AMD Hate?

[jacobgoblin]

I have an AMD build right now and I have no problems with it. I have a 6 core processor. I know I could get the same speed from a Dual core Intel, but I multitask too much for just a dual core. Also Intel is so damn expensive. I realize they are faster, but when I can get 6 cores for the price of 2, I can't justify going Intel. I spent just shy of $1000 on my build. A similar Intel build would have been significantly more. Not saying I hate Intel or I'm never going to use them, but as a student with a strict budget, AMD gets the job done plenty fast.

[Kalevro]

AMD fanboy right here- their 'stable' drivers broke one of my laptos and a 200$ gpu.

I cry every time I think about it, but i'm still a proud fan

Intel is better but also more expensive.

[jacobgoblin]

AMD fanboy right here- their 'stable' drivers broke one of my laptos and a 200$ gpu.

I cry every time I think about it, but i'm still a proud fan

Intel is better but also more expensive.

Not so much an AMD fanboy as I am a saving money fanboy. My Vishera CPU gave me some headaches trying to overclock, but other than that, I've had 0 problems. I'm switching to an i7 as soon as I can afford it, but like I said, student on a budget.

[Dabombinable]

AMD fanboy right here- their 'stable' drivers broke one of my laptos and a 200$ gpu.

I cry every time I think about it, but i'm still a proud fan

Intel is better but also more expensive.

You do pay for what you get. So of course AMD's offerings are cheaper. Though you used to get more value for money back in the 90's and early 2000's before AMD bought Ati.

[Dabombinable]

Not so much an AMD fanboy as I am a saving money fanboy. My Vishera CPU gave me some headaches trying to overclock, but other than that, I've had 0 problems. I'm switching to an i7 as soon as I can afford it, but like I said, student on a budget.

The CPU you have is actually a tri core with the integer core split in 2, giving you the Core Multi Thread design. And if I can multitask extremely well on a Pentium M 770 (I'm using it right now), a Core Duo T2600 and a Core 2 Duo T7600 with no problems (the Pentium is a bit slow but not too slow), the i3 would have been a good choice as they are far stronger than the CPU's I'm using or have used.

[KemoKa]

The hate for AMD is all because of the FX series. The FX parts were originally used for their server processors, a lot of the high-end Opterons were based on the Bulldozer architecture. Because of it's face-melting performance in servers (we're talking 4-5 years ago, mind you), they decided "You know what, let's use this to market them as the world's first consumer-grade unlocked 8-Core CPUs." And for the first couple of years, they did very very well, like, exceedingly well. But Intel was already on the ball, and within the same year, Sandy Bridge came along and kicked their asses so badly that it still smarts to this day. At the time, though, AMD still made financial sense for budget builds and game streaming. Now, however, with the 54W Core i3s keeping up with the 9590 in gaming and the i5s keeping up in rendering with a bit of an overclock, AMD's hopes of competing on Bulldozer, even in price-to-performance, have been dashed to pieces.

AMD has been doing really well in the GPU market, but their utter refusal to release a full series of cards with a brand new architecture that competes closely enough to Nvidia has kind of gotten old. They're certainly very inexpensive, especially if rumours of the 300 series pricing are to be believed, and that's been their selling point for a looooooong time. But the market is moving to smaller and smaller parts with more performance. The 970 is going toe-to-toe with the 290 at double the performance per watt. If AMD doesn't step it up in GPUs real soon (Pirate Islands, maybe...) then they're gonna have yet another hot potato on their hands that they can't throw to anyone.

[Captain Matt]

 

Their GPUs are largely rebranded, but they are still better for value.

Against their CPUs:

 

 

 

 

 

DANG! Very complete post. I'm convinced now. I think for a short while I'll still be recommending 8350's but only in the case of budget builds. I can't believe the i3's beat it in some cases! Must be why I have so much trouble in ARMA. man...

[SteveGrabowski0]

Because most people here are building gaming PCs and AMD's last good gaming CPUs were the Phenom II series from like 2010. I don't get it when it comes to GPUs though, the R9 200 series is fantastic and if the rumored prices hold there will be some really nice deals in the 300 series (especially the R7 370 for $135).

[Misanthrope]

Personally, I'm not happy they're likely trying to charge an extra 100 bucks for a 290x rebadging with what it amounts to an extra useless 4gb of vram. Might even flip my 290x for a 970

[-iSynthesis]

Everytime i hear amd rebadges their gpus... Nvidia does the same freaking thing since keppler, as far as i know even maxwell is based on the same 28nm chip, just adjusted drivers and some stuff on the gpu to get a low power consumption. 

