Why do people hate AMD cpu's so much

[TheRagingGamer]

I was reading comments in a subbreddit r/************ and i get a feeling everybody hates AMD for some reason. i don't know why they just bash AMD saying i does not even come close to intel. This is kind of the majority of the users. I was also watching some youtube videos that also say the same thing. 

I don't understand all the hate.I think it offer great performance per price. I know intel usually has faster single cores but its expensive. 
So far in my life i had: pentium 3, pentium 4, intel core 2 duo e4600, AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition and fx 6300 

[79wjd]

Because they run hot and aren't as powerful as intel core for core... As a result, intel cpus tend to do most things better than AMD cpus. 

[Jodomcfrodo]

Because they don't have the power of Intel CPU's (price range dependent of course) and run hot.

[XTankSlayerX]

I don't like them because they run hot as fuck... My female friend's computer has a stream of hot-ish air coming out the back of it, as oppose to mine (intel) is the same as ambient temp.

[Vacsol]

everyone has their preference. Intel processors tend to run cooler and (from my experience) more stable.
AMD processors tend to be less expensive, but hotter. much like their GPUs.

[Enderman]

-excessive heat

-excessive power consumption

-less power per core (which matters more than core count)

-less features on most motherboards

-less overclocking

-less temperature overhead

 

+cheaper

+more cores is good for rendering

 

 

Thats about it...

AMD is really good for budget PCs because its got a way better price/performance ratio than intel (or nvidia).

[ShadowCaptain]

While they are OK cpus (well some of them) and they do an ok job

 

The intel cpus ARE better consistently beating them in benchmarks almost across the board

 

They dont have to be expensive, The G3220 pentium is a great chip (that I rarely see recommended, it does well in most games) as is the anniversary edition G3258 for overclockers

 

For a comparable price to some higher end AMD chips you can get an i3 with hyperthreading or a basic quad core i5, very good bang for buck and will run with top teir cards no issue, you can also use cheap h81 and b85 motherboards which are basically the same price as the AMD boards

 

And at the high end teh 4670k is a monster chip that punches through games on par with an i7 in so far as gaming duties....... speaking of which the 4770k/4790k are unbeatable value for editing/multimedia/gaming rigs

 

Sure some AMD chips are fnatastic but intel has an answer all the way through the range and even above and beyond anything AMD have

[Sauron]

Nobody in their right mind would "hate" amd cpus. They have a very specific place in the market and more often than not I have found that especially in budget oriented builds they are an axceptional competitor to their intel counterparts. If the reasonment is, "I want i7 performance", then amd does not have anything comparable, however if instead you are content with an i3 amd has very compelling offers. It's true that they tend to underperform a bit in games, hence why some people in the pcGAMINGmasterrace subreddit don't like them, but in the budget gaming world they have a seat of honour. Also, if amd stopped making cpus intel would have the monopoly, and trust me, nobody wants that.

[TheRagingGamer]

I don't like them because they run hot as fuck... My female friend's computer has a stream of hot-ish air coming out the back of it, as oppose to mine (intel) is the same as ambient temp.

AMD saving money on heating since 1969

[Askew]

The people in that subreddit are basically the exact kind of elitist morons to snub a cheaper product that might serve a worthy purpose for a certain application and price point.

 

Nobody hates AMD CPUs, they have their place and are just a piece of hardware like anything else, don't listen to the cretins on PC master race and change your avatar is my advice.

 

Intel CPUs are better but cost more, those are the hard facts of the matter.

[Archangel1994]

1. AMD runs hotter and it's damn near REQUIRED to use aftermarket (stock cooler AMD is pretty bad)

2. AMD CPU's are weaker core for core and when it comes to gaming all those fancy 6-cores and 8-cores are wasted money since most games only use 2/3 cores/threads.

3. I see more failures with AMD than with intel

4. Their power usage is higher making you have to go up a notch in your PSU (500 -> 550 for example) most likely increasing cost there as well so in the end AMD is not THAT much cheaper.

