Why do people hate AMD cpu's so much

[heineygoat]

I'm more surprised about the Nvidia vs. AMD vitriol. Yes, currently (and for a while now actually) Intel dominates the performance charts and the prices of Intel and AMD products reflect that - no arguments.

 

But when it comes to video cards, I'm baffled because I genuinely don't remember a point in time (and I've been building computers since the ATI Radeon 9200SE - so about 2003?)  that Nvidia wiped the floor with AMD (or ATI when they were still ATI) the way Intel is doing right now. In fact, right now AMD is doing very well in the video card department - the 290 and 290X better than the 780/780Ti at a similar price-point to the 770.

 

So yeah I don't really know where the "Nvidia completely destroys AMD" meme comes from because in my lifetime I have not seen Nvidia destroy AMD (or ATI). 

 

You're right about price/performance but for some its more than that. I had a crossfired 7970 config and switched to a 780ti which is probably a downgrade in performance but I would have switched teams years ago if I knew how pleasant it was to use Nvidias software, their GPU boost, shadowplay, optimisations etc, their shit just works. Sure AMD have the similar features on raptr, but have you ever used that shit? Raptr is an atrocious buggy piece of shit (from my experiences). I should have made a list of all the bizzare things that happened with that software, ill try remember a few.

 

Metro LL when running Raptr the mouse would not be constraint to one monitor, aiming to the right would mean my mouse drags onto my secondary monitor, then clicking minimizes to the desktop.

 

Splintercell blacklist, when Raptr was running I could see the screen refresh and flash white, like some crazy seizure inducing shit.

 

Borderlands, game would just crash upon launch when Raptr was running.

 

Theres heaps more but I cant think of all of them, but all of them were persistent, and fixed by just killing Raptr and running the game again.

 

As for Catalyst Control Center only problem there was that presets only remember screen positions and not things like gamma. And yes the cards were loud, hot and had coil whine. 

[TheRagingGamer]

GTX570 I upgraded about 2/3 years ago. I will probably upgrade in a bout 2 years, but at present when I look the difference between the i5 and the 8350 is still only about $20.

how much did it cost 

[mr moose]

how much did it cost 

which one?

 

The 570 was $310, the cpu was $230 the 8350 was $215 but there was a difference in the motherboard price for the AMD.

 

By today's standards it would be like getting a 770 on discount and then choosing between an i5 or 8350.

[Raid]

-snip-

I have a rather similar story of also changing camps. But I changed from NVidia to AMD.

I finally got tired of their crappy software when NVidia broke the drivers for GTX460 for like 2 months. Random bluescreens all over the place.

Not that I liked NVidia software before that either. Half the time the drivers just failed to update. The control panel for the drivers is also horrible.

Sometimes my screen would just go black after changing resolution when closing a game forcing me to reboot, doesn't happen with AMD.

[Spongy141]

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.

Yet haswell runs hotter than vishera...

[Th3 Mans1ay3r]

I don't hate them. Hell I rather like them considering every computer I've ever had ran an AMD and so far they've proven to be resilient little bastards who performed admirably for the low prices they were asked for. I got an Intel simply to test the waters and the fact I had the cash.

[CreativeTHC]

I was reading comments in a subbreddit r/pcmasterrace 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 

They not gonne hate AMD for all that heat thing.. a "new"  fx 8300 is out.. so . .this CPU cores are clocked at 3.2 GHz but can be boosted to 3.5 GHz at a 95W TDP ,AND let's hope it will not pass $100-$120

[DeViLzzz]

I love AMD.  I loved them enough to name my daughter after them.  As for people hating AMD cpus I don't see people going around time and time again hating on AMD cpus.  Seriously where do you see this OP?  Hate is a strong word.  I think what you mean to say is why do people buy Intel more than AMD?  Well there is a good reason for that as Intel cpus in many scenarios outperform AMD cpus and then also there is marketing and of course Intel being a more established brand and that there will have people not in the know about tech buying Intel no matter what many times whether AMD would be a better choice for them or not.

