Why The Hate On AMD (Prosessors)

[Syntaxvgm]

AMD is the real deal? Hmm, that's not what looking under the hood reveals. 1 float scheduler per module (considered "2 cores") makes AMD's performance fall apart anywhere floating math is involved. Also, it tends to simply "switch cores" when one overheats, adding overhead.

 

And no, Intel is not virtual cores. It's 2x the number of logic units. Any hyperthreaded quad-core from Intel can crush any AMD 8-core of the same generation at stock speeds. You can overclock those 8-core behemoths all you want and it still doesn't catch up with the competition once it begins to overclock. 9590 at 5.2 GHz loses to 4790 (not the k-series) at its boost clock rate of 4.0 GHz.

 

With the 4790k Intel has performance and performance per watt locked up tight. Performance per dollar they still lose, though not by half as much as you think once energy costs are taken into account over the 4-year lifespan of most machines.

Oh wow, someone that know whats hes talking about. And if people argued him, I'd bet he'd provide benchmarks proving this. Because unlike your claims, his are backed up by fact.

[dizmo]

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

But I bet the i5 would still beat it benchmark wise...

[Syntaxvgm]

Lawl, naw. It's still 4 physical cores to AMD's 8, imbecile. They're virtual cores, you think those are as strong as physical cores? It's a gimmick. AMD is the real deal.

Amd has glued together cores that share cache. that's laughable even without getting into the fine details.

But I bet the i5 would still beat it benchmark wise...

exactly. Only for gaming prob tho.

[zSanosake]

AMD is the real deal? Hmm, that's not what looking under the hood reveals. 1 float scheduler per module (considered "2 cores") makes AMD's performance fall apart anywhere floating math is involved. Also, it tends to simply "switch cores" when one overheats, adding overhead.

 

And no, Intel is not virtual cores. It's 2x the number of logic units. Any hyperthreaded quad-core from Intel can crush any AMD 8-core of the same generation at stock speeds. You can overclock those 8-core behemoths all you want and it still doesn't catch up with the competition once it begins to overclock. 9590 at 5.2 GHz loses to 4790 (not the k-series) at its boost clock rate of 4.0 GHz.

 

With the 4790k Intel has performance and performance per watt locked up tight. Performance per dollar they still lose, though not by half as much as you think once energy costs are taken into account over the 4-year lifespan of most machines.

But that's wrong. Your math is incorrect, and yes the cores are virtual. The units are illogical and are thus not physical. It doesn't matter if it "registers", the cores are virtual. Look at the PS, PL, and create logic. Also view the sticker specs. No the 9590 doesn't? The 8350 = 4770k. Via PS and PL, we can conclude the 9590 is superior to.. all of intel's processors. 

Your argument is no longer credible. 

[patrickjp93]

But I bet the i5 would still beat it benchmark wise...

And you'd be correct sir! Simply see CPU-Boss for confirmation!

[zSanosake]

 

 

Amd has glued together cores that share cache. that's laughable even without getting into the fine details.

exactly

Glued together? No, they are all in seperate modules, 4x2 that operate toogether. They get into the finest of details. You're just jealous.

 

But I bet the i5 would still beat it benchmark wise...

The A4 could likely outbenchmark most i5 without illogical bias and fallacy.

[Syntaxvgm]

But that's wrong, imbecile. Your math is incorrect, and yes the cores are virtual. The units are illogical and are thus not physical. It doesn't matter if it "registers", the cores are virtual. Look at the PS, PL, and create logic. Also view the sticker specs. No the 9590 doesn't? The 8350 = 4770k. Via PS and PL, we can conclude the 9590 is superior to.. all of intel's processors. 

Your argument is no longer credible.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-9590+Eight-Core

It's not terriible. But thats not true. Oh and it's 220w.

And clocked higher

[patrickjp93]

But that's wrong, imbecile. Your math is incorrect, and yes the cores are virtual. The units are illogical and are thus not physical. It doesn't matter if it "registers", the cores are virtual. Look at the PS, PL, and create logic. Also view the sticker specs. No the 9590 doesn't? The 8350 = 4770k. Via PS and PL, we can conclude the 9590 is superior to.. all of intel's processors. 

Your argument is no longer credible. 

