AMD and Intel

[thewafflemaster]

FANBOYS LEAVE. 

 

Ok down to business. Does AMD have any true high performance to Enthusiast grade Cpus for gaming? And if not why? Or am i totally wrong? And why is AMD still in the 32nm manufacturing process?

[NeCoNLive]

AMD Do have a few high grade server CPU you could use to make videos. but for gaming the new Intel series is by far the strongest at high end

 

 

low-mid end gaming both AMD and Intel have nice CPUs.

 

 

last two years it have been like this imo

 

(Price to Performances)

low end AMD wins 

Mid end AMD and Intel wins

High end Intel wins

[Archangel1994]

AMD has no answer to Intel enthusiast whatsoever. The 5820k Can not be bested by the 9590 and that's the strongest AMD has at the moment

[91wow]

AMD's high end cpu's, 8350 9570, and 9590. All Overclock very well and in games and applications that support 8 cores they're on par with i7's. In games that don't it's closer to an I5 2500K. And they're on 32nm because I don't think AMD really has the FABS to make smaller processors, that is why they're partnering with samsung, I think.

AMD has no answer to Intel enthusiast whatsoever. The 5820k Can not be bested by the 9590 and that's the strongest AMD has at the moment

Didn't Logan do a video comparing pistols 9590 vs his 4930K and the 9590 actually held its own pretty well?

Edit: Found the video

[NeCoNLive]

5960x really shine with multiply GPU compared to AMD CPUs

[Archangel1994]

Didn't Logan do a video comparing pistols 9590 vs his 4930K and the 9590 actually held its own pretty well? 

 

@1:38 the 4930k destroys the 9590 by about 35%

@1:25 the 4930k destroys the 9590 by about 33%

 

No the 9590 didn't hold its own pretty well. Also the only things Pistol's rig won in was Luxmark because the R9 290x is better at OpenCL than the 780 Ti and crysis 3. For the rest the 9590 with R9 290x lost pretty badly.

 

To be honest AMD needs to do something quite revolutionary

[91wow]

@1:38 the 4930k destroys the 9590 by about 35%

@1:25 the 4930k destroys the 9590 by about 33%

 

No the 9590 didn't hold its own pretty well. Also the only things Pistol's rig won in was Luxmark because the R9 290x is better at OpenCL than the 780 Ti and crysis 3. For the rest the 9590 with R9 290x lost pretty badly.

 

To be honest AMD needs to do something quite revolutionary

It's not a bad chip for what it costs now. For a little more than $100 less than the 5820K it holds it's own very well. It's a much cheaper alternative than Logans rig, only thing it might make it costs more is power but even then it's like an extra $10 a year if that. 

[Archangel1994]

It's not a bad chip for what it costs now. For a little more than $100 less than the 5820K it holds it's own very well. It's a much cheaper alternative than Logans rig, only thing it might make it costs more is power but even then it's like an extra $10 a year if that. 

33% higher price on the 5820k for slightly more than 33% more performance and quite a bit more performance when it comes to single threaded application or multi-GPU setups. Yeah, the 5820k is a lot better. The 9590 needs to be cheaper to be better or equal value

[peacefulmonsters]

For gaming AMD cpus are totaly fine. They have more than enough power for modern games. But they have a little bit old architecture and manufactaring proces because they make not as much money as intel and dont have the money to invest in research

[thewafflemaster]

So why doesn't AMD step up their game and make high performance chips? And Intel really needs some competition. 

[Hans Power]

So why doesn't AMD step up their game and make high performance chips? And Intel really needs some competition. 

Well, AMD is a pretty small company compared to Intel which is a giant - unfortunately they just don't have the capacities to compete with intels High-end CPUs at the moment, so they concentrate on the low end, cheap and energy saving APUs like the AM1 stuff which are great for developing countries or their higher tier APUs for low end gaming and general purpose computing.

Even compared to NVidia they are more of an underdog and have trouble enough to compete with them on a hardware architecture level.

That said I'm always rooting for them and hope they get in shape to actually compete with both companies all the way again.

[slasher0161]

So why doesn't AMD step up their game and make high performance chips? And Intel really needs some competition. 

Because it isn't as simple as going out the to cpu design tree and picking a few architectures sending them to the fab and releasing a new chip.

 

AMD has much lower budgets to invest and the fact given the run they have had in the last few years they are still kicking is pretty impressive.

They are floating because of their gpu section and while they are playing catch up intel is getting to use their RnD to toy with features that interest the niche market and refine their power efficiency leaving AMD in a really sticky situation.

