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

why are most people against amd?

#11TheEntitledOnePosted 9/2/2014 8:19:57 PM
I wouldn't be against AMD if they didn't lay back and let Intel + Nvidia roll them over. They got lazy with their CPU technology , Intel issued supreme smackdown with Core i7, and they never recovered.
---
I got your number! I got all your numbers!
#12unsanePosted 9/2/2014 8:33:00 PM(edited)
TheEntitledOne posted...
I wouldn't be against AMD if they didn't lay back and let Intel + Nvidia roll them over. They got lazy with their CPU technology , Intel issued supreme smackdown with Core i7, and they never recovered.


I wouldn't say they got lazy; I think a better assessment is that they were in the business of manufacturing processors alongside a company that literally dominated the market, with tens of millions of dollars -- equal to the total value of AMD as a company at the time -- being dumped back into Intel's R&D. AMD wasn't even in the race to be realistic, they just came along at a time when Intel was taking a break to have a Gatorade when they launched the Athlon XP. In fact, AMD's K series chips were named as an homage to Kryptonite, and a jab at Intel for being nearly indestructible in the market -- so it's not as if AMD didn't know what it was getting into. It understood the odds it was up against.
---
This website is best viewed with eyes open.
#13DarkZV2BetaPosted 9/2/2014 8:53:57 PM(edited)
I'd say they got lazy. They were making improvements to the consumer CPU market with things like dynamic clockspeed, multi-core CPUs, 64bit extensions, and some of their own custom instruction sets that could improve performance in key areas.
However, they haven't made any significant improvements in a very long time, and Intel not only adopted their innovations, but improved upon them greatly, and took them much further with things like powering off unused components and boosting clockspeed when TDP allows.

What has AMD actually brought to the market lately? "moar hertz! moar coarz! moar powur!"
When they set out to acquire ATi, and failed to move forward with their plans to merge the CPU and GPU like they had intended to do with nVidia originally, they just fell behind, and didn't do anything new or innovative. On the flipside, nVidia pushed in on general processing on the GPU, completely dominating that market without any real competition for years, and Intel recently started moving in on the prospects of combining the integrated GPU processing with discrete graphics processing, essentially eating up the market that AMD failed to create.

It's a damn shame, since we owe so much in modern x86 processors to AMD, but they just really aren't doing anything anymore.

ATi also contributed a lot before merging with AMD, and slowed right down after the fact.
Hopefully they can pick up the slack long enough for GDDR6 to roll along.
---
god invented extension cords. -elchris79
Starcraft 2 has no depth or challenge -GoreGross
#14Erik212Posted 9/2/2014 8:46:30 PM
They're working on HSI and other research that will advance computing down the road, more than Intel is. They just stopped working on increasing their performance per clock in their CPUs, basically the only thing that Intel is doing better than them. That's also the only thing that matters for games, so I don't blame people for not knowing about their other projects.
---
Another idea I had was the spy/sniper being able to climb into the soldier's rocket launcher and be launched across the map, dealing more damage, but no splash.
#15unsanePosted 9/2/2014 8:55:46 PM
I'm not making an argument for AMD; I'm stating it's a silly idea that an entire corporation just woke up one day and collectively decided it didn't want to go to school that day. They were making improvements, yes, but those were small strides that were fated to be outpaced by Intel's congruous development and eventual release of its core architecture. This was a years in the making scenario where there was nothing AMD could have done, even wittingly, to have kept up with Intel's eventual pace -- it's a matter of logistics, and financing. It wasn't in the cards for them, and surely wasn't after Intel further solidified its market dominance. You see laziness, I see a company in the follow through of strategies that were ineffective by their own predestined obsolescence.
---
This website is best viewed with eyes open.
#16Celll212Posted 9/2/2014 8:59:08 PM(edited)
AMD as a CPU maker is on the way out. They did well for a time, but intel really stepped up their game offering far better performance over the AMD counterpart.

Edit: When I say it's on it's way out, I feel the company might focus more on laptops and prebuilts, not so much higher end custom rigs.


Clock speed isn't king anymore like it once was, nor is more cores. That will only add heat and power consumption. It's all about how the CPU handles information these days. The more efficient the better. You could have the fastest CPU in the world and it won't mean a damn thing if how it handles the information its being fed, poorly.
---
|CM HAF 932|I7-4770k @3.5GHZ|8GB Patriot Viper 3@1600MHZ|MSI Twin Frozr 7950|Antec Quattro 850|Samsung Evo 840 120GB|
#17TimePharaohPosted 9/2/2014 8:58:07 PM
Because second place is last place in a two man race. Might as well be a peasant at that point.
#18DarkZV2BetaPosted 9/2/2014 8:58:39 PM
Intel has been advancing CPU/GPU integration in consumer products with z68 chipsets, improving idle and load power management, implementing new high performance instruction sets, and generally pushing technology forward.
Outside of mantle, trueaudio, and sharing CPU and GPU memory, I haven't heard of a damn thing AMD's been doing that's even worth mentioning.
---
god invented extension cords. -elchris79
Starcraft 2 has no depth or challenge -GoreGross
#19beautifuldreamsPosted 9/2/2014 8:59:12 PM
amd still dominates the home consoles
---
nyuuuuuuuuu~
#20LionsLeePosted 9/2/2014 10:59:21 PM
Im a supporter of AMD graphic chipest but not CPU.