Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Guess everyone hates AMD now?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2012 1:56:05 PM

Forum,

I'm confused. I see numerous daily posts asking for "upgrade" help. Many times these posters have somewhat capable machines with several component categories that could be addressed for a discernible upgrade. eg. Processor, MB, Vidcard, SSD, etc....

What confuses me, a poster who has an AM3+ or FX compatible board who's seeking more FPS, without fail the first reply with be you need an i5 or i7. From what I've seen most of the time OP has a Phenom x4 or x6, and a vid card that's somewhat dated.

Now I understand if budget isn't an issue, go big and get an i7 3770k + z77 for gaming. However, most people want to spend smart because they understand once you get into the top 10% of almost anything you quickly experience diminishing returns.

Does everyone on this site have Intel processors faster then an overclocked 8320 @$180? When I look at the majority of these posters builds, and the budget they state for upgrade, I can't see how investing more money in the video card, a FX upgrade (or stay x6), and possibly a SSD or superior monitor isn't going to be a bigger gaming improvement - When compared to spending the majority of the stated budget on a new CPU and MB.

Why no love for the Vishera FX? Obviously Intel does have a hand full of chips faster then the 8350/8320, typically more expensive and marginally faster with the exception of the spendy Extreme series procs. Doesn't it make sense to stick with the AM3+ when you know the socket is going to serve you for at least one more FX revision (Steamroller)?

Please help me understand why I'm wrong to still think AMD is a viable platform.

From a philosophical perspective, as builders shouldn't we try to help support AMD when it makes sense. OEM's aren't and Intel being the only player isn't good for any consumer. I currently own systems from both manufactures so no bias. (x6, i5, i7, & Xeon)

More about : guess hates amd

a c 105 à CPUs
November 15, 2012 2:01:52 PM

I don't hate AMD, they fill in the budget section of the CPU market and Intel fill in the performance section of the market, don't get me wrong AMD CPUs can perform very good, Intel CPUs perform better, although the performance gap isn't worth the price gap.
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2012 2:22:16 PM

jay_nar2012 said:
I don't hate AMD, they fill in the budget section of the CPU market and Intel fill in the performance section of the market, don't get me wrong AMD CPUs can perform very good, Intel CPUs perform better, although the performance gap isn't worth the price gap.



Please don't take offence to my comment because what you said is the Atypical rhetoric in the forum. I think your comment is irresponsible (once again no offense intended).

An accurate statement. Some Intel processors perform better than all AMD processors, some AMD processors perform better than nearly all Intel processors.

How is the 8xxx Vishera not a performance part? What percentage of PC gamers, or all PC owners, would you estimate have faster CPU's?
Related resources
November 15, 2012 2:32:48 PM

i switched earlier this year from years and years of AMD to intel and was blown away. I probably wont go back to AMD unless they really get off their ass and make some real strong forward progress, which doesnt really seem to be the case.

however, when i went to shop for a new work laptop i basically only looked at AMD because their apu performance is so much better than intel's HD whatever garbage. very cost effective and i can even play some games when im stuck on the road staying in hotels and stuff. intel has a long way to go catching up in mobile graphics.
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2012 2:38:05 PM

osamabinrobot said:
i switched earlier this year from years and years of AMD to intel and was blown away. I probably wont go back to AMD unless they really get off their ass and make some real strong forward progress, which doesnt really seem to be the case.

however, when i went to shop for a new work laptop i basically only looked at AMD because their apu performance is so much better than intel's HD whatever garbage. very cost effective and i can even play some games when im stuck on the road staying in hotels and stuff. intel has a long way to go catching up in mobile graphics.




AMD is improving and anyone who is actually keeping up with the info that they give out would know that AMD's next architecture, Steamroller, is set to be a bigger improvement over Piledriver than Piledriver was over Bulldozer.

AMD's A10-5800K, a mere AP part, can compete with the more expensive FX-4170 and FX-6200 in average gaming performance despite not even having an L3 cache, being much more power efficient, and for those who'd use it, having an excellent IGP that with decent memory, can easily compete with the Radeon 6670. Compared to a similarly performing Intel setup with a lower end i3 and a Radeon 6670, the A10 is actually probably more power efficient for gaming than the Intel setup (also especially lower for idle power consumption too) if not at least as efficient despite having double the core count on a severe lithography disadvantage with far inferior cache.
a c 102 à CPUs
November 15, 2012 2:38:06 PM

Quote:
From a philosophical perspective, as builders shouldn't we try to help support AMD when it makes sense. OEM's aren't and Intel being the only player isn't good for any consumer. I currently own systems from both manufactures so no bias. (x6, i5, i7, & Xeon)
You can buy AMD based office PCs and servers from OEMs.
November 15, 2012 2:40:11 PM

the only AMD product i would buy today is a mobile APU, and only because it has quite a good GPU muscle, compared to Intel.

