Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Tired of defending AMD

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 27, 2009 10:29:44 PM

Ok so here is my final analysis of everything I have seen on these forums in my short span on here.

1) Nearly everyone is obsessed with quad cores (even though there is hardly any software out there capable of this multi-threading capability)

2) Intel is a superior cpu

My thoughts: So? The economy is in an eternal nose dive, yet people find excess of two to three hundred dollars or more on a processor.

Ok, I need to say this just because it makes sense to me. This is just my two cents worth though.

How many computer gamers are there in the world?
How many businesses are there in the world that use computers?.

Most PC owners do little to no gaming, unless you are a hardcore tech person with rendering and video editing and etc, the technology is beyond our ability to produce software consistently for it.

Soon enough, Intel is going to have the Xeon 8 core processors out this year. It is a server cpu, but it's on the horizon.

Intel = overkill to me.
AMD = sensible solutions to today's economy of budget, necessity and pure reason.

If I am a company using hundreds of computers if not thousands of computers, and I had the choice of making a purchase on new computers for all my associates. My choices were an AMD 64x2 (highest price right now is 84.99(?)ish) and Intel E8500 (187.99) and I could get the same production out of all my associates regardless of which one I chose, which would I choose? I choose AMD because I just saved my company a hundred thousand dollars on a thousand units of pc's.

Intel has the market on lock for high-end graphics-defined computers.
But some people need to see the demographic of this economy as a whole and understand that AMD isn't trying to get the hardcore gamer or the graphic design artists, or cad designer. I see AMD as a company that see's the whole picture of the computer industry, both small and large.

I'm not sure if they care that they are selling more phenom II 920s than intel is selling the core i7. Because overall I think the economy leans more towards their price/performance ratio than Intel could ever imagine doing.

But, thats just my opinion. Call me crazy.

More about : tired defending amd

February 27, 2009 10:48:03 PM

jlvitt said:
Ok so here is my final analysis of everything I have seen on these forums in my short span on here.

1) Nearly everyone is obsessed with quad cores (even though there is hardly any software out there capable of this multi-threading capability)

2) Intel is a superior cpu

My thoughts: So? The economy is in an eternal nose dive, yet people find excess of two to three hundred dollars or more on a processor.

Ok, I need to say this just because it makes sense to me. This is just my two cents worth though.

How many computer gamers are there in the world?
How many businesses are there in the world that use computers?.

Most PC owners do little to no gaming, unless you are a hardcore tech person with rendering and video editing and etc, the technology is beyond our ability to produce software consistently for it.

Soon enough, Intel is going to have the Xeon 8 core processors out this year. It is a server cpu, but it's on the horizon.

Intel = overkill to me.
AMD = sensible solutions to today's economy of budget, necessity and pure reason.

If I am a company using hundreds of computers if not thousands of computers, and I had the choice of making a purchase on new computers for all my associates. My choices were an AMD 64x2 (highest price right now is 84.99(?)ish) and Intel E8500 (187.99) and I could get the same production out of all my associates regardless of which one I chose, which would I choose? I choose AMD because I just saved my company a hundred thousand dollars on a thousand units of pc's.

Intel has the market on lock for high-end graphics-defined computers.
But some people need to see the demographic of this economy as a whole and understand that AMD isn't trying to get the hardcore gamer or the graphic design artists, or cad designer. I see AMD as a company that see's the whole picture of the computer industry, both small and large.

I'm not sure if they care that they are selling more phenom II 920s than intel is selling the core i7. Because overall I think the economy leans more towards their price/performance ratio than Intel could ever imagine doing.

But, thats just my opinion. Call me crazy.


Crazy! ;) 

Your POV is valid as long as you want it to be. For every instance of "AMD X2" you could substitute "Intel E5200" with the same validity. It is not AMD vs Intel, at all. It is merely about which class of CPU you need. Intel produces CPU's that are competitive with AMD from a pricing standpoint.

And we're not even looking at mobile CPU's, where Intel leads AMD pretty handily, doing more work per watt.

CPU's are cheaper now than they've ever been. So is RAM, hard drives, etc.

AMD is trying to get the hardcore gamer, otherwise why bother with the higher-end Radeon video cards?
February 27, 2009 11:12:19 PM

I haven't been able to say AMD was ahead of Intel in awhile and I probably won't be able to.

I am just trying to see it from an economical, budget standpoint.

GPU's really aren't that valid of an argument for the gamer at this point because you can get the same performance in all-but-one game (we all know what it is) with a dual core as you could with a quad core. Most games are still single or dual threaded apps.

I can't deny Intel has AMD smoked on performance - but price/performance and demographic are my reasoning in this madness.
Related resources
February 27, 2009 11:55:53 PM

I don't have any brand loyalty at all. I always based my purchased on value, though I don't want junks.