[TheRagingGamer]

I love AMD.  I loved them enough to name my daughter after them.  As for people hating AMD cpus I don't see people going around time and time again hating on AMD cpus.  Seriously where do you see this OP?  Hate is a strong word.  I think what you mean to say is why do people buy Intel more than AMD?  Well there is a good reason for that as Intel cpus in many scenarios outperform AMD cpus and then also there is marketing and of course Intel being a more established brand and that there will have people not in the know about tech buying Intel no matter what many times whether AMD would be a better choice for them or not.

i find this on reddit 

[Raid]

i find this on reddit

Why are  you trying to find a logic for reddit posts?

[heineygoat]

I have a rather similar story of also changing camps. But I changed from NVidia to AMD.

I finally got tired of their crappy software when NVidia broke the drivers for GTX460 for like 2 months. Random bluescreens all over the place.

Not that I liked NVidia software before that either. Half the time the drivers just failed to update. The control panel for the drivers is also horrible.

Sometimes my screen would just go black after changing resolution when closing a game forcing me to reboot, doesn't happen with AMD.

Oh interesting. 460's are quiet old now though. I had problems with 7970's when it was their flagship at the time. Still Nvidia should have proper support for older cards too.

[CyanOG]

The FX-8320 and above outperform i5 4670k and 4690k I'm not a fanboy of either but if you're buying a AMD processor buy a aftermarket CPU fan and you will be good and your CPU will not run hot

[Vacsol]

Yet haswell runs hotter than vishera...

"tend to"

[DigitalHermit]

Not hating on AMD...

I'm using an APU based system (A8-5600k)... Unless you can give me an Intel chip that can game out of the box at the same price point, without a graphics card, I'll gladly switch back to Intel(on desktops... Intel for notebooks for me)...

 

My next build (a low budget HTPC/work only pc, if it becomes real before I graduate from college) will most likely be AMD based since they're best at the really low budget price point....

 

Still, Intel chips would work better for server applications thanks to HyperThreading...

[D3MON]

I'm more surprised about the Nvidia vs. AMD vitriol. Yes, currently (and for a while now actually) Intel dominates the performance charts and the prices of Intel and AMD products reflect that - no arguments.

But when it comes to video cards, I'm baffled because I genuinely don't remember a point in time (and I've been building computers since the ATI Radeon 9200SE - so about 2003?) that Nvidia wiped the floor with AMD (or ATI when they were still ATI) the way Intel is doing right now. In fact, right now AMD is doing very well in the video card department - the 290 and 290X better than the 780/780Ti at a similar price-point to the 770.

So yeah I don't really know where the "Nvidia completely destroys AMD" meme comes from because in my lifetime I have not seen Nvidia destroy AMD (or ATI).

this^

although 290 beats 780 for cheaper, 780ti beats 290x...but it's irrelevant because even i wouldnt buy a 290x....

I always had nvidia because i bought into the better features and better product bull, then i woke up, seems others havent.

and as someone else said, the prices reflect the performance (you get what you pay for) amd's chips that are the same price as intels are that price for a reason, neither company would overprice thier product hoping fanboys would buy it regardless, thats daft.

the fx8 is worth £105 and the 8320 is.

a 760k is worth £60 and is..

the pentium k is worth £55 and is..

the 4670k (2x pentium k's) is obviously worth £110 and is.....£160

ive gotta ask anyone with a 3770k/4770k what they use it for because i dont get it and i want to, an i5 is enough cores for great gaming and when overclocked compared to an fx8 in rendering aswell so albeit overpriced a bit (see above) make sense, if you need more threads for rendering AND gaming....why not get a second hand 2011? if you want new then fair enough thats an expensive but fair reason, but you can get a 3930k for £220 from cex with a 12 month warranty, a 4770k is £270....

be nice

I have a rather similar story of also changing camps. But I changed from NVidia to AMD.

I finally got tired of their crappy software when NVidia broke the drivers for GTX460 for like 2 months. Random bluescreens all over the place.

Not that I liked NVidia software before that either. Half the time the drivers just failed to update. The control panel for the drivers is also horrible.