8350 = 4770k?! Are you out of your mind? http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-4770K-vs-AMD-FX-8350

 

And you'll have to forgive me for not knowing what PS and PL are off the top of my head.

 

And no, the cores are not virtual. They are physical. You put 2 of everything into the same space. Putting 2 of every logic resource is essentially doubling the number of cores without adding more space. Yes it adds a little wattage and heat, but not anywhere near to the extent AMD does with its modular scheme.

[zSanosake]

And you'd be correct sir! Simply see CPU-Boss for confirmation!

Wrong. CPUboss is bias intel fanboyism just like you. Your argument is wrong.

[Syntaxvgm]

Oh look we have sources.

[Syntaxvgm]

Wrong. CPUboss is bias intel fanboyism just like you. Your argument is wrong.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-9590+Eight-Core

http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/CPU/FX-9590/FX-9590-42.jpg

http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/CPU/FX-9590/FX-9590-43.jpg

[patrickjp93]

Glued together? No, they are all in seperate modules, 4x2 that operate toogether. They get into the finest of details. You're just jealous.

 

The A4 could likely outbenchmark most i5 without illogical bias and fallacy.

If the A4 can outperform a quadcore I3 I'll eat a scorpion.

[zSanosake]

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-9590+Eight-Core

It's not terriible. But thats not true. Oh and it's 220w.

And clocked higher

 

And? It's still better. You really need to debunk my more credible arguments, I never mentioned power consumption. Try harder agaiN

8350 = 4770k?! Are you out of your mind? http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-4770K-vs-AMD-FX-8350

 

And you'll have to forgive me for not knowing what PS and PL are off the top of my head.

 

And no, the cores are not virtual. They are physical. You put 2 of everything into the same space.

They are virtual. No, you don't. That's how AMD works with the module system, but not you. You can't even fathom how fast AMD is and their true power. Also, CPUBOSS is wrong. I've schooled them in some debates.

 

You might actually be the dumbest person on this forum.  I think they give you a special badge for that.  Can we give this man a special badge!

You and your buddies are the dumbest people on earth.

[Syntaxvgm]

Glued together? No, they are all in seperate modules, 4x2 that operate toogether. They get into the finest of details. You're just jealous.

 

The A4 could likely outbenchmark most i5 without illogical bias and fallacy.

My gf owns an a10 and it can't outbench a low end laptop i3 I have.

[Syntaxvgm]

And? It's still better. You really need to debunk my more credible arguments, I never mentioned power consumption. Try harder agaiN

They are virtual. No, you don't. That's how AMD works with the module system, but not you. You can't even fathom how fast AMD is and their true power. Also, CPUBOSS is wrong. I've schooled them in some debates.

 

You and your buddies are the dumbest people on earth.

Please read. I gave performance comparison. The i7 beats it at a lower clock rate. Please read.

[zSanosake]

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-9590+Eight-Core

http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/CPU/FX-9590/FX-9590-42.jpg

http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/CPU/FX-9590/FX-9590-43.jpg

 

All bias fanboyism. Do you know why all of them say the same.. they have a lot of money reserves and disagree with the 'underdog' of computing. Your argument is pathetic.

If the A4 can outperform a quadcore I3 I'll eat a scorpion.

It already can. The A4 is nearly on par with the 4670k.

[patrickjp93]

Wrong. CPUboss is bias intel fanboyism just like you. Your argument is wrong.

They aren't biased. They use every benchmark fanboys from both teams demand are used, and the performance indices are averaged to make a final score in the Performance category.

 

Now, a long time ago when Intel was playing catch-up, they did cheat by having their proprietary compiler refuse to compile efficient code for AMD CPUs, but the benchmarks were fixed shortly thereafter. It's the same instructions run on both chips. Just because AMD doesn't have their instruction per clock efficiency anywhere close to being on par with Intel's does not make CPU-Boss biased. It makes AMD look bad.

 

Until heterogeneous software takes off, even the A10s will be crushed. When it does take off, well, too late, as Intel is moving to heterogeneous architecture too with Unified Memory in Broadwell.

[zSanosake]

My gf owns an a10 and it can't outbench a low end laptop i3 I have.

Wrong. A10 is on par with most i7 processors via the feats, logic, ps, and PL. Especially the logic and scaling.

