Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Why all the AMD hate, guys?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2009 3:10:20 AM

Let us stop the fanboyism and acknowledge AMD's market strategy - the AVERAGE consumer not troubled by synthetic benchmark scores or maxing our Crysis. I see too much hate going on from both camps - let us make love not war. But in reality anyone who 'hates' AMD needs a friggin reality check. Intel will not be on top forever - anyone remember the Athlon series? People were sure AMD would lead the way forever after that.

More about : amd hate guys

a b à CPUs
December 19, 2009 3:31:05 AM

troll thread

but yes i agree
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2009 3:54:49 AM

werxen said:
Let us stop the fanboyism and acknowledge AMD's market strategy - the AVERAGE consumer not troubled by synthetic benchmark scores or maxing our Crysis. I see too much hate going on from both camps - let us make love not war. But in reality anyone who 'hates' AMD needs a friggin reality check. Intel will not be on top forever - anyone remember the Athlon series? People were sure AMD would lead the way forever after that.

I don't hate AMD,

If anything, as a company, I rather like AMD (especially ATi). I used to work for ATi and was quite fond of the way they treated their employees. When I ran my own computer business, I ran it as an authorized AMD reseller. I found AMD to be quite the willing company. They would assist with marketing materials (banners, signs etc) as well as marketing and sale strategies.

I found AMD to be quite the good partner. By contrast, Intel was never good to us white and grey box sellers. Intel was too busy pleasing the large OEMs and seemed to ignore us small guys.

But there is a difference, to me, between Corporatism, Favoritism and the facts. The fact is that I am a performance enthusiast. I enjoy building highly overclocked rigs tweaked to perfection. This leads me to be the candidate who is the least able to be biased. I buy what performs best. Brand Loyalty is not something I strive for (in fact it's a nuisance).

What has irritated me is that certain individuals love for a brand (fanbois) have begun spreading lies and misinformation in an attempt to dupe would be buyers into supporting their favorite brand. So you have the willfully ignorant leading the ignorant into acting as mouth pieces, in forums, for all things AMD (there was a time when this fanboyism affected Intel just as well).

I despise these individuals and my fight against them leads me to sound as though I were allied with the Intel camp (this has been the case since around 2006 when the Core 2 Duo was released). Should the performance crown move from Intel to AMD... I can assure you that you will see my purchasing decisions move as well.

I am quite certain that most users are just like me in that regard.
Score
0
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2009 4:01:29 AM

Quote:
The I5 750 beat the 965 in 23 out of 25 tests on A and A tech's review. It's not fanboism to not buy intel.. It's actually knowing how to read and buying the better product.

Newegg :

I5 750 - 199.99
Cheapest 1156 MB - 89.99

Total : 289.99

X4 965 - 185.99
Cheapest AM3 Board - 54.99

Total : 240.98

Difference : 49.01

If you're too cheap to spend the extra 50 bucks for the BETTER product then god help you


Totally correct on the performance aspect - Intels top of the line totally beats AMDS top of the line in pretty much 99% of the benchmarks. But the point is - it beats it marginally. Nobody really needs a quad core with 8 threads total, at least not he average consumer of products which make up the majority of the consumer market. That being said - performance wise there is not a difference between Intel and AMD. The only difference is that yes - $50 DOES make a selling point, Psycho. It is not that people are 'too cheap' or 'too ignorant' to dish up another $50 to buy an Intel processor - they just do not see the point when the comparisons shown are too marginal to bring up a reasonable explanation to do so. Damn you throw $50 around like it is nothing but that is my cell phone bill for the month. As a struggling college student - that is a big deal. The majority do not see the difference is my point and because of this I am praising AMD for their marketing strategy.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2009 4:10:57 AM

The problem with your point of view is that you are talking about the average consumer. And like you said the average consumer doesn't care about benchmarks. So how will they know that Intel is on top by a marginal amount? They don't care about percentages or even know where to find them. Even if you say that AMD is AS GOOD as Intel in the entry to mid level PC, the consumer only care that Intel has the best chip at the top.

It's like how most people would rather have a standard BMW 3 series versus Ford Taurus SHO. The sho has all the right stuff, but it's no BMW.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2009 4:14:54 AM

PsyKhiqZero said:
The problem with your point of view is that you are talking about the average consumer. And like you said the average consumer doesn't care about benchmarks. So how will they know that Intel is on top by a marginal amount? They don't care about percentages or even know where to find them. Even if you say that AMD is AS GOOD as Intel in the entry to mid level PC, the consumer only care that Intel has the best chip at the top.

It's like how most people would rather have a standard BMW 3 series versus Ford Taurus SHO. The sho has all the right stuff, but it's no BMW.


