This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Why the hate for AMD?

#31Pengu1nPosted 6/5/2014 5:46:36 AM
SAfricanGamer posted...
AMD have lost the CPU war, they explicitly stated that they have no intention of competing with Intel at the High End market any more and instead they are focusing on price: performance ratio.

AMD GPU's however, are absolutely amazing.


That's not really a sign they have lost anything. If anything price to performance is a better move overall. AMD very rarely changes their socket configurations AM3+ sockets can use AM3 CPU's so a person who still has an AM3 CPU such as a Phenom II quad core or an older bulldozer AM3+ CPU can (if they are happy with their CPU) just buy a new motherboard. My six core runs at 3.5ghz and it runs anything i chuck at it and the CPU only cost me 80 an 8350 would only cost 150 and fits in the same socket.

Overall i am happy with AMD. If i was building a money no object PC i may choose intel but then again i might not.
---
FX 6300, HYPER 212 EVO, 16GB DDR3, 7870 GHZ 2GB, 2TB HDD, 64 GB SATA III SSD, 12X BLU RAY, 750W PSU, X-FI FATAL1TY,WINDOWS 7
#32Blade_KirbyPosted 6/5/2014 5:59:26 AM
Because fanboys need to reassure themselves of their overpriced purchase.

There is nothing wrong with Intel's or Nvidia's products, but they charge too much for them only because AMD has been slandered with a reputation of being low-end. AMD matches Intel and Nvidia at equal price points in 99% of end user applications.

Just a pissing match, nothing more.
---
"Ok when Terramorphous dies we're all gonna whip our ***** out and whoever has the biggest one gets all the loot." - Gnarrkill
#33Pengu1nPosted 6/5/2014 6:00:52 AM
Blade_Kirby posted...
Because fanboys need to reassure themselves of their overpriced purchase.

There is nothing wrong with Intel's or Nvidia's products, but they charge too much for them only because AMD has been slandered with a reputation of being low-end. AMD matches Intel and Nvidia at equal price points in 99% of end user applications.

Just a pissing match, nothing more.


Exactly. It's peoples logic that more money = better quality
---
FX 6300, HYPER 212 EVO, 16GB DDR3, 7870 GHZ 2GB, 2TB HDD, 64 GB SATA III SSD, 12X BLU RAY, 750W PSU, X-FI FATAL1TY,WINDOWS 7
#34TropicMoon10Posted 6/5/2014 6:05:20 AM
I feel like a lot of the AMD hate comes from people with no real-world experience who just look at numbers and benchmarks and make conclusions out of that.

There's no doubt that Intel/Nvidia are better. You're paying more money so it damn better be. "Worse" does not = "Bad". The truth is you're going to get great performance no matter what you pick, and you should decide on the one that offers the best price and performance at the time with the features you want.

Super high-end users will always go Intel/Nvidia, that's fine. That not what AMD's target is. In the low to mid range market, they're quite competitive. They don't need to be better than Intel or Nvidia. Their approach has always been "Look, we're cheaper than the competition and we get the job done too." And that's worked out for them.
---
http://i.imgur.com/N9lTE.jpg
#35DarkZV2BetaPosted 6/5/2014 6:07:32 AM
KURRUPTOR posted...
DarkZV2Beta posted...
iemerg_ posted...
Just purchased a Sapphire R7 265 (came with $100 free games card) for $160 and the comparable 750TI has like 13% less performance... Also was looking at the FX line for CPU's and in comparison to the i5's and i7's they get notacably better performance in some gaming for a lot less...

so why does everyone trash talk AMD? been running them for YEARS and NVIDIA and I love them both. Sure AMD has a little bit worse driver compability but they have gotten better. I'm just wondering why people choose the 750ti over the r7 265 for the same price when the 265 craps on it.


Selective benchmark results can make AMD look great. Pick a very heavily threaded and amd-favorable benchmark, and WOW! This $200 AMD processor is as fast as a $350 intel processor! Amazing value! But then you play any CPU-limited game and it drops down to near-unplayable framerates when a $100 intel processor can handle it just fine.
It's a similar case for their GPUs because AMD's drivers are much more CPU heavy than nVidia's, to the point that vanilla DX11 on nVidia drivers can sometimes beat out AMD's own proprietary low-level GCN-only API in CPU limited scenarios.(which are usually where your lows are coming from anyway)

Basically, AMD is great where it doesn't matter, and sucks hard where it does.


