[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Dear AMD (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 10/11/2011 9:23:33 PM EDT
|
Fuck you and your Bulldozer. Take that processor and stick it straight into your ass.
|
|
Meh.. I float between them. Last processor was a 3.4HT Prescott that even water cooled could nearly contain the fire at stock speeds
Now I am running a Phenom II X4 955 black. It's better than what I have and I am happy with it. When the 8 cores come down a bit more I will jump to that. Unless Intel provides a better processor at the time of future purchase. |
|
Quoted:
AMD didn't start sucking 4 Years ago They've ALWAYS sucked You may pay a little more for a Intel CPU but it's so much better As in so many other things in life you pay for what you get I disagree. AMD makes good processors. When I build a computer, I see what the best bang for the buck processor is and that is usually AMD. When it happens to be Intel, I'll buy Intel. Fanbois 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
AMD didn't start sucking 4 Years ago They've ALWAYS sucked You may pay a little more for a Intel CPU but it's so much better As in so many other things in life you pay for what you get I disagree. AMD makes good processors. When I build a computer, I see what the best bang for the buck processor is and that is usually AMD. When it happens to be Intel, I'll buy Intel. Fanbois By any sane benchmark, this hasn't been true for several iterations of desktop processors. |
| Intel has always had the faster chip but AMD could get better speeds at lower clock rates by way of algorithms that manipulated the data. The multi cores have made chips insanely stupid in processing power and we'll see it balance out again between the two methods once more complex programs come out. |
|
Quoted:
Intel has always had the faster chip but AMD could get better speeds at lower clock rates by way of algorithms that manipulated the data. The multi cores have made chips insanely stupid in processing power and we'll see it balance out again between the two methods once more complex programs come out. Multiple cores enhance multithreaded apps, to be sure, but Intel's bus architecture is superior. Data simply moves through the entire system faster, not just the CPU core(s). Combine that with their GPU enhancements and it's just a dominant environment. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
AMD didn't start sucking 4 Years ago They've ALWAYS sucked You may pay a little more for a Intel CPU but it's so much better As in so many other things in life you pay for what you get I disagree. AMD makes good processors. When I build a computer, I see what the best bang for the buck processor is and that is usually AMD. When it happens to be Intel, I'll buy Intel. Fanbois Yeah I've personally wasted several thousand dollars on AMD CPUs Always would think well it's gotta be better than last time Never has been Never have they overclocked worth a damn And if you do ANYTHING other than game on a PC well they have ALWAYS sucked at that Add in every last personal computer that is brought to me to fix, if it has an AMD it's always slow as crap But then again I've Only been doing this since before AMD existed so yeah I don't know what I'm talking about Get back to me when they get to 50% of ANY metric with Intel in 4 and up CPU systems Cost, heat, etc - ANY metric sure in SOME benchmarks they are competitive Sadly none of those benchmarks come close to my or anybody else's usage model I'll keep paying for Intel - cause it's better |
|
Still early days. The Phenom was poor out of the blocks but Phenom II was kick arse. BD goes good for BF3 according to this But the power usage iof BD stinks apparently. |
|
Quoted:
I'm running an AMD X6 black edition I bought a year ago. It runs great and was less than half the cost of a comparable 6 core intel cpu at the time. As far as bang for the buck AMD is where its at. You can't convince the Intel fanbois of that. See the responses to me above. AMD isn't always the best bang for the buck. I've purchased Intel a couple times because it made more sense. But yeah, it usually is. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm running an AMD X6 black edition I bought a year ago. It runs great and was less than half the cost of a comparable 6 core intel cpu at the time. As far as bang for the buck AMD is where its at. You can't convince the Intel fanbois of that. See the responses to me above. AMD isn't always the best bang for the buck. I've purchased Intel a couple times because it made more sense. But yeah, it usually is. But the thing is it isn't about cores. The cheaper intel CPU's outperform AMD CPU's. AMD's solution to their CPU's sucking is to just add more cores. When I built a budget gaming PC I used a $120 intel CPU, and it smoked AMD's closest competitors and some of their more expensive CPU's The only fanboys in here are the AMD people, because they blindlessly follow AMD even though intel has offered much better CPU's for years. |
|
Quoted:
I like how AMD at least used to, and may still have, a longer upgrade path vs. Intel switching their CPU socket layout every single time. That really never mattered to me anyway, I've always been an Intel user and I run my systems into the ground and build a new one when needed...several years apart I'm going to want a different class each time I upgrade. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: You idiots should have realized AMD is shit 4 years ago. It all went south for AMD after the Core2Duo came out It all went south for me when they started not including all of the instruction sets for MMX and other little things like that ( I know MMX was a long time ago but I still remember!). I was burnt by a 6 month old proc that had an important MMX routine left out and pretty much crippled any of the newest games of that time from coming out. It was like having a big block chevy with a 22R air intake on it. That was my last AMD purchase. The C2D was a world beater when it came out IMO. