Why is AMD always considered the 2nd of everything

[Hitman123]

You all know how AMD is considered second and last in CPUs and second in GPU. Why, why is this. Yes I know because there CPUs and GPUs are more powerful blah blah blah. But why is amd considered u powerful compared to nVidia and Intel???????????

[Unlikelyjoker]

Because of the price to performance for the 970

AMD is just good for budget gpu wise

[dadasmithywinkle]

You all know how AMD is considered second and last in CPUs and second in pus. Why, why is this. Yes I know because there CPUs and Grus are more powerful blah blah blah. But why is amd considered u powerful compared to nVidia and Intel???????????

AMD's CPUs have really become subpar in comparison to where they were and where Intel stands. However, they are set to release some really good products this year.

[Hitman123]

Yes but why can't amd be on par with Intel. Less knowledge, doubt that

[ShadowCaptain]

SNIP

 

Because they ARE second in performance?

Intel has more powerful CPUs, Nvidia has more powerful GPUs - not to mention current AMD hardware runs hotter and requires more power

AMD makes sense at certain budgets, lower end rigs or high end gamers on a budget

Currently with the low price of I5s, and the cheap GTX 970, AMD have serious problems competing in the value PC market

[Dabombinable]

They weren't always considered second in everything (they used to be able to compete quite well with Intel, by having the same or greater performance at a lower price point). That however has changed in recent years with AMD improving their CPUs very little if at all, which is leading them to effectively stagnate (GPUs are another kettle of fish).

[Hitman123]

Yeah i agree but why can't they be as powerful. How come they can't improve

[DIV1D3]

AMD > Nvidia

AMD < Intel

 

Imo. 

The FX CPUs are lacking (I wouldn't even consider 9590 vs 4690K), and the R9 series are cheap as balls. 

200 series from AMD is competing with the 700 series from Nvidia, wait for AMD's 300 series and then compare. 

[DigitalHermit]

Because they ARE second in performance?

 

Intel has more powerful CPUs, Nvidia has more powerful GPUs - not to mention current AMD hardware runs hotter and requires more power

 

AMD makes sense at certain budgets, lower end rigs or high end gamers on a budget

 

Currently with the low price of I5s, and the cheap GTX 970, AMD have serious problems competing in the value PC market

 

^THIS^

 

Unless you're hard pressed for cash or need something with more than 4 threads but lack the money, that's when AMD steps in...

 

As for GPUs, the ones currently out are on par with nVidia's offerings, although a bit more power hungry... Wait for the 300 series...

[soaringchicken]

Because they are, it's just pretty much fact. But they usually have good value

[brockelley]

Still though (despite what everyone here is saying), anyone spending over $150 on a CPU just for gaming is kind of.. well an idiot. I've found sales on an 8350 for $100, I've never seen any i3 CPU go for that price. AMD does a great job being the bargain bin CPU, but all these people here saying it's actually garbage are just.. idiots. 

 

In a given budget, reasonably set for enthusiast level tech, you can get more performance by getting an AMD CPU and then spending that money you have left over on something else.

[The Pi]

AMD is spread quite thin, they aren't as strong in the server space as nvidia or intel (where lower power consumption is much more important than actual cost) is so don't have the R&D money to improve.

 

They do make decent value stuff but it's getting harder and harder to justify them nowadays.

[Hitman123]

Ok I now understand. Yeah Ames new r9 300 series I think is going to be a smasher. I have a r7 260x and it performs like a beauty. And guess how much I got for it?????????? 100$. Amazing value. 2gb gddr5 memory. Over clocked to 1200Mhz memory clock at stock 6.5Ghz. Amazing.

[AoyagiAichou]

[...]they are set to release some really good products this year.

 

Not in the CPU space though, Zen is planned for 2016.

 

Because they ARE second in performance?

Nvidia has more powerful GPUs

 

This is true only half of the time. The newer generation is almost always better overall regardless if it's by Nvidia or AMD.

[ShadowCaptain]

This is true only half of the time. The newer generation is almost always better overall regardless if it's by Nvidia or AMD.

