An honest discussion: What happened to AMD?

[terminal2]

Linus' history of AMD CPUs got me thinking on something I had already been wondering about.  Basically back in the day, I remember AMD usually building better processors that intel that handled larger workloads consistently than Intel CPUs.  I had an AMD Athlon XP 2100+ with an ATI (???) card as my first AMD machine and still to this day, I haven't had a smoother system than that one.  It just worked.  I still remember AMD making a far better dual core first entry processor because they had redesigned a processor from the ground up, whereas intel had taken a Pentium 4 and stuck a second core on there with no optimization.  Intel corrected this error with the Core 2 Duo, the first Intel CPU designed from the ground up for dual core processing.  I bought an off the shelf computer with the Core 2 Duo because its better benchmarking at the time, paired it with an ATI X700 pro, and that was my last desktop (2005?) until this year.  The game FEAR spurred that upgrade to dual core over my AMD system. 

So basically high school and college pushed me towards laptops and there I stayed until this year when I destroyed my laptop and had to get a new computer on the fly.  Tired of things that go wrong with laptops, I began specing out a new desktop.  Of course when I did, the first thing I saw was the 8 core monsters AMD had for less than 200 and thought the processor wars were still in full swing.  Of course, once I did some research on the benchmarks, I found that the race leaned towards intel and it wasn't even close.  For example, my tiny core i3 outbenchmarked the MAJORITY of 4 core processors on the AMD APU side, and absolutely killed them in single-threaded workloads.  

Watching linus' video today, he references "business decisions" that drove AMD down this path.  I'm interested if anyone knows what decisions were made that drove AMD to this point on emphasis on clock speed and core count rather than single core and threaded performance with efficiency.  

[Chasem121]

tldr version: Intel paid pc manufacturers to not use AMD cpus, this fucked AMD heavily and they never recovered.

[mikat]

Linus' history of AMD CPUs got me thinking on something I had already been wondering about.  Basically back in the day, I remember AMD usually building better processors that intel that handled larger workloads consistently than Intel CPUs.  I had an AMD Athlon XP 2100+ with an ATI (???) card as my first AMD machine and still to this day, I haven't had a smoother system than that one.  It just worked.  I still remember AMD making a far better dual core first entry processor because they had redesigned a processor from the ground up, whereas intel had taken a Pentium 4 and stuck a second core on there with no optimization.  Intel corrected this error with the Core 2 Duo, the first Intel CPU designed from the ground up for dual core processing.  I bought an off the shelf computer with the Core 2 Duo because its better benchmarking at the time, paired it with an ATI X700 pro, and that was my last desktop (2005?) until this year.  The game FEAR spurred that upgrade to dual core over my AMD system. 

So basically high school and college pushed me towards laptops and there I stayed until this year when I destroyed my laptop and had to get a new computer on the fly.  Tired of things that go wrong with laptops, I began specing out a new desktop.  Of course when I did, the first thing I saw was the 8 core monsters AMD had for less than 200 and thought the processor wars were still in full swing.  Of course, once I did some research on the benchmarks, I found that the race leaned towards intel and it wasn't even close.  For example, my tiny core i3 outbenchmarked the MAJORITY of 4 core processors on the AMD APU side, and absolutely killed them in single-threaded workloads.  

Watching linus' video today, he references "business decisions" that drove AMD down this path.  I'm interested if anyone knows what decisions were made that drove AMD to this point on emphasis on clock speed and core count rather than single core and threaded performance with efficiency.  

AMD has not been realeasing cpus as often as intel, and intel has better performance, the customer buys the better performance (per dollar) and AMD gets fucked because they now have even less money..

[DrDray]

I'm going to go with AMD chose going with more cores and clock speed purely so they look good on paper compared to Intel. Like comparing an AMD fx 8350 vs an i3 4170; 8 core 4ghz vs a 3.7ghz dual core. To someone who doesn't know a lot about computer specs, what one looks better?

[DannyRyu]

Hopefully Zen architecture will actually be good and not just some stupid Over hype. its apparently going to be more focused on Single threaded performance.

[Benji_w]

I'm going to go with AMD chose going with more cores and clock speed purely so they look good on paper compared to Intel. Like comparing an AMD fx 8350 vs an i3 4170; 8 core 4ghz vs a 3.7ghz dual core. To someone who doesn't know a lot about computer specs, what one looks better?

