I never overclock, anything, but I always buy Intel CPUs. It has nothing to do with Youtube videos or recommendations on hardware sites. It used to be that AMD made really cheap processors that sucked, so AMD trained me to buy Intel CPUs. I realize that may not be the case anymore, but I got in the habit of buying Intel, just like I got in the habit of buying Nvidia.
In order to get me to switch, both the performance and the price difference would have to SO radical as to leave me no other choice but to buy AMD. I just don't see that happening anytime soon.
i owned a amd fx 6100 i kept overclocked to 4.5 speeds with a radeon 6950 also OC.
I recently purchased a laptop with a I7 3630 stock speeds with a nvidia 670m inside and I get the exact same frame rates as my desktop computer was overclocked with a lot lower clock speeds. I would of swore by AMD about a year ago but after seeing what intel can do with much less heat and speeds Im sticking to Intel from now on for sure.
I never overclock, anything, but I always buy Intel CPUs. It has nothing to do with Youtube videos or recommendations on hardware sites. It used to be that AMD made really cheap processors that sucked, so AMD trained me to buy Intel CPUs. I realize that may not be the case anymore, but I got in the habit of buying Intel, just like I got in the habit of buying Nvidia.
In order to get me to switch, both the performance and the price difference would have to SO radical as to leave me no other choice but to buy AMD. I just don't see that happening anytime soon.
2002-2006 AMD had a radically better processor for a radically cheaper price.
Still AMD really needs a homerun now. They are making process and with Intel's current direction it will be possible for them to catchup. At this point there are good reasons to get AMD verse Intel and vice versa. Now if you are playing games and can get the Intel for the same price as the AMD, then get the Intel. They will perform the same but the Intel will cost less in electricity. However this power difference only saves tens of dollars. If its too much get AMD as its all a price thing at this point. The minimum to play games CPU wise is so ridiculously low that it doesn't make sense to look at over $200 for the CPU unless you are doing more then playing games and that task requires a processor. Right now you are also looking both Microsoft and Sony using AMD processors in their next consoles.
Outside of gaming, there is only 1 reason to get an AMD processor and thats 3D Rendering which I do. Its the only task AMD beats Intel at.
The bulldozers sucked, but the pile drivers are decent mid range chips, there's nothing wrong with using them if your on a budget.
For gaming you really dont need anything more powerful than a Fx6300, which if Intel made such a thing would be equivelent to an i5-2400k.
Now at work where I do massive compiles and installations and stuff, no i wouldn't use AMD chip, I use an 8 core i7, but that's so I'm sat idle for 30 minutes instead of 40 when we do a big build, so its worth it economically.
Video cards I'm the other way, prefer AMD to nvidia, as I've had 2 nvidias burn out on me and over here nvidia are massively over priced, e.g.660ti is more expensive than a 7950.
You don't have to be the fastest kid on the block to be competitive. AMD has realized this, and priced their products accordingly.
They are very compelling in the budget range for a desktop, where saving $75-100 means a lot. If you are looking at a laptop, the AMD APU's win hands down to all but the very high end.
Haswell may change that equation some for power consumption (Intel is already very competitive on power draw as it is, but something that is 10x better is very significant), but I still don't think they will be competitive on the IGP, and if you are looking at a total package, the AMD APU's are still very compelling.
For servers where lots of cores win, AMD has been pushing hard - lots of less expensive (and even slower) cores wins, and at a fraction of the price Intel charges for a similar number of cores.
No, I don't think AMD needs a home run. I think they have identified their niches - graphics integration (with their ATI purchase), and lower cost cores. They just need to continue to lean on these strengths and they will do just fine to all but the fanboys who refuse to look past the brand name on the "Inside" sticker.
Their current products aren't the fastest, but they are "fast enough" for nearly every purpose, and at half the price - that makes them a viable alternative, and competition is good for the market.
I don't give a crap about branding in processors or gpus etc.I buy what gives me the most bang for my buck at the time of pruichase and in my price range when it coems to processors though I always include the prices of motherboards needed to seat said processors in into the equation not just the cost of the processor.
It depends on what you want to do with it. If you need top end single-threaded CPU performance, then Intel. If you want a highly portable laptop, then AMD. For anything else, what's your budget?
