AMD CPU

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
I

iconicsin

Honorable
Nov 13, 2012
146
0
10,680
Hey guys question here and don't wanna start fights at all keep that in mind lol. But I have a AMD Athlon ii 3.2ghz 450 Rana triple core in my gaming computer that's 2 years old. I have had no problem with it in gaming and stuff and it's paired with a HD 5850 I have issues on d3 occasionally but it's understandable. But my question is why do so many people down amd I have one and it seems to work very well that's why I'm kinda leaning towards them for my next build and no not really on a budget i can afford intel but I've not had trouble with amd thanks
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
MajinCry

MajinCry

Distinguished
Dec 8, 2011
958
0
19,010
Because people want to justify the insane premium they paid for that 10-30% edge in performance.

Really. That is it all it is.

The i5 2500k? Costs £160. 125% performance of the 965 BE.
The 965 BE? Costs £80. 100% performance of the 965 BE.

Brand loyalty also plays into things...Which is asinine. It's like Sony vs Panasonic. Sure, Sony does have the biggest TVs, but they are the most expensive. Panasonic may not have the biggest, but neither do they have the biggest prices.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
W

willard

Distinguished
Nov 12, 2010
2,346
0
19,960

Or, think about it in a more logical way. Because the CPU provides a boost to the computer's speed, we'll consider the cost of the computer and its impact on the computer's performance. Let's say you've got a $1000 computer (pretty average). The 965 BE costs $100, while the 2500k costs $200. So, we'll say the AMD computer saves $100 and costs $900.

So, the Intel computer costs 11% more ($1000/$900), but runs 25% faster. That's an awesome return on investment in my book.

Pretty much buying the brand name then?
Click to expand...
Absolutely not. Intel chips are considerably faster than AMD chips. In fact, the 2500k that Majin was attacking for being a poor value is almost universally considered to be the best value in processors for the last couple years. Even more, AMD's chips are so much slower than Intel's chips that it took them two product launches (Bulldozer and Piledriver) to catch up to the 2500k's performance, but even still their chips fall very far behind in the majority of workloads (workloads must be perfectly threaded AND have no floating point work to get 100% of AMD's newer chips' performance).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
A

aicom

Honorable
Mar 29, 2012
923
1
11,160


It's not that simple. There are vastly more factors to consider. For gaming, I really don't have a problem with recommending AMD. They provide good-enough performance for a much lower price. For doing intense computation, it makes more sense to go with an Intel CPU.

Everybody seem to like the price/performance comparison but people doing serious work would gladly pay $10 for 1% because that difference saves them time and allows them to get videos, applications, etc done faster. In this case, absolute performance is really what matters because money is no object.

Even Intel provides some compelling values. For vector calculations, an i5-2500K could easily double the performance of a 965 due to the addition of the AVX instruction set. QuickSync is also a good value for those who do some casual encoding. A dual-core Core i3 could outperform the 8-core FX-8350 when utilizing QuickSync for transcoding.

There's also the power argument. Current generation Intel desktop CPUs use a maximum of 77W, while comparable AMD CPUs require 125W to do the same work (sometimes slower). For me, this argument doesn't matter because power doesn't cost much where I live, but in many countries where power is expensive, this power difference is a significant reduction in the monthly power bill.

I personally like both companies. It's a matter of choosing the right CPU at the right price range that makes the most sense for the intended use of the machine. Anyone who flat out says "Intel's better" or "AMD's better" is wrong.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
maxinexus

maxinexus

Distinguished
Jan 1, 2007
1,101
1
19,360
Pretty much it does not matter if game runs at 88fps or 84fps or 74fps.
Simply said no one will be able to tell which system is AMD or which system is Intel.
When you look at graphs Intel is better for gaming but as resolution increases so does intels "advantage" disapay. Look at the 2560x1600 resolution
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-14.html

If you game a lot you will are much better off changing your VGA than CPU.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
W

willard

Distinguished
Nov 12, 2010
2,346
0
19,960

Agreed. Any quick forum discussion like this is going to gloss over a lot of things. The real question that should be asked is "which processor is right for me" rather than "which processor is better." Intel is obviously faster, but also costs more. Whether or not that makes sense is up to the builder to decide.

