Give me a reason to go AMD... I WANT TO BELIEVE.

[mrmt]

I can build a top gaming PC using only AMD parts (e.g. FX and Radeon), but I cannot do that using only Intel (lacking dGPUs) or only Nvidia (lacking X86 CPUs). You need Intel plus AMD or Intel plus Nvidia.

Top? Well, you are a fanboi, sure. Last time I checked there was no top performance AMD CPU in the charts, this is reserved for LGA2011 Intel processors. And AMD GPU was bested by Titan, which AMD still has no answer. And if you are talking about workstations, AMD driver support is far inferior to Nvidia support, to the point that Quadro cards are some times twice more expensive than FirePro. Last, but not least, if you want the best SSD on the market you'll probably have to go Intel too, or at least you can't go AMD.

So I think you should change your signature, to mention that this is valid just for the mainstream market and CPU and GPU only. If you are talking about top money, you don't even consider AMD in your list.

 

[galego]

So you prefer a world with only one company...

And you got that conclusion how exactly? Because it is completely wrong. I think you are confounding me with one of those posters who have the need to post a "Intel has killed AMD", "AMD is going out of business" claim 7 days in a week.

The difference between ICC and Openbenchmark

You cannot compare a compiler to a website/platform. You would compare compilers (e.g. ICC vs GCC) or websites or benchmarks (e.g. Sysmark vs Phoronix test suite)

What they truly end is just "the best case for AMD and Intel processors using GPL software", which is an irrelevant metric for 99% of the people.

This is the 1% myth. The number of linux users is about the same than the number of W8 users. Most windows-based review sites are using Windows 8. Why do not convince them to make their reviews using only W7?

 

[mrmt]

This is the 1% myth. The number of linux users is about the same than the number of W8 users. Most windows-based review sites are using Windows 8. Why do not convince them to make their reviews using only W7?

Those numbers are plainly wrong, but even if they were correct, I wasn't talking about Linux users, but linux users that use only GPL stuff like Phoronix do. Not even all Linux distros are GPL-only, let alone the complete portfolio of Linux programs. That's why Phoronix is niche even inside the Linux community, which is a niche itself. So you are talking of a niche inside a niche.

 

[galego]

And I can buy Intel CPU & Intel SSD, but with AMD I'll need to buy samsung for example.
Therefore it takes AMD & Samsung to match Intel.
Nice brainfart attack you're having over there.

I wrote explicitly building a "top gaming PC". I want see you doing it without using a dGPU from either AMD or Nvidia.

There is some rumour AMD will be releasing Radeon SSD. But I don't care. A SSD from Intel (or any other) is not in my check list for a gaming PC.

You forgot to add that AMD can't produce anything from silicon. They need GloFo or TSMC or another fab.
Edit: Oh yeah, in a pure AMD rig, you don't have a network connection. I'm disregarding parts that neither produce.

Nice but irrelevant point because nobody was mentioning production. In any case no everything with the Intel label is really produced by Intel...

 

[Enigmoid]

I can build a top gaming PC using only AMD parts (e.g. FX and Radeon), but I cannot do that using only Intel (lacking dGPUs) or only Nvidia (lacking X86 CPUs). You need Intel plus AMD or Intel plus Nvidia.

The only people who care about this fact are fanboys. The rest of us just buy what we need and offers the best perf/$.

 

[d3m]

Well galego does have a point about Intel Complier.

Agner was barking about this problem for years now.

http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49#269

And he made a mathematical librarie so you can compare FX chips to Xeons.

http://www.yeppp.info/home/yeppp-performance-numbers

 

[monstercameron]

The only people who care about this fact are fanboys. The rest of us just buy what we need and offers the best perf/$.

if this was true then AMD would have been number 1 in this space...AMD has held the perf/$ lead for quite sometime now, but fanbois keep lapping up Intels PR and buying their cpus.

