AMD Smoother than Intel?

[CHADBOGA]

Do you own and AMD machine? Have you ever owned one? I own both.

I previously owned an AMD64 3000+, had a very good experience with it for quite a few years.

Nothing in AMD's current line up even remotely tempts me.

 

[TreVader]

Late 2013 15" rMBP 2.6Ghz i7 4960HQ 16GB 1600Mhz DDR3 512GB SSD Geforce GT750M
Mid 2011 13" MBA 1.7Ghz i5 2557M 4GB 1333Mhz DDR3 256GB SSD intel HD 4000
Mid 2010 13" Macbook Core 2 Duo P8600 2.4 Ghz 4GB 1066Mhz DDR3 320GB HDD Geforce GT320
Celeron G1820 2.7Ghz 8GB DDR3 1600 128GB SSD 500GB HDD B85 Sapphire Radeon R9 280X

You're really good at posting stuff I've already posted and adding nothing to it. Do you have any opinions and information that I haven't already given you?

 

[tential]

You're really good at posting stuff I've already posted and adding nothing to it. Do you have any opinions and information that I haven't already given you?

You don't own an AMD. Stop saying you own both. Your signature clearly states 4 machines running intel. 0 running AMD.

You don't own both.

 

[norseamd]

Maybe fanboys, cause unbiased users would jump from one brand to the other in a heartbeat if they happen to have the best chips.

not if they understand where intel will lead them to

Back when AMD had the performance crown they also had $1000 CPUs, were they overcharging back then?

not sure if this is relavent but computers were a lot more expensive

 

[TreVader]

I previously owned an AMD64 3000+, had a very good experience with it for quite a few years.

Nothing in AMD's current line up even remotely tempts me.

Maybe you should go try one. You're knocking an architecture you've never seen in action.

 

[TreVader]

You don't own an AMD. Stop saying you own both. Your signature clearly states 4 machines running intel. 0 running AMD.

You don't own both.

I use both. Technically the 8150 is still mine but i've left it in the care of my 25yo younger brother. Whenever I'm at his house I use it.


I'm not even sure how this supports your argument.

 

[tential]

I use both. Technically the 8150 is still mine but i've left it in the care of my 25yo younger brother. Whenever I'm at his house I use it.
I'm not even sure how this supports your argument.

Technically my Lamborghini is at Desean Jackson's house. I've just left it in his care. Whenever I'm at his house though and I'm rolling with the homies I use it.

Please.... You don't own an AMD system so stop saying you own both.

And this support my argument that if AMD is smoother than intel why do you own 4 intel PCs and not ONE AMD PC? Not even ONE AMD machine despite it being common knowledge that AMD is smoother?
It also goes to your credibility. You say something, then later the full story comes out. So you don't own an AMD machine, you've USED one before at your brother's house. You aren't a credible person and it's becoming clear very quickly.

 

[CHADBOGA]

Maybe you should go try one. You're knocking an architecture you've never seen in action.

The benchmarks tell the story.

I am incapable of deliberately punishing myself and buying the inferior choice.

I haven't bought an Nvidia GPU for myself or my friends(I do all the purchasing) since 2004, because when I look at the benchmarks and the pricing, ATI/AMD offer for me the better choice.

BTW, I have managed to be Nvidia free all this time, despite not hating Nvidia.

Similarly when it was time to upgrade from my AMD64 3000+, the benchmarks and pricing made it very obvious that Intel is now the better choice.

 

[TreVader]

Maybe fanboys, cause unbiased users would jump from one brand to the other in a heartbeat if they happen to have the best chips.



Back when AMD had the performance crown they also had $1000 CPUs, were they overcharging back then?

Yes they were overcharging, you're starting to get it. I use both intel and AMD and I'm not biased toward either. You'll find that most AMD users have an intel machine also, but the opposite is not true for intel users.

Its not "fanboy"ism if you're supporting a company that makes technology better. The only thing that keeps intel working, at least from 2002-2011, was competition from AMD.