 

On a positive note for AMD though their APU's are great and the amount of cores CAN be used though for things like video editing or 3D modelling.

[felixbearpig]

They are old

[phillrulz]

I purely dont like them as people have said cores are weaker than intel which means a 8core runs worse than an intel 4 core on 99% of games as they only use 4 cores.

[Raid]

Mostly because of performance issues.

Though am I the only one who thinks Intel CPU run hotter? With AMD CPU they usually cap at around 60c but with Intel and their shitty stock coolers they go all the way up to 70 and even 80c.

[upliftsleet1974]

I love them got nothing against them running 3 pcs with them

[79wjd]

3. I see more failures with AMD than with intel

I feel like that can be a bit of a skewed result...Most consumer computers (dells/hps/etc...) have Intel CPUs since thats what people know. Its more enthusiasts who end up with AMD chips, and its those people who push things harder...

 

/just a thought. 

[TheRagingGamer]

-excessive heat

-excessive power consumption

-less power per core (which matters more than core count)

-less features on most motherboards

-less overclocking

-less temperature overhead

+cheaper

+more cores is good for rendering

Thats about it...

AMD is really good for budget PCs because its got a way better price/performance ratio than intel (or nvidia).

i disagree on the overclocking part

I feel like that can be a bit of a skewed result...Most consumer computers (dells/hps/etc...) have Intel CPUs since thats what people know. Its more enthusiasts who end up with AMD chips, and its those people who push things harder...

/just a thought.

amd fails more because i think people tend to overclock the shit out of the,at least i did

[79wjd]

amd fails more because i think people tend to overclock the shit out of the,at least i did 

Thats what I meant by "push things harder"; well, that and people running them longer and putting a greater load on them. 

[Enderman]

i disagree on the overclocking part 

Ok I disagree with you for these reasons:

 

1) More heat output from the chip means you will get lower overclocks since you will hit the thermal limit quickly (unless you use phase change or LN2 which almost nobody does)

2) Maximum temp limit is 62C compared to 105C on inte CPUs. Going over that limit when overclocking will severely decrease the lifespan of your CPU.

3) Faulty temp sensors will give you incorrect CPU temperatures in a ton of AMD CPUs.

[D3MON]

are they high?
hot? my 8320 peaks at 70*c and i start checking if my fans died, intel fanboys would sell thier sister for 70*c temps from what i can gather.
otherwise they are on par with intel where it matters, the budget and mainstream part of the bell curve (the fx6 and fx8, who cares about speed bins), hate to sound like a fanboy but after years of having intel chips i now prefer my amd so long as its not a laptop/server, it AND a board cost less than a 3570k and performs better (get a 720 cb score on cinebench, go on...) im not in 2006 and any task that is single threaded is done in seconds anyway.

ill pay the extra .20p a month in electricity for that power, my laptop and server on the other hand use intel so every watt matters, that said i dont use my laptop anymore because i have a smartphone. also the "less overclocking" thing is a non arguement, just because intel cripples thier cpu's from factory doesnt mean they overclock better, i had an e2140 (or something) that was at 1.6ghz and i managed to get it to 3.2 unstable 3ghz stable, doesnt mean its better than a q6600 (i still love that chip, sorry).

simple answer why people hate on something is because they are jealous and find it easier to slag off something they wish they had than to work for it OR they are mindlessly blind in the "i paid more for it so it must be better", same as iphones...

its perfectly find to dislike something you dont see the purpose off, i dont like the 9590 and apple products because I dont think the price tag reflects the value. if you ONLY use single threaded apps youre a moron if you dont get a pentium k, if you only do demanding gaming requiring 4 cores an i5 is great, gaming and rendering/transcoding/heavy lifting get an 8320 (not 8350), if moneys less of an issue get an i7-e, no gaming but lots of production work get a xeon or 2 (sorry opterons).

also its subreddit...

fyi im at 4.6 daily, i make that a 31% overclock.

