Why do people hate AMD cpu's so much

[ViruZ_HUN]

-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).

less OC? waaat?

[TheRagingGamer]

I'd leave the country when given the chance... Unless you have a stable, good-paying job, it'll be difficult to survive...

yea i will probably go to germany when i turn 18. Germans will hate me because i dont speak thear language but the unemployment rate here is 18.6%

[Enderman]

less OC? waaat?

If you're limited to 62C with a CPU that puts out more heat then an intel CPU, your overclock will be limited by the max temperature unless you have a custom watercooling loop or phase change or LN2

basically the average user will have difficulty getting over 4GHz on a regular air cooler...

[TheRagingGamer]

If you're limited to 62C with a CPU that puts out more heat then an intel CPU, your overclock will be limited by the max temperature unless you have a custom watercooling loop or phase change or LN2

basically the average user will have difficulty getting over 4GHz on a regular air cooler...

5 ghz master race checking in 

[ViruZ_HUN]

If you're limited to 62C with a CPU that puts out more heat then an intel CPU, your overclock will be limited by the max temperature unless you have a custom watercooling loop or phase change or LN2

basically the average user will have difficulty getting over 4GHz on a regular air cooler...

not really on a Noctua Dh15. But anyways. If a Fx8350 is running on stock clocks, I dont think that a good aircooler would not keep it under 70C on load. But yeah AMD is running hotter. But the Fx8350 is easier to OC with a good cooler.

[DigitalHermit]

not really on a Noctua Dh15. But anyways. If a Fx8350 is running on stock clocks, I dont think that a good aircooler would not keep it under 70C on load. But yeah AMD is running hotter. But the Fx8350 is easier to OC with a good cooler.

 

Think about the money you'll save in heating during the winter /sarcasm

[Spongy141]

And we all know that only has to do with Intel choosing to use thermal paste over soldering the chip to the IHS. Naked mount Haswell is cooler by a long shot.

True, but still, not everyone will do a naked mount, so that doesn't really matter, intel should stop being cheap solder their chips. I doubt people would stop buying i5's and i7's just because they are 10-50$ more expensive.

[Sintezza]

This picture shows it all.

Nothin more to say on this lol

 

[patrickjp93]

http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html

really? i agree modern games can use multiple threads (i know this ) but unless the cpu is bottlenecking i wouldnt say you gain more performance...

That has more to do with OS background process management, which is optimized for Hyperthreading. There's a noticeable hiccup on AMD chips when you open something big and the 2-part modules with 1 scheduler a piece go "oh shit...um, let's reallocate this here and that there..."

[Sintezza]

That has more to do with OS background process management, which is optimized for Hyperthreading. There's a noticeable hiccup on AMD chips when you open something big and the 2-part modules with 1 scheduler a piece go "oh shit...um, let's reallocate this here and that there..."

 

This is basicly a Windows 7 related issue.

Windows 8.x seems to manage processes much more efficient. (atleast thats what i have read about it)

[Juggernautilus]

because reddit is dumb as fuck

[patrickjp93]

This is basicly a Windows 7 related issue.

Windows 8.x seems to manage processes much more efficient. (atleast thats what i have read about it)

All OS handle background processes better when you have something akin to hyperthreading. Having a process run in the wait cycles of another is as efficient as you get.

[Faa]

Face palm* on the I7 socket 2011. I said those come from low-end Xeon 8-core chips that didn't pass inspection. And they do.

You can find a second memory controller on quad-core parts if you look hard enough. It's a few million transistors and is a tiny portion of any chip. The ring bus can be partially disabled to account for missing cores via microcode as well.

It would be really cool if Intel just released a chip with everything on it. Overclockable 8-core Xeon with FPGA attached and an iGPU. That's an enthusiast workstation chip.

 

There's no second memory controller and stop soloclaiming now mainstream cpu's are coming off S2011 cpu's.