You just totally contradicted your own point. If people do not know of the benchmarks as you stated the average consumer does not then why would they dish up extra for an Intel cpu? I think you should revise your point again because it makes absolutely no sense the way it was presented.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2009 4:21:08 AM

Because the average guy will ask their geek friend or the guy at Best Buy "who makes a better chip" and the geek guy or the guy at Best Buy, so tired of giving the rational explantion and having to watch the average guys eyes glaze over, will say Intel.

edit: incorrect use of they're which should be their
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2009 4:21:29 AM

Yes, some people only want whats the best out there, others however view things differently. I personally hate Intel with a passion. I acknowledge that they currently have the best cpu, but they purchased that crown. Ill stop there and keep on the topic.

In my perspective, when you buy a product from any company, you support that company and how they do business. I worked for Creative Tech support and certain products we would not support on an AMD processor. This was in 1998-2000. Customers had to call and get lucky enough to get the right tech who would help them install what they purchased. Most of these were the early dvd decoder cards and a few other products. Once installed everything worked just like its supposed to.

On the other side of things, I have had issues with early Nvidia cards, and huge driver issues with thier newer cards. This shoves me away from supporting (by purchasing) or trying another Nvidia card. Granted they may be much better now, but I have been burned twice already, I don't go for thirds.

So where does my money go? It goes to the company that I have never had problems with and that we need around and need to stay alive. I have never had a problem with AMD cpus nor ATI video cards. I know in my mind I didn't pay for products that forced people out of their jobs. I am completely happy with my computer even if the one next to me is running 5% faster.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2009 4:24:29 AM

noob2222 you bring up a good point. Certainly, there have been boycotts against several companies because of how they do business - much like iPhone fanboys complaining about ATT yet they still stick with them because its the best phone in their minds. People need to wake up and realize that the company they buy things from are being directly supported - but this is another topic :p 
Score
0
December 19, 2009 4:37:03 AM

point is is 750 at 2.6ghz is beating x4 965 at 3.4ghz so a intel process at 2.6ghz is the equivelant of a amd processor at 3.4 ..... seems to me intel is stretching its lead each time they bring out a new cpu .
Score
0
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 19, 2009 4:55:26 AM

werxen said:
Let us stop the fanboyism and acknowledge AMD's market strategy - the AVERAGE consumer not troubled by synthetic benchmark scores or maxing our Crysis. I see too much hate going on from both camps - let us make love not war. But in reality anyone who 'hates' AMD needs a friggin reality check. Intel will not be on top forever - anyone remember the Athlon series? People were sure AMD would lead the way forever after that.


I think this goes both ways. People tend to only see people "hating" AMD not the other way around.

If you want performance (not only gaming) Core i5/Core i7.

If you want budget then Phenom II X4.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2009 4:59:31 AM

I actually am in favor of both companies. I love and hate them both equally - I hate Intel for charging so much and I hate AMD for having 'inferior' products relative to Intel but I understand both companies are in a harmony with each other. Let us say that Intel goes bankrupt and the only consumer chip manufacturer is AMD. You know what would happen? We would have a huge bog down on hardware keeping up with software for a very long time. Intel is keeping AMD in check and I predict a turn around in performance in the next 10-15 years in favor of AMD. Intel has no real aspiration of keeping this lead going - why would they? They have the most innovative product right now. AMD is the brainchild of the next big CPU. Ask any economist, it always works like this. Rarely do you see a company maintain utter dominance of a market.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2009 7:55:41 AM

i dont favor any company if it does what i want at the right price i buy it
Score
0
a c 172 à CPUs
December 19, 2009 10:19:56 AM

Don't hate AMD. Hate AMD fanboyz.

Zilog forever!
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2009 1:44:49 PM

methix0r said:
point is is 750 at 2.6ghz is beating x4 965 at 3.4ghz so a intel process at 2.6ghz is the equivelant of a amd processor at 3.4 ..... seems to me intel is stretching its lead each time they bring out a new cpu .

This is a prime example of Intel's marketing strategy, advertise a cpu at 2.6 that runs at 2.8-3.2 depending on what app its running. It never runs 2.6 unless you disable turbo mode.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2009 1:48:51 PM

Quote:
The I5 750 beat the 965 in 23 out of 25 tests on A and A tech's review. It's not fanboism to not buy intel.. It's actually knowing how to read and buying the better product.

