Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Why do people do this?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 20, 2012 10:01:59 AM

I generally just browse the systems forum, and lately I keep coming upon people asking for advice on their builds, who have AMD cpus listed. Upon being asked to change that, they simply say,"no thanks I think I'll stick with AMD". This trend completely baffles me. In every price range, in almost every practical test, the AMD CPU loses. And yet, people come on a computer advice website, and ask about their build, and firmly stick with a completely inferior product like an FX-4100. Sorry about the rage topic :fou:  , but I'd like to know if any of you understand why people are doing this, or if it is just people being stubborn.

More about : people

a b à CPUs
March 20, 2012 10:18:06 AM

Quote:
the overclocked fx4100 is superior to the slightly more expensive i3 and for gaming it can better a stock i5 2500k

I did some bench marks and compared the fx4100 against all the i3, i5 2500 and i5 2500k

sorry if you arent up to date


its people like this who wont listen.


he bought an fx4100 and wont believe it can be beaten by another cpu.


most people who are building a pc want to know about gaming potential which is where the amd cpu's are behind intel.


the evidence on here speaks for itself.




what most people here are trying to give is impartial advice. but some Muppet's keep saying dont get that


the main reason people use intel instead of amd is you get better gaming potential for your buck with the current cpu's


what is more anoying than anything else is that they keep comparing an fx 4100 to an i3 2100, the only reason they are comparing it to that is because

if they compared it to the overclockable i3-2100k

people would just laugh because forever they have been comparing an overclocked fx4100 to an non-overclock able i3




the basic truth is. amd cpu's cant compete with intel on performance so they had to drop the price so they could still sell.


the reason most people are saying get fx4100 is because they are jelous people have an i3,i5 or i7 and they cant afford it
March 20, 2012 10:37:05 AM

the fx came out in front...........during multithreaded applications, while overclocked to maximum and even then...not always. r u just trolling bean or are you serious?
Related resources
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2012 10:40:32 AM

B*llcr*p I have a 4100 and a unlocked 960T. The Older phenom II outperforms the FX and I'm not naive enough to claim the Phenom II beats a 2500k. I still recommend the PII to people as while its still available it is a good value piece of kit at £90-ish i would take it over the i3 anyday. I would never recommend the 4100 to anybody, it is in no way awesome and as soon as my budget allows it will be replaced and destroyed with a lump hammer.
a c 478 à CPUs
a c 121 À AMD
March 20, 2012 10:43:48 AM

JimmyBean, synthetic 3DMark benchmarks do not translate over to actual games. While an OC'ed FX-4100 can score a higher benchmark than a stock i5-2500k, actual results from games show that the OC'ed FX-4100 yields lower performance.

@kai-fei, AMD prices their CPUs in accordance to it's performance level. For example, some time last we I responded to a thread regarding the a somewhat similar question you had with regards to a FX-6100. I used actual benchmarks from the following review and use the Core i5-2500k as a baseline. Synthetic benchmarks were not taken into account since they really do not serve any purpose when actual benchmarks are available.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-812...

I calculated the performance difference for each game and application. I am not going to do that again since it was very time consuming, but overall the FX-6100's performance was around 63% for game and 64% for applications compared to the Core i5-2500k. Based Newegg's prices the FX-6100 sells for $150 and the Core i5-2500k sell for $220. That means the FX-6100 sells for roughly 68% of the price of the Core i5-2500k which closely correlates to the FX-6100's performance.

There's a thing called "Brand Loyalty" and that is the case when it come to people who will only buy AMD CPUs, but it applies to other things as well. For example, I only buy Levis "black" jeans. I did buy 2 pairs of Lee "black" jeans though since they were on sale and less than half the price of Levis jeans.

AMD's problem is that they over hyped the performance of the Bulldozer CPUs. It wasn't helped by a "fanboy" article back in January or February 2011 claiming that based on the Bulldozer design, best Bulldozer CPU would likely beat the Core i5-2500k by as much as 50% in overall performance. In actuality, Bulldozer turned out to be at best a very minor upgrade to the Phenom II. In multi-threaded applications the FX CPUs did show an improvement, but they are limited to people who do a lot video encoding, 3D rendering or WinRar file compression.

Power consumption is an other issue, though most people overlook it. AMD FX CPUs uses more power than Intel Sanfy Bridge Core i CPUs across the board. AMD's slowest FX-4100 CPU use more electricity than Intel's Core i5-2500k while idling and under 100% load.
a c 203 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 20, 2012 10:47:26 AM

wr6133 said:
as soon as my budget allows it will be replaced and destroyed with a lump hammer.
Not worth wasting your energy that way.
Sell it to one of JimmyBean's friends instead ;) 
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2012 10:47:35 AM

@ Jimmybeam..... your test benches dont even have the same variables.
a c 478 à CPUs
a c 121 À AMD
March 20, 2012 11:14:47 AM

Again and again, synthetic benchmarks means nothing when actual benchmarks are available. The graphics card must be the same for all rigs to make the benchmark results valid when testing the CPU's gaming performance.
March 20, 2012 11:20:10 AM

Jimmy Bean. Just to show how utterly slow the new AMD-chips are, I'm throwing in a link af my 3-year old....YES 3-year old

system based on an Intel Core2 Quad Q9550 cpu (3 generations old) running stock, paired with DDR2 ram (almost 2

generations old) and a GTX 470 (almost 2 generations old)


Read 'em and stop with the FX-series propaganda please.