 

Please read. I gave performance comparison. The i7 beats it at a lower clock rate. Please read.

They are all wrong and I proved how.. agaiN

[Syntaxvgm]

All bias fanboyism. Do you know why all of them say the same.. they have a lot of money reserves and disagree with the 'underdog' of computing. Your argument is pathetic.

It already can. The A4 is nearly on par with the 4670k.

Ok now are just trolling. You know thats not true. I hav egiven links from like 4 different sources. You cant call every single benchmark biased, especially when you haven't provided any that meet your criteria.

They are all wrong and I proved how.. agaiN

No you didn't. you just said read the sticker it has a higher clockrate.

[Buckley]

i really dont understand why people hate on them either.

 

thermals are actually better than intel with a decent cooler, and they have more cores and a cheaper price tag

[patrickjp93]

All bias fanboyism. Do you know why all of them say the same.. they have a lot of money reserves and disagree with the 'underdog' of computing. Your argument is pathetic.

It already can. The A4 is nearly on par with the 4670k.

PFFFFT! bull to the shit!

 

Okay, provide us YOUR benchmarks, YOUR proof, because you've provided none thus far. Concisely bring us a list of resources you think can articulate an argument showing AMD is overall better, not just in niche tasks like rendering (which I will fully admit the FX series mastered the instructions used for it while sacrificing simpler instructions used by games and other tasks).

[Syntaxvgm]

i really dont understand why people hate on them either.

thermals are actually better than intel with a decent cooler, and they have more cores and a cheaper price tag

That is one thing I will agree with. While they actually dissipate more heat sometimes by double, they do it over a wider area and transfer to the heatsink better.

PFFFFT! bull to the shit!

Okay, provide us YOUR benchmarks, YOUR proof, because you've provided none thus far. Concisely bring us a list of resources you think can articulate an argument showing AMD is overall better, not just in niche tasks like rendering (which I will fully admit the FX series mastered the instructions used for it while sacrificing simpler instructions used by games and other tasks).

Just face it patrickjp93 is right.

You've lost. No one is that intel biased. Professional benchmarks are not reddit or something. I still buy mostly AMD. Yet even I wise up to the facts.

[patrickjp93]

Wrong. A10 is on par with most i7 processors via the feats, logic, ps, and PL. Especially the logic and scaling.

 

They are all wrong and I proved how.. agaiN

You've PROVED NOTHING! You've only made claims and shown no evidence! Can someone report him if this goes on for much longer?

 

What feats? What logic? What niches does the Kaveri line win in? Simulation favors intel due to float performance, Excel/Calc solvers favor intel for the same reason, video rendering favors AMD, OS background multitasking favors Intel, integrated graphics favors AMD on the desktop side only and not for long. 

 

Where does AMD win? What comprehensive testing shows AMD wins?

[zSanosake]

They aren't biased. They use every benchmark fanboys from both teams demand are used, and the performance indices are averaged to make a final score in the Performance category.

 

Now, a long time ago when Intel was playing catch-up, they did cheat by having their proprietary compiler refuse to compile efficient code for AMD CPUs, but the benchmarks were fixed shortly thereafter. It's the same instructions run on both chips. Just because AMD doesn't have their instruction per clock efficiency anywhere close to being on par with Intel's does not make CPU-Boss biased. It makes AMD look bad.

 

Until heterogeneous software takes off, even the A10s will be crushed. When it does take off, well, too late, as Intel is moving to heterogeneous architecture too with Unified Memory in Broadwell.

Heterogeneous software? No, the A10 already crushes most of intels processors. The final score is always bias, they have intel winning, nvidia winning, and intel winning in SSDs too. intel was never playing catch up, Amd has been better since the athlon was released years back. The core 2 duo couldn't even compare, whether you like it or not. And while I won't say it was high end for the time, the athlon absolutely stopped it. So this 3rd party org. makes the 1st party org look bad? You should go eat that scorpion now.

[patrickjp93]

That is one thing I will agree with. While they actually dissipate more heat sometimes by double, they do it over a wider area and transfer to the heatsink better.

Inefficient chips, with well-designed heat spreaders. Intel could learn from AMD on that front no doubt.