I'm not saying AMD is better than intel in the cpu department but honestly what game is an 8350 going to drop your frame rate to "near un-playable"?

Also to TC: this board is blatantly Nvidia biased, like to the point of absurdity at times.


Anything remotely CPU demanding. SC2 can get low double-digits or even single digit framerates on AMD CPUs. Unreal Engine 3 games can often drop into the 30s in large areas, as well. Borderlands, for example, you can expect to drop into the 30-40 range on pretty much any AMD CPU at times.
There's also sourceports of old games, or anything on older versions of UE2. Unreal 2 it's self will drop into the 40s in some cases, even with settings turned down, and that game is from, what, 2003?
That's just not acceptable from a modern CPU, at all.
---
god invented extension cords. -elchris79
Starcraft 2 has no depth or challenge -GoreGross
#36SAfricanGamerPosted 6/5/2014 6:09:04 AM
Pengu1n posted...
SAfricanGamer posted...
AMD have lost the CPU war, they explicitly stated that they have no intention of competing with Intel at the High End market any more and instead they are focusing on price: performance ratio.

AMD GPU's however, are absolutely amazing.


That's not really a sign they have lost anything. If anything price to performance is a better move overall. AMD very rarely changes their socket configurations AM3+ sockets can use AM3 CPU's so a person who still has an AM3 CPU such as a Phenom II quad core or an older bulldozer AM3+ CPU can (if they are happy with their CPU) just buy a new motherboard. My six core runs at 3.5ghz and it runs anything i chuck at it and the CPU only cost me 80 an 8350 would only cost 150 and fits in the same socket.

Overall i am happy with AMD. If i was building a money no object PC i may choose intel but then again i might not.


It's not only that, Intel has a better (gaming) CPU at almost every price point atm.

AMD is going heavily into the mobile market as well with their APU's. Why do you think there will be no FX for almost 2 years?
---
I openly practise Theistic Satanism.
Do not let the word 'Satan' scare or anger you, the difference between Satanism and Theistic Satanism is light and day.
#37DarkZV2BetaPosted 6/5/2014 6:09:53 AM
Pengu1n posted...
DarkZV2Beta posted...
iemerg_ posted...
Just purchased a Sapphire R7 265 (came with $100 free games card) for $160 and the comparable 750TI has like 13% less performance... Also was looking at the FX line for CPU's and in comparison to the i5's and i7's they get notacably better performance in some gaming for a lot less...

so why does everyone trash talk AMD? been running them for YEARS and NVIDIA and I love them both. Sure AMD has a little bit worse driver compability but they have gotten better. I'm just wondering why people choose the 750ti over the r7 265 for the same price when the 265 craps on it.


Selective benchmark results can make AMD look great. Pick a very heavily threaded and amd-favorable benchmark, and WOW! This $200 AMD processor is as fast as a $350 intel processor! Amazing value! But then you play any CPU-limited game and it drops down to near-unplayable framerates when a $100 intel processor can handle it just fine.
It's a similar case for their GPUs because AMD's drivers are much more CPU heavy than nVidia's, to the point that vanilla DX11 on nVidia drivers can sometimes beat out AMD's own proprietary low-level GCN-only API in CPU limited scenarios.(which are usually where your lows are coming from anyway)

Basically, AMD is great where it doesn't matter, and sucks hard where it does.


A lot of websites can (and do) show a lot of bias towards intel. Infact there was a lawsuit a while back where AMD was claiming that intel had been paying the developer of a software company to insert lines of code in their program so that if you ran it on an AMD system it would run like crap but would run just fine on an intel system.