Sometimes my screen would just go black after changing resolution when closing a game forcing me to reboot, doesn't happen with AMD.

and ive had a sneaking suspicion with nvidia that after long enough newer drivers decrease performance in older cards (almost forgot my tin foil hat), look for crysis 2 performance benchmarks for the 480 (just got crysis 2 and 3 for £7.50, way to go EA), it outperformed the 570 which is the same card/core and the 580 , so much for more reliable drivers with nvidia. gtx 460 is still pretty cool, its architecture is actually different from the other cards, it features more "cuda cores" per smx unit than is typically used in other cards, a cool read on google somewhere.

They not gonne hate AMD for all that heat thing.. a "new" fx 8300 is out.. so . .this CPU cores are clocked at 3.2 GHz but can be boosted to 3.5 GHz at a 95W TDP ,AND let's hope it will not pass $100-$120

Yeah they came out 2 years ago but noone could ever find them, amd REALLY needs to do like 5 speed bins of every chips and then do another 5 but with locked multi's and then do all the same again btu with only 1 integer unit per module in the same way intel sells non hyperthreaded cpu's, that turns 3 cpu's into 60.. thats why intels market share is so big, they just put out more (versions of) thier chips.

[mr moose]

The FX-8320 and above outperform i5 4670k and 4690k I'm not a fanboy of either but if you're buying a AMD processor buy a aftermarket CPU fan and you will be good and your CPU will not run hot

 

I really wish you people wouldn't make posts like this,  it always ends in one person posting 5 graphs showing AMD oto be better,then another person posting 5 graphs that show Intel being better. Then we get an argument where neither party can even agree on the basis for what constitutes better performance. It's a post that is so close to trolling it isn't funny. 

 

People should preface all their posts with "I personally don't feel comfortable buying/recommending brand X right now due to -insert personal experience here-"

[seiny]

Well I hate the fact that they haven't released any new high-end CPUs yet

[patrickjp93]

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.

Who cares about record overclocks when the CPU capable of doing it is plum useless for most things and can't run at that speed full-time.

Intel has instruction per clock efficiency, electrical efficiency, and higher core count (sorry but AMD's modules do not count as two cores with only 1 floating point unit). Clock rate is inconsequential. The amount of total work which can be done is all that counts at the end of the day.

and ive had a sneaking suspicion with nvidia that after long enough newer drivers decrease performance in older cards (almost forgot my tin foil hat), look for crysis 2 performance benchmarks for the 480 (just got crysis 2 and 3 for £7.50, way to go EA), it outperformed the 570 which is the same card/core and the 580 , so much for more reliable drivers with nvidia. gtx 460 is still pretty cool, its architecture is actually different from the other cards, it features more "cuda cores" per smx unit than is typically used in other cards, a cool read on google somewhere.

Yeah they came out 2 years ago but noone could ever find them, amd REALLY needs to do like 5 speed bins of every chips and then do another 5 but with locked multi's and then do all the same again btu with only 1 integer unit per module in the same way intel sells non hyperthreaded cpu's, that turns 3 cpu's into 60.. thats why intels market share is so big, they just put out more (versions of) thier chips.

Don't trivialize binning when you barely have any idea of its purpose. Intel runs exactly 3 manufacturing processes during production. Only two are really relevant to this discussion but I'll cover all 3. They start with a goal of getting X number of Xeon E5/E3 chips from a given silicon wafer. When it comes time to cut the chips and test, only the best pass every test with flying colors, having all 8 cores functioning perfectly. Every other chip is derived from the leftovers, including Xeons with lesser core counts and the enthusiast line (Ivybridge-E comes with 8 cores on the die, with only 4 or 6 active).

The second process is the development of the mainstream chips, aiming for X number of I7s and then binning lesser functioning chips into various categories like I5, I3, Pentium, and Celeron. Intel cuts away cores and cache and disables various microcode paths for all these different chips to give them desired functionality. It's estimated 30% of transistors per core in an I3 are for disabled functions (vPro, overclocking, ECC, and more). Occassionally a Xeon escapes with overclocking capabilities, or a 4790k shows up with ECC or vPro, but generally Intel finds chips with disabled code paths and tailors defects to certain markets.

The third process is reserved for the E7 Xeons, and any chip with any faulty portion never sees the light of day because they are incompatible with consumer hardware and will never be shipped to a commercial buyer except for some 10 and 12-core models which started out as 15-core chips.