 

so essentially the 4770k(etc) is just for people that need more performance than an i5 for rendering a faster but not so much that they might need an i7-e...okay

Thanks for pointing out what my point was. HT adds a 30% gain, the 2 extra cores you find on the 8350 adds theoretically 33% at best to the 6300 and costs twice as much. 4770k's are only 50% more expensive than 4670k's. AMD is kinda charging too much for their performance, no? Use the 8320 as excuse, I'll use the xeon e3 as excuse. In the end they both are useless cpu's for a pure gaming rig.

Gaming only; why are people cheaping a few bucks out getting the 8350 instead of the i5? Doesn't make much sense if you pay 100$ more just to get the same performance (8350vs6300).

[patrickjp93]

There's no second memory controller and stop soloclaiming now mainstream cpu's are coming off S2011 cpu's.

I never claimed that if you would please reread the posts you quoted.

Thanks for pointing out what my point was. HT adds a 30% gain, the 2 extra cores you find on the 8350 adds theoretically 33% at best to the 6300 and costs twice as much. 4770k's are only 50% more expensive than 4670k's. AMD is kinda charging too much for their performance, no? Use the 8320 as excuse, I'll use the xeon e3 as excuse. In the end they both are useless cpu's for a pure gaming rig.

Gaming only; why are people cheaping a few bucks out getting the 8350 instead of the i5? Doesn't make much sense if you pay 100$ more just to get the same performance (8350vs6300).

I see your point, but let's say you want some future-proofing for games that use 6 or more cores. The 8350 is better suited for the job with a good overclock behind it, especially when compared to the cost of a 4930k. Where the 5820k ends up priced I can't say, but at least through Ivy Bridge the 8350 is the better future-proofing option for games.

CPUs actually get faster before they get slower as software comes online taking advantage of new instructions. We all know this. The 8350 right now is probably performing the best it ever will. In 2017 Haswell/Broadwell will be at their peaks.

[D3MON]

 

There's no second memory controller and stop soloclaiming now mainstream cpu's are coming off S2011 cpu's.

 

Thanks for pointing out what my point was. HT adds a 30% gain, the 2 extra cores you find on the 8350 adds theoretically 33% at best to the 6300 and costs twice as much. 4770k's are only 50% more expensive than 4670k's. AMD is kinda charging too much for their performance, no? Use the 8320 as excuse, I'll use the xeon e3 as excuse. In the end they both are useless cpu's for a pure gaming rig.

Gaming only; why are people cheaping a few bucks out getting the 8350 instead of the i5? Doesn't make much sense if you pay 100$ more just to get the same performance (8350vs6300).

 

a 8320 is 33% more expensive than a 6300 and is 33% more powerful in threaded apps so that makes sense, but if a pentium k is £55 why isnt a 4670k £110? a 760k is equal to a pentium k in multi threaded apps and so long as people are hoping to not be bottlenecked by a dual core i think multi threaded performance is a valid point, as for single threaded performance the intels lead should maybe warrant a small price hike to say £65 for the P-k and £130 for the 4670k, that way people can chose between a fast cpu for low threaded tasks and a still fast cpu for somewhat multi threaded tasks in the i5, if the 4670k was £130 id of considered it, but at £164 my 8320 will unlikely draw the difference in power consumption.

8320 and xeon are far from useless in games imho, otherwise when people build a rig with no intention of overclocking the xeon would never be mentioned but it is all the time just as fx8's are for budget rigs (and i try to steer people away from the 8350+ btw...)

i dont know how much hyperthreading helps but with the 3770k it was around 22% going by cinebench results (best case) which with a 4670k costing £164 would make a 4770k worth £205 but its actually £234, thats 42% more expensive, and in those single threaded apps amd folks hear so much about there wont be any difference.

this is napkin maths so disregard this bit but if the pentium k is £55...and the 4670k was therefore £110 then the 23~% more powerful 4770k would be £135...i could get behind that I wouldnt mind that at all. that said an 8 core 16 thread haswell-e would be £270 (maybe £300 if 10% were not usable)  .

couldnt agree more on the other gaming part, if you know that all you're going to be doing is gaming then a 6300/4670k is all you'll likely need for a few years but hey-ho you never know what the future holds.