Newegg :

I5 750 - 199.99
Cheapest 1156 MB - 89.99

Total : 289.99

X4 965 - 185.99
Cheapest AM3 Board - 54.99

Total : 240.98

Difference : 49.01

If you're too cheap to spend the extra 50 bucks for the BETTER product then god help you



I am on a tight budget and i can't afford taht. the thing is for 50 dollars less you are also getting support for newer processors. The thuban will be an AM3 chip, so if i get an AM3 mobo now i will be set in terms of upgradibility for the next few years, and it will be the best the flagship of AMD

if i get the i5 on
1156 then i am settling for second best, i won't be able to get the best i7 because that one won't have the integrated pci e controller and such.

the thing is with AMD you can keep the same parts and only change one at a time and get the flagship with the right mobo, and it isn't as expensive as buying an i7, Triple channel DDR3 , and an X58 mobo: their flagship setup

with amd i can almost the same performance results for atleast 150 USD less
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2009 1:50:25 PM

its not an excuse, its the truth, people think that the 750 is a 2.6 ghz cpu when truthfully it never runs that slow, even with 4 cores running. My comment has nothing to do with performance, its a statement on how intel is marketing thier new chips.

Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2009 1:51:47 PM

Upendra09 said:

if i get the i5 on
1156 then i am settling for second best, i won't be able to get the best i7 because that one won't have the integrated pci e controller and such.
less



What are you talking about? The i5 has the intergrated pci-e controller.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2009 2:49:26 PM

BadTrip said:
What are you talking about? The i5 has the intergrated pci-e controller.


Yeah it does but my point was the i5 is a second rate chip, not the flagship of Intel

the i7 is obviously going to be more expensive

the phenom is AMD's flagship and if you bought the mobo RAM and CPU together.... the AMD setup will be atleast 150 USD cheaper

note i am talking about the best setup here so i mean things like: X58 mobo , Triple channel DDR3 RAM, i7 920

and for AMD: 790x mobo, phenom 965, dual channel DDR3 ram

now if you compare the phenom to the i5; the second best lineup, and u say that i5 better than the phenom; true

then u say the i5 is worth the 50 dollars extra: false

with the phenom you are getting DDR3 RAM, flagship processor, and AM3 socket which is the newest. Now in the i5 you are settling for the second best. less features in it than the i7 and phenom.

now the thing with phenom is it is on the newest socket and it is the flagship so now the new processors that are AMD's future flagship will be supported on the AM3 mobo, like Thuban the 6 core behemoth. now whether you need six cores or not is a different topic.

With the i5 you are settling for second best and when a new processor comes out, you can't get it because you have an inferior socket. even right now, u can get an i7 for the 1156 socket but it doesn't have all the features of the original i7.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2009 3:06:37 PM

Upendra09 said:
Yeah it does but my point was the i5 is a second rate chip, not the flagship of Intel



Since the 965 gets bested in most things by i5 "second rate chip," does that make the 965 a third or fourth rate chip? :kaola:  :kaola:  :kaola:  :kaola: 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2009 3:06:47 PM

that isn't the point here

i am saying that with a phenom and AM3 socket you can have a flagship processor and newer top end proceessors by changing only one part compared to 2-3 parts in the LGA 1156
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2009 3:10:14 PM

Quote:
I have a feeling Thuban isn't even going to match the lowest level 1136's



I agree with you for the most part. I dont see Thuban, being 45nm, having very high clocks due to the heat it will output. If that is the case, Thuban will only win the heavily muti-threaded benchmarks, and in gaming i would think the performance would go down compared to the 965.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2009 3:11:23 PM

Upendra09 said:
that isn't the point here

i am saying that with a phenom and AM3 socket you can have a flagship processor and newer top end proceessors by changing only one part compared to 2-3 parts in the LGA 1156



You also could buy VIA's flagship processor, but I dont want it.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2009 3:23:10 PM

you are an idiot
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2009 3:30:09 PM

Let's see, I am an idiot.

Who gets the facts all confused? Me or You?

Who gives bad advice everytime they try to help someone? Me or You?

Who has no clue what they are talking about 99% of the time? Me or You?

OK, I am the idiot. :sarcastic:  :sarcastic:  :sarcastic:  :sarcastic: 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2009 3:59:51 PM

noob2222 said:
This is a prime example of Intel's marketing strategy, advertise a cpu at 2.6 that runs at 2.8-3.2 depending on what app its running. It never runs 2.6 unless you disable turbo mode.


Based on this comment, all review sites should OverClock the i5-750 to 3.4Ghz and disable Turbo Mode, and then compare it to the AMD chip. Now let's see how big the performance gap is. You just shot your argument in the foot.

