Speaking AMD.

[Bamalamb]

So this is my time posting, apologies on the area and location.

I was wondering, all I know about is intel and Nvidia. I don't know anything about AMD and ATi, as in know which processors are good, which are bad, which class each of their graphics cards and processors come into.

 

Could someone shed some light on this situation and take the ugly bag of snakes that is Google search results and make it nice and simple for me? (like an ELi5 or a writing prompt situation I guess   )

[yannickverc]

Intel has CPU's, so does AMD. Ati was AMD's version of GPU's but now they're just called AMD as well.

Nvidia also does GPU stuff.

 

Which is best?

 

That's a question we don't ask here because that's all personal opinion and a thread can get very heated with AMD vs Intel or Nvidia crap.

[Bamalamb]

Thanks for the response!

 

aye, I have no intentions of sparking any debates of red vs. green. I was more curious about classing the products of AMDs CPUs and GPUs against one another, I get the GPU side of things I guess, but haven't a clue when it comes to their CPUs.

[Notree]

Thanks for the response!

 

aye, I have no intentions of sparking any debates of red vs. green. I was more curious about classing the products of AMDs CPUs and GPUs against one another, I get the GPU side of things I guess, but haven't a clue when it comes to their CPUs.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-7.html  Here you go. Cpu's just know intel is better at  the moment..

[vorticalbox]

Intel has CPU's, so does AMD. Ati was AMD's version of GPU's but now they're just called AMD as well.

Nvidia also does GPU stuff.

 

Which is best?

 

That's a question we don't ask here because that's all personal opinion and a thread can get very heated with AMD vs Intel or Nvidia crap.

its opinion to a point i'll admit.

 

if amd top gpu scores lower than nvidias (or the other way) thats not "opinion" one GPU is testable better than the other. different games run better on different cards ends up boiling down to "it depends what you want to do"

[Bamalamb]

Thanks for the help, sorry about the duplication there >.<

[yannickverc]

its opinion to a point i'll admit.

 

if amd top gpu scores lower than nvidias (or the other way) thats not "opinion" one GPU is testable better than the other. different games run better on different cards ends up boiling down to "it depends what you want to do"

Yea some gpu's score higher than others etc. it's when they're almost the same, do I go amd or nvidia at that point. That discussion  

[iCrushDreams]

Yea some gpu's score higher than others etc. it's when they're almost the same, do I go amd or nvidia at that point. That discussion

If they're the same within margin of error, you go with the one that has extra features you want. AMD has FreeSync, Nvidia has GSync, Shield, and Shadowplay. Also look at driver support and which one is more consistent.

[yannickverc]

If they're the same within margin of error, you go with the one that has extra features you want. AMD has FreeSync, Nvidia has GSync, Shield, and Shadowplay. Also look at driver support and which one is more consistent.

But not everyone does that Some people really force their choice upon someone

[Epiclol86]

Thanks for the response!

 

aye, I have no intentions of sparking any debates of red vs. green. I was more curious about classing the products of AMDs CPUs and GPUs against one another, I get the GPU side of things I guess, but haven't a clue when it comes to their CPUs.

 

CPU side, intel is really winning the market in the last years, since there is a little lack of innovation from AMD, a better reputation (not cold hard facts, i found no real unbiased research for these) for performance, reliability and customer support on the intel side, and overall better marketing from intel. If you get a good one, AMD cpu's are in general cheaper than their intel equivalent though, and can be very good for gaming. Also keep in mind that most games are developped and better optimised for intel cpu due to the popularity of intel. There is also more motherboards made with intel sockets (again because popularity amongst the customers).

 

So, really, both cpu's can be equivalent. There are more intel cpu's around for now, so more support for intel, but taking positions is unnecessary.

 

there you go!

 

p.s. remember, not all hertzes all equal, a quad core 4ghz from amd and a quad-core 4ghz from intel will not have the same performance !

[spartaman64]

amd beats nvidia at almost every pricepoint except the 980 ti and the fury x. if you want a cheap workstation amd cpus are great for cheap multi threaded performance but gaming and other single threaded applications definitely go with intel

[spartaman64]

CPU side, intel is really winning the market in the last years, since there is a little lack of innovation from AMD, a better reputation (not cold hard facts, i found no real unbiased research for these) for performance, reliability and customer support on the intel side, and overall better marketing from intel. If you get a good one, AMD cpu's are in general cheaper than their intel equivalent though, and can be very good for gaming. Also keep in mind that most games are developped and better optimised for intel cpu due to the popularity of intel. There is also more motherboards made with intel sockets (again because popularity amongst the customers).

