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

Why the hate for AMD?

#91HighwayPilotPosted 6/6/2014 1:12:19 AM
I'm happy with my AMD cards, but the driver and z-buffer(making some older 3D games unplayable) issues do annoy me.
#92PhilOnDezPosted 6/6/2014 6:23:15 AM
iemerg_ posted...
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.


Gotta love how every AMD/AMD apologist has their own custom version of 'maxed/60 fps' that's anything but.

No, SC2 isn't terribly GPU intensive even on max. The campaign isn't terribly CPU intensive either. Competitive SC2 though is literally the hardest you can push a CPU while gaming. 1v1 will just limp along on even a 4960X once a match gets going but when you get 4 players in one match you're lucky to maintain double digits during battles. I really have no idea where you're hearing that SC2 isn't CPU intensive, it's been pretty common knowledge since the game released.
---
Every time I try to go where I really wanna be it's already where I am, 'cuz I'm already there
XBL, PSN, Steam, Origin, BSN, GFAQs, MC: PhilOnDez
#93ThePCElitistPosted 6/6/2014 6:47:25 AM
I've had just terrible experiences with AMD GPU's for years now. This always happens to me.

1. Buy AMD GPU
2. Install AMD GPU
3. Install Drivers (Attempts packaged disk) - Drivers fail to install
4. Download official AMD Driver detection utility - Drivers fail to install
5. Download latest drivers from AMD's website - Drivers fail for some ungodly reason
6. Try step 5 again. Success!

Every *******g AMD GPU I've purchased has had these same issues happen.
---
When I'm Miq'ote
http://youtu.be/h3LGf9SSWrU
#94ShebeskiiPosted 6/6/2014 10:55:21 AM(edited)
DarkZV2Beta posted...
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.


Facts are pretty strong here. Looks pretty damn indisputable. Most anti AMD (for CPUs) people are people who have transitioned, not people who have never used one. Seems like a common misconception. People don't like to think haters have experience, or even more experience than the fans. Unless you're going for a budget build to play BF, there's not a lot of reasons to go AMD on the CPU end.
---
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. - Christopher Hitchens
#95mccue166Posted 6/6/2014 10:52:19 AM
Shebeskii posted...
DarkZV2Beta posted...
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.


Facts are pretty strong here. Looks pretty damn indisputable. Most anti AMD (for CPUs) people are people who have transitioned, not people who have never used one. That's a common misconception. You realized how shafted you were saving 50 bucks. It wasn't even a deal.


That's exactly what I've done. I had a Phenom II 965, got an FX 6300 and now I've got a 4700k. It's a night and day difference.
---
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/zWg66h
#96JKatarnPosted 6/6/2014 1:59:10 PM
It's not everyone, it's a select few users. Most PC gamers are fairly hardware-agnostic and buy whatever works best for them at the time. I personally think AMD makes fine hardware, but their drivers/driver setup/removal process leave something to be desired, but I certainly don't "hate" them. Competition is a very good thing for consumers.
---
Asus P8Z68-V LE | Core i7 2600K | 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws DDR3 | Gigabyte GeForce GTX 660 Windforce OC
PS3 | PS2 | PSP| Wii | 3DS | DS | X-Box 360 | X-Box | NES
#97KamenRiderBladePosted 6/6/2014 2:27:54 PM
What I don't understand is why people want there to be only 1 CPU company to exist?

It's like they can't realize how bad the CPU world will get if Intel was left to it's own devices without any competition.

What we see now with the incremental performances on the "Tick-Tock" model, while impressive in it's own right having a consistant 5-15% increase release after release, is still a far cry from the leaps and bounds of improvement from when AMD was fiercely competing with Intel and AMD was on top at the time.

If the next major desktop CPU AMD releases is competitive with Intel, I gurantee you that Intel will release a product that offers a larger performance increase than their "Tick-Tock" model will offer.
---
Are you a MexiCAN or a MexiCAN'T - Johnny Depp 'Once Upon A Time in Mexico'
#98TiredofhearinguPosted 6/6/2014 2:28:34 PM
Because pc owners don't have a console war to call their own so they made one up with Nvidia/intel vs amd. Yet they actually will go and make fun of the console war, then come back here and continue their own lil war... hmmm says a lot about the pcmaster race
#99KamenRiderBladePosted 6/6/2014 2:33:27 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haswell_%28microarchitecture%29#Haswell_refresh

Performance

Compared to Ivy Bridge:

Approximately 8% better vector processing performance.[9]
Up to 6% faster single-threaded performance.
6% faster multi-threaded performance.
Desktop variants of Haswell draw between 8% and 23% more power under load than Ivy Bridge.[9][10][11]
A 6% increase in sequential CPU performance (eight execution ports per core versus six).[9]
Up to 20% performance increase over the integrated HD4000 GPU (Haswell HD4600 vs Ivy Bridge's built-in Intel HD4000).[9]
Total performance improvement on average is about 3%.[9]
Around 15 C hotter than Ivy Bridge, while clock frequencies of 4.6 GHz are achievable.[12][13][14][15][16][17]
---
Are you a MexiCAN or a MexiCAN'T - Johnny Depp 'Once Upon A Time in Mexico'
#100BambooPandamoPosted 6/6/2014 2:50:56 PM
KamenRiderBlade posted...
If the next major desktop CPU AMD releases is competitive with Intel, I gurantee you that Intel will release a product that offers a larger performance increase than their "Tick-Tock" model will offer.


People have been saying this for YEARS. Because Intel isn't challenged they don't the need to further their R&D, which hurts everyone. I'm not going to buy AMD because I wanna support the little guy, I want the fastest and cheapest processor out there. AMD doesn't even have the price-performance title anymore.

Intel having a monopoly isn't something that's far ahead in the future, it's already here. AMD is on life support because they practically begged Sony and Microsoft to produce the garbage APUs on current generation consoles. That and price gouging cryptocurrencies newbies with $1,500 GPU mining kits.

Every day I wish I could go back in time and stop myself from buying AMD, it's my life's biggest regret. It's not just us that hate AMD, even their employees posted bitterly about the shifting leadership roles in the company (CEOs basically leaving the door every other month). The biggest failure being the Bulldozer saga, boy oh boy, what a saga.