I wouldnt buy an AMD pure CPU (BD/PD), nor will recommend anyone to buy either.

Their dGPU's are as good as Nvidia, and i will recommend either, depending on the users preference.

a b à CPUs
November 15, 2012 3:04:35 PM

bjaminnyc said:
Please don't take offence to my comment because what you said is the Atypical rhetoric in the forum. I think your comment is irresponsible (once again no offense intended).

An accurate statement. Some Intel processors perform better than all AMD processors, some AMD processors perform better than nearly all Intel processors.

How is the 8xxx Vishera not a performance part? What percentage of PC gamers, or all PC owners, would you estimate have faster CPU's?


The 8 core fx chips *can* outperform all intel chips *in highly threaded applications*. Unfortunately, video games are not highly threaded, and benefit far more from per-core performance where the intel chips shine brighter.

That having been said, AMD chips are still worth the money for a gaming machine if you are willing to overclock.
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2012 3:05:54 PM

quilciri said:
The 8 core fx chips *can* outperform all intel chips *in highly threaded applications*. Unfortunately, video games are not highly threaded, and benefit far more from per-core performance where the intel chips shine brighter.

That having been said, AMD chips are still worth the money for a gaming machine if you are willing to overclock.


BF3 MP and a few other games can in fact use that many threads. It'd be more accurate of you to say that most games don't use that many threads. Besides, AMD can't outperform all Intel CPUs even in fully threaded work.
November 15, 2012 3:36:58 PM

^ Plus, even if the AMD chips give almost the same average FPS as intel chips, the latency is higher there. So over a period of time, the AMD system could possibly be perceived as more jittery.
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2012 3:41:36 PM

mayankleoboy1 said:
^ Plus, even if the AMD chips give almost the same average FPS as intel chips, the latency is higher there. So over a period of time, the AMD system could possibly be perceived as more jittery.


The chart that I posted is of average frame latency, so I'm not entirely with you on that. Intel's Pentiums have horrid frame latency compared to similarly priced AMD triple/quad/six core CPUs and in such games as BF3 MP, AMD competes quite well in average frame latency too. There are many cases where AMD is losing in this, but there are others where they are winning too.

Best solution

November 15, 2012 3:44:10 PM
Share

bjaminnyc hello. I think that your observation is valid and correct. It is obvious to any who read the forums and there are a very large number of posters asking about upgrades to older systems or direction on a first time purchase. Often the poster is asking about a minor part and or a upgrade of their system and the first reply is something to the effect that they should throw out what they have and get a shiny new Intel system. What you have said is also true in that “Some Intel processors perform better than all AMD processors, some AMD processors perform better than nearly all Intel processors.” Very true. Something that I fall back on are the benchmarks and how they apply to my system usage. Since gaming applications is a big part of the forums it is easy to compare those benchmarks. If the Intel part gets 90fps and the AMD part get 86.7fps that performance is so close that the user wouldn’t know that difference except in the benchmark numbers. What is true is that is the marketing method to move new tech equipment. What is equally true is that the 8150 to a greater degree and the 8350 to a lesser degree are somewhat disappointing compared to the Phenom II’s. For the first time buyer they are a great choice. If you are like me (fair disclosure) and have a 1090T you wanted and were hoping for more performance and a reason to upgrade. Mine is clocked at 3.8+ghz for everyday use and is a great performer. I have no complaints. I was hoping that the 8150 might be >=30% more than the 1090T and I was hoping that the 8350 was going to be >=30% more that the 8150 and it was not. To chime in with you and to ask the question aloud is why do so many posters insist on singing the praise of Intel over AMD with so much emotional investment? This is especially perplexing when many of the posters have little actual experience with a new part and often use some anecdotal evidence to explain their point (I had an Uncle that had one once…). Think of all the blood spilled on these forums in the AMD v. Intel wars discussion. Same thing with ATI v. Nvidia discussions. Some of the blame has to be placed at the feet of the writers of tech articles. To be fair it has to be tough to get to reader excited because the new Intel part bests the new AMD part by 3+-fps. Some of these guys are fair and some get paid by Intel to give a favorable review. Since we are asking what kind of forums poster does this and why or what could their motivation be consider the poster above me. jay_nar2012, age 14, 2626 posts, can’t work, can’t drive, doesn’t earn money has limited tech/life experience yet pontificates on AMD v. Intel at great length, has certitude but has no Prima facie credibility and limited use of his native tongue. Yet many posters like this make post after post that influence other like type posters/users. Maybe it is herd mentality? People are so sensitive to brands and trends today that for example consider the sport shoe. Why do Nikes sell for 100s of dollars in some cases, when they are put together in sweat shops in the third world for pennies?
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2012 3:45:18 PM

It's pretty simple. At most price points, the Intel chips outperform for gaming, video and photo editing. Which are the most common requests for new builds. It's not bias, just math.