 

So, really, both cpu's can be equivalent. There are more intel cpu's around for now, so more support for intel, but taking positions is unnecessary.

 

there you go!

 

p.s. remember, not all hertzes all equal, a quad core 4ghz from amd and a quad-core 4ghz from intel will not have the same performance !

before amd was the one driving innovation if it was up to intel we would still be on one core 32bit processors but amd didnt get much sales then either partly because intel was faking some benchmarks so they fell behind

[vorticalbox]

Yea some gpu's score higher than others etc. it's when they're almost the same, do I go amd or nvidia at that point. That discussion

 

 

If they're the same within margin of error, you go with the one that has extra features you want. AMD has FreeSync, Nvidia has GSync, Shield, and Shadowplay. Also look at driver support and which one is more consistent.

 

 

It would be better to look at the games and software you are using to see. some games run better on one or the other or you could be using cuda or opengl (is that amd's thing i don't remember). Like is aid it boils down to "it depends".

[yannickverc]

It would be better to look at the games and software you are using to see. some games run better on one or the other or you could be using cuda or opengl (is that amd's thing i don't remember). Like is aid it boils down to "it depends".

Yea but most of the things still boil down to personal preference. Mine is with Intel and Nvidia for example. Because previous experiences with AMD

[Epiclol86]

before amd was the one driving innovation if it was up to intel we would still be on one core 32bit processors but amd didnt get much sales then either partly because intel was faking some benchmarks so they fell behind

-(watchmen) Captain captain!

-what do you see mate?

-(watchmen) I don't know captain, looks like...

-well what?

 

AN AMD FANBOY !!!

 

(captain) oh boy, everybody run! it begun, the legendary intel-amd war that was prophesized in the scriptures!!!

 

[PlayStation 2]

-(watchmen) Captain captain!

-what do you see mate?

-(watchmen) I don't know captain, looks like...

-well what?

 

AN AMD FANBOY !!!

 

(captain) oh boy, everybody run! it begun, the legendary intel-amd war that was prophesized in the scriptures!!!

 

To be fair, he has a point. Intel was banking on bribing OEMs and misleading advertisements to sell Pentium 4s.

[Guest]

AMD or the Advanced Micro Devices Corporation was founded in May 1969 by previous Fairchild Semiconductor employees.

They began their CPU line-up when Intel Corp was no-longer able to keep up with CPU demands, and licensed the Intel 8080 to be

co-developed with AMD. (AMD + Intel = Mind Blown (for most people))

After a short time, AMD stopped production of the Intel 8080 and was given a 50 year (tell me if I'm wrong) license to develop CPUs based around the X86 architecture by IBM (Intels primary partner at the time), this decision infuriated Intel, starting the rivalry.

Not much happened for a while, except AMD was taking a foothold with its new 64-Bit CPU Line the Athlon X Series.

In the year 2006, ATI (Array Technology Incorporated) was purchased by AMD, who for the time kept the ATI name.

From this point on, AMD has been the leading competitor to Intel & nVidia.

[Bamalamb]

Thanks for all the awesome responses guys

[Kalle Hänninen]

There's team Red, team Green and surprisingly team Blue. They all make CPUs and GPUs.

[TechGod]

*grenade flys by*

*ducks*

*blue tanks start rolling out*

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE???

[Prysin]

So this is my time posting, apologies on the area and location.

I was wondering, all I know about is intel and Nvidia. I don't know anything about AMD and ATi, as in know which processors are good, which are bad, which class each of their graphics cards and processors come into.

 

Could someone shed some light on this situation and take the ugly bag of snakes that is Google search results and make it nice and simple for me? (like an ELi5 or a writing prompt situation I guess   )

ATM, AMD isnt doing so well in the CPU department, however they have a few products worht buying:

If you are building a lower end computer, or a HTPC, their APUs, branded as A6, A8 and A10 are great.

They have strong onboard graphics and a nippy quad core for the top end CPUs.