Even Intel provides some compelling values. For vector calculations, an i5-2500K could easily double the performance of a 965 due to the addition of the AVX instruction set. QuickSync is also a good value for those who do some casual encoding. A dual-core Core i3 could outperform the 8-core FX-8350 when utilizing QuickSync for transcoding.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, QuickSync support still kind of sucks. Encoding certain formats is blazing fast, but I've yet to run into any transcoding and streaming software that can make use of it.

There's also the power argument. Current generation Intel desktop CPUs use a maximum of 77W, while comparable AMD CPUs require 125W to do the same work (sometimes slower). For me, this argument doesn't matter because power doesn't cost much where I live, but in many countries where power is expensive, this power difference is a significant reduction in the monthly power bill.
Click to expand...
I think it's still worth bringing up, because the AMD supporters are going to push the value proposition as far as they can, so all considerations need to be brought in. Doing a really naive comparison, we'll say the Intel computer runs 33% of the time (probably too high) at 48 watts less. That gives us about 140 KWh of energy used per year, or about $15. In other words, 15% of AMD's initial cost savings evaporate each year.

I personally like both companies. It's a matter of choosing the right CPU at the right price range that makes the most sense for the intended use of the machine. Anyone who flat out says "Intel's better" or "AMD's better" is wrong.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Intel is clearly much faster, but that's only one part of the story.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I

iconicsin

Honorable
Nov 13, 2012
146
0
10,680
Ah I gave my pc to my brother so starting fresh and I'm just gaming and watching movies on it and always saw amd getting downed so I really wanted to learn more from everyone it's working I'm learning a lot :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
S

SteveH3671

Distinguished
Dec 20, 2010
62
0
18,640
I think it's because a lot of people on this forum are obsessed with having the very fastest computer possible. Nothing wrong with that. But if you aren't bothered about it, your PC (or mine, which is very similar) is more than enough. Run almost any game perfectly adequately at 1080p. But they're not sexy.

It is also a bit sad that AMD have not improved their IPC much since the Athlon X2s from 2008. They can be justifiably criticized for that. While Intel have really advanced their game.

But for less ambitious machines AMD have always been fine.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Wisecracker

Wisecracker

Splendid
Jan 15, 2007
8,106
17
31,965
AMD CPUs are fine. Intel CPUs are fine. There simply is not the huge difference that folks sometimes pretend exist -- even in power consumption.

The best advice to take to heart is spend the least amount of money possible as manufactured obsolescence is a standard industry practice. Faster, less expensive, more efficient and capable tech is always a few short months away.

That's why we joke about the concept of *future-proof* :lol:

Future-proof your wallet, first and foremost.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Wisecracker

Wisecracker

Splendid
Jan 15, 2007
8,106
17
31,965
Start with your gaming resolution and the titles you may like to play -- this will impact your video card selection.

The PhII965 BE is $85 and will push any modern card. Most 965s will approach 4GHz at 1.3875v without issue if you like to tweak and feel the need for **more power**

The FX-6300 is fine, but it's another $50+ That's a 64GB SSD :D

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
gamerk316

gamerk316

Glorious
Jul 8, 2008
13,234
130
44,840


Not really:

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/14

gaming-scatter.gif
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Wisecracker

Wisecracker

Splendid
Jan 15, 2007
8,106
17
31,965
No promises as of yet but with luck next-gen Steamroller CPUs with a BIOS update, too. For an mATX you will will have to drop down to the 880-chipset AM3+ motherboards. Avoid that if you can.

That's a *Ultra-Durable* board with 8+2 (really 4+1 x2) power that should handle any CPU you throw at it. Take manual control of your voltages and that 965BE will likely take quite a respectable under-volt.









 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom