Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

How come AMD sucks so much?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 23, 2006 3:19:32 AM

I mean Who cares even if the 5000+ X2 isnt a paper launch , Intel kicks its arse anyway.

Amd cost too much and performance is bad.


and this new 4x4 cpu will probably suck aswell.

What you guys reckon?

More about : amd sucks

August 23, 2006 3:29:50 AM

Quote:
What you guys reckon?


I reckon that without the Conroe launch my next PC was going to be with AMD, despite my over a decade of loyalty to Intel. I also reckon that AMD has, whether you like it or not, dominated the performance market for the past 3 years. Finally, I reckon that the only reason we saw the release of the Conroe at these price levels is due to the stiff competition AMD has given Intel. Competition, might I add, that has been lacking from Intel in the past 5+ years.

I'm glad Intel put themselves back in the top after so many years of playing second fiddle to AMD's releases. I also hope Intel can keep up the lead. That said, i'm glad AMD gave them a run for their money the last half decade and I hope they continue.
a c 480 à CPUs
a c 122 À AMD
a c 119 å Intel
August 23, 2006 3:36:00 AM

Quote:
I mean Who cares even if the 5000+ X2 isnt a paper launch , Intel kicks its arse anyway.

Amd cost too much and performance is bad.


and this new 4x4 cpu will probably suck aswell.

What you guys reckon?


AMD's Athlon doesn't suck. It's just that Conroe is so much better.
Related resources
August 23, 2006 3:44:13 AM

I reckon you're about to get flamed, because you sound like one hardcore Intel fanboy.

Yes, the 5000+ is pretty much a paper launch, and gets whipped by the E6600.

However, AMD's performance is far from bad; in fact, they now own the low end price-performance ratio. Seriously - would you buy a Celeron? Didn't think so.

Finally, you can't pass judgement on a platform that technically doesn't exist yet. Although, when has that ever stopped any of us? For all we know, AMD could just dumb down their server platform and market that to us as 4x4.

The only thing I'm wondering is how long it will take AMD to put out a competitive product.
August 23, 2006 3:47:23 AM

Quote:
Fanboys... can't live with them, can't kill them.

^^^^^ Why not??^^^^^
a c 102 à CPUs
August 23, 2006 3:49:06 AM

Quote:
Fanboys... can't live with them, can't kill them.

^^^^^ Why not??^^^^^

Laws.
August 23, 2006 3:50:33 AM

why does intel suck so bad?


lolerskates

they should be at 5-10 ghz by now according to them
August 23, 2006 3:58:29 AM

AMD are soo damm expensive though , its ridiculous , and their cpus dont even perform as good as Intels.
August 23, 2006 4:07:22 AM

Are you just wanting to get flamed? Start a flame war maybe? Cause even at that, you're miserably failing. Good day.
August 23, 2006 4:09:33 AM

Yeah - AMD's high end is more expensive and less powerful than Intel.

The dual core price/performance ratio as of August 18th. When you compare the two curves, one sees that AMD has the better price/performance ratio in the low end, wheras anywhere above $450 is oened by Intel.

But it's not like that graph matters.

Quote:
AMD are soo damm expensive though , its ridiculous , and their cpus dont even perform as good as Intels.

Tell me, were you saying this six months ago?
August 23, 2006 4:09:53 AM

man, as long as amd and intel continue to release outstanding cpus weve got nothing to loose or rant about, they just get cheaper all the time a new one comes out. I think your just bored and want to see your own posts thats all, please post something a tad more interesting, ya reckon yall could do that? Yunt to? 8O
August 23, 2006 4:10:29 AM

noob fanboy in the works, plz lock thread and ban Heyhey
August 23, 2006 4:15:33 AM

Intel took more than long enough to make a decent response to AMD.
August 23, 2006 4:16:57 AM

Dude, AMD whooped Intel's ass for YEARS!!

I've seen guys like you say things like "How come Intel sucks so much!!!" just 6 months ago...

So *why* these STUPID and POINTLESS threads?

I mean, sure, Conroe outperforms AMD. Intel took the lead back but that doesn't mean AMD sucks... AMD pwned Intel a few months ago. Don't you remember, punk?

