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

Why the hate for AMD?

#81iemerg_(Topic Creator)Posted 6/5/2014 10:02:29 PM
mccue166 posted...
Pengu1n posted...
mccue166 posted...
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-processor-frame-rate-performance,3427-8.html
SC2 benchmarks. AMD CPUs perform worse than their Intel counterparts.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2013/11/05/amd-radeon-r9-290-review/9
R9 290 heat output.


2 Q's.

1) Where is the video evidence showing those FPS scores
2) With that GPU what version were they using? Were they using the card with the reference cooler or one made by a company like sapphire ot gigabyte that has a custom cooler on it.

The problem is without video evidence to show that the game performed worse on AMD than it did on Intel those scores cannot be taken seriously.


When I get home from work I'll post the video evidence. And yes reference coolers, if the Nvidia reference coolers perform well and cool adequately then the AMD ones should too. And why can't the scores be taken seriously?


Last I checked theres quite a few NVIDIA cards with cooling issues. It's common with both companies, things just get hot after awhile...
---
"Only real men can cook bacon shirtless" me
#82iemerg_(Topic Creator)Posted 6/5/2014 10:06:38 PM
ok I didnt run SC 2 MAXED out but 1440x900 high all around and even a little AA on an OCED 3800+/HD3850/
ANTEC380/MSI k9vgmv/2GB DDR2 667 and an avg of 50-60fps.

Basically ran it as well as any other nvidia/intel setup. Don't see why people think SC2 is a benchmark for gaming its not even graphics or cpu intensive... I have the PC sitting next to me that ran it, it's part of my LAN setup for CS/COD/SC and it runs SC2 perfectly I guess I'll have to make a video lol
---
"Only real men can cook bacon shirtless" me
#83iemerg_(Topic Creator)Posted 6/5/2014 10:07:49 PM
Man is the board full of blind fanboys it's hilarious guess I know why I stopped coming here >.<
---
"Only real men can cook bacon shirtless" me
#84mccue166Posted 6/5/2014 10:08:48 PM
iemerg_ posted...
ok I didnt run SC 2 MAXED out but 1440x900 high all around and even a little AA on an OCED 3800+/HD3850/
ANTEC380/MSI k9vgmv/2GB DDR2 667 and an avg of 50-60fps.

Basically ran it as well as any other nvidia/intel setup. Don't see why people think SC2 is a benchmark for gaming its not even graphics or cpu intensive... I have the PC sitting next to me that ran it, it's part of my LAN setup for CS/COD/SC and it runs SC2 perfectly I guess I'll have to make a video lol


When you say maxed out, to most people that means max settings, AA, 1920x1080p.

And didn't you give Nvidia crap because they were hotter. When someone provides evidence against the company you fanboy for, you make excuses. Be consistent.
---
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/zWg66h
#85mccue166Posted 6/5/2014 11:29:48 PM
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
#86iemerg_(Topic Creator)Posted 6/6/2014 12:45:41 AM
mccue166 posted...
iemerg_ posted...
ok I didnt run SC 2 MAXED out but 1440x900 high all around and even a little AA on an OCED 3800+/HD3850/
ANTEC380/MSI k9vgmv/2GB DDR2 667 and an avg of 50-60fps.

Basically ran it as well as any other nvidia/intel setup. Don't see why people think SC2 is a benchmark for gaming its not even graphics or cpu intensive... I have the PC sitting next to me that ran it, it's part of my LAN setup for CS/COD/SC and it runs SC2 perfectly I guess I'll have to make a video lol


When you say maxed out, to most people that means max settings, AA, 1920x1080p.

And didn't you give Nvidia crap because they were hotter. When someone provides evidence against the company you fanboy for, you make excuses. Be consistent.


I understand that but to me maxed out just means native res, high settings and some extra features with playable fps.
---
"Only real men can cook bacon shirtless" me
#87iemerg_(Topic Creator)Posted 6/6/2014 12:52:00 AM(edited)
mccue166 posted...
iemerg_ posted...
ok I didnt run SC 2 MAXED out but 1440x900 high all around and even a little AA on an OCED 3800+/HD3850/
ANTEC380/MSI k9vgmv/2GB DDR2 667 and an avg of 50-60fps.