For GPU, AMD Radeon is on the other side of the equation. You rarely see a GPU question end in a Nvidia recommendation. Why? For any given budget the AMD GPU is generally the better buy.

I've rarely seen people suggest someone with a modern AMD board switch to Intel.
a c 190 à CPUs
November 15, 2012 3:48:58 PM

Nobody should "HATE" AMD, without them Intel would have no reason to innovate and decrease prices.

Personally I support AMD whenever I don't build a high end system, every PC i own is AMD in some or other except for my gaming PC, and that has an AMD graphics card.

The home computer industry can not survive without atleast 2 companies competing.

I am routing hard for AMD, very very hard. I love how they seem like less of a corporation too. Intel is all about the money. AMD is all about the user. Atleast that is my perception.
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2012 3:51:49 PM

twelve25 said:
It's pretty simple. At most price points, the Intel chips outperform for gaming, video and photo editing. Which are the most common requests for new builds. It's not bias, just math.

For GPU, AMD Radeon is on the other side of the equation. You rarely see a GPU question end in a Nvidia recommendation. Why? For any given budget the AMD GPU is generally the better buy.

I've rarely seen people suggest someone with a modern AMD board switch to Intel.


Gaming, sometimes. Video editing and photo editing, no, they don't. AMD wins there at any given price point.
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2012 3:53:52 PM

blazorthon said:
BF3 MP and a few other games can in fact use that many threads. It'd be more accurate of you to say that most games don't use that many threads. Besides, AMD can't outperform all Intel CPUs even in fully threaded work.


Touche, sir. However this reply is a bit misleading. To clarify further, The 8 core FX chips, esp the 8300's can outperform *all* intel consumer level chips in some, but not all highly threaded apps. Xeon chips with 8+ physical cores will of course outperform the 8 "core" FX chips, but I figured we were comparing apples to apples here.

P.S. Out of curiosity, what are these "few other games"? BF3 (and even then only BF3 multiplayer) is the only game that seems to come up by name when discussing games that use more than 2 cores.
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2012 3:58:16 PM

blazorthon said:
Gaming, sometimes. Video editing and photo editing, no, they don't. AMD wins there at any given price point.


No, they don't. At best, the top PD chips routhley equate to a 2500k.

Secondly, and I'm seeing a trend in this thread so far: You aren't providing any metrics whatsoever to back up your statements. This is significant, since you continually point out "BF3 MP", and frankly, MP games aren't benched because of the difficulty of getting clean and valid data. So I'd REALLY like to see some numbers to back up your statements.
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2012 3:59:49 PM

quilciri said:
Touche, however this reply is a bit misleading. The 8 core FX chips, esp the 8300's can outperform *all* intel consumer level chips in some highly threaded apps. Xeon chips with 8+ physical cores will of course outperform the 8 "core" FX chips, but I figured we were comparing apples to apples here.


Although it's much mroe expensive, the six-core i7s don't lose to the eight-core FX CPUs in highly threaded software and even then, in most cases, the top quad-core i7s still have the win over the FX-8350. Winning in some highly-threaded workloads while losing in most, even if not by much, is still a loss. AMD also has lower prices, but much higher power consumption, so not necessarily better value if you upgrade more than once every two years or so (much sooner for people in the UK and such who have much more expensive power than those of us in the USA). I consider that to be good competition, but I won't call it better than Intel.
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2012 4:14:05 PM

gamerk316 said:
No, they don't. At best, the top PD chips routhley equate to a 2500k.

Secondly, and I'm seeing a trend in this thread so far: You aren't providing any metrics whatsoever to back up your statements. This is significant, since you continually point out "BF3 MP", and frankly, MP games aren't benched because of the difficulty of getting clean and valid data. So I'd REALLY like to see some numbers to back up your statements.


http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/-02-...

Obviously a synthetic benchmark. However, the 2500k is roughly 1.5 points behind the 8350. Nevertheless, they are both relatively high end chips for 99% of all consumers. My op was in reference to the suggestion that people scrap their existing AM3+ setup for something similar to the 2500k for hundreds more (cpu+mb) than simply purchasing an FX upgrade to achieve nearly +/- the same results.

Someone a few posts back said it best. Its herd mentality. Intel may have the performance crown, shouldn't take away from the fact the 83xx aren't too far behind.

In addition there are some inexpensive killer AM3+ boards with every bell and whistle.
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2012 4:27:20 PM

gamerk316 said:
No, they don't. At best, the top PD chips routhley equate to a 2500k.