If you think AMD *sucks* so much then go and masturbate over a Conroe already
August 23, 2006 4:24:38 AM

damn... too much fanboyism here in these kinda forums...

when intel is powerful: "HOW COME AMD SUCK BALLS?"

when amd is powerful: "HOW COME INTEL SUCK BALLS?"


when I see noob fanboys" "HOW COME U SUCK BALLS?"
August 23, 2006 4:25:27 AM

i kno why it sucks, cuz u tough urslef at night
August 23, 2006 4:25:33 AM

if you think AMD is expensive now.. you missed their pricing a month or so ago. THAT was expensive. (they do need the cash though). Anyways, AMD's chips rnt bad (u cant really say something like that to a chip maker that held the performance crown for 3 years in a row), Intel's are just good now. (about time, they had 5 years to come up with something, R & D had better not have been sleepin the whole time...) If anything both companies are doing their jobs. besides AMD still destroys all those preshotts intel is still making for the lower end market.
August 23, 2006 4:27:09 AM

Quote:
I mean Who cares even if the 5000+ X2 isnt a paper launch , Intel kicks its arse anyway.

Amd cost too much and performance is bad.


and this new 4x4 cpu will probably suck aswell.

What you guys reckon?


8O. Wow....Just wow.
August 23, 2006 4:28:51 AM

Intel is one step infront of AMD because of Conroe.

When AMD release their 4x4 platform, they will be one step infront of Intel.

I guess, Intel will suck then.

But wait, Intel will release Quad-Core in 2007.

This merry-go-round will carry-on forever. Neither of them suck.

Remember, we need this competition to advance technology and performance.
August 23, 2006 4:43:54 AM

Quote:
I mean Who cares even if the 5000+ X2 isnt a paper launch , Intel kicks its arse anyway.

Amd cost too much and performance is bad.


and this new 4x4 cpu will probably suck aswell.

What you guys reckon?



That you're a moron.
August 23, 2006 4:46:17 AM

Quote:
Dude, AMD whooped Intel's ass for YEARS!!
If you think AMD *sucks* so much then go and masturbate over a Conroe already


Here you go:

a c 480 à CPUs
a c 122 À AMD
a c 119 å Intel
August 23, 2006 4:49:35 AM

Quote:
AMD are soo damm expensive though , its ridiculous , and their cpus dont even perform as good as Intels.


Try and get the following into your thick head, it will serve you well:

Before the release of Conroe, AMD's Athlon X2 dominated most of the benchmarks and prices were much higher than they are night now. Even the single core Athlon 64 could beat a comparable Pentium 4 in all the benchmarks except multimedia.

Netburst just wasn't performing the way Intel thought it would. I'm waiting for that stock speed 5GHz Pentium 4, nevermind the predicted 10GHz Pentium 4. Netburst simply sucked. It was very fortunate that Intel's Isreali team developed the Pentium M CPU, which was basically a Pentium III / 4 hybrid. The Pentium M became the basis for the Conroe design.

Intel finally realized that GHz was no longer king. AMD proved that to Intel time and time again. A good CPU architecture is the key. Intel took the lesson they learned from AMD and threw it back in their face. The slower clocked Conroe can perform better than a faster clocked Athlon. That's basically because Conroe can process 4 instructions per clock cycle, as opposed to only 3 that the Athlon 64 and Pentium 4 can do (it's a bit more technical than that).

AMD was erroding Intel's market share. Conroe is Intel's answer to take back the performance crown, but they have a trick up their sleeves. It's called a "price war". Conroe was deliberately priced to force AMD to reduce their prices to remain competitive which also errodes their (and Intel's) profit margins.

AMD is finally on the defensive as they try to get their K8L CPU ready for production.
August 23, 2006 4:57:09 AM

Quote:
Dude, AMD whooped Intel's ass for YEARS!!
If you think AMD *sucks* so much then go and masturbate over a Conroe already


Here you go:



rolf! thanks I was missing that :D 
August 23, 2006 5:04:21 AM

AMD does not suck that much, and BTW they are actually extremely cheap right now. X2 4800+ for $300 is a great price. Although I admit the worst conroe can beat it, it is still cheap. So dont start making assumptions, AMD performance is not BAD, it is actually really great, its just that conroe is better.
August 23, 2006 5:18:08 AM

What are you talking about dude? Where were you for the past three years? AMD has done very well, and where dominating, but theres always going to be something better, it can't be the best forever, but eventually AMD with come out with something better, its all a see saw type thing.

