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

why are most people against amd?

#41Cool_Dude667Posted 9/3/2014 3:07:13 PM
Amd is perceived as cheap, loud, hot, and shaky driver support compared to the green team
---
Not changing this sig until Christ returns -- Started 30 A.D
3770K @ 4.2Ghz | 16GB Corsair Vengeance | GTX 670 SLi
#42DarkZV2BetaPosted 9/3/2014 3:38:38 PM
KURRUPTOR posted...
DarkZV2Beta posted...
Because they actually make a competitive product.
Blame AMD for Intel not improving performance. The lack of competition is why.


Blame AMD for Intel using very anti consumer business practices? I understand they don't need big improvements but why release something at all when the changes are so miniscule? It's because so many idiots keep upgrading anyways. If any thing is to blame it's the idiots who keep upgrading when they have barely increased performance at all since sandy bridge how many years ago.

Intel does a lot of shady crap, they've even been caught red handed paying off people to make their CPUs look better.

Like I said when ea re releases a new cod every year that has little to no improvements people around here laugh and say how crappy they are and don't understand why people would keep buying them. When Intel does the same thing people go nuts over the next big CPU and drop hundreds for a new CPU (plus motherboard since Intel can never use the same socket twice.

Yet somehow the hate falls on AMD for this according to fanboy logic.


For the same reason nVidia and AMD both rebadge existing mobile chips with a new number; OEMs want something new to sell.
At least in the case of intel, they continue to make architectural improvements, reduce TDP, and implement useful new instructions for future software to make use of. Nobody is forcing you to buy the new product if you don't want it.
On the other hand, if AMD actually made a competitive product, Intel would have a reason to improve performance.

And, no, no one goes nuts over Intel's lack of performance improvement. When Ivy Bridge came out, people recommended everyone to stay on Sandy Bridge unless building a new machine because there was no point upgrading. Same with Ivy and Haswell. It will be the same with Haswell and Broadwell.

And, also, Intel actually has used each consumer socket twice since Sandy Bridge, and LGA2011 has lasted even longer. So, wrong again.
---
god invented extension cords. -elchris79
Starcraft 2 has no depth or challenge -GoreGross
#43Nightmare2398Posted 9/3/2014 3:52:07 PM
im not against AMD, their i built my friend a computer using AMD parts and it's an amazing value for the money. But the high end intel is better.
---
Xbox Live Gamertag: VegetarianEater
"This is very heavy, and this, may I remind you, is on fire." -Moony (Moony and Broon Show)
#44KURRUPTORPosted 9/3/2014 4:03:44 PM
How does any of that explain how intels anti consumer practices (like cheaping out on thermal paste, or paying off software companies, or constantly increasing new tech prices rather than lowering previous) is AMDs fault. Like I said when ea does very similar stuff people scoff at them. When Intel does it it's perfectly ok.

Intel is an anti consumer company, it's as straight forward as that. The fact that AMD gets blamed for that just makes no sense at all. It's the consumers that continue to support their bad business that deserve the blame.
---
Drugs are never the answer, unless the question is what isn't the answer.
#45GunmaN1905Posted 9/3/2014 4:11:25 PM
Haley Joel Osment posted...
GunmaN1905 posted...
Boge posted...
Nvidia is where the cool kids play.

AMD is still the better performance for the $. They're noisier and hotter, but faster.

I prefer Nvidia at this time because of the heat and noise issue. I have a mini ITX machine and I really enjoy it being as silent as possible.

My silent@30c idle vapor-x sapphire 280x says hi.

Then you run Minecraft at 800x600 and nobody can hear it say anything any more over the vacuum cleaner noise. It's a generally accepted fact that AMD cards are hot, noisy and fail much more quickly than Nvidia ones.


What? Are you so blinded by your fanboysim?
Sure, nvidia has some features like physx and gsync with AMD doesn't, but if you compare cards with similar price AMD just blows nvidia out of the water.
Stock cards might have overheating issue, that's why you buy card with a custom cooler.
I've had 9800gt that failed year and a half after purchase. Sapphire 5870 lasted me 4.5 years and it still works, I just decided to upgrade.
280x can run metro on ultra @1080p, fyi. I got it for 250ish new.
What can you get from nvidia for that money
#46PraetorXynPosted 9/3/2014 4:25:22 PM
GunmaN1905 posted...
Haley Joel Osment posted...
GunmaN1905 posted...
Boge posted...
Nvidia is where the cool kids play.