[Tr3vor]

I hate AMD because Intel sucks.

[Faa]

 

This is basicly a Windows 7 related issue.

Windows 8.x seems to manage processes much more efficient. (atleast thats what i have read about it)

A process has threads (just a stream of instructions) and the scheduler (OS) wasnt assigning the threads properly. Basically you had to give a module 2 threads first and then you had access to the next module, some sort of core parking effect but not the same. Thats mainly because AMD adopted for a new architecture CMT, back when Intel brought the pentium 4 single core with HT out you had issues as well and MS fixed it with a patch and also for CMT which is fixed through 2 hotfixes.

 

I see your point, but let's say you want some future-proofing for games that use 6 or more cores. The 8350 is better suited for the job with a good overclock behind it, especially when compared to the cost of a 4930k. Where the 5820k ends up priced I can't say, but at least through Ivy Bridge the 8350 is the better future-proofing option for games.

CPUs actually get faster before they get slower as software comes online taking advantage of new instructions. We all know this. The 8350 right now is probably performing the best it ever will. In 2017 Haswell/Broadwell will be at their peaks.

BF4 "uses 6 or more cores".

It doesnt only come down to how many cores a game uses, if it was that simple the 8350 would have wiped the floor with the i5. I'm not denying that their multithreaded performance is better, but without taking proper advantage of that it would mean nothing. BF4 has like 4 main threads and a bunch of trashthreads, it barely takes advantage of more than 6 threads and the gain over 4 threads/cores is minor. You get the picture that isn't that great multithreaded as people think. You'll never see a game being flawlessly multithreaded like Cinebench, parallelism is something thats always going to be crap in games, you'll always have threads waiting on each other to finish, magically saturating 8 threads isn't something you do out of the nothing without asking any questions. 

I got my 3930K for 2-3 years and it future-proofed itself zero times, my Q9550 didnt last any longer than a E8400 - most Q9550 owners upgraded their cpu earlier than C2D owners, I'd prefer a 4670k at 5GHz with 1.10V over a 3930K anytime for gaming. Futureproof is just non-existent, the only thing that would be futureproof is a heatsink over an AIO cooler.

[patrickjp93]

A process has threads (just a stream of instructions) and the scheduler (OS) wasnt assigning the threads properly. Basically you had to give a module 2 threads first and then you had access to the next module, some sort of core parking effect but not the same. Thats mainly because AMD adopted for a new architecture CMT, back when Intel brought the pentium 4 single core with HT out you had issues as well and MS fixed it with a patch and also for CMT which is fixed through 2 hotfixes.

BF4 "uses 6 or more cores".

It doesnt only come down to how many cores a game uses, if it was that simple the 8350 would have wiped the floor with the i5. I'm not denying that their multithreaded performance is better, but without taking proper advantage of that it would mean nothing. BF4 has like 4 main threads and a bunch of trashthreads, it barely takes advantage of more than 6 threads and the gain over 4 threads/cores is minor. You get the picture that isn't that great multithreaded as people think. You'll never see a game being flawlessly multithreaded like Cinebench, parallelism is something thats always going to be crap in games, you'll always have threads waiting on each other to finish, magically saturating 8 threads isn't something you do out of the nothing without asking any questions.

I got my 3930K for 2-3 years and it future-proofed itself zero times, my Q9550 didnt last any longer than a E8400 - most Q9550 owners upgraded their cpu earlier than C2D owners, I'd prefer a 4670k at 5GHz with 1.10V over a 3930K anytime for gaming. Futureproof is just non-existent, the only thing that would be futureproof is a heatsink over an AIO cooler.

EK Elite water block I hope is permanently future-proof given swapping mounting plates shouldn't be too difficult.

My Q9550 lasted me until the 4960x was out and I am no lightweight user. You can check my build log post with everything I've ever helped build for my family. It was a great overclocker until the reservoir cracked and destroyed everything(never building with acrylic again).