Intel Celeron 300A was one of my best buy. Overclocked it to 450mhz which performed almost as good as the PII 450 which cost so much more. When I had to upgrade, they all were AMD products (AMD 1800xp and AMD64 3000+). They were just superior to Intel product at the time. However, it appeared and still appear that majority of people still see CPU = brand (intel). It strange but a fact that most people still sticked with Intel even though their products were inferior yet cost more (i.e AMD64 vs P4).

Recent years, C2D and quad are so good, obviously the love are even more. They are that good that made me wanted to get one for my upgrade. But before it happened, Intel released i7 and AMD launched P2.

It was a hard decision, but I end up with P2 (AM2+). It has nothing to do with AMD vs Intel. It just pure "value" point of view.
Those "value" I realised in the P2 AM2+ are:
- Instant upgrade (no need to wait for AM3 version)
- DDR2 was way cheaper compare to DDR3 with almost identical performance
- Upgradeability - I still can drop an AM3 cpu on my mobo in the future (subject to bios upgrade, it may not).
- P2 is blazing fast for my need.
- It is a cheaper platform.

I will see things the same way on any other things in life. I never vote in my life, but if I have a chance, I'm sure I will vote for the best candidate with the best idea and not stubbornly vote for some one because he is from democrate or liberal, lol.

In the end, it's your money... spend it on something that will keep you happy... not the manufacture.

a b à CPUs
February 27, 2009 11:57:02 PM

AMD had caught up quite a bit on desktop performance and Intel's new server part is still some time away.

I imagine AMD is picking up on market share with the new Phenom II's which has got to be good for the consumer.

Since the global ecomony carshed and burned it is a different world.

A PII or a Yorky gaming box is a good proposition ... compared to an i7 you can't get credit to buy.

Thankfully powerful graphics cards are now much cheaper which is the clincher.

With AMD's new 40nm GPU line coming online we will see even cheaper mid range parts.



February 28, 2009 12:24:20 AM

jlvitt said:
I haven't been able to say AMD was ahead of Intel in awhile and I probably won't be able to.

I am just trying to see it from an economical, budget standpoint.

GPU's really aren't that valid of an argument for the gamer at this point because you can get the same performance in all-but-one game (we all know what it is) with a dual core as you could with a quad core. Most games are still single or dual threaded apps.

I can't deny Intel has AMD smoked on performance - but price/performance and demographic are my reasoning in this madness.


I understand your point, but to classify this as "AMD vs Intel", as you did in your 1st post, just doesn't make sense.

Intel doesn't make CPU's just for the elite. I'm sure they have plenty of data on their CPU sales, and to which market segments. Heck, look at the Netbook market - Intel designed a CPU for it before the term "Netbook" was even in use.
February 28, 2009 12:29:02 AM

Another thread where some clown is giving us his understanding of what's best.

How about this, buy what you want and stop trying to give me the benefit of your understanding.

I swear, one more of these stupid threads and...
a b à CPUs
February 28, 2009 1:00:13 AM

... we wouldn't get to see you folding up n00bs and putting them into boxes to be shipped out on the B Ark.
February 28, 2009 1:57:51 AM

Zorg said:
Another thread where some clown is giving us his understanding of what's best.

How about this, buy what you want and stop trying to give me the benefit of your understanding.

I swear, one more of these stupid threads and...



it was never about what's best!

i dont like amd or intel either way at all

maybe it came across with that 'notion'

usually anyone who gets so defensive as mr. zorg usually has one brand of shoes,socks, jeans, motherboard, cpu, etc etc that he/she likes and sticks to it because it is what he "knows"

take a class in economics and you will understand my ideology or idiology, whatever you want to call it, means nothing to me. it's my opinion and that's it.

I could definitely be the most dense, uneducated and biggest 'noob' on this forum. But guess what? You read the post didn't you?

It wasn't my "understanding of whats best" it was my understanding of the basic economy could understand my logic without their Intel bias interfering.

It's just too bad that people or so focused on the social construct that has been created by the mass media that we have today.

It's pathetic.
February 28, 2009 2:02:35 AM

well if u understand UR own opinion, y don't u leave it that way. U understand the views here and yet are taken back when we don't give a damn
It's our money and we like it that way. If u can only afford x and someone else can afford y, then y is it ur business to question him??

February 28, 2009 2:16:38 AM

even more so - trying to defend AMD topic

could mean anything

trying to defend amd's logic - yes they are behind on technology, but not as far as Intel bias people make them out to be.

I am trying to defend AMD's business process altogether. The entire pc parts process altogether.

There are people out there, like you zorg who will buy kraft cheese and kraft cheese only because you don't care how much it cost because lets just say hypothetically you are the richest person on tomshardware, ok? You buy kraft cheese because hypothetically it is also the 'best'. But Borden's comes out with an equal product or if not equal very similar or maybe even just a bit under in cheese benchmarks 3dCheese06 ok? It scores 20% less points on your cheese-o-meter but cost half as much. That's a 30% price/performance value ratio of savings. It is a marginal but effective purchase.