I'm a fan of AMD personally. I own 3 AMD cpus, 2 x Athlon X2 3500+ and 1 x Athlon X2 4400+. And I was a HUGE AMD supporter back in the day of the Athlon Thunderbird 1.4Ghz CPU. I owned one and thought it was the stuff. But let's face facts. The last two CPU generations, Intel is rocking AMD's world. It's just plain and simple, black and white. That's the only reason why my last two CPU upgrades have been Intel based (Q6600 & i5-750). Not because I'm a fan of Intel, or an AMD hater, but because I can read. And when the statistics are in plain English (and I'm capable of reading English) it's pretty simple.

An i5-750 @ 2.66Ghz (Turbo Mode of 2.8-3.2Ghz for argument sake) can outperform an AMD Phenom II @ 3.4Ghz the majority of the time. Also keep in mind, Intel's Turbo Mode is supposadly only capable of OC'ing the chip when it's intensely using a single core. Not in a fully optimized multi-threaded benchmark.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with buying an AMD Phenom II processor. They are great processors, and are fantastic specifically because of their budget minded marketing scheme. So for your average joe, or even a lot of gamers, it's a perfect choice. However, if you're willing to spend money to get the best, Intel is literally the best at this point.

And who cares if the PII 965 is the "Flagship" product of AMD, that has no bearing as to how it compares with buying an i5-750. In fact, if you ask me personally (as a consumer) the fact that Intel's "bottom end" new CPU is better than AMD's "Flagship" is pretty sad.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2009 4:05:57 PM

@jerreece +1

I still have a 1.4 thunderbird around here somewhere. It was a great chip, but i could never get mine to overclock. It wouldnt boot at even a 100mhz bump. Could have been the stupid VIA chipset.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2009 4:14:04 PM

BadTrip said:
@jerreece +1

I still have a 1.4 thunderbird around here somewhere. It was a great chip, but i could never get mine to overclock. It wouldnt boot at even a 100mhz bump. Could have been the stupid VIA chipset.


Yeah back in the Thunderbird day I was such a big AMD fan, I actually have a duffel back and a small suitcase with AMD logos on them that I got FROM AMD. I worked for a major retailer and sold AMD products back then. Still use the AMD suitcase too! Works great for me, since being a man I don't have to pack a ton of stuff. And the duffel is perfect carry-on size for plane trips. :) 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2009 4:20:23 PM

well i might get flamed for this but amd is better then intel when comparing apples to apples ,amd is least a gen behind intel yeah intel got the core i series now but its their second gen 45nm cpu's the am3's is only amd's first gen 45 nm cpu's for aguments sake it would be fairer comparing intels first gen 45nm cpu's to amd's 45nm cpu's
Score
0
December 19, 2009 4:24:06 PM

In time, without market corruption, we will see more of a balance IMO.

OEMs will be open for distribution of AMD parts, and word of mouth will spread from there.
Look at the recomendations here, as it all comes down to budget, and as long as AMD can compete within certain budgets, its an option thatll always be there, plus the mindshare of OEMs, which has been severely curtailed in the past, which will no longer be the case.
In the end, its all up to each company and its current perf, unlike the past where we saw Intel severly dominating AMD with lessor parts, or before I start controversy, at least slightly better parts on the AMD solutions.
If that happens again, marketshare as well as mindshare will go up for AMD
Score
0
December 19, 2009 4:34:41 PM

Upendra09 said:
that isn't the point here

i am saying that with a phenom and AM3 socket you can have a flagship processor and newer top end proceessors by changing only one part compared to 2-3 parts in the LGA 1156


what are you talking about.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2009 4:42:40 PM

earl45 said:
what are you talking about.



if you could find a translator, everyone would be most grateful. lmao
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2009 4:43:35 PM

read my two previous posts
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2009 5:22:18 PM

Upendra09 said:
Yeah it does but my point was the i5 is a second rate chip, not the flagship of Intel

the i7 is obviously going to be more expensive

the phenom is AMD's flagship and if you bought the mobo RAM and CPU together.... the AMD setup will be atleast 150 USD cheaper

note i am talking about the best setup here so i mean things like: X58 mobo , Triple channel DDR3 RAM, i7 920

and for AMD: 790x mobo, phenom 965, dual channel DDR3 ram

now if you compare the phenom to the i5; the second best lineup, and u say that i5 better than the phenom; true

then u say the i5 is worth the 50 dollars extra: false

with the phenom you are getting DDR3 RAM, flagship processor, and AM3 socket which is the newest. Now in the i5 you are settling for the second best. less features in it than the i7 and phenom.

now the thing with phenom is it is on the newest socket and it is the flagship so now the new processors that are AMD's future flagship will be supported on the AM3 mobo, like Thuban the 6 core behemoth. now whether you need six cores or not is a different topic.

With the i5 you are settling for second best and when a new processor comes out, you can't get it because you have an inferior socket. even right now, u can get an i7 for the 1156 socket but it doesn't have all the features of the original i7.