http://3dmark.com/3dm11/2997900
a c 203 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 20, 2012 11:28:01 AM

kai-fei said:
This trend completely baffles me. In every price range, in almost every practical test, the AMD CPU loses. And yet, people come on a computer advice website, and ask about their build, and firmly stick with a completely inferior product like an FX-4100.
At least you're getting a better idea why some people 'do what they do' ;) 
a c 80 à CPUs
March 20, 2012 11:30:28 AM

Jimmy, the 2500K that you reference as a benchmark, is noted within futuremark as performing below where they expect it to for its configuration. Can you find one that does not and tell us what that answer is?
March 20, 2012 11:35:18 AM

Would a 1280x720 screen size play in role in hindering results? Also the AMD system has 16gbs compared to 8gbs in the SB. If your using 8 why would you not take advantage of the dual channel and use 2x4gbs.

Non of your benches mean jack crap bean. Your variables are so off its not even funny.

Everyone knows that the i5 2500k blows every cpu on the market out of the water currently. Yes, some amd's can compete in certain test's specially when it comes to specific task where 8 cores on the higher end cpu's can be used.

Also get a 7970 and see where these benches go. I gurantee will see a difference then.

I do not mind people and there choices of preference for a certain company. We all do it to some degree whether its soap, cars, sports equipment etc. In this case it happens to be cpu's. What I do mind is people who blantently ignore tried and true benchmarks from several sites, and in this case apparently all he can do is talk about Tom's reviews. Have you never been to any other site or seen any other benchmarks?

Bean really stop posting because your making an a** of yourself to everyone in the forum.

To the OP If people love AMD then so be it. Help them make the best AMD decision in that case. If you cannot do that then you are in fact doing the very same thing they are doing. Also AMD has been the face of computer enthusiats for some time now and a lot of people like to support them because there a small company trying to better intel the large corporate kind of company. I respect people who show this loyalty, because all I do is jump ship when something better comes out, even though I have been an intel buyer because of the timing of my 2 builds. Also AMD prices are very good and should be considered when building. Just because intel is in the lead atm does not mean everyone should/could jump over.
March 20, 2012 11:47:01 AM

Quote:
yes i will, im busy on this forum for now though..

i will find a result of where the intel i5 2500k is not faulty


Don't worry - I found one for you: http://3dmark.com/3dm11/1514354

With the same graphics card as yours btw - scoring more than 1000 3D-marks more :sarcastic: 
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2012 11:49:00 AM

I noticed in your benchmarks Jimmy that your gpu clock speed are different. I don't know if you know but a overclocked gpu will give a better score.
March 20, 2012 11:51:44 AM

christop said:
I noticed in your benchmarks Jimmy that your gpu clock speed are different. I don't know if you know but a overclocked gpu will give a better score.



I just went back to look at this....Imo the 2500k is getting bottlenecked by the gpu...He boosted his gpu performance on the fx4100 test lol..

Benches just got lawyer'd!

For Fx-4100

Memory1024 MB
Core clock960 MHz
Memory clock1160 MHz

For i5 2500k

Memory1024 MB
Core clock775 MHz
Memory clock1050 MHz
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2012 11:53:59 AM

Memory = AMD CPU
1024 MB
Core clock
960 MHz
Memory clock
1160 MHz

Memory i5
1024 MB
Core clock
775 MHz
Memory clock
1050 MH

No need to post the I7 cause it's not even the same card..
March 20, 2012 11:57:23 AM

Looks to me very trollish...seems to have got one of the best fx-4100 scores compared to faulty i5 2500k and i7 2600k scores.
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2012 12:03:20 PM

not rude simply stating a fact more solid than your benchmarks
March 20, 2012 12:07:45 PM

Jimmy i3's can't be overclocked so I hope you mean i5. And the i5 in that bench is faulty for w/e reason...A bench has already been given of an i5 1000 points higher then yours with the same gpu.

Please give your explanation on why the previously posted i5 2500k score was 1000 points higher then yours? I would like to hear your explanation.

Again. You had a 25-30% oc on the gpu..which is a nice upgrade in performance.
a c 103 à CPUs
March 20, 2012 12:14:32 PM

Quote:
my result

http://3dmark.com/3dm11/2963472

This 2500k was overclocked higher than my cpu , it has similar ssd and same gpu

http://3dmark.com/3dm11/2977335

and I still beat it


Your 6870
GPU Clk = 960mhz
Mem Clk = 1160mhz

The 2500K 6870
GPU Clk = 775mhz
Mem Clk = 1050

Come on man are you really going to claim an even comparison, not to mention your machine is running twice the system memory.

If you're going to make a comparison all the hardware should be the same as much as possible, the CPU and M/B will be different, in an AMD/Intel comparison, but everything else should be the same.

March 20, 2012 12:16:57 PM

4Ryan6 said:
Your 6870
GPU Clk = 960mhz
Mem Clk = 1160mhz

The 2500K 6870
GPU Clk = 775mhz
Mem Clk = 1050

Come on man are you really going to claim an even comparison, not to mention your machine is running twice the system memory.

If you're going to make a comparison all the hardware should be the same as much as possible, the CPU and M/B will be different, in an AMD/Intel comparison, but everything else should be the same.



All he'll say to this is ...Well my fx4100 beats all i3's out there..
a c 103 à CPUs
March 20, 2012 12:23:02 PM

I'm closing this thread to avoid banning someone else!
!