[MasterDisaster]

I can say that i am cind of AMD fan. since I got their Athlon64 x2 4400+ ( over the P4 @ 3.6ghz with HT, cant remember exsact model) i am with AMD ... Last one before my FX8120 was Athlon64 x2 5200+ and paired with GeForce 8800GT it got me thrue all titles what i wanted like BF3, CoD Blac ops 2 and so on ... Now i have Fx8120 and HD7770, bought it second hand and im satisfied. I played the BF4 and Crysis 3 at tolerable framerates ( 22" LCD @ 1680x1080 ).

 

If i could get something like i5 or something, probably i would ... but for now and i think for this year i will be wery fine with my setup.

 

AMD is geting old ... but i just hope they just whaiting the wright moment. And as im considering me as USUAL gamer, who have just a feew shini penys at disposal AMD is fine for me.

Fan boy or not usualy it come down to $$$ and here is the point where u start to see limits.

And for long time there is the thing, that Apple doesent use AMD just becouse they dont do as much in audio/media/rendering etc as goog as Intel. There are much vids on youtube, where they show the diference.

 

Dunno if ya all get the point. But in short - AMD or Intel, you love it or hate it, you can aford it or not. Easy as that ...

[Dabombinable]

DANG! Very complete post. I'm convinced now. I think for a short while I'll still be recommending 8350's but only in the case of budget builds. I can't believe the i3's beat it in some cases! Must be why I have so much trouble in ARMA. man...

To be blunt, unless your building a workstation for video editing, rendering etc, buy an i3 or Athlon (heck even an old Phenom II would be good) as the FX range is utter shit when it comes to tasks that don't use all 8 threads.

[SteveGrabowski0]

Personally, I'm not happy they're likely trying to charge an extra 100 bucks for a 290x rebadging with what it amounts to an extra useless 4gb of vram. Might even flip my 290x for a 970

 

Why sidegrade like that?

[SteveGrabowski0]

Speaking as someone who just switched from an FX 9590 to a 5930k, I'm going to say that I was absolutely staggered by the difference playing games like Total War and Cities Skylines.

It's night and bloody day, with the 5930k being at least 2-3x faster than the 9590 in any physics test.

Graphics cards, I have a feeling is still going to be a game of leapfrog between the two, as yes, some people do have 390x's from BestBuys fuckup, but the drivers aren't even out for the cards yet, so let's wait and see what happens over the next week here before we all go jumping to conclusions about what's what here.

 

There are drivers in the DVD in the box (pic courtesy of @Suika who has a Best Buy R9 390).

 

[Misanthrope]

Why sidegrade like that?

 

Well right now I have no cooling problems but I'm borderline: 88c while gaming. Plus I might consider moving my rig into an itx case and the already hot running open air cooler might not cope too well vs a more efficient 970 using a blower cooler (PNY and Asus both make such 970s) that might manage temps on a smaller case a lot better.

 

Though ideally, I'd like to just build the new itx rig while keeping this one as well though. 

[Guest]

Perhaps someone else has gone into it but the reason why there is AMD hate is because some tech communities have a lot of young people who like to have wild opinions about things. There's no reason to hate AMD, they make fine CPUs for certain applications, and their offerings for people who make mid to high end PCs specifically for gaming are generally better off with Intel's offerings.

 

Another thing with young people is that they're impressionable and loud in a way that professionals and serious people aren't. If an AMD CPU is better for my application and I'm not a loudmouthed 15 year old, I don't necessarily go on forums to talk about how the CPU I bought is so much better than everything else. I bought it for practical reasons and it's fine. Plus they'll look at real data, rather than adopting the "cool" opinion in the tech circles where people just repeat the popular opinions rather than exercising critical thought.

[KemoKa]

DANG! Very complete post. I'm convinced now. I think for a short while I'll still be recommending 8350's but only in the case of budget builds. I can't believe the i3's beat it in some cases! Must be why I have so much trouble in ARMA. man...

The only places where the AMDs have the i3s beat is when you have a game which restricts dual-core processors, which I think is total BS. If you took the restrictions off, I almost guarantee you'd see the same result of the i3 matching the 8-core AMD.