None of this makes sense. Your logic is flawed.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2009 5:29:49 PM

becareful you might get called an idiot. lol
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2009 5:38:23 PM

what's wrong with it?
Score
0
December 19, 2009 5:41:18 PM

noob2222 said:
This is a prime example of Intel's marketing strategy, advertise a cpu at 2.6 that runs at 2.8-3.2 depending on what app its running. It never runs 2.6 unless you disable turbo mode.


So you're complaining that Intel are advertising their CPU at a _LOWER_ clock rate than it actually runs at?

Intel just can't win: if they call it 2.6GHz and it actually runs single-threaded at 3.2GHz, then AMD fanboys will whine. If they call it 3.2GHz and it drops to 2.6GHz when running all four cores, then AMD fanboys will whine.

Personally I have nothing against AMD and buy their chips whenever they're the better price/performance choice for whatever I'm doing (in fact, the fastest PC in the house is an AMD). But the AMD fanboys really make the company they supposedly support look bad.
Score
0
December 19, 2009 6:51:41 PM

You can't underestimate a good CPU and this is why the extra cost for Intel is always better. AMD is simply slow and terrible in everyday. If You encode a lot of video you might want to take a little nap if you're using an AMD .The AMD Phenom 2 is an expensive door stop.

It all end in tears with AMD :ouch:  :ouch:  :ouch:  :ouch:  :ouch:  :ouch:  :ouch:  :ouch:  :ouch: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgOmMAasqto

Choose Intel :) 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2009 7:15:50 PM

I remember that video. Very fun experiment, but I dont think it means anything today.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2009 7:49:41 PM

MarkG said:
So you're complaining that Intel are advertising their CPU at a _LOWER_ clock rate than it actually runs at?

Intel just can't win: if they call it 2.6GHz and it actually runs single-threaded at 3.2GHz, then AMD fanboys will whine. If they call it 3.2GHz and it drops to 2.6GHz when running all four cores, then AMD fanboys will whine.

Personally I have nothing against AMD and buy their chips whenever they're the better price/performance choice for whatever I'm doing (in fact, the fastest PC in the house is an AMD). But the AMD fanboys really make the company they supposedly support look bad.

Its not directed at Intel, but rather the idiots who think the cpu they just bought is a 2.6 ghz cpu. Same concept of it overclocking from 2.6 to 4.0... false claim, its going from 2.8-3.2 to 4.0

But it sure sounds a lot better if you can say its a 2.6 ghz running at 4.0.

Nowhere did I complain about Intel, in fact its a good marketing move since thier cpus are better than advertised. Idiots don't realize that and think thier "slow" cpu is faster.

Hopefully AMD will implement this into thier bulldozer core, after all, thats what the cross liscense is for.

As far as reviews go, Id like to see someone try to slow the I5 down enough that its disabled turbo has the exact same benchmark as enabled. Im betting it won't happen.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2009 8:25:29 PM

does that really happen w/ old AMD CPUs?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2009 8:27:09 PM

Upendra09 said:
I am on a tight budget and i can't afford taht. the thing is for 50 dollars less you are also getting support for newer processors. The thuban will be an AM3 chip, so if i get an AM3 mobo now i will be set in terms of upgradibility for the next few years, and it will be the best the flagship of AMD

if i get the i5 on
1156 then i am settling for second best, i won't be able to get the best i7 because that one won't have the integrated pci e controller and such.

the thing is with AMD you can keep the same parts and only change one at a time and get the flagship with the right mobo, and it isn't as expensive as buying an i7, Triple channel DDR3 , and an X58 mobo: their flagship setup

with amd i can almost the same performance results for atleast 150 USD less

I see what you're saying but what you're saying doesn't make logical sense.

Thuban will be an AMD Istanbul chip with support for DDR-3 memory. Currently a Core i7 (Lynnfield or Bloomfield based so both 1156&1366) easily outperform Istanbul on Multithreaded applications with both CPUs being clocked at near the same speed (2.6GHz vs. 2.67GHz).

So it's nice that you can purchase an AM3 motherboard with a Phenom II X4 955 right now and upgrade to a Thuban when it comes available but you could also purchase an LGA 1156 motherboard with a Core i7 860 and get higher than Thuban performance RIGHT NOW for nearly the same amount of money as an AM3 motherboard and Phenom II X4 955.

So I really don't get your logic... why pay for two CPUs when you can pay for one today which will be faster?

See you're thinking Core i7 860 and thinking $279: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
I'm thinking Core i7 860 and thinking $229: http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml...