Now, after intel has unequivocally taken the performance crown, they are improving MUCH slower. Intel is nothing without AMD.

 

[TreVader]

Technically my Lamborghini is at Desean Jackson's house. I've just left it in his care. Whenever I'm at his house though and I'm rolling with the homies I use it.

Please.... You don't own an AMD system so stop saying you own both.

And this support my argument that if AMD is smoother than intel why do you own 4 intel PCs and not ONE AMD PC? Not even ONE AMD machine despite it being common knowledge that AMD is smoother?
It also goes to your credibility. You say something, then later the full story comes out. So you don't own an AMD machine, you've USED one before at your brother's house. You aren't a credible person and it's becoming clear very quickly.

I own both.

 

[TreVader]

The benchmarks tell the story.

I am incapable of deliberately punishing myself and buying the inferior choice.

I haven't bought an Nvidia GPU for myself or my friends(I do all the purchasing) since 2004, because when I look at the benchmarks and the pricing, ATI/AMD offer for me the better choice.

BTW, I have managed to be Nvidia free all this time, despite not hating Nvidia.

Similarly when it was time to upgrade from my AMD64 3000+, the benchmarks and pricing made it very obvious that Intel is now the better choice.

It's your decision, but you should try to understand that not everybody needs a 4770K. Also, people who use the computer for media have a much better experience with AMD because their APUs are so much better.


AMD APUs make intels HD Graphics look ridiculous.

 

[tential]

The benchmarks tell the story.

I am incapable of deliberately punishing myself and buying the inferior choice.

I haven't bought an Nvidia GPU for myself or my friends(I do all the purchasing) since 2004, because when I look at the benchmarks and the pricing, ATI/AMD offer for me the better choice.

BTW, I have managed to be Nvidia free all this time, despite not hating Nvidia.

Similarly when it was time to upgrade from my AMD64 3000+, the benchmarks and pricing made it very obvious that Intel is now the better choice.

Wow... are you me?

AMD 64 3200+ here. It used to be my storage machine but I took all my storage drives out. Now I just don't turn it on because I have no use for it.
After AMD 64 3200+ there was 0 incentive for me to go AMD. I bought my laptop (Penryn!) which is sitting infront of me now. 6 years of use going strong and it still feels great to use although it's starting to show it's age a bit. And then I got this 4770k. And well. I'm happy I didn't pick up an FX-8350 and save myself 80 dollars. This has been the best user experience I've ever had in my life.
Considering the FX-8350 is already showing half of the 4770k's FPS in benchmarks, I'm quite happy that I went 4770k. I could have gone the 4670k, or the 4770, or even cheaper processors but 4770k at $280? That's a steal.
TBH, I still can't believe intel has gotten to the point of offering this much performance under $300.

It's your decision, but you should try to understand that not everybody needs a 4770K. Also, people who use the computer for media have a much better experience with AMD because their APUs are so much better.


AMD APUs make intels HD Graphics look ridiculous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haswell_(microarchitecture)#List_of_Haswell_processors

Intel offers a TON of processors. Pick one that's in your price range.

 

[mrmt]

Its not "fanboy"ism if you're supporting a company that makes technology better. The only thing that keeps intel working, at least from 2002-2011, was competition from AMD.

AMD is out of the server market since Nehalen and server chips never evolved as fast as they are evolving now.

AMD is out of the notebook market and in fact it never evolved as fast as it is evolving now.

I'd say that there are other forces more relevant than AMD that are forcing Intel to evolve its technology.

AMD APUs make intels HD Graphics look ridiculous.

What about your rMPB?

 

[TreVader]

AMD is out of the server market since Nehalen and server chips never evolved as fast as they are evolving now.

AMD is out of the notebook market and in fact it never evolved as fast as it is evolving now.

I'd say that there are other forces more relevant than AMD that are forcing Intel to evolve its technology.

AMD is still in those markets, and AMD never had a handle on the server or notebook markets to start with. At the moment ARM is the big danger to intel but ARM wasn't competition in 2000-2007.


