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

Why the hate for AMD?

#41SinisterSlayPosted 6/5/2014 7:03:01 AM
SAfricanGamer posted...
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


In 10 years the titan z will still be supported.
---
He who stumbles around in darkness with a stick is blind. But he who... sticks out in darkness... is... fluorescent! - Brother Silence
#42SAfricanGamerPosted 6/5/2014 7:13:51 AM
SinisterSlay posted...
SAfricanGamer posted...
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


In 10 years the titan z will still be supported.


Irrelevant, in 10 years the same people that bought the Titan Z will buy the Titan AE for $30000.
---
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.
#43SinisterSlayPosted 6/5/2014 7:16:48 AM
SAfricanGamer posted...
SinisterSlay posted...
SAfricanGamer posted...
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


In 10 years the titan z will still be supported.


Irrelevant, in 10 years the same people that bought the Titan Z will buy the Titan AE for $30000.


Yes and they will sell the titan Z to someone else for much less, which keeps the used video card market alive.
---
He who stumbles around in darkness with a stick is blind. But he who... sticks out in darkness... is... fluorescent! - Brother Silence
#44iemerg_(Topic Creator)Posted 6/5/2014 7:39:46 AM
DarkZV2Beta posted...
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.


That's funny because I ran SC2 maxed on a X2 3800+ with 60fps... stop spewing bs people... this is the crap im talking about...
---
"Only real men can cook bacon shirtless" me
#45urtvPosted 6/5/2014 7:40:52 AM
pics or it didnt happen
#46iemerg_(Topic Creator)Posted 6/5/2014 7:42:57 AM
DarkZV2Beta posted...
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.


Once again their gpu's are hot and loud since when? most reports say they are quiet and cooler than most the nvidia counter parts...If Nvidia has the GPU market why are cheaper AMD gpu's better performing for less? I was recommended a r9 270 over a 750ti/660 10 days till friday for the price... I looked at benchmarks and they perform better.

I just call BS why so many crying about power? a good PSU can be had for under $100 that could run practically anything...
---
"Only real men can cook bacon shirtless" me
#47iemerg_(Topic Creator)Posted 6/5/2014 7:43:35 AM
urtv posted...
pics or it didnt happen


Eh I don't need to prove anything I know what I know I know what I saw SC2 isn't exactly demanding heh...
---
"Only real men can cook bacon shirtless" me
#48smelly_boobPosted 6/5/2014 7:47:28 AM
DarkZV2Beta posted...
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.


I didnt realize that console gaming is in decline.... these new consoles are selling at a rate faster than any previous generation... but maybe to you that means a decline
#49halomonkey1_3_5Posted 6/5/2014 7:49:02 AM
iemerg_ posted...
Eh I don't need to prove anything I know what I know I know what I saw SC2 isn't exactly demanding heh...


heh heh heh
---
Billy Mays: July 20, 1958 - June 28, 2009
The Greatest
#50hellmasterpPosted 6/5/2014 8:02:14 AM
SinisterSlay posted...
SAfricanGamer posted...
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


In 10 years the titan z will still be supported.


I find the mentality of this board funny, bash AMD for cutting support on older cards, yet tells people to replace their gpus every 2-4 years to stay up to date...
---
http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=557350 -my old mobo oc
http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2341052 -current mobo oc