And a Phenom II X4 955 (C3 stepping the new one) is $175.99: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

That's not a huge difference... considering that if you want to get Core i7 860 performance you'll NEED a Thuban. That means buying a Thuban when it comes out.. so $175.99 + Thuban's price. Doesn't make sense.

You state that going LGA1156 means you're settling for second best. Going for AMD means you're settling for third best. I don't get your point there either.


Upendra09 said:
Yeah it does but my point was the i5 is a second rate chip, not the flagship of Intel

the i7 is obviously going to be more expensive

the phenom is AMD's flagship and if you bought the mobo RAM and CPU together.... the AMD setup will be atleast 150 USD cheaper


note i am talking about the best setup here so i mean things like: X58 mobo , Triple channel DDR3 RAM, i7 920

and for AMD: 790x mobo, phenom 965, dual channel DDR3 ram

now if you compare the phenom to the i5; the second best lineup, and u say that i5 better than the phenom; true

then u say the i5 is worth the 50 dollars extra: false

with the phenom you are getting DDR3 RAM, flagship processor, and AM3 socket which is the newest. Now in the i5 you are settling for the second best. less features in it than the i7 and phenom.

now the thing with phenom is it is on the newest socket and it is the flagship so now the new processors that are AMD's future flagship will be supported on the AM3 mobo, like Thuban the 6 core behemoth. now whether you need six cores or not is a different topic.

With the i5 you are settling for second best and when a new processor comes out, you can't get it because you have an inferior socket. even right now, u can get an i7 for the 1156 socket but it doesn't have all the features of the original i7.

Oh I see what you're doing. You're seeing AM3 as being a comparable product to LGA 1366 and LGA 1156 being second best. You claim features are lacking in LGA1156. Like what features exactly?

If you're talking i5 specifically.. it lacks QPi and HyperThreading... do AM3 CPUs now have HyperThreading?
If you're talking LGA1156 having less features than LGA1366 (Dual Channel vs. Tri Channel)... does AM3 have Tri Channel now? And yes we know LGA1156 lacks the QPi bus but from benchmarks comparing LGA1156 to LGA1366... it really doesn't make a difference does it?

The reason why your argument don't make sense is because you're tailoring the specifics and facts (it's called spinning) to suit your world view (AMD4Life!). It doesn't work that way.

AM3 does have some advantages over LGA1156. If for some reason a user wanted to pair two Radeon HD 5970s (not 5870s) in CrossfireX then the PCIe controller on the LGA1156 Processors might not be enough. You could claim that AM3 has two or more x16 PCIe slots available. But then you'd be ignoring the fact that both platforms would be GPU bottlenecked so it really wouldn't make a difference.

AM3 will have support for the initial Bulldozer CPUs. But if we look at AMDs track record with AM2 boards getting AM2+ support or worse AM2 boards getting AM3 support we're left with a sour taste in our mouths. Also many Phenom II X4 AM3 buyers bought cheap motherboards which, as is always nearly the case, likely won't get Bulldozer support added to them or won't be compatible due to VRM/Component issues (we know that nVIDIA Chipset based AM3 boards won't get support for example).

Right now... the only compelling reason to go AMD is if you REALLY can't afford the extra $50. That's it.
Score
0
December 19, 2009 8:52:02 PM

The average customer is going to buy what they know, and AMD is a virtual unknown. With nearly no marketing to the average Joe blow market, they have an major hill to climb in the mind share market. Say Intel to anyone and they instantly think of the jingle. Say AMD and if they do recognize the name, your greeted with the response: The cheap brand. While this does make them more accessible to the normal buyer, it also paints them into a bad corner since being known as the cheap brand does you no service.

But in the end this argument is nothing but a pointless waste of time because fanboys will remain fanboys no matter how many facts you try to shovel down their throats and those of us that try to stem the tide of sheer mind numbing foolishness will find the task as endless as it is thankless. And thus we are forced to play the role of the grumpy pedant, replying furiously to a complete stranger in argument. Again. :/ 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2009 9:02:02 PM

Upendra09 said:
Yeah it does but my point was the i5 is a second rate chip, not the flagship of Intel

the i7 is obviously going to be more expensive

the phenom is AMD's flagship and if you bought the mobo RAM and CPU together.... the AMD setup will be atleast 150 USD cheaper

note i am talking about the best setup here so i mean things like: X58 mobo , Triple channel DDR3 RAM, i7 920

and for AMD: 790x mobo, phenom 965, dual channel DDR3 ram

now if you compare the phenom to the i5; the second best lineup, and u say that i5 better than the phenom; true

then u say the i5 is worth the 50 dollars extra: false

with the phenom you are getting DDR3 RAM, flagship processor, and AM3 socket which is the newest. Now in the i5 you are settling for the second best. less features in it than the i7 and phenom.

now the thing with phenom is it is on the newest socket and it is the flagship so now the new processors that are AMD's future flagship will be supported on the AM3 mobo, like Thuban the 6 core behemoth. now whether you need six cores or not is a different topic.