Chromebooks i've seen mostly use AMD and they're growing. AMD APUs are very strong, as evidenced by Kaveri trashing the 4770K in pcmark. Most people just don't need 4770K speeds but they need much more than HD5000 for graphics.

My rMBP cost me $3100 just to avoid using intel graphics.

 

[CHADBOGA]

It's your decision, but you should try to understand that not everybody needs a 4770K.

I tend not to go for the hyperthreading model because the price premium isn't worth it.

I'm currently running an i5 3570K, clocked at a safe and reasonable 4.0Ghz.

Also, people who use the computer for media have a much better experience with AMD because their APUs are so much better.

What kind of media?

AMD APUs make intels HD Graphics look ridiculous.

That is likely to change with Broadwell.

Anyway, I'm a dGPU guy.

AMD's got a lot more money out of me that way, as I wanted a GPU that was much more than the IGP's of either company and a worthy match for my CPU.

That is why I started with a HD5770, and am currently running with a HD7850.

If Half Life 3 ever comes out, AMD is likely to get another dGPU purchase out of me, whilst I stay with my CPU.

 

[tential]

AMD is still in those markets, and AMD never had a handle on the server or notebook markets to start with. At the moment ARM is the big danger to intel but ARM wasn't competition in 2000-2007.


Chromebooks i've seen mostly use AMD and they're growing. AMD APUs are very strong, as evidenced by Kaveri trashing the 4770K in pcmark. Most people just don't need 4770K speeds but they need much more than HD5000 for graphics.

My rMBP cost me $3100 just to avoid using intel graphics.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...CH&isdeptsrh=1

Find the word AMD on that page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromebook

AMD is referenced ONCE on this page as well.

"Reviewing the Samsung Series 5 specifications, Scott Stein of CNET was unimpressed with a machine with a 12-inch screen and just 16 GB of onboard storage. "Chrome OS might be lighter than Windows XP, but we'd still prefer more media storage space. At this price, you could also get an 11.6-inch (290 mm) Wi-Fi AMD E-350-powered ultraportable running Windows 7."[50] On the other hand, MG Siegler of TechCrunch wrote a largely favorable review, praising the improvements in speed and trackpad sensitivity over the CR-48 prototype, as well as the long battery life and the fact that all models are priced below the iPad.[179]"

AMD isn't used in a SINGLE CHROMEBOOK.

You have no credibility at all.

 

[CHADBOGA]

Wow... are you me?

AMD 64 3200+ here. It used to be my storage machine but I took all my storage drives out. Now I just don't turn it on because I have no use for it.
After AMD 64 3200+ there was 0 incentive for me to go AMD.

Heh, whilst I don't own or run a shop, being the person who sorts out my immediate circle's computing needs, I tend to put together 2 to 3 computers a year, every year.

Around 2004-2007(early 07), I was running an AMD CPU, as was my brother, my best friend, my ex-girlfriend, her sister, her brother, a work colleague, ALL on AMD at that time.

I remember having the mindset that with Prescott being so HOT and disasterish, that I didn't even consider anything from Intel at that time, because I was so focused on making sure people had the best CPU for playing games.

At this present moment, one can simply swap Prescott for the Dozer family and that is my current mindset.

 

[TreVader]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...CH&isdeptsrh=1

Find the word AMD on that page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromebook

AMD is referenced ONCE on this page as well.

"Reviewing the Samsung Series 5 specifications, Scott Stein of CNET was unimpressed with a machine with a 12-inch screen and just 16 GB of onboard storage. "Chrome OS might be lighter than Windows XP, but we'd still prefer more media storage space. At this price, you could also get an 11.6-inch (290 mm) Wi-Fi AMD E-350-powered ultraportable running Windows 7."[50] On the other hand, MG Siegler of TechCrunch wrote a largely favorable review, praising the improvements in speed and trackpad sensitivity over the CR-48 prototype, as well as the long battery life and the fact that all models are priced below the iPad.[179]"

AMD isn't used in a SINGLE CHROMEBOOK.

You have no credibility at all.