Neither is correct. As Quizzical pointed out, Intel is better for both games and many productivity applications.
AMD is now focusing on mobile processors as well as other markets. There won't be any more AMD vs Intel for desktop gaming; the FX series (Bulldozer) is the last of AMD's desktop processors. This is old news, by the way.
You don't have to be the fastest kid on the block to be competitive. AMD has realized this, and priced their products accordingly.
They are very compelling in the budget range for a desktop, where saving $75-100 means a lot. If you are looking at a laptop, the AMD APU's win hands down to all but the very high end.
Haswell may change that equation some for power consumption (Intel is already very competitive on power draw as it is, but something that is 10x better is very significant), but I still don't think they will be competitive on the IGP, and if you are looking at a total package, the AMD APU's are still very compelling.
For servers where lots of cores win, AMD has been pushing hard - lots of less expensive (and even slower) cores wins, and at a fraction of the price Intel charges for a similar number of cores.
No, I don't think AMD needs a home run. I think they have identified their niches - graphics integration (with their ATI purchase), and lower cost cores. They just need to continue to lean on these strengths and they will do just fine to all but the fanboys who refuse to look past the brand name on the "Inside" sticker.
Their current products aren't the fastest, but they are "fast enough" for nearly every purpose, and at half the price - that makes them a viable alternative, and competition is good for the market.
For a number of years AMD had the fastest and cheaper processor. They still did not gain marketshare. It takes alot for people to think AMD is something more. I think alot of people treat AMD as some cheap knock-off alternative compared to a namebrand product because of Intel's marketing budget.
Neither is correct. As Quizzical pointed out, Intel is better for both games and many productivity applications.
AMD is now focusing on mobile processors as well as other markets. There won't be any more AMD vs Intel for desktop gaming; the FX series (Bulldozer) is the last of AMD's desktop processors. This is old news, by the way.
Games? Since when did I say anything about games? Games don't need top end single-threaded performance unless they're badly-coded.
While AMD doesn't make processors specifically targeted at desktops anymore, neither does Intel. Intel doesn't put integrated graphics into their $200 and $300 desktop chips because they think desktop users will actually use them. They're designed more with laptops than desktops in mind, as are AMD's A-series APUs, though you can put both in desktops and they'll work. AMD's FX chips are designed primarily with servers in mind, as are Intel's top end "desktop" chips such as Bloomfield, Gulftown, and Sandy Bridge-E.
As I see it, the most recent CPU chip designed primarily with desktops in mind is AMD's Thuban (Phenom II X6), which came way back in 2010. You could make a case for the FX-41*0 and FX-4300 as being primarily desktop chips, too (as I think those are different dies from the 6- and 8-core variants, which are mainly server chips), but the most recent Intel chip that you could plausibly say was mainly a desktop chip was Lynnfield, way back in 2009.
But just because AMD doesn't release any more chips intended mainly for desktops doesn't mean that there won't be any more AMD processors used in desktops. Indeed, AMD's Richland APU could launch any day now; my best guess is March. Kaveri is coming around the end of this year.
While AMD hasn't announced it yet, I expect that they'll make a chip with 10-12 Steamroller cores and DDR4 memory and release it next year, both for desktops and servers. If AMD manages to deliver the 15% IPC boost that they're promising and Intel remains unwilling to go over 4 cores in in the sub-$500 market (both plausible but far from certain), appropriate bins of that chip could easily end up as the best $200 and $300 gaming processors on the market.
You don't have to be the fastest kid on the block to be competitive. AMD has realized this, and priced their products accordingly.
They are very compelling in the budget range for a desktop, where saving $75-100 means a lot. If you are looking at a laptop, the AMD APU's win hands down to all but the very high end.
Haswell may change that equation some for power consumption (Intel is already very competitive on power draw as it is, but something that is 10x better is very significant), but I still don't think they will be competitive on the IGP, and if you are looking at a total package, the AMD APU's are still very compelling.
For servers where lots of cores win, AMD has been pushing hard - lots of less expensive (and even slower) cores wins, and at a fraction of the price Intel charges for a similar number of cores.
No, I don't think AMD needs a home run. I think they have identified their niches - graphics integration (with their ATI purchase), and lower cost cores. They just need to continue to lean on these strengths and they will do just fine to all but the fanboys who refuse to look past the brand name on the "Inside" sticker.