Secondly, and I'm seeing a trend in this thread so far: You aren't providing any metrics whatsoever to back up your statements. This is significant, since you continually point out "BF3 MP", and frankly, MP games aren't benched because of the difficulty of getting clean and valid data. So I'd REALLY like to see some numbers to back up your statements.


Gee, I guess the chart that I posted above is invisible, huh?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-rev...
http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processo...



Clearly the i5-2500K is not ahead of the FX-8350 in general productivity nor is it even on-par with the FX-8350.









It managed to beat the i5-3570K in most of Tom's tests and this is despite a significant memory bandwidth disadvantage in tests that are using RAM drives, so it's at a potential disadvantage beyond its CPU performance in such tests.







Other than a test on experiemental OpenCL support, AMD had two wins over the i5-2500K and one slight loss that's so close that it might as well be a tie (using the i5-2550K in place of the i5-2500K). Heck, it managed to beat the i7s in some workloads and it obviously beats the i5-2500K on average in fully threaded workloads.





Is this enough for you?
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2012 4:42:36 PM

topper743 said:
If you are like me (fair disclosure) and have a 1090T you wanted and were hoping for more performance and a reason to upgrade. Mine is clocked at 3.8+ghz for everyday use and is a great performer.


Your whole quote was right on the money.

My gaming / entertainment pc is a x6 as well, and I certainly can't tell any significant difference when compared to any of my Intel systems. One of which is a spec'd out 2 p xeon 12 core bad*ss. Clearly the Xeon system is vastly superior for data processing, but for end user experience no real difference. The real point is an x6 can be had for not much more than $100.

$100 x6 vs any i5 or i7 -> $ for $ not even close / & Bench for Bench not too far apart either.


I'm in the same boat also as far as the FX upgrade. I too would have liked to see a 30% improvement. Nevertheless, I'm quite pleased knowing that if not Visera then Steamroller will provide a nice performance upgrade with an investment probably around $200. Reviewers definitely like to ignore the fact AMD has looked out for its customer base by staying with the AM3+.


a b à CPUs
November 15, 2012 5:06:29 PM

osamabinrobot said:
i switched earlier this year from years and years of AMD to intel and was blown away. I probably wont go back to AMD unless they really get off their ass and make some real strong forward progress, which doesnt really seem to be the case.

however, when i went to shop for a new work laptop i basically only looked at AMD because their apu performance is so much better than intel's HD whatever garbage. very cost effective and i can even play some games when im stuck on the road staying in hotels and stuff. intel has a long way to go catching up in mobile graphics.


What AMD product did you switch from? A 2500k is a really nice CPU, about the same performance as a 8320 < 8350. Therefore, I'm confused by your statement "you wouldn't go back." Why? Based on your experience with an Intel processor that's not as fast as an AMD part? Seems to me a very presumptuous determination.

I know my statement is troll bait, excuse me. However, its comments like that which make the ill informed jump all over my OP question.
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2012 5:10:55 PM

blazorthon said:
Although it's much mroe expensive, the six-core i7s don't lose to the eight-core FX CPUs in highly threaded software and even then, in most cases, the top quad-core i7s still have the win over the FX-8350. Winning in some highly-threaded workloads while losing in most, even if not by much, is still a loss. AMD also has lower prices, but much higher power consumption, so not necessarily better value if you upgrade more than once every two years or so (much sooner for people in the UK and such who have much more expensive power than those of us in the USA). I consider that to be good competition, but I won't call it better than Intel.


Goign for technical accuracy over pragmatism isn't helping anyone here.

Forgive me, but I don't consider a $1000 chip "consumer level". Also, while electricity is more expensive in some parts of the world than others, in the states, it averages $0.16 per kwh. With a 50w difference in the chips, you'd have to game, or otherwise run the computer as had as you can for 20 hours before it cost you even $0.16. Running a 125w amd chip over a 75w intel chip might cost you an extra $5 a year ($8 if you game 20 hours a week). Not exactly a compelling difference.
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2012 5:15:18 PM

quilciri said:
Goign for technical accuracy over pragmatism isn't helping anyone here.

Forgive me, but I don't consider a $1000 chip "consumer level". Also, while electricity is more expensive in some parts of the world than others, in the states, it averages $0.16 per kwh. If you game 20 hours a week, the 50w difference between the intel and the AMD chip will cost you a whopping extra $0.64 a month.


You forget idle power consumption and do you mind if I ask how you came to that number? It most certainly doesn't quite match up with mine.

Also, Why pay $1000? The i7-3930K is almost exactly as fast as the $1000 models, but is almost twice as cheap as them.