The 9590 is an example that you can only brute force so much and all the time intel has had to refine their power consumption and integrating features to the cpu die for native support is only screwing the enthusiast end of the market for AMD even more.

 

It is hard being behind the 8 ball and that is the reality for AMD in the enthusiast cpu market at the moment.

[thewafflemaster]

Well, AMD is a pretty small company compared to Intel which is a giant - unfortunately they just don't have the capacities to compete with intels High-end CPUs at the moment, so they concentrate on the low end, cheap and energy saving APUs like the AM1 stuff which are great for developing countries or their higher tier APUs for low end gaming and general purpose computing.

Even compared to NVidia they are more of an underdog and have trouble enough to compete with them on a hardware architecture level.

That said I'm always rooting for them and hope they get in shape to actually compete with both companies all the way again.

 

 

Because it isn't as simple as going out the to cpu design tree and picking a few architectures sending them to the fab and releasing a new chip.

 

AMD has much lower budgets to invest and the fact given the run they have had in the last few years they are still kicking is pretty impressive.

They are floating because of their gpu section and while they are playing catch up intel is getting to use their RnD to toy with features that interest the niche market and refine their power efficiency leaving AMD in a really sticky situation.

The 9590 is an example that you can only brute force so much and all the time intel has had to refine their power consumption and integrating features to the cpu die for native support is only screwing the enthusiast end of the market for AMD even more.

 

It is hard being behind the 8 ball and that is the reality for AMD in the enthusiast cpu market at the moment.

Well do you guys think that AMD will ever catch up to Intel?

[PunchClown]

Well do you guys think that AMD will ever catch up to Intel?

As someone who loves AMD but I am no fan boy ......  It would take a long time and money to get up there to get same performance as Intel ..

Also it would take them to under stand they need to market there  software also

. Look how long it took to get Microsoft to fix  windows 7 but they took  the patch of the download  but at least they  fixed windows 8 for AMD .. To much software is made with Intel compile so AMD needs to really make different instructions for there cpu's ..

Understand AMD has only about 20k people working for them and Intel has over 100k and Intel spend more money on R&D then AMD makes.

Intel has the money and the cpu's to put AMD out for the count right now but i think they would never will for fear of being hated but everyone 

 

Just my thoughts on the who thing

[Faceman]

If you want gaming, go Intel.  Period.

 

http://www.hardcoreware.net/intel-core-i3-4340-review/2/

http://www.hardwarepal.com/best-cpu-gaming-9-processors-8-games-tested/4/

[Hans Power]

Well do you guys think that AMD will ever catch up to Intel?

Well, it's not out of the question because AMD has a very different approach than Intel or Nvidia - they basically do research and development inhouse but when it comes to production they team up with different vendors and make them build their stuff. Also even in research and development they often team up with other companies. That's why they have a hand in so many open standarts.

So if they manage to develop a good new CPU architecture and have an OEM who's able to produce it then it would be possible. However this approach makes production a bit more expensive than with Intels inhouse production but the difference between production cost and selling prices on CPUs are usually so high that it's still profitable for AMD even if they undercut Intel with their prices who don't seem to be as aggressive when it comes to pricing.

However if they wanted I'm pretty sure that Intel could outprice AMD at any time but rumors tell that AMD and Intel are in a somewhat friendly competition - some weeks ago Intel even expressed some interest in AMDs mantle so they sure don't want each other dead. It's very different between AMD and Nvidia, though - Nvidia is much more aggressive than Intel and they don't shy away from a more offensive and sometimes even a bit dodgy competition against AMD. Sometimes this ends up in pretty customer unfriendly situation because for example with G-Sync Nvidia tries to lock customers into their Ecosystem and that kind of over aggressive competetive behaviour just plain sucks let alone what they did with gameworks or physx way back. Although I own an Nvidia card at the moment I gotta admit that I'm very much not a fan of Nvidias politics at the moment.

[typographie]

Well do you guys think that AMD will ever catch up to Intel?

 

The only times in history AMD has ever really been truly competitive with Intel at the high-end have been times when Intel was really screwing up. Like around 2004, when the AMD 64 FX series was so good Intel had to rebrand a Xeon as the P4 Extreme Edition just to compete. Intel really cleaned up their act with the Core series, though, and since then AMD hasn't really achieved much more than parity in the best of cases. And given the difference in resources each has access to, you can't fairly hope for much more than that.

 

I think AMD's biggest problem in the CPU space right now is that Haswell Core i3's and even Pentiums are often looking more attractive than their aging Piledriver counterparts. That should be the market segment that AMD still has an opportunity to compete in.