Games rarely pick up new instruction sets, so getting 7 years out of say the 4790k or the new 5930k should be easy. That's a huge amount of cache to work with at a pretty high clock rate for Intel. For most people future-proof generally means a decade. We went from DDR2 in 2004 to DDR4 in 2014, but for a lot of purposes DDR2 was all you needed until we got to iGPUs. Memory density was hardly an issue with up to 8GB being available in a 4-part kit either.

Future-proofing means sacrificing the bleeding edge after a couple years, but that doesn't make it a bad or infeasible option.

[vm'N]

ARM will have to abandon staying RISC or find a truly revolutionary solution to gain performance and stay in the 5-watt budget for phones.

ARM will adopt more ISAs. They will mostlikely develop a high-end ARM processor (for servers), that should take a smaller bite at the server-market (mostlikely the lower performance servers).

One of the greatest issues they are facing is the laking of software support. If you want a ARM processor running a linux OS with tons of disabled features (not supported), then you can go ARM.

[Faa]

EK Elite water block I hope is permanently future-proof given swapping mounting plates shouldn't be too difficult.

My Q9550 lasted me until the 4960x was out and I am no lightweight user. You can check my build log post with everything I've ever helped build for my family. It was a great overclocker until the reservoir cracked and destroyed everything(never building with acrylic again).

Games rarely pick up new instruction sets, so getting 7 years out of say the 4790k or the new 5930k should be easy. That's a huge amount of cache to work with at a pretty high clock rate for Intel. For most people future-proof generally means a decade. We went from DDR2 in 2004 to DDR4 in 2014, but for a lot of purposes DDR2 was all you needed until we got to iGPUs. Memory density was hardly an issue with up to 8GB being available in a 4-part kit either.

Future-proofing means sacrificing the bleeding edge after a couple years, but that doesn't make it a bad or infeasible option.

Right, but you aren't going to prioritize a CPU that performing worse now and maybe perform in some ways better in the future than what you can get now. Lets be a lil bit realistic, how exactly is a 4790k future-proofing itself over the 4690k with a 30% advantage at best? The money you'd save which you could spend on a better case/psu/cooling would "futureproof" more. Before I needed 4 cores, I upgraded already to a 2600K so my Q9550 barely futureproof'ed itself.

Just in a general form; if you're trying to futureproof with a 4930K/4960x especially the last one you are doing it wrong. For the price of a 4930K+s2011 board you could get 3 i5 K's/cheapest Z boards for it spread over 10 years. If Intel decides to bring something lovely like AVX2 out, you'd make a joke of them.

Yep, its a cherrypicked one (sisoft sandra 2013 by the way) but an example is an example, its multithreaded like crazy and your corecount along with futureproofness theories can pretty much fall in water. 

 

 

couldnt agree more on the other gaming part, if you know that all you're going to be doing is gaming then a 6300/4670k is all you'll likely need for a few years but hey-ho you never know what the future holds.

Future is; getting 4K monitors affordable and being mainstream. Currently a pair of two 3000$ cards aren't capable of running it properly. What ever CPU you use for 4K, youre gpu bound whether its a 50Hz pentium or 5960x you're gpu bound. Benchmarks we have now, put them at 4K no difference between the 8350 & 4690k at all except in mmo's where you're always CPU limited.

I agreed with the rest you said here.

[rentaspoon]

All I ever hear is that AMDs are hot and there heatsinks are too loud.

I can run my cpu fan at full speed and I can only just hear the fan and it idles at a few degrees above idle and max is 38c OR I can run it quietly and it idles at 26 and max is 53c bearing in mind my new mobo doesn't kick the fan speed up until 40c I don't think that's to bad.

True is I've had and built Intel in the past but when a AMD will allow 70 fps and an equivalent Intel will allow 90 fps but I play at 60fps and times to convert files etc don't bother me, why would I go Intel?

[patrickjp93]

All I ever hear is that AMDs are hot and there heatsinks are too loud.