Sorry if I seem like I am going too far into semantics, I can be a little OCD about being accurate.
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2012 5:27:15 PM

blazorthon said:
You forget idle power consumption and do you mind if I ask how you came to that number? It most certainly doesn't quite match up with mine.

Also, Why pay $1000? The i7-3930K is almost exactly as fast as the $1000 models, but is almost twice as cheap as them.

Sorry if I seem like I am going too far into semantics, I can be a little OCD about being accurate.


Power consumption? Really? You're talking about overclocked gaming computers with massive video cards, even bigger monitors and typically multiple drives. If power consumption was truly a concern of gamers, they'd sell the PC and console and break out the ipad. HTPC and Server environments its important.


Electricity costs me roughly $500 a month for my NY apartment . Even if guilciri's math is off by a factor of 10, its utterly irrelevant.
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2012 5:33:47 PM

No, it's not irrelevant. If a CPU costs say $30 more a year, then after three years, that's almost $100. If a superior performing CPU that costs say $50 more up front but $40 less between buying it and your next upgrade, then that's $40 more that can be allocated to your next upgrade or anything else you want to it into.

Gamers who don't care about this obviously don't care about how much their computer costs them. I care and so do most other members on these forums. My electricity bill is a lot lower than what you claim yours to be and I'd like to keep it that way.

A tablet or whatever would not do what I need it to do, so that's obviously not an option. An HTPC wouldn't either, so it's not an option. So, I build a comptuer that does what I need it to do and does so in the least amount of money between buying it and the next upgrade as reasonably possible without cutting corners on quality, performance, and reliability.
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2012 5:34:05 PM

blazorthon said:
You forget idle power consumption


I did not

blazorthon said:
and do you mind if I ask how you came to that number? It most certainly doesn't quite match up with mine.


Googling "average cost of electricity in the U.S."
one site quote
"The average price of residential electricity was 12¢/kWh in the U.S. in April 2012"
http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/cost.html

blazorthon said:
Also, Why pay $1000? The i7-3930K is almost exactly as fast as the $1000 models, but is almost twice as cheap as them.

Sorry if I seem like I am going too far into semantics, I can be a little OCD about being accurate.


Using your own argument, the fact that we're comparing a $500 intel chip to a $250 AMD chip is telling in and of itself.

I don't blame you for semantics, I tend to go for technical wins all too often myself. But I've been making an effort to keep my arguments valid from a practical standpoint as of late.
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2012 5:36:37 PM

quilciri said:
I did not



Googling "average cost of electricity in the U.S."
one site quote
"The average price of residential electricity was 12¢/kWh in the U.S. in April 2012"
http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/cost.html



Using your own argument, the fact that we're comparing a $500 intel chip to a $250 AMD chip is telling in and of itself.

I don't blame you for semantics, I tend to go for technical wins all too often myself. But I've been making an effort to keep my arguments valid from a practical standpoint as of late.


I wanted to know how you got your power consumption numbers, not the average cost of electricity per KWh. What power consumption numbers are you comparing?

Also, my point wasn't really to compare the i7-3930K to the FX-8350, just to say that the FX doesn't beat all of AMD's consumer CPUs.
November 15, 2012 5:43:16 PM

Intel's architecture is just vastly better over AMD. To boot, they do it in a lot less power consumption. 77 vs 125 is a rather large difference. I've given up on AMD CPU's and rebuilt all my systems with Intel. They now all run quieter and faster and cooler. Price or no, AMD is just not worth it from an enthusiast standpoint.
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2012 5:50:27 PM

Architecturally, Piledriver actually seems to be superior to Sandy/Ivy Bridge as shown by comparing Trinity to them. The problem with the Vishera CPUs is the crap L3 cache. Sure, Piledriver can be improved (A lot), but it's already not inferior. Trinity has superior power efficiency compared to any other AMD and Intel solution for the same CPU and GPU performance range within the same performance/price ranges and is especially low in idle power consumption where it even beats Ivy Bridge dual-core models despite the lithography disadvantage.
November 15, 2012 6:02:07 PM

Coming in from left field here: Windows 8's idle power consumption is a ton lower than previous versions. In previous versions the kernel kept waking periodically to check if something needed to happen and went back to idle. However, in 8 the kernel can finally rest until something actually needs done. If you idle more than you work you'll have noticeable power savings.

On topic: Bulldozer is something of a black mark for AMD. Vishera made up some ground on that. I have a Vishera 6300 and am more than pleased with my system. This is after having a intel laptop and having an i7 machine at work. The leap frogging effect is merely at work and each generation of chip ups the current one from the other company. Vishera competes overall pretty nicely with Ivy Bridge. It doesn't win outright but for 1/2 - 2/3 the cost you get about 85-95% of the performance in most cases and even come out on top in others.