I was mistaken about the chrome books, I mixed them up with the cheap PC laptops that you see for $400 at walmart. Oops.

 

[TreVader]

I tend not to go for the hyperthreading model because the price premium isn't worth it.

I'm currently running an i5 3570K, clocked at a safe and reasonable 4.0Ghz.


What kind of media?



That is likely to change with Broadwell.

Anyway, I'm a dGPU guy.

AMD's got a lot more money out of me that way, as I wanted a GPU that was much more than the IGP's of either company and a worthy match for my CPU.

That is why I started with a HD5770, and am currently running with a HD7850.

If Half Life 3 ever comes out, AMD is likely to get another dGPU purchase out of me, whilst I stay with my CPU.

I also you dGPU, which I think is what AMD does best. I doubt broadwell will compare well to kaveri in iGPU, but I'd be impressed if it did. Intel has gotten a lot better with graphics, but they're still way behind AMD. I also question whether they can really get the best performance out of broadwell with an iGPU.


If intel released a Broadwell i3 with 6200 graphics it would still be way more expensive than Kaveri. Right now intel is handing out celerons, but they still won't cut the price on the i3s

 

[mrmt]

AMD is still in those markets, and AMD never had a handle on the server or notebook markets to start with. At the moment ARM is the big danger to intel but ARM wasn't competition in 2000-2007.

Intel competes first and foremost against itself. If they don't evolve, people won't upgrade. A competitor just adds to that pressure, but it is not, and should not be the main force pushing Intel to evolve.

What we are seeing is performance stagnation in desktops, but that's to be expected, the money is to be made elsewhere, so all companies will put their energy there, not in desktops.

Chromebooks i've seen mostly use AMD and they're growing.

Would you mind showing this plethora of AMD chromebooks? Because I can't find a single one.

AMD APUs are very strong, as evidenced by Kaveri trashing the 4770K in pcmark. Most people just don't need 4770K speeds but they need much more than HD5000 for graphics.

Most people don't need 4770K speeds, but they certainly need more than the 7850K CPU, and even more people need more than 7850k CPU but don't want to go all the way up to 100W to get that performance.

But if you care enough about graphics, you still have other ways to deal with it? You have a plethora of discrete GPU that can offset the weakness of Intel GPU,

Unfortunately for AMD you cannot buy a discrete CPU card to offset the weakness of the CPU part of their APU.

 

[TreVader]

Intel competes first and foremost against itself. If they don't evolve, people won't upgrade. A competitor just adds to that pressure, but it is not, and should not be the main force pushing Intel to evolve.

What we are seeing is performance stagnation in desktops, but that's to be expected, the money is to be made elsewhere, so all companies will put their energy there, not in desktops.



Would you mind showing this plethora of AMD chromebooks? Because I can't find a single one.





Most people don't need 4770K speeds, but they certainly need more than the 7850K CPU, and even more people need more than 7850k CPU but don't want to go all the way up to 100W to get that performance.

But if you care enough about graphics, you still have other ways to deal with it? You have a plethora of discrete GPU that can offset the weakness of Intel GPU,

Unfortunately for AMD you cannot buy a discrete CPU card to offset the weakness of the CPU part of their APU.

Then why hasn't intel been evolving? They made huge strides with nehalem and sandy bridge which at the time still had to compete with AMD, now that AMD isn't competitive people are starting to realize it's not really worth it to go to Ivy or Haswell considering the astronomical cost of a new intel processor.

I mixed chromebook up with cheap laptop (apparently there is a difference?).

Most people are fine with Kaveri, and frankly intel is so crippled with HD graphics there is no contest for any situation except for encoding.

 

[tential]

Then why hasn't intel been evolving? They made huge strides with nehalem and sandy bridge which at the time still had to compete with AMD, now that AMD isn't competitive people are starting to realize it's not really worth it to go to Ivy or Haswell considering the astronomical cost of a new intel processor.

I mixed chromebook up with cheap laptop (apparently there is a difference?).