I can run my cpu fan at full speed and I can only just hear the fan and it idles at a few degrees above idle and max is 38c OR I can run it quietly and it idles at 26 and max is 53c bearing in mind my new mobo doesn't kick the fan speed up until 40c I don't think that's to bad.

True is I've had and built Intel in the past but when a AMD will allow 70 fps and an equivalent Intel will allow 90 fps but I play at 60fps and times to convert files etc don't bother me, why would I go Intel?

You go Intel if you're like me and need the floating point calculation advantage (SIMD in addition to Intel's vastly superior floating point units in the first place) since the 9590 has only 4 float units and it's lesser performance at the same price as an I7 3770.

The truth is if all you do is game and web browse, there's little difference the CPU makes these days. The basic integer operations which handle 95% of both are already as optimized as they will be, and die shrinks don't shave clock cycles like they used to.

@Faa

For gaming, no one implements new instructions for minimum 6 years after introduction unless it's Microsoft doing the coding. Game programmers are notoriously slow (single to multi-core, picking up AVX for Directcompute version of FX, etc.. It's about two years before compilers really optimize to handle new instructions properly. Even LLVM has been slow with AVX 2 and 3.2, and I am not paying the licensing fee to use Intel's proprietary compiler.

You could future-proof for gaming pretty easily in the days of the Q9550 or if you have the 2600k you're set until Broadwell/Skylake.

As per your case/PSU, my family reuses cases, and if you buy server-grade PSUs from PC Power & Cooling, you don't really need to replace them between 3-year builds. And now they've gone modular so the next one I end up buying will be when my 10-year old dinosaur finally begins to show wear (still no degradation of voltage on any rails, still great temps, fan still running smooth and quiet (way past MTBF of 250,000 hours at this point).

[GangstaRas]

when i first started learning about cpu tech, amd and intel were just evolving out of that same frequency means same performance phase. i had a amd duron 950 MHz and wanted to play GTA Vice City but i needed 1.2GHz on the amd duron while like a pentium 3 needed 800 MHz or some crap like that. I was naive still a very young child but the message still hit me that intel was better. coming up in the years the most even i saw intel and amd were the core 2 duo and quad days although amd was the on the catchup stick.

 

now today, on a gaming perspective, we have the intel pentiums on par with amd fx 4000s, the i3s on par with fx 6000s and the i5s on par with fx 8000s. from a rendering perspective, we have i3s on par with fx 4000s, fx 6000s on par with i5s and fx 8000s on par with i7s. forget the heat, you dont even need to go there, why is a intel dual core competing with a amd six core in games? why is a intel quad core mopping the floor against an amd quad core? why they need 8 cores to compete? idk about anyone else but to have such a difference on cores to compete, its either intel is damn impressive or amd is really taking some horrible routes but atleast one thing that's good is the price per performance, completely out of this world when compared to intel

[TheRagingGamer]

All I ever hear is that AMDs are hot and there heatsinks are too loud.

I can run my cpu fan at full speed and I can only just hear the fan and it idles at a few degrees above idle and max is 38c OR I can run it quietly and it idles at 26 and max is 53c bearing in mind my new mobo doesn't kick the fan speed up until 40c I don't think that's to bad.

True is I've had and built Intel in the past but when a AMD will allow 70 fps and an equivalent Intel will allow 90 fps but I play at 60fps and times to convert files etc don't bother me, why would I go Intel?

i had intel stock cooler, i could hear trough my headphones. Its insane. AMD has heatpipes in thears so they are nice any quiet. Iam talking from lga775 cooler.IDK about thear newer ones but this was hands down worst cpu cooler i used 

[harrynowl]

i had intel stock cooler, i could hear trough my headphones. Its insane. AMD has heatpipes in thears so they are nice any quiet. Iam talking from lga775 cooler.IDK about thear newer ones but this was hands down worst cpu cooler i used 

LGA775 cooler was silent for me

 

So is 1155/1150

 

My FM2 CPUs are also silent stock cooled. Just the FX8320 sounds like a jet, had to disable 2 cores and use 3ghz/1.1v for my brother.