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: AMD didn't start sucking 4 Years ago They've ALWAYS sucked You may pay a little more for a Intel CPU but it's so much better As in so many other things in life you pay for what you get I disagree. AMD makes good processors. When I build a computer, I see what the best bang for the buck processor is and that is usually AMD. When it happens to be Intel, I'll buy Intel. Fanbois Yeah I've personally wasted several thousand dollars on AMD CPUs Always would think well it's gotta be better than last time Never has been Never have they overclocked worth a damn And if you do ANYTHING other than game on a PC well they have ALWAYS sucked at that Add in every last personal computer that is brought to me to fix, if it has an AMD it's always slow as crap But then again I've Only been doing this since before AMD existed so yeah I don't know what I'm talking about Get back to me when they get to 50% of ANY metric with Intel in 4 and up CPU systems Cost, heat, etc - ANY metric sure in SOME benchmarks they are competitive Sadly none of those benchmarks come close to my or anybody else's usage model I'll keep paying for Intel - cause it's better No... Cyrix sucked ass. AMDs were better for a time. That time has been gone for quite a while now. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm running an AMD X6 black edition I bought a year ago. It runs great and was less than half the cost of a comparable 6 core intel cpu at the time. As far as bang for the buck AMD is where its at. You can't convince the Intel fanbois of that. See the responses to me above. AMD isn't always the best bang for the buck. I've purchased Intel a couple times because it made more sense. But yeah, it usually is. But the thing is it isn't about cores. The cheaper intel CPU's outperform AMD CPU's. AMD's solution to their CPU's sucking is to just add more cores. When I built a budget gaming PC I used a $120 intel CPU, and it smoked AMD's closest competitors and some of their more expensive CPU's The only fanboys in here are the AMD people, because they blindlessly follow AMD even though intel has offered much better CPU's for years. Intel also took advantage of it's customers for YEARS before they had real competition. Some of us remember that and aren't in any hurry to see them have the monopoly on PC processors again anytime soon. Competition is a good thing and AMD still provides that on some level. Intel is the undisputed speed king at the moment, but for the vast majority of users, the i7 is extreme overkill. Hell, the i5 provides more power than the average user needs. When AMD's CPUs can still provide more than enough power to do everything normal users require, why spend the extra money on Intel? Intel motherboards, on average, are more expensive, as are their CPUs. Outside of some Shell Shocker deals, I can build an AMD system for less that will be plenty fast for most users. Hell, I beat the crap out of mine, and the AMD quad-core in it keeps up with no problem. I'm eventually going to build an i7 based system, but that isn't going to happen this year. Probably not next year, either. I just don't have any real need for it right now. |
|
I love my AMD Phenom II X3 720, no complaints for gaming. The CPU isn't as important as the GPU nowadays. That is why high end video cards have like eleventy billion "streaming processors" or some other marketing wizardry and use enough power for 3 cities, requiring liquid nitrogen for cooling. |
| the last time I bought an AMD processor was about 6 years ago. I would say that was AMD's high point in the CPU war; their power/dollar ratio was better than intel, and they weren't melting entire towers down into a blob of molten metal just because the screen saver came on. As someone else said, when the core 2 duo came out, the game changed. Now with the core i series, you couldn't give me an AMD, especially their low-end stuff. |
|
Quoted:
the last time I bought an AMD processor was about 6 years ago. I would say that was AMD's high point in the CPU war; their power/dollar ratio was better than intel, and they weren't melting entire towers down into a blob of molten metal just because the screen saver came on. As someone else said, when the core 2 duo came out, the game changed. Now with the core i series, you couldn't give me an AMD, especially their low-end stuff. +1 I build my own computer and I am not a fanboy. I have used AMD in the past. I haven't upgraded my tower in a few years. AMD used to be better, now Intel is. If that changes when i decide to upgrade, I'll get the best processor for the money. |
|
BD, one decode/fetch + two integer units + 1 FP = 2 cores???? What kind of fuzzy logic is that?
I could see calling it two cores if each integer unit had its own fetch and decode, but all it is is one core with 2 integer units. This looks like a chip designed to be sold at bargain basement prices. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
the last time I bought an AMD processor was about 6 years ago. I would say that was AMD's high point in the CPU war; their power/dollar ratio was better than intel, and they weren't melting entire towers down into a blob of molten metal just because the screen saver came on. As someone else said, when the core 2 duo came out, the game changed. Now with the core i series, you couldn't give me an AMD, especially their low-end stuff. +1 I build my own computer and I am not a fanboy. I have used AMD in the past. I haven't upgraded my tower in a few years. AMD used to be better, now Intel is. If that changes when i decide to upgrade, I'll get the best processor for the money. I've been an AMD fan, when they were good. But its almost impossible to be a fan now. I've owned P90, P200mmx, K6-2, Celeron300a, athlon 700, athlon xp 2000, athlon xp 3000, athlon 64.... and that's what I'm currently running (slackware linux runs just fine, all I do is web surf). So I'm 3:5 intel to AMD ratio, and an admitted fanboy, but I wouldn't touch anything they've made lately unless it was just about free. |
|
My last AMD build was a 2500+ Barton core, (late 2003), and it's still running as a NAS box in the basement. Everything I've done since then has been Core2Duo. Since I'm neither a hardcore gamer nor a developer, my systems work just fine running stock stuff in stock configuration. I care mostly that they're cool and quiet.
When I build, I look for power consumption/thermal performance, clock speed, price, then benchmarks––in that order. That seems always to lead to Intel these days. |