 

its CURRENTLY true is all I was saying

 

Its not a general rule, but currently that is the state of play

[Hitman123]

AMDs fx line are old man. The tech is old ok yes 8 cores but i3 single core performance is awsome. I was thinking of switching to fx but the chipset I have now is newer ( h97).

[AoyagiAichou]

its CURRENTLY true is all I was saying

 

Its not a general rule, but currently that is the state of play

 

Right, agreed. Although the price/performance ratio is questionable as (just checked Newegg) 290X moves around the same price area as 970. Obviously the 980 still wins on the pure performance point of view ^^

[snert98]

Still though (despite what everyone here is saying), anyone spending over $150 on a CPU just for gaming is kind of.. well an idiot. I've found sales on an 8350 for $100, I've never seen any i3 CPU go for that price. AMD does a great job being the bargain bin CPU, but all these people here saying it's actually garbage are just.. idiots. 

 

In a given budget, reasonably set for enthusiast level tech, you can get more performance by getting an AMD CPU and then spending that money you have left over on something else.

well if you want 8 (crap) cores where only 3 or 4 are in use you are stupid in my mind if you are gaming you are better off with spending like 20 bucks more on a i3, then you have a upgrade path aswell if it is not powerfull enough anymore buy a i5 or i7. the AMD fx series is way to old no upgrade path, its only good value if you use a lot of core's like rendering otherwise it is a waste of money with no upgrade path.

 

and to be honnes i paid 230€ for my 4690k and i am at 30% usage when playing games so i have a lot of headroom in the future so in my mind a good CPU is half of the work. 

[snert98]

Right, agreed. Although the price/performance ratio is questionable as (just checked Newegg) 290X moves around the same price area as 970. Obviously the 980 still wins on the pure performance point of view ^^

the 970 will stil beat it in heat en powerconsumpion and i think even on performance 

[Hatsune Miku 「 」]

I'm sensing an AMD fanboy trying to make AMD good.

 

1. R&D: they simply can't improve since they are trying fulfill a variety of markets. Even though, YES, they are trying to make a new cpu architecture but very little is actually spend on it.

 

2. AMD's launch of the fx cpus was a money making act. Releasing the motherboards, then holding out for a couple of months made consumers thought that AMD was improving the architecture. But they were actually just given motherboard makers money and the cpu didn't improve at all. Intel still came out on top for performance, so those who demand the best will stay with Intel. and since AMD is only in extreme budget systems and render farms for large companies and media work.

 

So the OP is expecting consumers to trust AMD for their cpus after what they pulled with the FX CPUS. and keep in mind FX WAS RELEASED AFTER INTEL CPUS, THEY STILL PERFORMED WORSE.

[kwljunky]

[Majestic]

Because they are, it's just pretty much fact. But they usually have good value

Nope, not even good value. Especially anything above the FX-4350.

[Ertman]

It hasn't always been this way, so ALWAYS is less then accurate.

 

Reason is leadership and money.

 

Also fix the original post so it makes sense.

[roflwaffle]

Because AMD pays their engineers less than what Intel pay theirs.

[Ertman]

I'm sensing an AMD fanboy trying to make AMD good.

 

1. R&D: they simply can't improve since they are trying fulfill a variety of markets. Even though, YES, they are trying to make a new cpu architecture but very little is actually spend on it.

 

2. AMD's launch of the fx cpus was a money making act. Releasing the motherboards, then holding out for a couple of months made consumers thought that AMD was improving the architecture. But they were actually just given motherboard makers money and the cpu didn't improve at all. Intel still came out on top for performance, so those who demand the best will stay with Intel. and since AMD is only in extreme budget systems and render farms for large companies and media work.

 

So the OP is expecting consumers to trust AMD for their cpus after what they pulled with the FX CPUS. and keep in mind FX WAS RELEASED AFTER INTEL CPUS, THEY STILL PERFORMED WORSE.

 

Its not even that they performed worse, its that #2 point that has burned a lot of people.