[TheRagingGamer]

Ok I disagree with you for these reasons:

 

1) More heat output from the chip means you will get lower overclocks since you will hit the thermal limit quickly (unless you use phase change or LN2 which almost nobody does)

2) Maximum temp limit is 62C compared to 105C on inte CPUs. Going over that limit when overclocking will severely decrease the lifespan of your CPU.

3) Faulty temp sensors will give you incorrect CPU temperatures in a ton of AMD CPUs.

i had faulty temp sensors on my dual core only 1 core was showing, oh and you know that shit they put under IHS on intel i7, and who is holding the world record for fastest overclock. 

[Kc7vwc]

Not sure what people are talking about for heat. I've got an FX-6300 that never gets above 40c, regarless of which software I use to monitor it, bios included. (4.1GHz) Using a Xigmatech Dark Knight II right now - previously had a Zalman Reserator 3 Max on it.

Maybe the 8xxx chips are hotter...

My system and 2x Radeon 7850s (8x,4x PCI-E) has every game running at 1080, Max settings at 60-120Fps (though I use V-Sync most of the time).

[TheRagingGamer]

is everyone high?

hot? my 8320 peaks at 70*c and i start checking if my fans died, intel fanboys would sell thier sister for 70*c temps from what i can gather.

otherwise they are on par with intel (the fx6 and fx8, who cares about speed bins), hate to sound like a fanboy but after years of having intel chips i now prefer my amd so long as its not a laptop/server, it AND a board cost less than a 3570k and performs better (get a 720 cb score on cinebench, go on...) im not in 2006 and any task that is single threaded is done in seconds anyway.

ill pay the extra .20p a month in electricity for that power, my laptop and server on the other hand thankfully use intel so every watt matters, that said i dont use my laptop anymore because i have a smartphone. also the "less overclocking" thing is a non arguement, just because intel cripples thier cpu's from factory doesnt mean they overclock better, i had an e2140 (or something) that was at 1.6ghz and i managed to get it to 3.2 unstable 3ghz stable, doesnt mean its better than a q6600 (i still love that chip, sorry).

simple answer why people hate on something is because they are jealous and find it easier to slag off something they wish they had than to work for it OR they are mindlessly blind in the "i paid more for it so it must be better", same as iphones...

its perfectly find to dislike something you dont see the purpose off, i dont like the 9590 and apple products because I dont think the price tag reflects the value. if you ONLY use single threaded apps youre a moron if you dont get a pentium k, if you only do demanding gaming requiring 3 cores an i5 is great, gaming and rendering/transcoded heavy lifting get an 8320 (not 8350), if moneys less of an issue get an i7-e, no gaming but lots of production work get a xeon or 2 (sorry opterons).

also its subreddit...

i don't know the temps on new intel cpu's but i was having my dual core on 95C for over a year, and yes intel runs really hot with stock cooler witch is garbage

Not sure what people are talking about for heat. I've got an FX-6300 that never gets above 40c, regarless of which software I use to monitor it, bios included. (4.1GHz) Using a Xigmatech Dark Knight II right now - previously had a Zalman Reserator 3 Max on it.

Maybe the 8xxx chips are hotter...

My system and 2x Radeon 7850s (8x,4x PCI-E) has every game running at 1080, Max settings at 60-120Fps (though I use V-Sync most of the time).

yeah i don't know the last time someone had 70C with intel, they are running hot as hell

[marioo1182]

I don't hate them either, please don't start hate/war threads. 

It's become an annoying theme on this forum starting with the Apple one. 

 

Pleases stop making these threads to make the forum a better place 

[79wjd]

yeah i don't know the last time someone had 70C with intel, they are running hot as hell 

I was getting 70ºc with the stock cooler during prime95 on my 4670k at stock speeds, and and 73ºc at 4.3ghz 1.2v with a seidon 240m.