 

The FX because the i3 will be limited by several factors, stronger single core performance has a good standing point but as soon as you start throwing multiple things at it, it's going to run out of steam.

[DannyRyu]

The FX because the i3 will be limited by several factors, stronger single core performance has a good standing point but as soon as you start throwing multiple things at it, it's going to run out of steam.

a game that only supports dual cores will easily favor the i3. they are for different things. me personally I wana see Zen be good and it rivals intel's CPU I'd love to give it a try.

[Morgan MLGman]

I'm going to go with AMD chose going with more cores and clock speed purely so they look good on paper compared to Intel. Like comparing an AMD fx 8350 vs an i3 4170; 8 core 4ghz vs a 3.7ghz dual core. To someone who doesn't know a lot about computer specs, what one looks better?

Considering that the FX-8350 is twice as fast overall, and I see my 8350 go above 50% on all cores pretty often when gaming, I can tell you that the 8350 is a better choice regardless of the single-cored performance of the i3, which after you overclock the 8350 is about only 25% faster.

[Morgan MLGman]

a game that only supports dual cores will easily favor the i3. they are for different things. me personally I wana see Zen be good and it rivals intel's CPU I'd love to give it a try.

That's why you choose a CPU accordingly to your usage, for triple-A gaming the 8350 would win heavily, for older games that only supports dual cores, the i3 would be superior

[Dabombinable]

That's why you choose a CPU accordingly to your usage, for triple-A gaming the 8350 would win heavily, for older games that only supports dual cores, the i3 would be superior

That's not taking a hyperthreaded i3 6100 into account right? Because they are better for the latest games than even an FX 6350.

[Benji_w]

That's not taking a hyperthreaded i3 6100 into account right? Because they are better for the latest games than even an FX 6350.

 

Depends on the game to be fair, most games are using more cores so the old dog that is the FX is seeing good usage.

 

[Morgan MLGman]

That's not taking a hyperthreaded i3 6100 into account right? Because they are better for the latest games than even an FX 6350.

Yeah, talking more about the Haswell stuff, the Skylake i3's look very promising, I give you that, especially with higher RAM speeds (cause apparently those affect low-end Skylake CPUs) still waiting for the mobo prices to drop though

[Dabombinable]

Depends on the game to be fair, most games are using more cores so the old dog that is the FX is seeing good usage.

 

That's an FX 9590 that gets flogged by the cheaper solution that is the i5. And GTA V is one of the games I was referring to.

[Benji_w]

That's an FX 9590 that gets flogged by the cheaper solution that is the i5. And GTA V is one of the games I was referring to.

 

Gets flogged... it's keeping up with an i7 Dab, cmon mate, seriously... if you're going to turn a blind eye to this one then there is no point you being on this forum. I pretend that the 9590 is an 8320e overclocked to 5ghz then...  :rolleyes:

[Dabombinable]

Gets flogged... it's keeping up with an i7 Dab, cmon mate, seriously... if you're going to turn a blind eye to this one then there is no point you being on this forum. I pretend that the 9590 is an 8320e overclocked to 5ghz then...  :rolleyes:

1. Its an FX 8350 that's overclocked to 5GHz

2. Didn't watch the video, didn't see a point as that is only 1 example not multiple

 

Here we see the Dab in it's natural habitat crying over AMD competing.  How dare it keep up with his precious Intel!  

Lmao, a stock 4790K, with only 4 cores and 8 threads having an FX 9590 with 4 modules 8 threads at 5GHz keeping up with the i7, while consuming around 220W of power as opposed to around 80-90W is AMD competing? Sure....keep deluding yourself

[Dabombinable]

Here we see the Dab in it's natural habitat crying over AMD competing.  How dare it keep up with his precious Intel!  

Pssst, it would also be a good idea to stop the ad hominem attacks, it only makes you look like a jackass/fanboy.

