Should we support AMD?

[Guest trucker2]

Even if AMD goes under monopolies in tech do not last long. IBM had one after they came out with the 360. They were to computers what Ma Bell was to telephones. Reagan I believe stopped anti-trust action against IBM. Their monopoly did not last long. Neither would intel's

[Monkey Dust]

I can't imagine AMD would go bust, bought out by someone like Samsung, yes, but bust, no.

 

I fear if they did go under, GPU prices would go though the roof. Nvida wouldn't have a monopoly on graphics solutions,as you know Intel have a go at it, so probably wouldn't fall foul of the law, but they'd have a monopoly on the the discrete card market. "I'd love to buy the new graphics card, but it costs more than I paid for my car"

[App4that]

Support, no they can take care of themselves. Buy their shit? When it's worth buying.

[Snooli]

Sauce? That would be pretty beast, scalable performance.

Aw, my bad. Might have been in some Zen rumors but only thing I can find now, is Intel's SkyLake scaling suspiciusly.

The original "inventor" is SoftMachines http://softmachines.com/technology/

Anyway for SkyLake, some german site noticed this http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Skylake-mit-inversem-Hyper-Threading-2779793.html

[Khajiit Dealer]

I will not boycott a company simply because its competitor is doing horrible.

[ChasingPluto]

Don't worry Apple will save us with their next generation of CPUs that can power MacBooks

[dalekphalm]

Only what it makes sense to support: Their GPUs are still excellent products that remain competitive. No, not perfect, but also no the "crap lol heat up your house during the winter" people usually assume. 

 

Their CPUs I just cannot in good conscience recommend: I could 2 years ago but it's way too outdated tech today.

I agree with this position.

 

Should you support AMD? Sure, if you find their products compelling.

 

Should you intentionally buy an inferior CPU just to help them? I mean, that's a personal decision to make, but I strongly disagree. Some of AMD's CPU lineup still makes sense, like some of the APU's (but even then, their CPU is holding them back), or the Athlon 860K for entry level gaming PC's.

 

But buying an FX series CPU is a waste of your money right now.

 

As for buying AMD GPU's to "help support them"? Fuck that. Buy AMD GPU's because they're excellent fucking value. AMD's GPU lineup is very competitive with NVIDIA right now, despite what many a fanboy would have you believe.

 

Sure there are some products that aren't as good as their NVIDIA counterpart, and there are some that blow the NVIDIA equivalent out of the water. It's not a clear cut situation. But in pretty much any GPU segment, buying an AMD GPU for gaming is still a good choice. Mid-High/High End is excellent for AMD right now, with the R9 390 and 390x doing excellent. the R9 Fury is doing alright, and the Fury X is doing mediocre (Still not bad, but the 980 Ti hands down beats it).

 

Want to help AMD? Buy their GPU's.

[jcm2302]

Appalachian power company is a monopoly here no competition and cost of power is outrageous I pay 350 a month for power

[dalekphalm]

Appalachian power company is a monopoly here no competition and cost of power is outrageous I pay 350 a month for power

And this is relevant to the topic how, exactly...?

[jcm2302]

The point is monopolies happen legal or not support what works for you I choose AMD because it works and it does what it claims and frankly I like red on black not much on green and the only NVIDIOT cards that will work for me are 980s and I can get 3 amd for the price of one NVIDIOT as for relevant cutting costs start somewhere my power bill is forced to be more evident.

[Dabombinable]

I agree with this position.

 

Should you support AMD? Sure, if you find their products compelling.

 

Should you intentionally buy an inferior CPU just to help them? I mean, that's a personal decision to make, but I strongly disagree. Some of AMD's CPU lineup still makes sense, like some of the APU's (but even then, their CPU is holding them back), or the Athlon 860K for entry level gaming PC's.

 

But buying an FX series CPU is a waste of your money right now.

 

As for buying AMD GPU's to "help support them"? Fuck that. Buy AMD GPU's because they're excellent fucking value. AMD's GPU lineup is very competitive with NVIDIA right now, despite what many a fanboy would have you believe.

 

Sure there are some products that aren't as good as their NVIDIA counterpart, and there are some that blow the NVIDIA equivalent out of the water. It's not a clear cut situation. But in pretty much any GPU segment, buying an AMD GPU for gaming is still a good choice. Mid-High/High End is excellent for AMD right now, with the R9 390 and 390x doing excellent. the R9 Fury is doing alright, and the Fury X is doing mediocre (Still not bad, but the 980 Ti hands down beats it).

 

Want to help AMD? Buy their GPU's.

Lets be blunt. Your better off buying AMD's older CPU as some of the Phenom II will run on AM3+ motherboards-thus getting the newer features. And they play games far smoother than anything from the FX line. And at around 4GHz They shouldn't even bottleneck a GTX 970 for example too badly, 18-21% at the worst.

[don_svetlio]

Lets be blunt. Your better off buying AMD's older CPU as some of the Phenom II will run on AM3+ motherboards-thus getting the newer features. And they play games far smoother than anything from the FX line. And at around 4GHz They shouldn't even bottleneck a GTX 970 for example too badly, 18-21% at the worst.