I'll gladly advocate AMD over Intel with both companies current offerings for new purchases. The few percentage points you lose in benchmarks compared to Intel doesn't matter in contrast to the money you save in return. You're literally throwing away money for mere bragging rights at this point until Intel releases something else to set it clearly ahead of AMD again. If AMD produces the gains they claim with Steamroller (30%) then that will be good again and that's not even a "performance release" which I suspect will be even larger when Excavator comes around.
a c 283 à CPUs
November 15, 2012 6:15:28 PM

This thread is going like all other AMD vs. Intel threads, but what else could you expect? No one ever wins, no one ever convinces the other side that their way of thinking is the "right" way, and it usually ends up in a flame war, until the thread gets hopelessly derailed and off-topic.

One thing I do wonder is why AMD supporters are the most fervent and outlandish in their thoughts about AMD and the idea of "going over to the "dark side"" with Intel. Not that Intel fanboys are saints (most certainly not), but it seems like the AMD side is always the one that has the most hard headed "I'm right, you're wrong, and you will never convince me otherwise" mentality.

Oh well. Had to get that out of my system. Continue on...
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2012 6:20:55 PM

I don't see how Intel costs more money. The only place they may have a cost savings is with their APU not needing a GPU for low end systems. The rest seem to be priced in the same ballpark as their Intel counterpart.

I Like AMD, if only for the underdog factor. But when I bought my Sandy i5, the 8120/8150 had just come out and they plain sucked in comparison for more money. 1100T and 1090T had dried up. Best bang for the buck at $175-200 was an i5 hands down.


Right now, I might have gone 8320, but the i5's are very good chips available for the same price.

November 15, 2012 6:22:39 PM

There is no "right" answer. As each company innovates each one will have the lime light at one point or another. However, AMD is far more economical than Intel so until that changes I will probably go with them until that changes.
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2012 6:27:35 PM

majestic1805 said:
However, AMD is far more economical than Intel.


Can you provide some examples? As I said above, I don't see it.
November 15, 2012 6:31:41 PM

Take the i7-3770K compared to the FX-8350. The 8350 @ 219.99 brings you very close in most cases and on top in some to the 3770K @ 319.99.
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2012 6:32:45 PM

Each company's offerings can be better for a given situation. Intel's more expensive i5s are superior gaming CPUs in most games and often by decent margins, so they're more expensive. When you consider their cost against the build as a whole, it's actually not bad. Let's say an AMD CPU against an AMD CPU, we have a difference in cost of $100. Platform costs will be about the same. If you have a $550 budget. spending that extra $100 to go from say an FX-4100 to an i5-2500K is a less than 20% cost increase, but in pretty much all games, that'll be a more than 20% CPU performance advantage assuming that the graphics can keep up.

The smart AMD supporter would then bring up the FX-6100 and how it doesn't lose in all games and doesn't use much more power. However, there's stil lthe win in most games. Then we have this situation-dependent thinking here. Should this AMD supporter play mostly games such as BF3 MP, Metro 2033, and other either very highly threaded or not very CPU-bottle-necked games, then the cost increase is, arguably, not worth it at all even if they didn't care whether they had an Intel CPU or an AMD CPU.

That FX-6100 is the better CPU for the job. This doesn't change when you compare the FX-6300 to the i5-3570K because the FX-6300's similar power consumption and higher performance than it's predecessor balances out the power consumption efficiency from the i5-3570K having similar performance but lower power consumption than its predecessor.

However, if that person does play other games that would benefit from an i5, then the i5's extra cost can be justified and the lower power consumption can help to offset that extra up-front cost over the computer's life time.

Neither person is wrong for choosing which CPU that they chose despite having different answers. Moral of the story is get what fits your task (performance, feature support, etc.) and that you're comfortable buying for other reasons (price, power consumption, etc.).
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2012 6:35:21 PM

DJDeCiBeL said:
One thing I do wonder is why AMD supporters are the most fervent and outlandish in their thoughts about AMD and the idea of "going over to the "dark side"" with Intel. Not that Intel fanboys are saints (most certainly not), but it seems like the AMD side is always the one that has the most hard headed "I'm right, you're wrong, and you will never convince me otherwise" mentality.


Thought I was doing a good job avoiding hyperbole :p 

I want AMD to climb back from the abyss badly, but more often than not, I reccommend intel to new system builders. I offer AMD as a option only to low budget builders willing to overclock.
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2012 6:45:53 PM

blazorthon said:
Each company's offerings can be better for a given situation. Intel's more expensive i5s are superior gaming CPUs in most games and often by decent margins, so they're more expensive. When you consider their cost against the build as a whole, it's actually not bad. Let's say an AMD CPU against an AMD CPU, we have a difference in cost of $100. Platform costs will be about the same. If you have a $550 budget. spending that extra $100 to go from say an FX-4100 to an i5-2500K is a less than 20% cost increase, but in pretty much all games, that'll be a more than 20% CPU performance advantage assuming that the graphics can keep up.