Their current products aren't the fastest, but they are "fast enough" for nearly every purpose, and at half the price - that makes them a viable alternative, and competition is good for the market.
For a number of years AMD had the fastest and cheaper processor. They still did not gain marketshare. It takes alot for people to think AMD is something more. I think alot of people treat AMD as some cheap knock-off alternative compared to a namebrand product because of Intel's marketing budget.
They sold Athlon 64 chips as fast as they could produce them, and at prices that didn't exactly scream "budget alternative". But if your fabs can only crank out 10 million chips in a given unit of time, you can't sell 20 million chips very well. Decisions on fab capacity have to be made long before you know exactly how good your product and your competitor's product will be. If AMD had a successor to Vishera available today that doubled performance in all cases with no drawbacks, they wouldn't suddenly be able to claim 50% marketshare because they simply don't have the fab capacity available.
Bobcat and Jaguar cores (and presumably their unannounced successors), on the other hand, are made on off-the-shelf process nodes. If shortly after launch, AMD discovers that they can sell twice as many Kabini and Temash chips as they thought, they can ask the fab (likely TSMC, but I'm not sure) to double production and the fab can deliver it. Or they could ask Global Foundries or Samsung or whoever to produce additional chips for them. If a process node is shared by 30 different customers, and one wants more chips than they expected while another wants fewer, the fab can adjust quickly. When you're the only customer on a process node (as AMD is for the process nodes needed for Bulldozer and Piledriver cores), that's not possible.
Comments
ok now i ask you this....can you overclock it to 5.2hrtz like my i5 is?
Nope! intel wins
BUT if i seen this 4 months ago when building my PC i would probly take the AMD cuz it would have saved me 50 bucks...
I never overclock, anything, but I always buy Intel CPUs. It has nothing to do with Youtube videos or recommendations on hardware sites. It used to be that AMD made really cheap processors that sucked, so AMD trained me to buy Intel CPUs. I realize that may not be the case anymore, but I got in the habit of buying Intel, just like I got in the habit of buying Nvidia.
In order to get me to switch, both the performance and the price difference would have to SO radical as to leave me no other choice but to buy AMD. I just don't see that happening anytime soon.
i owned a amd fx 6100 i kept overclocked to 4.5 speeds with a radeon 6950 also OC.
I recently purchased a laptop with a I7 3630 stock speeds with a nvidia 670m inside and I get the exact same frame rates as my desktop computer was overclocked with a lot lower clock speeds. I would of swore by AMD about a year ago but after seeing what intel can do with much less heat and speeds Im sticking to Intel from now on for sure.
My last two rigs where Intel and they are way more stable then my ADM's in the past.
So yeah, intel ftw.
2002-2006 AMD had a radically better processor for a radically cheaper price.
Still AMD really needs a homerun now. They are making process and with Intel's current direction it will be possible for them to catchup. At this point there are good reasons to get AMD verse Intel and vice versa. Now if you are playing games and can get the Intel for the same price as the AMD, then get the Intel. They will perform the same but the Intel will cost less in electricity. However this power difference only saves tens of dollars. If its too much get AMD as its all a price thing at this point. The minimum to play games CPU wise is so ridiculously low that it doesn't make sense to look at over $200 for the CPU unless you are doing more then playing games and that task requires a processor. Right now you are also looking both Microsoft and Sony using AMD processors in their next consoles.
Outside of gaming, there is only 1 reason to get an AMD processor and thats 3D Rendering which I do. Its the only task AMD beats Intel at.
For gaming you really dont need anything more powerful than a Fx6300, which if Intel made such a thing would be equivelent to an i5-2400k.
Now at work where I do massive compiles and installations and stuff, no i wouldn't use AMD chip, I use an 8 core i7, but that's so I'm sat idle for 30 minutes instead of 40 when we do a big build, so its worth it economically.
Video cards I'm the other way, prefer AMD to nvidia, as I've had 2 nvidias burn out on me and over here nvidia are massively over priced, e.g.660ti is more expensive than a 7950.
AMD for gaming
Intel for work
Its the way it is.
Other way around.
I don't think AMD needs a home run.
You don't have to be the fastest kid on the block to be competitive. AMD has realized this, and priced their products accordingly.