Basically ran it as well as any other nvidia/intel setup. Don't see why people think SC2 is a benchmark for gaming its not even graphics or cpu intensive... I have the PC sitting next to me that ran it, it's part of my LAN setup for CS/COD/SC and it runs SC2 perfectly I guess I'll have to make a video lol


When you say maxed out, to most people that means max settings, AA, 1920x1080p.

And didn't you give Nvidia crap because they were hotter. When someone provides evidence against the company you fanboy for, you make excuses. Be consistent.


I'm not a fanboy being a fanboy of computer parts is honestly dumb which is why I made this topic but the amount of nvidia/intel fanboys is laughable and half with no idea what they're talking about and what is your point, yes nvidia gets hot most cards do? But in my reasearch as of late NVIDIA has made some pretty hot cards, hotter than amd's counter-parts and they also perform slower and cost more so why in my right mind would I choose nvidia over amd? Maybe Intel holds the CPU market but I'll be damned if I'm gonna spend $200 on an i3/i5 when I can spent $150 on a competitve performer like the fx cpu's.

People can say what they want but AMD has lead the industy as much if not more than Intel/NVIDIA, I've owned more nvidia cards than amd and still prefer amd, used to run intel until they charged rediculous amount for their motherboards when the i line came out, i switched to amd and have been happy they have a bad name because of fanboys and bandwagon riders. They held support for my HD3850 for over 4 years which is more than enough, they always ran cool and quiet and always overclocked well cost less and performed great.

I like both companies dont ge tme wrong but it just seems like intel/nvidia have become the MAC of hardware, it's expensive so it must be better right? wrong.
---
"Only real men can cook bacon shirtless" me
#88EpicKingdom_Posted 6/6/2014 12:54:22 AM
Terrible performance, that is all. Oh and software / support.
---
http://i.imgur.com/70oZMEb.png
#89DarkZV2BetaPosted 6/6/2014 2:08:10 AM(edited)
mccue166 posted...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgfRQBDVAQE
The video comparison.

Also,
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eg38RNYAs0A/UR1XpvgePiI/AAAAAAAAKYY/p2X3kO6967s/s1600/facts.gif


Those AMD numbers are right in line with what I was getting on a 960T at ~4ghz. IIRC, 1100T does better in this than higher clocked FX processors, so even the fastest AMD CPUs would still be hitting single digits most likely.
The video demonstrates a consistent 200%+ performance improvement in CPU limited scenarios for Intel.
---
god invented extension cords. -elchris79
Starcraft 2 has no depth or challenge -GoreGross
#90DarkZV2BetaPosted 6/6/2014 2:00:31 AM
iemerg_ posted...
mccue166 posted...
Pengu1n posted...
mccue166 posted...
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-processor-frame-rate-performance,3427-8.html
SC2 benchmarks. AMD CPUs perform worse than their Intel counterparts.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2013/11/05/amd-radeon-r9-290-review/9
R9 290 heat output.


2 Q's.

1) Where is the video evidence showing those FPS scores
2) With that GPU what version were they using? Were they using the card with the reference cooler or one made by a company like sapphire ot gigabyte that has a custom cooler on it.

The problem is without video evidence to show that the game performed worse on AMD than it did on Intel those scores cannot be taken seriously.


When I get home from work I'll post the video evidence. And yes reference coolers, if the Nvidia reference coolers perform well and cool adequately then the AMD ones should too. And why can't the scores be taken seriously?


Last I checked theres quite a few NVIDIA cards with cooling issues. It's common with both companies, things just get hot after awhile...


Such as?
I don't think nVidia cards have had cooling problems since Fermi.

iemerg_ posted...
ok I didnt run SC 2 MAXED out but 1440x900 high all around and even a little AA on an OCED 3800+/HD3850/
ANTEC380/MSI k9vgmv/2GB DDR2 667 and an avg of 50-60fps.

Basically ran it as well as any other nvidia/intel setup. Don't see why people think SC2 is a benchmark for gaming its not even graphics or cpu intensive... I have the PC sitting next to me that ran it, it's part of my LAN setup for CS/COD/SC and it runs SC2 perfectly I guess I'll have to make a video lol


Yes, I'm sure you "averaged" around 50-60fps when nothing was going on in 1on1s and WoL campaign. Just like a Pentium 4 could.
---
god invented extension cords. -elchris79
Starcraft 2 has no depth or challenge -GoreGross