The smart AMD supporter would then bring up the FX-6100 and how it doesn't lose in all games and doesn't use much more power. However, there's stil lthe win in most games. Then we have this situation-dependent thinking here. Should this AMD supporter play mostly games such as BF3 MP, Metro 2033, and other either very highly threaded or not very CPU-bottle-necked games, then the cost increase is, arguably, not worth it at all even if they didn't care whether they had an Intel CPU or an AMD CPU.


I have to point out that this is also misleading. You have to know that a 20% increase in CPU performance does not equate to a 20% in game performance, but despite adding the caveat about graphics, this appears to be what you're trying to imply to justify the 20% cost increase.
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2012 6:50:04 PM

DJDeCiBeL said:
This thread is going like all other AMD vs. Intel threads, but what else could you expect? No one ever wins, no one ever convinces the other side that their way of thinking is the "right" way, and it usually ends up in a flame war, until the thread gets hopelessly derailed and off-topic.

One thing I do wonder is why AMD supporters are the most fervent and outlandish in their thoughts about AMD and the idea of "going over to the "dark side"" with Intel. Not that Intel fanboys are saints (most certainly not), but it seems like the AMD side is always the one that has the most hard headed "I'm right, your wrong, and you will never convince me otherwise" mentality.

Oh well. Had to get that out of my system. Continue on...



Derailed somewhat. The minimal differences in benchmarking and brand loyalty are leading to bad advice, the whole point of my OP.

Hypothetical; I have a $500 budget to upgrade, I primarily game and occasionally do some encoding. I'm not getting the FPS I want in newer titles. Can you please point me in the right direction?

Current build - Phenom II x4 965, 990fx MB, 1TB WB Black, HD 4870, 4 GB DDR3

I tried to make the hypothetical close to what I typically see by posters asking for upgrade advice. Please make your case for an Intel upgrade. This post would normally be immediately followed by "you need an i5 xxxx, AMD is slow...."
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2012 6:57:30 PM

quilciri said:
I have to point out that this is also misleading. You have to know that a 20% increase in CPU performance does not equate to a 20% in game performance, but despite adding the caveat about graphics, this appears to be what you're trying to imply to justify the 20% cost increase.


No, it's not misleading. I was referring to in-game performance too and it was a basic and slightly oversimplified example to explain how different situations can have different best answers. It's not a direct and perfectly accurate comparison between those two situations and I didn't use exact data to prove the points because that was unnecessary to show how different situations can have different answers.

It was a hypothetical comparison and in-game performance differences between i5s and FX can be much higher than 20% in several situations just as the opposite can be true in other situations.
November 15, 2012 6:58:13 PM

Assuming you have an adequate power supply and RAM slots I'd suggest going for an FX-6300, Radeon HD 7950 and another 4 GB of RAM. :) 

Est. cost: $460

With an i5-3570K: $540
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2012 7:01:06 PM

The whole intel thing is just like the whole Apple thing. "It's just better!", As I am so often told.


I don't understand the fanboy nature of this board. Sure, the i-series processors are the fastest consumer CPUs for sale. However, this carries a very greedy premium, despite being "the fastest" by not THAT big a margin.

The 965 BE, clock for clock, is only 25% slower than the 2500k.
However, the price of the 965 BE is 50% less than that of the 2500k.

965 BE = £80
i5 2500k = £160

Performance dif. = 25%


If someone were to go for the i5 2500k (being your average consumer, mind you) rather than the 965 BE, just because it's that lil' bit better, that would be a colossal waste of money.
Hell, £80 buys you an overclocked 7750, or an awesome AM3+ motherboard.


But I digress. AMD > Intel in Price/Performance
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2012 7:06:10 PM

MajinCry said:
The whole intel thing is just like the whole Apple thing. "It's just better!", As I am so often told.


I don't understand the fanboy nature of this board. Sure, the i-series processors are the fastest consumer CPUs for sale. However, this carries a very greedy premium, despite being "the fastest" by not THAT big a margin.

The 965 BE, clock for clock, is only 25% slower than the 2500k.
However, the price of the 965 BE is 50% less than that of the 2500k.

965 BE = £80
i5 2500k = £160

Performance dif. = 25%


If someone were to go for the i5 2500k (being your average consumer, mind you) rather than the 965 BE, just because it's that lil' bit better, that would be a colossal waste of money.
Hell, £80 buys you an overclocked 7750, or an awesome AM3+ motherboard.