Most people are fine with Kaveri, and frankly intel is so crippled with HD graphics there is no contest for any situation except for encoding.

No offense, but how can you really be expected to join into this conversation at the same level as the other posters when you don't know the difference between a chromebook and a cheap laptop?

If your knowledge about an area isn't up to par just say so. I regularly come here asking about something or just read so I know more about something. Posting as if you have knowledge that you clearly don't really just hurts users who are coming here wanting serious information. Spreading misinformation on here really is hurtful for the many users who come to anandtech forums trying to learn more.

Intel HD Graphics by the way are good enough for the VAST majority of users.
The problem with AMD APUs is that it improved on graphics performance when people didn't NEED that level of graphics performance. APU sits in the most awkward spot. Too much graphics performance for the average user, not enough graphics performance for anyone who wants to seriously game at resolutions above 720p
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7677/amd-kaveri-review-a8-7600-a10-7850k/12
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7677/amd-kaveri-review-a8-7600-a10-7850k/13

I think Mantle is a step in the right direction for AMD as it significantly helps their APUs. Making a BETTER APU though would actually help more.

If AMD could just get that drastic performance jump intel was capable of then we'd be in business with them. AMD APU's could make for GREAT cheap gaming laptops for back to school and for great small HTPCs IF THEY COULD GET MORE PERFORMANCE. Right now though, I think below Xbox One performance is unacceptable. Xbox One isn't even a 1080p console really either. If AMD can break 30 FPS minimum (30 FPS+ is really all they need) at 1680x1050 it'd be viable and easily marketable. Right now though, AMD APU offers too much graphics performance for the casual user and too little for even the vast majority of gamers.

 

[Sweepr]

I also you dGPU, which I think is what AMD does best. I doubt broadwell will compare well to kaveri in iGPU, but I'd be impressed if it did. Intel has gotten a lot better with graphics, but they're still way behind AMD. I also question whether they can really get the best performance out of broadwell with an iGPU.

Iris Pro already compares very well to Kaveri, even though its more expensive (cheapest Haswell with Iris Pro is a BGA-only $255 chip).

http://www.4gamer.net/games/999/G999902/20140208005/

Broadwell is rumoured to be a very significant upgrade, and future LGA1150 ''Broadwell-K'' parts will come with ''GT3e'' Iris Pro iGPUs (unlike Haswell-K's GT2 iGPU). If anything, Intel is improving graphics performance much faster than AMD is improving their CPU performance.

 

[mrmt]

Then why hasn't intel been evolving? They made huge strides with nehalem and sandy bridge which at the time still had to compete with AMD, now that AMD isn't competitive people are starting to realize it's not really worth it to go to Ivy or Haswell considering the astronomical cost of a new intel processor.

Both Nehalen and Sandy Bridge were mainly aimed at servers and mobile market, much like Bulldozer was aimed mainly for servers. Intel at least had a die designed specifically for the desktop, while AMD didn't even bother, trash server silicon became FX, trash mobile silicon became A-Series desktop, even trashier mobile silicon became Athlon.

The overall market shifted from the desktop, and that happened because of other forces, not because of AMD decline. In fact, if AMD believed the desktop market it would have clinched the opportunity and focused in there, but instead they followed Intel lead and also went for the mobile and server market.

 

[tential]

Iris Pro already compares very well to Kaveri, even though its more expensive (cheapest Haswell with Iris Pro is a BGA-only $255 chip).

http://www.4gamer.net/games/999/G999902/20140208005/

Broadwell is rumoured to be a very significant upgrade, and future LGA1150 ''Broadwell-K'' parts will come with ''GT3e'' Iris Pro iGPUs (unlike Haswell-K's GT2 iGPU). If anything, Intel is improving graphics performance much faster than AMD is improving their CPU performance.

From my understanding, wasn't the move towards Iris Pro and better graphics performance so that intel could appease Apple?

I thought Iris Pro was the replacement so Apple could stop having to put Nvidia graphics in their PCs and just use a single chip approach and save on the extra power consumption. That way they could make slimmer profile designs, etc.