Phenom II X6 1100T can actually beat an i5 2500K in modern games that use 6 threads such as MGS V, Witcher 3 and GTA V

[Mikjul]

Happy with my i7, but i fully support their GPU's, never let me down.

[Godlygamer23]

Even though AMD may make inferior CPUs compared to Intel, competition is still a requirement for innovation, so do we buy inferior products to support the underdog in the hopes of them producing great hardware again? I suppose that's on the individual. However, AMD needs to get its marketing together. I don't think Bulldozer would've been considered a fail if they hadn't been overly optimistic in their claims.

[othertomperson]

You should buy a product because it's something you want and it is priced and performs competitively or superiorly -- not because you feel sorry for the company.

 

 

Even though AMD may make inferior CPUs compared to Intel, competition is still a requirement for innovation, so do we buy inferior products to support the underdog in the hopes of them producing great hardware again? I suppose that's on the individual. However, AMD needs to get its marketing together. I don't think Bulldozer would've been considered a fail if they hadn't been overly optimistic in their claims.

 

Is it a requirement? It's been over four years since Intel had any kind of competition, and yet their first deviation from the tick-tock cycle seems to be because they are genuinely approaching the limit of what is even possible with silicon.

 

To that end their real competition is from companies like Global Foundries, not AMD.

[Mikjul]

Even though AMD may make inferior CPUs compared to Intel, competition is still a requirement for innovation, so do we buy inferior products to support the underdog in the hopes of them producing great hardware again? I suppose that's on the individual. However, AMD needs to get its marketing together. I don't think Bulldozer would've been considered a fail if they hadn't been overly optimistic in their claims.

[TetraSky]

inb4 "Zen" reks all Intel CPUs...

I'm honestly just expecting Zen to be another Bulldozer disaster.

[Godlygamer23]

I'm honestly just expecting Zen to be another Bulldozer disaster.

Unfortunately, AMD dug themselves a hole because of their advertising. Bulldozer was an overly advertised product - AMD claimed it would destroy the competition. It didn't - if they had just said "hey, we're creating a CPU that's adequate in every general task and great at heavily multi-threaded scenarios," I think they'd be totally fine. I also found Hawaii and Fiji to be disappointing. Yes, they offer great performance, but it's not within AMD's claims, especially Fiji. Remember the benchmarks comparing Fury X to Titan X? It supposedly wiped the floor with Titan X, but in real world benchmarks, it didn't. People might say "Well, once they release drivers, it'll be better." That's not the point. They were claiming the performance is already achievable. You can't advertise future numbers to be a selling point of your product.

[dzonidev]

Honestly I have no empathy for AMD. They are a big company and they are fully capable of developing good products. Why they don't do that is beyond me.

 

AMD might be in trouble, but they are not going anywhere. Even if they bankrupt (not likely) someone will buy them, rebrand and continue. That's how corporate works.

 

I think AMD's no.1 priority should be CPUs. Intel is already playing a monopoly, the prices are outrageous in my opinion.

[byalexandr]

Well I didn't buy a 290 for nothing. People complain that it's a hot card but hell that means it's fucking working!

[TheMechEngineer]

Well I didn't buy a 290 for nothing. People complain that it's a hot card but hell that means it's fucking working!

 

The high-end Nvidia cards are hot as well, I don't know why people would be complaining about it.

[byalexandr]

The high-end Nvidia cards are hot as well, I don't know why people would be complaining about it.

I know, and the 300 series has gotten a lot better, not to mention the R9 Fury Nano. I still like my reference 290 though, it's loud and that means it's doing it's job lol.

[othertomperson]

Unfortunately, AMD dug themselves a hole because of their advertising. Bulldozer was an overly advertised product - AMD claimed it would destroy the competition. It didn't - if they had just said "hey, we're creating a CPU that's adequate in every general task and great at heavily multi-threaded scenarios," I think they'd be totally fine. I also found Hawaii and Fiji to be disappointing. Yes, they offer great performance, but it's not within AMD's claims, especially Fiji. Remember the benchmarks comparing Fury X to Titan X? It supposedly wiped the floor with Titan X, but in real world benchmarks, it didn't. People might say "Well, once they release drivers, it'll be better." That's not the point. They were claiming the performance is already achievable. You can't advertise future numbers to be a selling point of your product.

 

 

Indeed -- it's not as if the Titan X's own performance won't increase with driver improvements as well.

[wei2coolman]

Honestly I have no empathy for AMD. They are a big company and they are fully capable of developing good products. Why they don't do that is beyond me.

 

AMD might be in trouble, but they are not going anywhere. Even if they bankrupt (not likely) someone will buy them, rebrand and continue. That's how corporate works.

 

I think AMD's no.1 priority should be CPUs. Intel is already playing a monopoly, the prices are outrageous in my opinion.

AMD took a bet that non-professional software/game developers would optimize their software/games for multithreaded workload, that's why they were so insistent on creating "true" 4 cores, and "true" 8 cores on their initial releases.

 

Unfotunate for them, they simply just lost the bet, and have been trying to recover since.

As far as their GPU's are concerned, they just need better marketing. Currently they pretty much have Nvidia beat on every single pricepoint below the GTX 980.

[juretrn]

inb4 "Zen" reks all Intel CPUs...

If that happens, I buy every forum member a beer.