Are AMD cpus really that bad?

[hardtofindinthefuture]

NOTICE *im not trying to start a war on intel vs AMD*

 

I have seen all of the builds and most of the powerful gaming PCs

Rarely use AMD cpus

 

I mean when you goon amazon, a six core 3 ghz CPU for $90 REALLY?

 

SO why is AMD THAT BAD?

 

 

AGAIN *im not trying to start a war on intel vs AMD*

[Guest]

Bad IPC makes them bad. More cores or more speed =/= faster

[TubsAlwaysWins]

My 8320 OC'd could hit the same cinnebench score as a 6700K stock so they are alright

1 hour ago, deXxterlab97 said:

Bad IPC makes them bad. More cores or more speed =/= faster

But anotther Ghz = 200 more points in cinnebench

 

[minibois]

Single core performance is just not as good as Intel's (on the current platforms, so I'm not talking about Zen) plus the thermals are not great.

If people have the budget for an i5 or higher, they don't even consider AMD (and I can't really blame them).

 

AMD does make compelling budget options, like the FX 6300/6350.

[bgibbz]

There are three stats to a CPU - Cores, speed, and EFFICIENCY. AMD CPUs have recently not been neraly as efficient per clock cycle. While their speed and core count is comparable to Intel, they are less efficient. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Minibois said:

 

 

AMD does make compelling budget options, like the FX 6300/6350.

But then g4560 pentium with HT

[Mira Yurizaki]

If you need a multithreaded solution and you need it cheap, AMD is good. Otherwise since it lacks in single threaded performance, a lot of other things won't be as good as Intel's. Gaming tends to be one of those things.

 

They also eat electricity and run hot.

[EPPHO]

For the time they are made,they aren't bad. Now they still aren't for specific situations.

[ARikozuM]

I wouldn't say they're bad. If you have a choice between a good AMD CPU and some better components elsewhere or a Intel i3/Pentium and lackluster components, I would go with AMD. That said, I would take a Pentium for a couple of months until I can get an i5 or i7 rather than getting an i3.

[MaxBunny]

4 minutes ago, v0nn_toaster said:

I mean when you goon amazon, a six core 3 ghz CPU for $90 REALLY?

SO why is AMD THAT BAD?

For the price to performance it's usually a great option. You couldn't get 4+ cores for the price until Kabylake with its Hyperthreading. By the point it makes a difference you're usually not in the budget range of an AMD cpu build anyway.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, TubsAlwaysWins said:

My 8320 OC'd could hit the same cinnebench score as a 6700K stock so they are alright

Well you don't buy fx just to run cinebench only... 

[TubsAlwaysWins]

1 minute ago, deXxterlab97 said:

Well you don't buy fx just to run cinebench only... 

You never know

[8-Bit Ninja]

For now yes, hopefully soon they wont be 

[STRMfrmXMN]

Considering that I was in elementary school when the AM3 socket was released, well, they're old and don't support basic features Intel offers like decent IPC, efficiency, native USB 3.0, native PCI gen 3, and SATA 6 Gbps, they're generally a poor buy. 5-year old i5s are comparable in performance to the top of the line 9590.

[ThinkWithPortals]

They're not bad, just flawed (low efficiency and IPC) and hopelessly outdated. The architecture they're built on hasn't seen an update or revision in nearly five years now.

[Shoob]

The architecture in that six-core you are using is pretty old and it was a flop since launch. Also, those 6 cores are not exactly cores, but grouped by 2 in a module, with shared cache. The implementation is similar to SMT, so realistically it's a 3 module (core) CPU. They shine only in specific mutlthreaded applications and that's it. 

[Space Reptile]

the FX series is almost 6 years old and the IPC / performance is on par w/ sandy whilst using WAY MORE power ,

an FX 8350 is a good budget cpu , but highend has yet to see something proper (ryzen pls) 

[ybriK]

Bad isn't the right word but inefficient would be more suitable.

[JefferyD90]

14 minutes ago, v0nn_toaster said:

NOTICE *im not trying to start a war on intel vs AMD*

 

I have seen all of the builds and most of the powerful gaming PCs

Rarely use AMD cpus

 

I mean when you goon amazon, a six core 3 ghz CPU for $90 REALLY?

 

SO why is AMD THAT BAD?

 

 

AGAIN *im not trying to start a war on intel vs AMD*

No, they're really not that bad of CPU's they're just misunderstood.  Although, with that said, I don't recommend ANY of the 9xx platform chips.  So either grab a Ax8 platform or go Intel.

[PeachyUwUSenpai]

20 minutes ago, v0nn_toaster said:

NOTICE *im not trying to start a war on intel vs AMD*

 

I have seen all of the builds and most of the powerful gaming PCs

Rarely use AMD cpus

 

I mean when you goon amazon, a six core 3 ghz CPU for $90 REALLY?

 

SO why is AMD THAT BAD?

 

 

AGAIN *im not trying to start a war on intel vs AMD*

This is because the most powerful cpus are all by intel so if your going to go a high performance computer build intel is your only choice. just look at this chart http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html the 3770  which came out 5 years ago still beats top end amd and they tend to run hotter my oly pheonom used to sit at like 80 constaly and my 4.5 ghz overclocked 3770k sits at around 60 max load

[LAwLz]

Well let's see:

1) Dead platform (AM3).

2) Really, really low single core performance.

3) Bad multi-core performance except in some pretty rare cases (and in those rare cases it's better than an i3, but not at i5).

4) Inefficient

 

 

8 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

If you need a multithreaded solution and you need it cheap, AMD is good.

Not even for that. The IPC is so incredibly low that even when all cores can be utilized, a dual core from Intel is usually not that far behind. When less than 8 cores can be utilized, the dual core Intel chip will obliterate the AMD one.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Space Reptile said:

the FX series is almost 6 years old and the IPC / performance is on par w/ sandy whilst using WAY MORE power

It's not even close to the IPC of Sandy Bridge.

Sandy Bridge is about 30-40% faster clock for clock.

 

Sandy Bridge vs Vishera. Both at 3.3GHz.

Cinebench 10 (single core):

AMD - 3948

Intel - 5860

 

Cinebench 11.5 (single core):

AMD - 1.1

Intel - 1.47

[Space Reptile]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

It's not even close to the IPC of Sandy Bridge.

okay let me clarify

 

FX 9590 , a 220w motherboard exploding beast at 5ghz is on par w/ my i7 2600 , a locked 65w 3.5ghz quadcore w/ HT in benchmarks 

 

 

[ARikozuM]

2 minutes ago, Space Reptile said:

FX 9590 , a 220w motherboard exploding beast at 5ghz is on par w/ my i7 2600 , a locked 65w 3.5ghz quadcore w/ HT in benchmarks 

To be fair, the 9590 uses four modules. Two cores in each module that share resources with each other. 

[Dabombinable]

Well they replaced the Phenom II with CPU that were noticeably slower and in need of OS updates to even run correctly. Then they replaced those POS with the *3** range which were only slightly better than Phenom II, while having significantly larger dies at the same "core" count (aka, they were more expensive to manufacture) and the only real benefit over Phenom II being the more up to date instruction set. Then AMD kept on selling he same mediocre CPU for 5 years. Yes, they really are that bad.

 

 

Edit: BTW, the IPC of Bulldozer, Piledriver and Vishera is worse than that of Wolfdale, which is an architecture 3 years older than the first of the FX series.

[Nena Trinity]

Depends on the jerb! Some games they are good at(i5ish) some they are worse than a Pentium G3258! o3o