 

[dastral]

AMD has held the perf/$ lead for quite sometime now, but fanbois keep lapping up Intels PR and buying their cpus

True, AMD can be very competitive and in several cases better when you factor in Price & Threads.
Intel provides "best performance" and "best perf/w" and some times has a luxury tax.

I'm almost certain 95% of Computer buyers don't even know what CPU they use.
It's only enthusiasts who look at "specific scenarios", OEM & Random Joe just look at prices.

 

[galego]

Those numbers are plainly wrong, but even if they were correct, I wasn't talking about Linux users, but linux users that use only GPL stuff like Phoronix do. Not even all Linux distros are GPL-only, let alone the complete portfolio of Linux programs. That's why Phoronix is niche even inside the Linux community, which is a niche itself. So you are talking of a niche inside a niche.

What numbers? No, Phoronix do not use "only GPL stuff". In fact those benchmarks were run over a OS which includes propietary and closed source stuffs. For me their test suite is good. Softpedia even call it the best benchmark suite.

Why do you spend all this effort against one fair benchmark suite, whereas (as other poster noted before) you ignore completely biased benchmarks such as sysmark?

The same biased logic regarding your niche argument. It is not true, but moreover, you don't apply it to other stuff. For instance, about less than 5% of gaming PCs has a GPU with 2GB VRAM, less than 1% have 3GB and about 0.5% have 4GB.

The number of users with a GTX Titan card (6GB) is a niche inside a niche (gaming PC). By your own logic no review site would be testing niche cards like the Titan, neither using them in gaming benchmarks. Which is nonsense.

The only people who care about this fact are fanboys. The rest of us just buy what we need and offers the best perf/$.

Agree with you on that ordinary people don't care about brands.

Regarding fanboys. The other day someone tried to convince me that Intel > AMD because a $600 chip was about a 70% faster than a $140 APU. And in the graphics card forum I hear often people claiming that the Xbox One ($400 console) is **** because they can beat it with two GTX-680 in SLI conf. in a i5-3570k.

Well galego does have a point about Intel Complier.

Agner was barking about this problem for years now.

http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49#269

And he made a mathematical librarie so you can compare FX chips to Xeons.

http://www.yeppp.info/home/yeppp-performance-numbers

Yes, his research was basic to demonstrate that Intel cheats both compilers and benchmarks. Agner provides some examples of biased benchmarks that use the Cripple_AMD function.

I always ask the same question and nobody answers it for me in a convincing form: If intel had so good products as some believe, because does it need to cheat benchmarks such as sysmark, cinebench... before confronting to AMD, VIA, or Nvidia?

 

[mrmt]

What numbers? No, Phoronix do not use "only GPL stuff". In fact those benchmarks were run over a OS which includes propietary and closed source stuffs. For me their test suite is good. Softpedia even call it the best benchmark suite.

Why are you so obtuse when writting, much like you do with your 57% number? What's the proprietary OS Phoronix uses? Because this is against everything they say. Is FUD your PhD subject?

Why do you spend all this effort against one fair benchmark suite, whereas (as other poster noted before) you ignore completely biased benchmarks such as sysmark?

Every benchmark is somehow biased, I'm just pointing out that Openbenchmark has a bias too. It's not just because the source code is open and the compiler doesn't have a biased dispatcher that they can claim they are fair or neutral.

The same biased logic regarding your niche argument. It is not true, but moreover, you don't apply it to other stuff. For instance, about less than 5% of gaming PCs has a GPU with 2GB VRAM, less than 1% have 3GB and about 0.5% have 4GB.

5% of gaming PC with only 2GB RAM? Where's the source of your numbers? The same dark hole from where you pulled that 57% improvement number?

 

[Abwx]

Every benchmark is somehow biased, I'm just pointing out that Openbenchmark has a bias too. It's not just because the source code is open and the compiler doesn't have a biased dispatcher that they can claim they are fair or neutral.

how would it biaised since it doesnt discriminate
the CPUs and moreover has an open code source.?.