This blog from 2009 shows a user who found intel's 'biased CPU dispatching' and back then suspicions were raised that Intel's shady tactics had made their way into various benchmarking programs.

http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49#49


That site is in reference to Intel's compiler software gimping AMD performance, which is understandable. The "problem" is that intel's compiler is one of the best you can use for getting good performance on an x86 platform.
If AMD would release a competitive alternative, the problem wouldn't exists, but their own compiler even favors Intel CPUs largely.
---
god invented extension cords. -elchris79
Starcraft 2 has no depth or challenge -GoreGross
#38SAfricanGamerPosted 6/5/2014 6:17:05 AM
TropicMoon10 posted...
I feel like a lot of the AMD hate comes from people with no real-world experience who just look at numbers and benchmarks and make conclusions out of that.

There's no doubt that Intel/Nvidia are better. You're paying more money so it damn better be. "Worse" does not = "Bad". The truth is you're going to get great performance no matter what you pick, and you should decide on the one that offers the best price and performance at the time with the features you want.

Super high-end users will always go Intel/Nvidia, that's fine. That not what AMD's target is. In the low to mid range market, they're quite competitive. They don't need to be better than Intel or Nvidia. Their approach has always been "Look, we're cheaper than the competition and we get the job done too." And that's worked out for them.


Titan Z is $3000, Radeon R9 295X2 is $1500 and yields similar performance, it's an easy choice to make.

http://www.digitalstormonline.com/unlocked/images/articles/Nav/TitanZ/bf4.jpg
---
I openly practise Theistic Satanism.
Do not let the word 'Satan' scare or anger you, the difference between Satanism and Theistic Satanism is light and day.
#39DarkZV2BetaPosted 6/5/2014 6:17:13 AM
TropicMoon10 posted...
I feel like a lot of the AMD hate comes from people with no real-world experience who just look at numbers and benchmarks and make conclusions out of that.

There's no doubt that Intel/Nvidia are better. You're paying more money so it damn better be. "Worse" does not = "Bad". The truth is you're going to get great performance no matter what you pick, and you should decide on the one that offers the best price and performance at the time with the features you want.

Super high-end users will always go Intel/Nvidia, that's fine. That not what AMD's target is. In the low to mid range market, they're quite competitive. They don't need to be better than Intel or Nvidia. Their approach has always been "Look, we're cheaper than the competition and we get the job done too." And that's worked out for them.


AMD's only competitive CPUs are in the sub$100 market, and the FX6300. Maybe FX8320 for a render farm. That's their entire viable CPU market from a price-performance perspective.
On the other hand, Intel has better serverbait with their lower performance/watt ratio, better gaming CPUs, better high-end/enthusiast CPUs, better HTPC/SFF CPUs, and I believe they even have better mobile CPUs now. Plus, their APUs are catching up fast in terms of GPU performance, and already winning by a long shot in CPU performance.

AMD really isn't in a good position anywhere right now. Their GPUs are hot and loud, PS4 is the only next gen console selling and the console market continues it's decline despite a new "generation", Mantle isn't going anywhere anymore, they sold their mobile GPU division(which is now kicking serious ass for another brand, and actually keeping nVidia stuck in a corner on that market), nVidia has the scientific and professional GPU market, and they're eating up the mainstream/gaming GPU market pretty hardcore, and now the low-end GPU market that AMD still competes in is becoming less and less relevant, largely due to their own push towards APUs.

TBQH, AMD kind of shot themselves in the foot at every turn, and now they're stuck in a rut.
---
god invented extension cords. -elchris79
Starcraft 2 has no depth or challenge -GoreGross
#40NeoBillbinePosted 6/5/2014 6:31:49 AM
Blade_Kirby posted...
Because fanboys need to reassure themselves of their overpriced purchase.

There is nothing wrong with Intel's or Nvidia's products, but they charge too much for them only because AMD has been slandered with a reputation of being low-end. AMD matches Intel and Nvidia at equal price points in 99% of end user applications.

Just a pissing match, nothing more.


I'm waiting for someone to mention the need for a nuclear reactor to run an AMD only pc.
---
Pentium 3220, ASRock Z87E-ITX, H100i, 8GB RipjawsX DDR3, MSI GTX680, M4 64GB, 2TB Samsung F4, Corsair HX650, Obsidian 250D