By the way AMD is doing pretty well at dominating in the lower end market, where they have better performance/price ratio.

And how can you even say the performance of an AMD is bad??? 8O
August 23, 2006 5:22:57 AM

AMD does not suck.they will come into their own.just wait and see.they were at the top for 3 years,just because intel took it from them,as they took it from intel,does not make them suck.yes i am a fanboy of AMD.But that's because my Intel buys were nasty.but i also feel that amd is there for the little guy.us gamers well we will pick and choose things based on performance,not always dollars.anyways have fun,just my opinion.

Dahak

EVGA NF4 SLI MB
X2 4400+@2.4 S-939
2 7800GT'S IN SLI MODE
2X1GIG DDR400 RAM IN DC MODE
WD300GIG HD
520WATT PSU
EXTREME 19IN.CRT MONITOR
August 23, 2006 5:35:35 AM

Quote:
Dude, this thread is really inappropriate. AMD does not make sucky products.

Man, alot of cruddy threads today.

This thread should be locked.

jack
I bet this is that Towely dufus, who was causing sh*t in here yesterday. He probably got banned, and came back under a new account.
August 23, 2006 5:43:33 AM

AMD really SUCKKSS , they should be coming out with something straight away .

AMD chips are really unstable and crash alot , intels are more stable .

9 inch and Baronmatrix are stupid AMD fanboys.
August 23, 2006 6:01:00 AM

Quote:
AMD really SUCKKSS , they should be coming out with something straight away .

AMD chips are really unstable and crash alot , intels are more stable .

9 inch and Baronmatrix are stupid AMD fanboys.


Im beating your a retard that has escaped from a mental instition and has done way to much mastrubation.

AMD cpu`s dont suck, and havnt done so since K6. Get your fingers away from your tiny penis and use the for a search on Google. AMD has dominated the preformance segment of the market for several years now.

As far as i know their are no non issues or proof for that matter on AMDs cpus being unstable and causing crashes, care to send me a link on that.

Now. Please do the world a big favour by crawling back to the abortion bucket you came from.
August 23, 2006 6:07:09 AM

why do you make a new profile for a flame war?
a b à CPUs
August 23, 2006 6:07:29 AM

Quote:
I mean Who cares even if the 5000+ X2 isnt a paper launch , Intel kicks its arse anyway.

Amd cost too much and performance is bad.


and this new 4x4 cpu will probably suck aswell.

What you guys reckon?

What do I reckon? I reckon you got a flaming coming :twisted: . You are a misinformed person who has no idea what he is talking about. Intel have sucked for years and its about time they have done something worthwhile. The athlon 64 was the death knell of the pentium 4 when it comes to price/performance ratio and energy efficiency. Athlon 64s ran cooler and more efficiently than anything intel had (thanks to no ones friend netburst). Just look at benchmarks done before conroe was released and you will see that AMD generally tops most of the benchmarks.
Quote:
AMD really SUCKKSS , they should be coming out with something straight away .

AMD chips are really unstable and crash alot , intels are more stable .

9 inch and Baronmatrix are stupid AMD fanboys.

Oh dear... Yes 9 inch is a fanboy but AMD does not suck. Dude what if Intel never had conroe? Would you still say AMD sucks and buy a nice toasty presscot instead? The market constantly swings around and you obviously havent been in it long enough to learn anything except all that conroe hype. Get your facts before making such a stupid thread.

And no im not an AMD fanboy because I would definitely buy intel chips if they were better (which thy now are). Besides most people dont even need the power that conroe has and so why would they pay for such an expensive chip when they can pick up an X2 3800 for half the price? AMD has excellent performance for its price its just that intel now has the performance upper hand (which previously belonged to AMD for you strongly needed information).