The FX-8320 and above outperform i5 4670k and 4690k I'm not a fanboy of either but if you're buying a AMD processor buy a aftermarket CPU fan and you will be good and your CPU will not run hot

This is true if and only if you gain a significant overclock over the Intel clock rates and you don't need heavy floating point math. If you need 8 threads of parallel floating point math AMD will sputter and flop due to only having 4 floating point units (1 per 2-part module) and having two cores trying to co-schedule the same unit and require an extra step in the pipeline to check if it's available!

There's also the widely known fact Intel's patented floating point unit used since Sandybridge is the most efficient(read: fastest) one in existence and AMD has continually admitted it can't hold a candle to it (hence HSA for scientific computing, hence Intel's expansion of SIMD to 256 and now 512-bit wide parallel execution of up to 16 32-bit integers or floats simultaneously). This is why the FX 8320 beats the 4690k in video rendering/compression, but not in simulation calculations. When you compare Intel's and AMD's 4 floating point processors against each other, there is no contest.

This is also why the I7 5960x is the first true consumer octa-core CPU, regardless of what AMD fanboys have to say about it.

[Palladium]

• Budget gaming? AMD has nothing against G3258 OC / H81 / <$100 discrete HD7770 or GTX750.
• Grandmother PC for watching cat videos on Youtube? AMD gets creamed in power efficiency.
• Midrange gaming and up? Furgetaboutit.

 

The only thing AMD wins is where their 8 cores can fit into some super tiny niche while still having to deal with gargantuan power consumption, or a dubious APU "gaming" machine where is barely has enough horsepower to run 720P.

[TheRagingGamer]

 

• Budget gaming? AMD has nothing against G3258 OC / H81 / <$100 discrete HD7770 or GTX750.
• Grandmother PC for watching cat videos on Youtube? AMD gets creamed in power efficiency.
• Midrange gaming and up? Furgetaboutit.

 

The only thing AMD wins is where their 8 cores can fit into some super tiny niche while still having to deal with gargantuan power consumption, or a dubious APU "gaming" machine where is barely has enough horsepower to run 720P.

 

G3258 is overhyped bullshit. Does anyone ever look at benchmarks here, that cpu is shit. Just because its overclockable doesnt mean its good 

[DigitalHermit]

-magic snip- Just because its overclockable doesnt mean its good.

 

QFT

[MeepLikesToBuildPc's]

 

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

exactly.

[Faa]

One reason: Single core performance. Any other reasons are stupid.
 

 

The second process is the development of the mainstream chips, aiming for X number of I7s and then binning lesser functioning chips into various categories like I5, I3, Pentium, and Celeron. Intel cuts away cores and cache and disables various microcode paths for all these different chips to give them desired functionality. It's estimated 30% of transistors per core in an I3 are for disabled functions (vPro, overclocking, ECC, and more). Occassionally a Xeon escapes with overclocking capabilities, or a 4790k shows up with ECC or vPro, but generally Intel finds chips with disabled code paths and tailors defects to certain markets.

Theyre not cutting cores off and moving it somewhere else, thats hilarious for someone "studying" computer science. Theyre making them as a whole and they disable things like cores/cache by lasercutting them and the die size remains the same. A CPU with a smaller die size is on a total different wafer. 

You notice it that theyre using a 3rd ring bus and a 2nd memory controller and another cache thing. 12c is a E5, and the other two are E3's by the way.

[harrynowl]

I like both but if I'm buying a processor I want the best using modern technology and currently that's something only intel can provide.

 

But AMD will always be my overclocker chip of choice

[Archangel1994]

G3258 is overhyped bullshit. Does anyone ever look at benchmarks here, that cpu is shit. Just because its overclockable doesnt mean its good 

Amen son. I prefer my CPU to be intel but the G3258 is massively overhyped.

 

 

• Budget gaming? AMD has nothing against G3258 OC / H81 / <$100 discrete HD7770 or GTX750.
• Grandmother PC for watching cat videos on Youtube? AMD gets creamed in power efficiency.
• Midrange gaming and up? Furgetaboutit.