So far we have the prove that ICC does CPU
discrimination but you have proved nothing
about Openbenchmark ; you re just throwing
insubstancied allegations as smoke screen.

 

[galego]

Why are you so obtuse when writting, much like you do with your 57% number? What's the proprietary OS Phoronix uses? Because this is against everything they say. Is FUD your PhD subject?

proprietary OS Phoronix uses? Why don't read that I wrote?

Every benchmark is somehow biased, I'm just pointing out that Openbenchmark has a bias too. It's not just because the source code is open and the compiler doesn't have a biased dispatcher that they can claim they are fair or neutral.

LOL

5% of gaming PC with only 2GB RAM? Where's the source of your numbers? The same dark hole from where you pulled that 57% improvement number?

I wrote VRAM, not RAM. Again: Why don't read that I wrote?

 

[Mallibu]

According to the AMD armada, whatever puts FX in a positive light is fair.
Hey, let's dump logic and celebrate about one benchmark in a platform with 1% usage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems, and ignore the rest 99% of benchmarks in all the other platforms, and call them biased.
Truth is, noone cares. I get better performance with i7/i5 in 99% cases, and half the power consumption, therefore I'll buy it.
The rest are 'what if' from corporate cheerleaders. :sneaky:

 

[d3m]

No. If Intel made a "fair compailer" this debate would turn out differently.

 

[Enigmoid]

if this was true then AMD would have been number 1 in this space...AMD has held the perf/$ lead for quite sometime now, but fanbois keep lapping up Intels PR and buying their cpus.

Yes but for a lot of people absolute performance matters a lot too.

(Thats why if you look at gaming perf$ you will see something like a pentium have a massive lead over an i5/6300/8350 yet no one buys a pentium for serious gaming because it simply isn't fast enough).

 

[CHADBOGA]

if this was true then AMD would have been number 1 in this space...AMD has held the perf/$ lead for quite sometime now, but fanbois keep lapping up Intels PR and buying their cpus.

AMD only has a perf/$ lead if you ignore IPC/single core performance and focus on multithreading apps, which are by no means the majority of desktop users experiences.

Intel's massive IPC/single core performance lead over AMD means that an equally configured Intel system will always feel faster than an AMD system.

When one comes to understand this, then you see why Intel handily trumps AMD in the market place.

But if you want to deceive yourself and others, then keep pretending AMD has compelling desktop offerings to anyone not on a ludicrously tight budget.

 

[monstercameron]

AMD only has a perf/$ lead if you ignore IPC/single core performance and focus on multithreading apps, which are by no means the majority of desktop users experiences.

Intel's massive IPC/single core performance lead over AMD means that an equally configured Intel system will always feel faster than an AMD system.

When one comes to understand this, then you see why Intel handily trumps AMD in the market place.

But if you want to deceive yourself and others, then keep pretending AMD has compelling desktop offerings to anyone not on a ludicrously tight budget.

I dont quite understand your position on this, you limit it to a specific scenario where single threaded performance is the end all be all, which isnt necessarily the case for every or for most average users.

Even if that is the case, then why would you exclude the strenghts of amd chips and compare it to intel in only that specific case then turn around and claim that because intel is faster single threaded, then it has better performance/$, would it be fair to see which product is faster in a multitude of scenarios then use that information to objectively find a perf/$ amount...like most professional reviewers do?

 

[galego]

Hey, let's dump logic and celebrate about one benchmark in a platform with 1% usage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems, and ignore the rest 99% of benchmarks in all the other platforms, and call them biased.

It seems you are mentioning the figure that appears in the top right side. That is a net applications estimate. Below in the same page you can find a table with different estimations based in web clients. Contrast the 1% with the 2.73% given by W3Counter. It is only 0.5% behind Windows 8 share in the same row. Now look to the text before the table (bold mine):

The following information on web clients is obtained from the user agent information supplied to web servers by web browsers. These figures are inaccurate for a variety of reasons.