So let's see. Is it about intel vs amd? No. It's simple economics. People want to buy things on budget now, they save money to do so.

I wrote this post because so many times I have seen so many people say Intel to a person who can get almost as much if not as much quality at a price point that is effective for them. The average upgrade time for a typical pc user is 3-4 years. What does this mean? That the latest is usually so future proof that the next processor that comes out probably won't land in their system and if it does the price will be at a value-point rather than a top-of-the-line pc. Computers are so fast right now that the basic user on a budget doesn't need a core i7 965 with 2 4870x2s quadfire - the latest technology doesn't even require that to game. not even a phenom II with 4870x2's .

Im talking about choosing the right cpu for you, and a lot of times for the non gamer typical cpu user, business and family alike, amd's price/performance ratio is good.

I am tired of defending that to Intel people because they are the one's who are so defensive when AMD is brought into a conversation. I mention AMD in a thread on here and it's like I placed a hex on their closest family members.

I'm just providing options that no one else seems to mention because most people are obsessed with Intel not really having AMD as a viable option. Ever.
February 28, 2009 2:16:49 AM

I dont think hes questioning anyone, its more this: In the past, AMD had superior products, but because of the marketing from Intel, they continued to outsell AMD quite handsomely. I can see where people being brought along on the hype/marketing cart idea in this. Thing is, this is no longer the case. Intel does have better products now, and while I understand that MT isnt used all that often, a quad is a nice thing to have. But, the quad isnt just Intels idea, its also AMDs, so theyre to blame here as well. What Intel can be blamed for along this line of thought is Atom. For their greed, and the way they want it, the lil cpus wont ever get into systems that are more diversified, like a full functioning lappy. Problem with this line of thought is tho, its planned obsolescence, being that as we go into smaller nodes, multi cored cpus wont require as much power anyways, and will eventually be found in the smaller forms anyways. You can bet itd be a different world if AMD was going 32nm next year, then Intel would HAVE to rethink their usage of Atom.
So, yesterday this applied, not as much today, but I do see the OPs point, and it is somewhat relevant even today
February 28, 2009 2:22:38 AM

my opinion is my right you dont have to read it - but if you do - it gives me a reason to type more about it. so there ya go.
February 28, 2009 3:55:31 AM

jlvitt said:
my opinion is my right

Best line yet
February 28, 2009 5:41:20 AM

Look at everything around you though. They want you to buy top of the line stuff when you can easily take your time examine whats the best thing to buy for a good price. Amd being one of them. If you have the dough and the means to buy the top of the line i7s then go nuts man its your money. But if you are on a budget especially with todays economy then Hell yeah Intel should bring their stuff down. But just because Intel makes top of the line stuff doesnt mean you have to buy it.. Its up to the consumer whats best for him. So I think its up to us as "gamers" or anyone with a half a brain to know that not always is a good idea to buy the best when you can get almost the same for a much lower price. and IM okay with that because Im not going to spend a crapload on a cpu when i know I can get a cheaper one.

Jlvitt speaks his mind and has the right to. just like we have the right to not read this and call it crap. Its also our decision to buy whats best and stop supporting companies that you dont agree with. I always wanted intel but ended up going with amd because its cheaper in my case. maybe its not yours. Your choice though
February 28, 2009 9:46:25 AM

jlvitt said:
usually anyone who gets so defensive as mr. zorg usually has one brand of shoes,socks, jeans, motherboard, cpu, etc etc that he/she likes and sticks to it because it is what he "knows"
Nope, just sick of these BS AMD/Intel threads. Why don't you do a search and join one of the 10,000 BS AMD/Intel threads already started.
jlvitt said:


take a class in economics and you will understand my ideology or idiology, whatever you want to call it, means nothing to me. it's my opinion and that's it.
I have a degree in Economics with a second major in Marketing. I don't want to hear your ideology.
jlvitt said:
I could definitely be the most dense, uneducated and biggest 'noob' on this forum. But guess what? You read the post didn't you?
And I'm sorry I did.
jlvitt said:


It wasn't my "understanding of whats best" it was my understanding of the basic economy could understand my logic without their Intel bias interfering.

It's just too bad that people or so focused on the social construct that has been created by the mass media that we have today.

It's pathetic.
Blah Blah Blah.

Here is a video for you to watch little Billy.

February 28, 2009 10:38:30 AM

hehehe...this is fun...i care less of the brand of processor... i care more of stability and availability of parts for long term use in our company...whenever Dell, HP or lenovo supports 3/3/3yr warranty...i go for the best bang for buck.. corporate use is a little different than the ones i get at home... I think its in volume sales really matter to both
February 28, 2009 10:39:38 AM

The thing is Intel is also competitive in the budget market, so I don't actually understand your point :??:  :??: 
February 28, 2009 10:40:53 AM

HP even still selss Core 2 Duo 4XXX based parts in Asia for corporate market...
!