They are very compelling in the budget range for a desktop, where saving $75-100 means a lot. If you are looking at a laptop, the AMD APU's win hands down to all but the very high end.
Haswell may change that equation some for power consumption (Intel is already very competitive on power draw as it is, but something that is 10x better is very significant), but I still don't think they will be competitive on the IGP, and if you are looking at a total package, the AMD APU's are still very compelling.
For servers where lots of cores win, AMD has been pushing hard - lots of less expensive (and even slower) cores wins, and at a fraction of the price Intel charges for a similar number of cores.
No, I don't think AMD needs a home run. I think they have identified their niches - graphics integration (with their ATI purchase), and lower cost cores. They just need to continue to lean on these strengths and they will do just fine to all but the fanboys who refuse to look past the brand name on the "Inside" sticker.
Their current products aren't the fastest, but they are "fast enough" for nearly every purpose, and at half the price - that makes them a viable alternative, and competition is good for the market.
Agree to disagree
Neither is correct. As Quizzical pointed out, Intel is better for both games and many productivity applications.
AMD is now focusing on mobile processors as well as other markets. There won't be any more AMD vs Intel for desktop gaming; the FX series (Bulldozer) is the last of AMD's desktop processors. This is old news, by the way.
For a number of years AMD had the fastest and cheaper processor. They still did not gain marketshare. It takes alot for people to think AMD is something more. I think alot of people treat AMD as some cheap knock-off alternative compared to a namebrand product because of Intel's marketing budget.
Bulldozer is the 2nd to last
Been replaced by piledriver
Games? Since when did I say anything about games? Games don't need top end single-threaded performance unless they're badly-coded.
While AMD doesn't make processors specifically targeted at desktops anymore, neither does Intel. Intel doesn't put integrated graphics into their $200 and $300 desktop chips because they think desktop users will actually use them. They're designed more with laptops than desktops in mind, as are AMD's A-series APUs, though you can put both in desktops and they'll work. AMD's FX chips are designed primarily with servers in mind, as are Intel's top end "desktop" chips such as Bloomfield, Gulftown, and Sandy Bridge-E.
As I see it, the most recent CPU chip designed primarily with desktops in mind is AMD's Thuban (Phenom II X6), which came way back in 2010. You could make a case for the FX-41*0 and FX-4300 as being primarily desktop chips, too (as I think those are different dies from the 6- and 8-core variants, which are mainly server chips), but the most recent Intel chip that you could plausibly say was mainly a desktop chip was Lynnfield, way back in 2009.
But just because AMD doesn't release any more chips intended mainly for desktops doesn't mean that there won't be any more AMD processors used in desktops. Indeed, AMD's Richland APU could launch any day now; my best guess is March. Kaveri is coming around the end of this year.
While AMD hasn't announced it yet, I expect that they'll make a chip with 10-12 Steamroller cores and DDR4 memory and release it next year, both for desktops and servers. If AMD manages to deliver the 15% IPC boost that they're promising and Intel remains unwilling to go over 4 cores in in the sub-$500 market (both plausible but far from certain), appropriate bins of that chip could easily end up as the best $200 and $300 gaming processors on the market.
They sold Athlon 64 chips as fast as they could produce them, and at prices that didn't exactly scream "budget alternative". But if your fabs can only crank out 10 million chips in a given unit of time, you can't sell 20 million chips very well. Decisions on fab capacity have to be made long before you know exactly how good your product and your competitor's product will be. If AMD had a successor to Vishera available today that doubled performance in all cases with no drawbacks, they wouldn't suddenly be able to claim 50% marketshare because they simply don't have the fab capacity available.
Bobcat and Jaguar cores (and presumably their unannounced successors), on the other hand, are made on off-the-shelf process nodes. If shortly after launch, AMD discovers that they can sell twice as many Kabini and Temash chips as they thought, they can ask the fab (likely TSMC, but I'm not sure) to double production and the fab can deliver it. Or they could ask Global Foundries or Samsung or whoever to produce additional chips for them. If a process node is shared by 30 different customers, and one wants more chips than they expected while another wants fewer, the fab can adjust quickly. When you're the only customer on a process node (as AMD is for the process nodes needed for Bulldozer and Piledriver cores), that's not possible.