The CPU part is about 15% weaker then a i3 4130, but the GPU part of the APU is 50-75% stronger then Intels iGPU (with exception of the HD 6200 Iris Pro GPU from Intel).

For lower end PCs, you got the AMD Athlon X4 860k.

It is the same CPU found inside the APUs, but this one does not feature unboard graphics. At only 70 bucks, and near i3 performance, it is a really good deal.

Next in line is the FX 6300.

This 3 Module/6core (each module has 2 "cores") is a real budget powerhouse. It performs equally to a i3 4130, but ulike intels i3, it can be overlocked.

While it has many cores, they are weak cores, what i mean is, each FX core performs 45% worse then a corresponding intel core.

However, that does not mean they cannot get the job done!

It does however mean, that the FX 6300 depend on games using ALL the cores, or atleast 4 cores. If not, it is quite a dissappointing performer.

Anything above the FX 6300 is wasting money. The locked i5 4460 costs 160 bucks and outperforms anything AMD has to offer. So it is not really worth buying any AMD CPU if you can afford the i5 4460.

This is just a fact.

Now for GPUs, here AMD is a strong contender, and offer the best price to performance in almost every price category.

We start at the lower end, where you have Nvidias 750Ti, this is pitted against AMDs R7 360 and R7 370. Both perform equally or better then the 750Ti.

Next in line is the GTX 950, this one outperform its current nemesis, the R7 370. HOWEVER, AMD is due to release a new card soon, which may cause the R9 380 to drop in price to fight the 950.

Next is the GTX 960, this 1080p card is a good choice for fans of the green team, however AMDs R9 380 is simply stronger in almost every category. Even in games made specifically for Nvidia, such as The Witcher 3, you can see the R9 380 either match or beat the 960, despite the game itself strongly favoring Nvidia.

Next is the GTX 970 matching against the R9 390. Again, AMD is the star of the show. With 5-7% higer performance, more then TWICE the VRAM (all of which is working as it should), and costing the same, it is not even a discussion here. R9 390 is simply better.

Now, here comes the interesting matchup. The GTX 980.

This card has TWO cards matching against it. the slightly weaker, but 100 USD cheaper R9 390X, and the more powerful and 50 USD more expensive R9 Fury.

The R9 390X is about 5-10% weaker then the GTX 980 at 1080p, but as resolutions increases, the 8GB VRAM of the R9 390X, alongside the 512bit BUS and AMDs excellent performance at higher resolution means the 390X catches up to the 980.

On the other end is the R9 Fury, which out of the box is 10-15% stronger then the 980, it also features a new type of Memory called HBM.... HBM is sort of like 3D NAND SSDs... Being that the memory chips are stacked ontop of eachother instead of having many chips side by side. The result is that this memory is slow, but with a 4096bit bus, the amount of data you can send to and from the memory is higher then ANY other product on the market.

Between the R9 390X and the R9 Fury, the 980 is sort of a bad purchase. The 390X has nearly identical performance, but costs 100 USD less, the R9 Fury is just plain faster for just 50 bucks more. AMD truly overwhelms the 980 with better offers.

Next in line is the R9 Fury X and the GTX 980Ti. The 980Ti wins this. It is faster, easier to install (doesnt have a separate radiator to mount) and uses less power.

At the top of the line, we have the ridiculous.

The overpriced GTX TitanX and the ludicrous R9 295x2.

The R9 295x2 is the performance king. There is no single graphics card that can outperform it without serious overclocking (and watercooling). Then again, the R9 295x2 is basically TWO R9 290X with a mild overclock on the same card... and it draws a jaw-dropping 500w of energy!!!!

I myself DO own the R9 295x2. I do not regret my purchase, but if you plan on buying one, you MUST make sure your system can handle it. If not, it can set fire to your powersupply.

[Coaxialgamer]

ATM, AMD isnt doing so well in the CPU department, however they have a few products worht buying:

If you are building a lower end computer, or a HTPC, their APUs, branded as A6, A8 and A10 are great.

They have strong onboard graphics and a nippy quad core for the top end CPUs.

The CPU part is about 15% weaker then a i3 4130, but the GPU part of the APU is 50-75% stronger then Intels iGPU (with exception of the HD 6200 Iris Pro GPU from Intel).

