R&D. They have been getting out processors which can handle a huge amount of graphics-heavy tasks without needing discrete graphics, i.e. rendering, video playback and gaming - don't brush it off as if it's useless, it's absolutely necessary for any modern system to have the ability to do a varied amount of work, and in most situations except gaming and content creation, this eliminates the need for discrete graphics. Intel's onboard solution doesn't hold a candle to AMD's in terms of horsepower and in terms of versatility.

You mentioned mobile, NOT any other situation, in which intel is pushing into. This is wrong. Intel have been pushing into it for the past four years or so, and have got nowhere and have been dialling down their efforts recently, while AMD still remain king for most low to mid laptops and most low to mid desktops - i.e. a huge chunk of the market. It's not aimed at you, no one is saying it is, but at least appreciate what they are doing.

There is no use justifying your clear bias for intel, it's absolutely undeserved. Intel and AMD have both been doing badly in innovation recently, where it counts, and both need to step their game up. AMD isn't objectively better than intel because of value, nor is Intel objectively better than AMD because of performance, though arguments can be made they are exactly that - arguments, not facts. I run intel in all my builds because I need to, i imagine you are in the same situation, but surely you must recognise that there are tons of people who do not need intel, and have far more justification for purchasing an AMD product.

 

 

Again, your problem is you refuse to have a larger persective. To most people, a console - which can last up to 8 years, garaunteed to work with a large catalogue of games, practically no maintenance needed - is not justifiable as a purchase because of cost. A lot of people, like I did a few years ago, will have a budget of around £300 (500$ ish) and will get the components they can afford. At that price, not getting an AMD chip is mad. Intel do not offer a comparable experience at the budget end, where most people buy.

Most people don;t buy on a budget. Let's stop with that fallacy. I would be considered a low-range builder because I never spend more than $1200 on a PC on a 5-year upgrade cycle. The number of people who build on $600-900 budgets is tiny. Universities and businesses buy a decent amount of secondhand equipment, but that doesn't qualify as a build.

 

Also, the market share of laptops held by AMD is about 14%. When I say mobile, I mean phones, and no, Intel is pushing harder than ever, hence the push to drop power consumption and maintain the same performance, because X86 is still 4x faster than the best ARM architecture. The problem is the higher wattage, but that won't last long because ARM is pushing towards being CISC and Intel has been shaving 20% or more off the power consumption on its mobile chips with each generation.\

 

Furthermore, Intel's onboard graphics solution is no slouch. Just because it wasn't optimized for gaming doesn't mean it's weak. Yes, it has a limited 1.7GB frame buffer size, but at 1080p Intel performs equally as good as AMD on integrated graphics. As per video rendering, the FX line is good for it, not contesting that, but the difference in performance on that front is much less drastic now than it has been. 

 

Intel is innovating towards APU-style architecture, and frankly they have to because CPU cores can't get too much faster without switching to Graphene or another more-efficient semiconductor, and, on Intel's side, the efficiency is already 0.86 IPC. given an even distribution of instructions used in an application. Efficiency gains will be tapering off very, very soon.

Software Engineer for Suncorp (Australia), Computer Tech Enthusiast, Miami University Graduate, Nerd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×