Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

What are your thoughts of amd cpus in general?

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • AMD
Last response: in CPUs
a b à CPUs
March 4, 2013 8:57:20 AM

I just wanted to see some opinions on people thoughts of Amd cpus in general, Im stuyding in University and people just seem to hate amd cpus with a passion?

What are your thoughts on there cpus?

Would you actually recommend a Amd cpu to a close friend or just your family/mates in general if you were building a pc for them? etc

Thanks for your time Just interested in some thoughts and opinions

More about : thoughts amd cpus general

a c 108 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 4, 2013 9:04:44 AM

Depends what you want them for but at the low end nothing perfoms better than a 965BE for the price. A FX6300 costs a bit more than an i3 and what you are running determines whats best but being able to overclock helps the FX alot. When you compare the 3850 vs i5 or i7 its a cheaper option but what you use it for makes an even bigger difference. Intel universally uses less power if thats important to you and its individual core perform better than AMDs while AMD gives you more cores for you money and you can overclock all CPUs at all price points not just the most expensive.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 4, 2013 9:13:11 AM

How much does the FX6300 cost where you live?
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 108 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 4, 2013 9:17:22 AM

Around £100 inc. VAT so £80 without tax.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 4, 2013 9:21:58 AM

Oh yea? Basically the same here in Australia, Your right though the i3 is quite a bit cheaper, here the 6300 £22 more than the i3 but ive noticed that games are becoming more heavily threaded so im not too sure about the i3 anymore
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 4, 2013 9:36:35 AM

The AMD FX CPUs and A series APUs are greet value for the lower end market. Although on the higher end, AMD doesn't offer a product that can compete with Intel. You can ignore the AMD haters. They are just irrational.
m
0
l
a c 80 à CPUs
March 4, 2013 9:51:00 AM

You'd be amazed to know, the price diff between a 3220 and a 6300 is ~ 8 Australian dollars in India. but most people do not understand price for performance and stick with the i3.
I was shocked when a guy I know who runs this little computer shop asked me not to get a FX8320 for my room mate's build coz it was a bad cpu which was like 5 years old tech and is known to burn (actually catch fire).

It took me 15 mins to convince him to call up his guy in another city who told him that 83xx was a new line. By this time my room mate had pretty much made his mind to go Intel because of this BS. we were finally told that 8320 would not be available but we still got an 8120 (It's a render machine with little to no gaming).

My room mate is now more confident about AMD (I actually made him read through some of the posts here to convince him). And that machine has not given any problem till date.

In my opinion, AMD has good cpu's and all of them are good enough for regular day to day work. Their apu's are excellent for their intended purpose. The latest ps4 cpu's IGP says something about what AMD is capable of achieving in terms of on die GPU and what their APU's can deliver in coming years.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 4, 2013 9:55:32 AM

Yea thats what i mean, Like why do people sprout BS about amd saying there horrible slow cpus? I just dont understand where people get this hate for amd from.. I just wish everyone knew amd for what they truly are. Decent cpus at a good price.. sigh
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 4, 2013 10:00:43 AM

Fair-weather fan. I think they support Intel and put down AMD for that reason. Just because Intel has the performance lead.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 4, 2013 10:04:58 AM

Was it like that when Amd had the perfomance lead?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 4, 2013 10:14:34 AM

Pretty sure. When AMD has the performance lead, I was at high school and there were so many AMD fanboy. I bet the same fanboy is cheering for Intel now.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 4, 2013 10:21:38 AM

Haha fanboys. Oh well ill just try my best to ignore them haha
m
0
l
March 4, 2013 11:01:32 AM

Depends on what you want to get. For multi-threaded applications with cheaper price, go for AMD. For gaming ... just choose Intel. Green Peace minded, go for Intel since it "eats" smaller watts than AMD. :-P
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 4, 2013 11:13:11 AM

To be honest, I've only ever had AMD machines, i once had a T5500 intel in a laptop but it was horrible.

The reason i mainly go with AMD is because it serves me well, it does what i want it to and it does it at a cheaper cost.

So why would i want to change that?
m
0
l
a c 639 à CPUs
a c 205 À AMD
March 4, 2013 12:58:40 PM

Overall, AMD CPUs provides good performance. However, they need significantly reduce power consumption and they need to focus again on increasing IPC.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 4, 2013 1:17:54 PM

Well, we'll see what the future brings - AMD optimizes its processors for heavily threaded applications and ups the clockspeed as much as they can while Intel pushes the efficiency and tries to tickle the max out of every cycle.

Not surprising the overclocked 8350 /4x2c@4.0GHz OC@4.6GHz/ trades fair blows with stock i7-3770k /4+4c@3.5GHz/ in heavily multithreaded tasks while losing to an old i5-2400 (4c@3.1GHz) in single thread. And while it is still 100+USD cheaper than that i7, it still eats more than 50W from the plug compared to i7.
m
0
l
March 28, 2013 2:13:34 PM

I personally prefer AMD chips, and this is mostly because I'm on quite a budget. I picked up an Athlon II X3 455 RANA processor for $65 on eBay quite a few months back for my custom build, and for older games like Fallout 3 (my favorite game) and even newer ones like Skyrim, it runs great! It has a base clock of 3.3GHz, but I overclocked it to 3.8GHz no problem on a Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus CPU cooler. It definitely doesn't compare to something like a 2500K Intel processor, but for the price, they're fantastic chips in my opinion.
m
0
l
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 28, 2013 4:46:09 PM

From my perspective...AMD has always been good about minding the consumer.

By that, I mean that AMD has fantastic quality control, and if you ever have to deal with them directly...they are so much easier to deal with then intel.

AMD makes a great product, the current design is ahead of it's time, though, that's about to change quickly. Software always lags behind hardware, because software begins developing for 2-3 years to work on one game, and they go by what is state of the art when they began development, (or perhaps, even a little above that knowing the hardware will be there at release). Though, now games like Crysis 3 which are arriving and were using AMD graphics developer's tools are starting to take greater advantage of the 8 cores available to them.

AMD will quickly catch up to intel in the next 12-18 months without having to do much more than what they are doing now, simply because the software coding instructions will become much more heavily threaded, and they will begin to code games in a parallel format, instead of serial type formats.

These intel bandwagoners will be surprised to see the gap close and possibly even open the other way to some degree once the next gen consoles become well established and the plethora of ports to the PC begin to happen.

AMD is well positioned to take the throne in gaming in the coming year, we will see how it goes, but I have high hopes for steamroller and excavator.
m
0
l
March 28, 2013 5:54:27 PM

AMD gives 80-90 percent processing capability relative to Intel for a nice lower price. You can say that, AMD is like Ford, they give you a lot of value for your money and make great cars, but compared to BMW (as Intel), they don't perform as well.
m
0
l
April 28, 2014 5:57:08 PM

AMD's are on the lower end of the pricing scale and have significant overclocking use (FX series) by my knowledge. But Intel currently has a grasp on the high end of the totem pole regarding overall performance with the downfall of being more expensive.
m
0
l