With the i5 you are settling for second best and when a new processor comes out, you can't get it because you have an inferior socket. even right now, u can get an i7 for the 1156 socket but it doesn't have all the features of the original i7.


Look I wont explain to you why you are wrong because plenty have already, but I have to say this:

How can you say that the i5 750 is not worth the extra $50 when that is a very dependent on the consumers uses? Hell, where do you get $50 to begin with?

I just bought the i5 750 over the Phenom II and I wasn't able to get the microcenter discount. I did this because it was only $5 in my case, I got CFX and SLI support, which I need because I own 2 8800 GTS 512s and any nVidia board is pure crap, the i5 750 pushes SLI'd cards better than the Phenom II and ties when pushing ATI cards, and the i5 750 is faster in other applications which is a nice bonus. All this I got for $5 more than a Phenom II 955 system.

Here is the comparison for me:

AMD:
Phenom II 955: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00275G0VE/ref=asc_df_B00275G0...
Only decent AM3 SLI board: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Intel:
i5 750: http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/ite...
Decent CFX SLI board: http://www.frys.com/product/6007298

The Intel build was $5 more and I got a $20 MIR.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2009 9:02:46 PM

ElMoIsEviL said:
I see what you're saying but what you're saying doesn't make logical sense.

Thuban will be an AMD Istanbul chip with support for DDR-3 memory. Currently a Core i7 (Lynnfield or Bloomfield based so both 1156&1366) easily outperform Istanbul on Multithreaded applications with both CPUs being clocked at near the same speed (2.6GHz vs. 2.67GHz).

So it's nice that you can purchase an AM3 motherboard with a Phenom II X4 955 right now and upgrade to a Thuban when it comes available but you could also purchase an LGA 1156 motherboard with a Core i7 860 and get higher than Thuban performance RIGHT NOW for nearly the same amount of money as an AM3 motherboard and Phenom II X4 955.

So I really don't get your logic... why pay for two CPUs when you can pay for one today which will be faster?

See you're thinking Core i7 860 and thinking $279: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
I'm thinking Core i7 860 and thinking $229: http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml...

And a Phenom II X4 955 (C3 stepping the new one) is $175.99: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

That's not a huge difference... considering that if you want to get Core i7 860 performance you'll NEED a Thuban. That means buying a Thuban when it comes out.. so $175.99 + Thuban's price. Doesn't make sense.

You state that going LGA1156 means you're settling for second best. Going for AMD means you're settling for third best. I don't get your point there either.



Oh I see what you're doing. You're seeing AM3 as being a comparable product to LGA 1366 and LGA 1156 being second best. You claim features are lacking in LGA1156. Like what features exactly?

If you're talking i5 specifically.. it lacks QPi and HyperThreading... do AM3 CPUs now have HyperThreading?
If you're talking LGA1156 having less features than LGA1366 (Dual Channel vs. Tri Channel)... does AM3 have Tri Channel now? And yes we know LGA1156 lacks the QPi bus but from benchmarks comparing LGA1156 to LGA1366... it really doesn't make a difference does it?

The reason why your argument don't make sense is because you're tailoring the specifics and facts (it's called spinning) to suit your world view (AMD4Life!). It doesn't work that way.

AM3 does have some advantages over LGA1156. If for some reason a user wanted to pair two Radeon HD 5970s (not 5870s) in CrossfireX then the PCIe controller on the LGA1156 Processors might not be enough. You could claim that AM3 has two or more x16 PCIe slots available. But then you'd be ignoring the fact that both platforms would be GPU bottlenecked so it really wouldn't make a difference.

AM3 will have support for the initial Bulldozer CPUs. But if we look at AMDs track record with AM2 boards getting AM2+ support or worse AM2 boards getting AM3 support we're left with a sour taste in our mouths. Also many Phenom II X4 AM3 buyers bought cheap motherboards which, as is always nearly the case, likely won't get Bulldozer support added to them or won't be compatible due to VRM/Component issues (we know that nVIDIA Chipset based AM3 boards won't get support for example).

Right now... the only compelling reason to go AMD is if you REALLY can't afford the extra $50. That's it.



woah, let's make this clear, I am not an AMD fanboy you may not have said that but that is what i feel was implied in the bold line.

I can say this confidently with no AMD systems but a celeron tualatin desktop and an HP C2D laptop


ok so thank you for making me understand on the whole socket thing. Now i understand why my points don't make sense.

basically what i was trying to say was, you can cut back 50 dollars and get a more future proof setup that will be able to have the most features, instead of getting the competitors second best lineup and not get "flagship privileges", you know like QPI and hyperthreading
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2009 9:30:21 PM

ElMoIsEviL said:

AM3 does have some advantages over LGA1156. If for some reason a user wanted to pair two Radeon HD 5970s (not 5870s) in CrossfireX then the PCIe controller on the LGA1156 Processors might not be enough. You could claim that AM3 has two or more x16 PCIe slots available. But then you'd be ignoring the fact that both platforms would be GPU bottlenecked so it really wouldn't make a difference.


In case you haven't seen this, 5870 runs pretty well on PCI-E 2.0 4x, meaning a 5970 shouldn't be bottlenecked much by an 8x slot. Meaning i5 should take you well past Phenom II. :) 

http://techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_5870_PCI-Express_...

obsidian86 said:
well i might get flamed for this but amd is better then intel when comparing apples to apples ,amd is least a gen behind intel yeah intel got the core i series now but its their second gen 45nm cpu's the am3's is only amd's first gen 45 nm cpu's for aguments sake it would be fairer comparing intels first gen 45nm cpu's to amd's 45nm cpu's


I wouldn't quite say that. Intel's first 45nm chips were more like a revision of C2Q, I wouldn't quite call that a generation leap.

Oh yeah, and when it comes to 'your' apples to apples C2Q is still ahead of Phenom II, slightly.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2009 9:54:24 PM

dasickninja said:
The average customer is going to buy what they know, and AMD is a virtual unknown. With nearly no marketing to the average Joe blow market, they have an major hill to climb in the mind share market. Say Intel to anyone and they instantly think of the jingle. Say AMD and if they do recognize the name, your greeted with the response: The cheap brand. While this does make them more accessible to the normal buyer, it also paints them into a bad corner since being known as the cheap brand does you no service.

But in the end this argument is nothing but a pointless waste of time because fanboys will remain fanboys no matter how many facts you try to shovel down their throats and those of us that try to stem the tide of sheer mind numbing foolishness will find the task as endless as it is thankless. And thus we are forced to play the role of the grumpy pedant, replying furiously to a complete stranger in argument. Again. :/ 

Never back down, never give up hope... keep up the good fight :) 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2009 9:57:35 PM

Upendra09 said:
woah, let's make this clear, I am not an AMD fanboy you may not have said that but that is what i feel was implied in the bold line.

I can say this confidently with no AMD systems but a celeron tualatin desktop and an HP C2D laptop


ok so thank you for making me understand on the whole socket thing. Now i understand why my points don't make sense.

basically what i was trying to say was, you can cut back 50 dollars and get a more future proof setup that will be able to have the most features, instead of getting the competitors second best lineup and not get "flagship privileges", you know like QPI and hyperthreading

My bad... I apologize if I was a tad harsh. I tend to be harsh due to the fact that I always set myself up on the defensive. I make certain assumptions about others and it does occur that I sometimes jump the gun too quick.

The reason why I assumed you were an AMD fan was because you used the same arguments Scentia and BaronMatrix use freely over at AMDZone.

My bad.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2009 10:19:53 PM

ElMoIsEviL said:
My bad... I apologize if I was a tad harsh. I tend to be harsh due to the fact that I always set myself up on the defensive. I make certain assumptions about others and it does occur that I sometimes jump the gun too quick.

The reason why I assumed you were an AMD fan was because you used the same arguments Scentia and BaronMatrix use freely over at AMDZone.

My bad.


I think there is something profound there, ignorance and malice lead to the same conclusion.

In this instance Upendra did not fully understand the argument and lacked some knowledge and therefor made an incorrect conclusion while Sentia and BaronMatrix knowingly spread false information and fanatically argue against truth and common sense to confuse and misinform people into siding with a corporation that they love beyond reason and likely own stock in.

Interesting. :D 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2009 10:22:47 PM

dasickninja said:

But in the end this argument is nothing but a pointless waste of time because fanboys will remain fanboys no matter how many facts you try to shovel down their throats and those of us that try to stem the tide of sheer mind numbing foolishness will find the task as endless as it is thankless. And thus we are forced to play the role of the grumpy pedant, replying furiously to a complete stranger in argument. Again. :/ 


Yeah I completely agree and have been stemming that tide for awhile now on other forums only to leave and find one where the fight wasn't totally lost and yes that lead me here... sad..

Though to be honest there does come the time when someone is shown the truth and ends up with a truly excellent machine or upgrade, that always feels good.
Score
0
    • 1 / 12
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!