[Benji_w]

1. Its an FX 8350 that's overclocked to 5GHz

2. Didn't watch the video, didn't see a point as that is only 1 example not multiple

 

Lmao, a stock 4790K, with only 4 cores and 8 threads having an FX 9590 with 4 modules 8 threads at 5GHz keeping up with the i7, while consuming around 220W of power as opposed to around 80-90W is AMD competing? Sure....keep deluding yourself

 

So you didn't watch the video but you're swinging (and missing I might add) at AMD? The video shows the same results for each CPU, this intel bias is what is harming AMD the most, fucking hell...

[Samsterstorm]

Linus' history of AMD CPUs got me thinking on something I had already been wondering about. Basically back in the day, I remember AMD usually building better processors that intel that handled larger workloads consistently than Intel CPUs. I had an AMD Athlon XP 2100+ with an ATI (???) card as my first AMD machine and still to this day, I haven't had a smoother system than that one. It just worked. I still remember AMD making a far better dual core first entry processor because they had redesigned a processor from the ground up, whereas intel had taken a Pentium 4 and stuck a second core on there with no optimization. Intel corrected this error with the Core 2 Duo, the first Intel CPU designed from the ground up for dual core processing. I bought an off the shelf computer with the Core 2 Duo because its better benchmarking at the time, paired it with an ATI X700 pro, and that was my last desktop (2005?) until this year. The game FEAR spurred that upgrade to dual core over my AMD system.

So basically high school and college pushed me towards laptops and there I stayed until this year when I destroyed my laptop and had to get a new computer on the fly. Tired of things that go wrong with laptops, I began specing out a new desktop. Of course when I did, the first thing I saw was the 8 core monsters AMD had for less than 200 and thought the processor wars were still in full swing. Of course, once I did some research on the benchmarks, I found that the race leaned towards intel and it wasn't even close. For example, my tiny core i3 outbenchmarked the MAJORITY of 4 core processors on the AMD APU side, and absolutely killed them in single-threaded workloads.

Watching linus' video today, he references "business decisions" that drove AMD down this path. I'm interested if anyone knows what decisions were made that drove AMD to this point on emphasis on clock speed and core count rather than single core and threaded performance with efficiency.

AMD has just never recovers tbh!! I had a 4170 FX cpu before my 4790k and I had it clocked at like 4.8ghz all day long and my 4790k at 4.4ghz destroys it in games its incredible!! Bit if a same and I understand fully why Intel CPU's are so much faster I don't need a lesson!! I just think it's such a shame that Intel fucked them so hard they have just never recovered!

I reckon they may not even be around 10-15years from now and Intel will still be rocking the world!

Shame......

[Benji_w]

AMD has just never recovers tbh!! I had a 4170 FX cpu before my 4790k and I had it clocked at like 4.8ghz all day long and my 4790k at 4.4ghz destroys it in games its incredible!! Bit if a same and I understand fully why Intel CPU's are so much faster I don't need a lesson!! I just think it's such a shame that Intel fucked them so hard they have just never recovered!

I reckon they may not even be around 10-15years from now and Intel will still be rocking the world!

Shame......

 

Must be something seriously wrong with this i5 system I have because the difference is barely noticeable...

[Samsterstorm]

Must be something seriously wrong with this i5 system I have because the difference is barely noticeable...

It's not an I5 system? Where did u get that from neither of them are!!!

[Bl00dgod]

Gets flogged... it's keeping up with an i7 Dab, cmon mate, seriously... if you're going to turn a blind eye to this one then there is no point you being on this forum. I pretend that the 9590 is an 8320e overclocked to 5ghz then...  :rolleyes:

you could oc the devils canyon up to 5ghz or higher too with a good chip,

edit: layz made 5.0 stable and up to 5,3 if i'm not wrong

 

and intel uses way less watt while under load thats one point for them

[Samsterstorm]

Must be something seriously wrong with this i5 system I have because the difference is barely noticeable...

Don't worry tired read the post again!! Ignore my last one! Sorry bud

[Benji_w]

It's not an I5 system? Where did u get that from neither of them are!!!

 

I have more than one PC... I even have a skylake i5 sat on my desk for my gf's build for xmas... 

[Samsterstorm]

I have more than one PC... I even have a skylake i5 sat on my desk for my gf's build for xmas...

]Don't worry tired read the post again!! Ignore my last one! Sorry bud

[Benji_w]

you could oc the devils canyon up to 5ghz or higher too with a good chip

 

Stability though would be my main concern... very few devils hit that golden 5ghz.