But I digress. AMD > Intel in Price/Performance


The i5 overclocks a lot better and uses less power, so your example is flawed. For a higher end system where the 7750 doesn't matter, the i5 can be the better option just as for a lower end system, the Phenom II x4 can be a better option.
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2012 7:08:40 PM

majestic1805 said:
Take the i7-3770K compared to the FX-8350. The 8350 @ 219.99 brings you very close in most cases and on top in some to the 3770K @ 319.99.


8350 and i5-3570K are the same price but this seems to show the 3570K has an advantage in about 9/10 benchmarks: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=701

And you can say well the comes close to the i7 in most cases, but so does the i5.



a b à CPUs
November 15, 2012 7:09:51 PM

My pro-AMD argument, wouldn't be that the 6100 doesn't lose in most games. It would be that the Video card matters far more in game performance than the CPU. By that standard, in a gaming system you only need enough CPU to avoid bottlenecking your card, more than that is mostly waste.

a 3570k/HD 7850 isn't going to turn in much better numbers than the card paired with my humble x3. With the exception of a few CPU-centric games, I imagine the pepsi challenge between the rigs would turn out even.

A 3570k *could* be paired with 2 or 3 670's, while my CPU could not. The majority of gaming builds on these forums, however, pair way more processor with a card than it needs.

If I were building a system from scratch, I'd probably go with intel, but that'd be with around an $800 budget.
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2012 7:12:53 PM

quilciri said:
My pro-AMD argument, wouldn't be that the 6100 doesn't lose in most games. It would be that the Video card matters far more in game performance than the CPU. By that standard, in a gaming system you only need enough CPU to avoid bottlenecking your card, more than that is mostly waste.

a 3570k/HD 7850 isn't going to turn in much better numbers than the card paired with my humble x3. With the exception of a few CPU-centric games, I imagine the pepsi challenge between the rigs would turn out even.

A 3570k *could* be paired with 2 or 3 670's, while my CPU could not. The majority of gaming builds on these forums, however, pair way more processor with a card than it needs.

If I were building a system from scratch, I'd probably go with intel, but that'd be with around an $800 budget.


Tech Report proved that your view there is wrong. It's not about having enough of a CPU to not bottle-neck your card, it's about getting a CPU that can get time spent over 17ms per frame near or under zero, at least that's what it is for people who want true real-world 60FPS.

I posted it before and I'll post it again:


Even with a lower end card, an i5 can provide a smoother experience than a low end CPU. It won't fit in the budget properly of very low budget systems because you'd have to skimp on graphics or something else, so it's not feasible for such systems, but something such as say $700 to $800 will fit an i5 just fine and the experience will be better than most other CPUs in most games almost regardless of which graphics card you get.
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2012 7:14:28 PM

I like the pepsi challenge statement. Despite arguing that Intel has a little bit of an advantage here, I do agree 9/10 people would not be able to tell if you somehow magically replaced their i3 with a fx-4000 series or their i5- with a 6300 or 8300 series overnight. We show these awesome benchmarks where the intel slaughters the AmD by getting 10% more fps or finishing a mp3 encode in 12 less seconds, but who notices that in real life when they don't have their stopwatch running?
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2012 7:17:46 PM

twelve25 said:
I like the pepsi challenge statement. Despite arguing that Intel has a little bit of an advantage here, I do agree 9/10 people would not be able to tell if you somehow magically replaced their i3 with a fx-4000 series or their i5- with a 6300 or 8300 series overnight. We show these awesome benchmarks where the intel slaughters the AmD by getting 10% more fps or finishing a mp3 encode in 12 less seconds, but who notices that in real life when they don't have their stopwatch running?


It'd depend on the situation. A lot of people wouldn't be able to tell, but a lot of enthusiast gamers are far more sensitive to such things than the average person. Pretty much anyone who is sensitive to micro-stutter would probably be sensitive to this too. For example, I can tell the difference between my Phenom II x6 1090T at stock and overclocked to a little over 4GHz in some games with my Radeon 7850. In some games, an i5 would make an even bigger difference than that.
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2012 7:18:28 PM

majestic1805 said:
Assuming you have an adequate power supply and RAM slots I'd suggest going for an FX-6300, Radeon HD 7950 and another 4 GB of RAM. :) 

Est. cost: $460

With an i5-3570K: $540


With the i5 either you didn't buy the MB or no new Vid Card.

Nice and logical suggestion btw, which would be ceremoniously followed by 95 comments stating how bad and slow AMD is. Misleading this poster into either spending more than his original budget or buying parts that don't meet the original needs.

Thanks majestic1805, knew I forgot to list a relevant piece. I may have gone ssd over the 6300, but the drive really won't do much for FSP.
    • 1 / 6
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!