The only thing AMD wins is where their 8 cores can fit into some super tiny niche while still having to deal with gargantuan power consumption, or a dubious APU "gaming" machine where is barely has enough horsepower to run 720P.

Budget gaming? A G3258 costs $70, let's not count motherboards (both need them), you need an aftermarket cooler to get the good OC results ($25 is 212 EVO), and neither the HD7770 nor the GTX 750 is sub 100. This would put your total up to about $230 whereas the strongest APU is $167. Depending on your definition of budget gaming AMD wins.

 

Grandmother PC for watching cat videos on Youtube? Can't argue with that. The Intel Celeron G1850 can run Starcraft heart of the swarm when OC'd a bit so it is more than enough for youtube video's. AMD does not have a good CPU WITH integrated graphics at that price point of $50. Any AMD dual core will be beaten by a celeron hands down.

 

Midrange gaming and up Furgetaboutit? This is wrong in so many ways. an FX-6300 will allow you to do midrange gaming easily. High end gaming? While it is true that to get high-end gaming on AMD you will require a very well OC'd FX8320/8350 they are still lower in price than an I5-4690k (Which is what it is about). Whether an OC'd 4690k is stronger than the 8320/8350 or not is irrelevant. An 8320 can do high end gaming just like a 4690k can. The issue comes with 3/4 way SLI/CF (which is a waste of money and just silly to be honest)

 

1. Intels stock coolers are piss poor too... The difference is AMD factory OCs the chips pretty high...

2. Makes a good rendering chip or multitasking I know I've occassionally had multiple games open

3. as previously said Intels are usually in offices it's a big part of intel's marketshare most AMD users are enthusiasts who take a PRE OC'ed chip (in comparison to Intel) and OC it even further beyond >Insert DBZ meme here

4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBeeGHozSY0 it'd take me 22 years to validate an i7 over the 8350 and 24 over the 8320

Just saying but arguments could be made either way

 

1. They are far from piss poor. My current CPU (I5-2400) has used the stock cooler since it was first powered and I have never seen temperatures in excess of 65 (during a very very very hot summer). During winter I never see it breach 55. "Is OC'd high out of the box". All the more negative for AMD. They deliberately OC their CPU's high and they do not adjust their stock cooler to compensate for that? That is just plain sloppy in my opinion.

2. I've had 3 games open, ran a minecraft server and was browsing in the meantime and didn't notice it until I wanted to close it all and noticed the taskbar being full (Note: One of those games was BF4, a CPU hog). Not saying AMD is bad at this but intel can do it too. You are right on the rendering though and I never spoke against that.

3. What's wrong with buying a not pre-OC'd chip? Going from OC'd to further OC'd is not in the slightest more special than going from non-OC'd to OC'd.

4. Do not forget that your PSU needs to go up a notch as well making that price go up most likely (Assuming you go with equal quality but higher wattage the price WILL rise) which he did not take into account (which can account for quite a bit, relatively).

 

"Just saying but arguments could me made either way". No argument there .

 

 

i don't know but i heard i7 has some shit termal paste

and the stock intel cooler sounds like a jet

The only ones that had bad thermal paste was Haswell (Note: Not Haswell-R) and that was promptly fixed with Haswell-R. Every companies will have its failures/mistakes once in a while, this was Intel's mistake.

 

As for the stock cooler sounding like a jet that must just be yours because mine is pretty quiet and does a fantastic job at cooling my CPU.

 

 

-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).

- The heat is not excessive but it is higher

- The extra power consumption is again not excessive but just higher

- Less power per core is something you cannot argue against because it is simply true.

- Less features on most motherboards, that just depends on your motherboard choice and the same can be said for intel. The only reason this seems like a big negative is because intel has more variety in chipsets etc. This does not necessarily mean it's a bad thing to have less choice in motherboards other than preferred brand.

- Less overclocking.

 

AMD OC's further than intel period. Good thing too otherwise AMD would never get up to Intel standard for gaming.

- Less temperature overhead. Can't argue with that.

 

+ Cheaper. Can't argue with that

+ More cores is good for rendering. Can't argue with that. However as games are starting to use more and more cores/threads AMD might just speed past intel if intel doesn't change their CPU standard to 6 or 8 as well.