Now take a look to

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

for other estimations of share. You can find from the high 93.8% of share for supercomputers to a low 8% on desktops:

He stated that the North American-based web-measurement methods produce high Windows numbers and ignore the widespread use of Linux in other parts of the world. In estimating true worldwide desktop adoption and accounting for the Windows-distorted environment in the USA and Canada he indicated that at least 8% of the world desktops run Linux distributions and possibly as high as 10–12% and that the numbers are rising quickly.

Check also

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

Nobody is saying that all windows benchmarks are biased, only some are: the names of some of those benchmarks were given.

Finally, look to this AMD announcement

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2040...exclusivity-adopts-android-and-chrome-os.html

I think that the era of measuring performance using only windows-based benchmarks has gone.

 

[galego]

AMD only has a perf/$ lead if you ignore IPC/single core performance and focus on multithreading apps, which are by no means the majority of desktop users experiences.

I think this is missing that most people does multitasking and have open several apps at once. The usual benchmarking procedure of running a single benchmark, wait to finish, then run another... is not representative of daily usage.

Single threaded benchmarks are being substituted by multi-threaded:

Super PI is single threaded, so its relevance as a measure of performance in the current era of multi-core processors is diminishing quickly. Therefore, Hyper PI has been developed to support multiple threads of Super PI to be run at the same time so one can test stability on multi-core machines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_PI#The_future

Moreover, next gen games will be heavily multithreaded, giving advantage to AMD designs.

 

[CHADBOGA]

I dont quite understand your position on this, you limit it to a specific scenario where single threaded performance is the end all be all, which isnt necessarily the case for every or for most average users.

Even if that is the case, then why would you exclude the strenghts of amd chips and compare it to intel in only that specific case then turn around and claim that because intel is faster single threaded, then it has better performance/$, would it be fair to see which product is faster in a multitude of scenarios then use that information to objectively find a perf/$ amount...like most professional reviewers do?

When you can buy Quad cores from Intel in the range of $200 to $400, then yes, an overwhelming number of average users are going to have a better computing experience due to Intel's single core advantage over AMD.

If that wasn't the case, AMD would be gaining marketshare in recent months/years, not losing it.

The argument I am making matches the reality we have all experienced in the last 18+ months.

Some people need to stop denying reality and wake up.

 

[sontin]

Finally, look to this AMD announcement

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2040...exclusivity-adopts-android-and-chrome-os.html

I think that the era of measuring performance using only windows-based benchmarks has gone.

You are right. And thx to that we see how bad AMD's performance level really is. Even nVidia is beating AMD's x86 SoCs with 1/3 of the power consumption:
Tegra 4 - 3800 points in Geekbench 2
A4-5000 - 3200 points in Geekbench 2

 

[CHADBOGA]

Moreover, next gen games will be heavily multithreaded, giving advantage to AMD designs.

Yeah sure.

I hope you will stick around to point out this AMD advantage that will never materialise. D:

As for your sig, perhaps it should be amended to read :

It is necessary to join two companies such as Intel and Nvidia to reduce AMD's market share in all areas.

 

[Abwx]

Even nVidia is beating AMD's x86 SoCs with 1/3 of the power consumption:

Keep believing in marketed miracles , no matter that they
are at odd with elementary laws of physics...

 

[sontin]

"Law of physics"?

Hm. 3800 points against 3200 points with 5W is better with 1/3 of the power.

 

[R0H1T]

"Law of physics"?

Hm. 3800 points against 3200 points with 5W is better with 1/3 of the power.

How did you calculate Tegra 4's TDP ? AFAIK ARM SoC's don't reveal these numbers, Nvidia might be an exception, besides Intel disregards them right ? Also 5W is not under load, in that SDP analysis on AT I saw a fully loaded Exynos 5 pulling well over 8W(it was dual core I believe) so 5W is not a number you should be waving around ! Better do your homework next time