For lower end PCs, you got the AMD Athlon X4 860k.

It is the same CPU found inside the APUs, but this one does not feature unboard graphics. At only 70 bucks, and near i3 performance, it is a really good deal.

Next in line is the FX 6300.

This 3 Module/6core (each module has 2 "cores") is a real budget powerhouse. It performs equally to a i3 4130, but ulike intels i3, it can be overlocked.

While it has many cores, they are weak cores, what i mean is, each FX core performs 45% worse then a corresponding intel core.

However, that does not mean they cannot get the job done!

It does however mean, that the FX 6300 depend on games using ALL the cores, or atleast 4 cores. If not, it is quite a dissappointing performer.

Anything above the FX 6300 is wasting money. The locked i5 4460 costs 160 bucks and outperforms anything AMD has to offer. So it is not really worth buying any AMD CPU if you can afford the i5 4460.

This is just a fact.

Now for GPUs, here AMD is a strong contender, and offer the best price to performance in almost every price category.

We start at the lower end, where you have Nvidias 750Ti, this is pitted against AMDs R7 360 and R7 370. Both perform equally or better then the 750Ti.

Next in line is the GTX 950, this one outperform its current nemesis, the R7 370. HOWEVER, AMD is due to release a new card soon, which may cause the R9 380 to drop in price to fight the 950.

Next is the GTX 960, this 1080p card is a good choice for fans of the green team, however AMDs R9 380 is simply stronger in almost every category. Even in games made specifically for Nvidia, such as The Witcher 3, you can see the R9 380 either match or beat the 960, despite the game itself strongly favoring Nvidia.

Next is the GTX 970 matching against the R9 390. Again, AMD is the star of the show. With 5-7% higer performance, more then TWICE the VRAM (all of which is working as it should), and costing the same, it is not even a discussion here. R9 390 is simply better.

Now, here comes the interesting matchup. The GTX 980.

This card has TWO cards matching against it. the slightly weaker, but 100 USD cheaper R9 390X, and the more powerful and 50 USD more expensive R9 Fury.

The R9 390X is about 5-10% weaker then the GTX 980 at 1080p, but as resolutions increases, the 8GB VRAM of the R9 390X, alongside the 512bit BUS and AMDs excellent performance at higher resolution means the 390X catches up to the 980.

On the other end is the R9 Fury, which out of the box is 10-15% stronger then the 980, it also features a new type of Memory called HBM.... HBM is sort of like 3D NAND SSDs... Being that the memory chips are stacked ontop of eachother instead of having many chips side by side. The result is that this memory is slow, but with a 4096bit bus, the amount of data you can send to and from the memory is higher then ANY other product on the market.

Between the R9 390X and the R9 Fury, the 980 is sort of a bad purchase. The 390X has nearly identical performance, but costs 100 USD less, the R9 Fury is just plain faster for just 50 bucks more. AMD truly overwhelms the 980 with better offers.

Next in line is the R9 Fury X and the GTX 980Ti. The 980Ti wins this. It is faster, easier to install (doesnt have a separate radiator to mount) and uses less power.

At the top of the line, we have the ridiculous.

The overpriced GTX TitanX and the ludicrous R9 295x2.

The R9 295x2 is the performance king. There is no single graphics card that can outperform it without serious overclocking (and watercooling). Then again, the R9 295x2 is basically TWO R9 290X with a mild overclock on the same card... and it draws a jaw-dropping 500w of energy!!!!

I myself DO own the R9 295x2. I do not regret my purchase, but if you plan on buying one, you MUST make sure your system can handle it. If not, it can set fire to your powersupply.

To be fair, while fx 83** chips are usually a waste of money, they do perform better in heavily multithreaded applications like rendering compared to the i5's. But intels i5's are better for pretty much everything else.

[spartaman64]

-(watchmen) Captain captain!

-what do you see mate?

-(watchmen) I don't know captain, looks like...

-well what?

 

AN AMD FANBOY !!!

 

(captain) oh boy, everybody run! it begun, the legendary intel-amd war that was prophesized in the scriptures!!!

 

i have an i7 4770 and a gtx 770 but sure im totally an amd fanboy 

[Epiclol86]

i have an i7 4770 and a gtx 770 but sure im totally an amd fanboy 

/jk...

 

you don't get it don't you...