AMD is still the better performance for the $. They're noisier and hotter, but faster.

I prefer Nvidia at this time because of the heat and noise issue. I have a mini ITX machine and I really enjoy it being as silent as possible.

My silent@30c idle vapor-x sapphire 280x says hi.

Then you run Minecraft at 800x600 and nobody can hear it say anything any more over the vacuum cleaner noise. It's a generally accepted fact that AMD cards are hot, noisy and fail much more quickly than Nvidia ones.


What? Are you so blinded by your fanboysim?
Sure, nvidia has some features like physx and gsync with AMD doesn't, but if you compare cards with similar price AMD just blows nvidia out of the water.
Stock cards might have overheating issue, that's why you buy card with a custom cooler.
I've had 9800gt that failed year and a half after purchase. Sapphire 5870 lasted me 4.5 years and it still works, I just decided to upgrade.
280x can run metro on ultra @1080p, fyi. I got it for 250ish new.
What can you get from nvidia for that money


$250 is about 5.6 hours' work for me, so I really don't care.

People do exaggerate how loud and hot AMD's cards are, but the fact remains that they are louder and have much higher TDP than Nvidia cards (particularly the R9 290 series, which run obscenely hot, even if they're designed for it I consider it a poor design).

If you want raw performance for the lowest price you get an AMD GPU. If you want efficiency and performance you go with Nvidia.

AMD's CPU's on the other hand really shouldn't ever be used. There is no longer a price point where they beat Intel in price/performance ratio.
---
Console war in a nutshell:
http://imgur.com/xA6GJZ9.png
#47JKatarnPosted 9/3/2014 4:26:58 PM
Billy Trance posted...
You get what you paid for. AMD has no quality issues. You pay for the same generation CPU at different prices. Intel's economic i7 performs about 7% better than AMD's equalvalent eight core 8120. However they charge 90% more prices for being the best of the two.


How incredibly misinformed - EVERY electronics manufacturer has/has had quality issues at some point or another, it comes with the territory.
---
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
#48JKatarnPosted 9/3/2014 4:29:02 PM
TropicMoon10 posted...
AMD is good

Intel is better

Only question is whether or not the extra performance is worth a higher price tag for you

screw da h8trz


It's not just extra performance, it's lower power draw, lower heat etc. - the larger case/extra fans etc. you may have to buy to offset the heat on your overclock very may well have bought you an Intel CPU. I've got no irrational hatred of AMD, indeed I wish them well as a competitive market is healthy and good for consumers, but there are valid reasons people pay extra for Intel that go beyond branding.
---
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
#49JKatarnPosted 9/3/2014 4:36:16 PM
Billy Trance posted...
You guys make amd sound like super nintendo and intel sounds like a ps4. There difference in performance is not that great. it's like ps3 and wii tops.


LOL - you do realize that on a technical level the PS3 absolutely crushes the Wii, right? I own both, I would know. You're comparing a machine with the equivalent of a 3.2 GHz Power-PC multi-core CPU and a 7800GT to something with a newer variant of the old G3 processor and ~745 Mhz and what is effectively probably somewhere in the the range of an old Radeon X300/400 performance-wise. Oh, and the PS3 has more than twice the usable RAM of the Wii. I'd look for a better comparison.
---
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
#50GoldninjaPosted 9/3/2014 5:59:32 PM
JKatarn posted...
Billy Trance posted...
You guys make amd sound like super nintendo and intel sounds like a ps4. There difference in performance is not that great. it's like ps3 and wii tops.


LOL - you do realize that on a technical level the PS3 absolutely crushes the Wii, right? I own both, I would know. You're comparing a machine with the equivalent of a 3.2 GHz Power-PC multi-core CPU and a 7800GT to something with a newer variant of the old G3 processor and ~745 Mhz and what is effectively probably somewhere in the the range of an old Radeon X300/400 performance-wise. Oh, and the PS3 has more than twice the usable RAM of the Wii. I'd look for a better comparison.


Yeah, Nintendo wasn't going for power that time around.
---
You guys just took a dump on my soul - mastahjebus