EDIT: And no AMD chips are not unstable where did you get that from? I only own AMD chips and I've had no problems with them? Someones been playing with too many intel fanboys. :lol: 
a b à CPUs
August 23, 2006 6:12:55 AM

You know, it's about time Intel did something right for once! They have been losing to AMD for 3 years now! Competition is a great thing and we all benefit! Think about it! If AMD flopped back in 1997, we still would be running Pentium 3's! Yes, because back in 2001, when AMD had a 1 Ghz chip that was blowing the 1 Ghz Pentium 3 out of the water, Intel was forced to launch the Pentium 4. Now, since AMD has been blowing any Intel desktop CPU's out of the water FOR 3 YEARS, Intel had to do something! What did they do? The Conroe! So, for now, Intel has the performance crown BUT AMD has the best bang for the buck! The X2 3800+ for $150 is a sweet deal! It's faster than the my 630 Prescott and runs a lot cooler. To me, AMD is the better chip for the money. I don't care about the top of the line. For the longest time, a 2.5Ghz Celeron kept me happy. In other words, I wish everyone would quit riding the Conroe hype and figure out what they want a machine to do. If AMD is the better chip, then, buy an AMD.
August 23, 2006 6:18:13 AM

Quote:
AMD really SUCKKSS , they should be coming out with something straight away .

AMD chips are really unstable and crash alot , intels are more stable .

9 inch and Baronmatrix are stupid AMD fanboys.

If Conroe wasn't out yet the AMD cpu's would still be the fastest. Would they still suck being the fastest and all?

I'm guessing that Intel came out with conroe 3 years ago when AMD started to dominate but they wanted to give them a sporting chance and only released it now??? Of course not you imbecile!!!!!

It's been what, just about 1 month or so since conroe was released and just because AMD is not on top for 1 month they all of a sudden SUCK???

Get your head examined. Someone lock this thread, this is pointless. Please can it not go on as long as the "very old pc" thread? Pretty please...
August 23, 2006 6:54:41 AM

AMD does not "suck". The AMD cpus are still great; Intel just put out something better. AMD now has a challenge ahead of them, but I am sure they are working hard on 4x4 and K8L and when those come out, things will swing back their way.

Frankly, the new Intels are not as impressive as we are made to think. In order to combat AMDs superior architecture using a 90nm die, Intel had to go to a 65nm die. Once AMD puts out a 65nm cpu, let's take another look and see how things compare.
August 23, 2006 7:12:39 AM

Quote:
AMD really SUCKKSS , they should be coming out with something straight away .

AMD chips are really unstable and crash alot , intels are more stable .

9 inch and Baronmatrix are stupid AMD fanboys.


OMFG, dude stfu, go away, someone delete this is a totally useless topic, this guy is stupid.
a b à CPUs
August 23, 2006 7:17:08 AM

Hes either missing a massive part of his brain, he has regressed to a mindless idiot, or hes just making a stupid thread so he can laugh as other people get so fired up about his stupidity. Either way this thread is a waste of TGF server resources.
August 23, 2006 7:21:25 AM

whats wrong with intel : nothing!

What wrong with AMD: everything!!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 23, 2006 7:29:12 AM

I guess this thread should be deleted due to the suckiness of a certain person.
August 23, 2006 7:36:43 AM

Quote:
I guess this thread should be deleted due to the suckiness of a certain person.
Now i've seen it all......8 year olds posting on Tom's. :evil: 

PS. Not directed at you, "Fluff". :wink:
August 23, 2006 7:47:48 AM

Quote:
I guess this thread should be deleted due to the suckiness of a certain person.
Now i've seen it all......8 year olds posting on Tom's. :evil: 

PS. Not directed at you, "Fluff". :wink:
LMAO
August 23, 2006 7:56:23 AM

Quote:
whats wrong with intel : nothing!

What wrong with AMD: everything!!


This thread is really funny. It's a joke, and everyone has fallen for it. :lol: 
August 23, 2006 8:21:40 AM

Quote:
whats wrong with intel : nothing!

What wrong with AMD: everything!!


This thread is really funny. It's a joke, and everyone has fallen for it. :lol: 




I agree 100% with you bixplus, i have had a great laugh today reading this. thanks guys for the entertainment. :D  8) :lol: 
August 23, 2006 8:42:05 AM

yeah maybe AMD outperforms Intel in speed these past years but what about in sales did AMD do better than Intel?
August 23, 2006 8:50:43 AM

Quote:
AMD are soo damm expensive though , its ridiculous , and their cpus dont even perform as good as Intels.


Why do you say that AMD's are expensive? What is all wrong with the AMD chips?

I see nothing wrong. I had a friend that went from a P4 to an AMD Athlon64 and he like it better then the P4
!