The FX CPUs are dead, man. I didn't like it when I was a fanboy, but now that I'm riding a 2600K, I'm glad I got off the bandwagon when I did. We're talking about processors you can beat with overclocked Core 2 Extremes. That's not a good precedent for an architecture that is far newer than Core 2.

[othertomperson]

Why is there so much hate towards AMD? Can anyone give me an honest non-condescending answer?

I personally don't like take a side one way or the other I just enjoy the tech, but everytime I post something that remotely involves AMD I immediately get replies telling me AMD sucks and I need to use Intel or Nvidia. Most of the time the posters aren't even answering my questions and many of the times are blatantly wrong, suggesting things like the lowest end Intel CPU would be better than a hi end AMD.

I just want to know why there is so much hate and misinformation. Because honestly all of the people that just immediately start sprouting AMD hate and Intel/Nvidia "Pride" are really starting to annoy me and push me away from their products.

 

Their CPUs were designed to compete with Sandy Bridge and have relied solely on overclocks ever since.

 

And as for their GPUs, they re-released an old card, changed the name and added $180 onto the price in the hopes that people wouldn't notice and fall for it. Pretty low imo.

 

Not that Intel and Nvidia haven't done shitty things as well, but this thread is about AMD.

 

 

I have an AMD build right now and I have no problems with it. I have a 6 core processor. I know I could get the same speed from a Dual core Intel, but I multitask too much for just a dual core. Also Intel is so damn expensive. I realize they are faster, but when I can get 6 cores for the price of 2, I can't justify going Intel. I spent just shy of $1000 on my build. A similar Intel build would have been significantly more. Not saying I hate Intel or I'm never going to use them, but as a student with a strict budget, AMD gets the job done plenty fast.

 

AMD comes with a load of hidden costs though.

 

Intel: £70 dual core CPU, £30 motherboard, stock cooler: ~£100

AMD: £70 six core CPU, £100 motherboard to overclock to match the dual core, £30 cooler to deal with the heat from overclocking: ~£200

 

I'd sooner get a locked i5 and a cheap motherboard for a bit less, or you're even starting to get into locked i7 territory for not that much more.

[FaZe Booce]

*shit CPUs and shit GPUs 

oh great. another fangirl

[Razzaa]

oh great. another fangirl

Why? Not liking a companies products doesn't make you a fan boy/girl.

[Dabombinable]

The only places where the AMDs have the i3s beat is when you have a game which restricts dual-core processors, which I think is total BS. If you took the restrictions off, I almost guarantee you'd see the same result of the i3 matching the 8-core AMD.

The FX CPUs are dead, man. I didn't like it when I was a fanboy, but now that I'm riding a 2600K, I'm glad I got off the bandwagon when I did. We're talking about processors you can beat with overclocked Core 2 Extremes. That's not a good precedent for an architecture that is far newer than Core 2.

Your confusing the i3 with the Pentium. The i3 is actually recognised as a quad core by programs and games because it has hyperthreading. The Pentium however is missing that crucial feature so it can and does get locked out of games.

[KemoKa]

Your confusing the i3 with the Pentium. The i3 is actually recognised as a quad core by programs and games because it has hyperthreading. The Pentium however is missing that crucial feature so it can and does get locked out of games.

Hmm.. I thought there were some that locked out the i3 because they looked at the physical cores, not virtual cores. I guess I stand corrected.

[Dabombinable]

Hmm.. I thought there were some that locked out the i3 because they looked at the physical cores, not virtual cores. I guess I stand corrected.

Programs actually have to look for hyperthreading. And with the laziness that I've seen from devs, its not surprising that they don't even bother looking at hyperthreading.

[QueenDemetria]

Hmm.. I thought there were some that locked out the i3 because they looked at the physical cores, not virtual cores. I guess I stand corrected.

I think Far Cry 4 initially had problems with i3's since it did recognize it as 2 cores instead of 4 threads, but that probably got fixed and FC4 was shit anyways.

[Dabombinable]

i3 has better hyperthreading utilization is why.  At least isn't as weird as AMD's.  Their multicores are true physical cores, but work oddly.  The 8 cores for example are 8 physical cores 2 per module 4 modules.  So, Windows will recognize them as 4 cores because it thinks the modules=the physical cores, and will state the 8 physical cores as virtual or logical cores.  

True partially split cores you mean. An integer core isn't a full processing core by any definition.