It is not just this thread, almost every thread seems to degenerate into the same arguments and same unsubstantiated claims repeated over and over in slightly different guises by certain posters.
This entire thread is an embarrassment.
Why do the moderators allow every AMD thread to turn into a slugfest? This doesn't happen on other boards of the same caliber.
Not only linux. AMD also win some benchmarks on windows. E.g. FX-8350 wining an i7-3770 on crysis 3.
Recall that dastral tried to convince me that Intel always wins, which is not true.
That poster, aka me, was not talking about AMD health as a company but specifically bobcat sales. I was showing that bobcat does not sell like hotcakes anymore it used to, and all of AMD mobile CPU losses in that quarter were attrible to losses of bobcat sales.
You are obstruficating by changing the subject and pretending I am talking about something else or you never understood my point at all.
Personally I don;t respond to posts that are derogatory or insulting however when it comes to personal insults I don't like to hold back especially when the other side is lying to cover their back ! I've seen lots of claims that x Intel proc annihilates/decimates y AMD proc no matter what tests are involved & likewise in case of IGP's but some of those claims(actually lots of'em) are hollow !Well after more than 2 years on the market the product still sells really well. It have had excellent roi.
The below is for all:
I see you guys respond to a poster you call fanboy or troll. That beats me i dont read the posts. But perhaps its because you all run around in cirkels repeating the same nonsense also. You pick the single - single - amd products that is a really good business and start hammering on it.
How fucking stupid is that? Thats the definition of fanboiism. This is not a respond to roland, but what about changing own post before complaining about others?
Not only linux. AMD also win some benchmarks on windows. E.g. FX-8350 wining an i7-3770 on crysis 3.
Recall that dastral tried to convince me that Intel always wins, which is not true.
You're referring to Phoronix right? http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_fx8350_visherabdver2&num=1
This is a summary of every result:
On average, FX-8350 is over 10% behind. There are no outliers where FX-8350 wins by 70% - the highest is C-Ray at 41.6% and this is way off from the next highest win of 18.9%. Its biggest loss is by 58.6%.
Overall it loses 15 benchmarks and wins 7. And of course you can't claim that there's an artificial disadvantage due to compiler games.
the AMD FX-8350 proved to be competitive with the Intel Core i7 3770K "Ivy Bridge" processor
expose the CPU's BMI, TBM, F16C, and FMA3 capabilities over the original AMD Bulldozer processors. I hope that we will see further compiler improvements out of AMD to close some of these performance gapshttp://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_fx8350_visherabdver2&num=10#.
Intel CPU are faster, pick which ever AMD CPU you want, i'll always find one Intel that's faster.
Intel has the Performance & Performance/watt crown, there's no way around it.
Every single benchmark out there proves it.
The catch is (as i pointed out) PRICE, thus at several price points, AMD can actually be a smarter buy.
FX-8350 (199$ on Newegg) vs 3570K (219$ on Newegg) is one of these cases.
Seeing a so-called "falling company", which is only about a tenth of the size of Intel, being able to release a FX processor matching the fastest i7 ivy Bridge looks impressive.
Fx is more competitive in certain selected productivity benchmarks than gaming. I believe it wins something like 5 of 30 tests in anands bench vs 3770k. Gaming results are worse. Not all tests show it winning against Intel in cry sis 3. For instance a recent article at toms showed it tied with a low end i5 with a much poorer minimum framerate.
Do you mean Windows here, where Intel has some advantage due to the Wintel effect.
Linux and open benchmarks show that AMD competes with Intel in performance.
AMD and Intel tie with current games (the difference in favour of Intel is small in the average).
The FX is more suitable for future games due to console hardware.
All the game developers participating in a poll by Eurogamer recommend the FX-8350 over the i5-3750k.
Do you mean Windows here, where Intel has some advantage due to the Wintel effect. Linux and open benchmarks show that AMD competes with Intel in performance.
Intel wins on older games. AMD and Intel tie with current games (the difference in favour of Intel is small in the average). The FX is more suitable for future games due to console hardware. All the game developers participating in a poll by Eurogamer recommend the FX-8350 over the i5-3750k.
To be fair(yes I know the world isn't fair & whatever else) Linux does utilize the multicore/multithreaded microarch of BD/PD better than Windows, there is no disputing this fact, & seeing how alot of gamers swear to jump the ship with win8 & later iterations I don't see how taking Linux as a benchmark is anymore wrong than those supposed threatening claims by enthusiasts ?You know, I tried to be objective, and even gave a best case scenario for AMD under the OS which the vast, vast majority of users are using. Instead of acknowledging that, you reiterate the same unsupported statements you have been repeating over and over again in multiple threads and switched the topic to linux and the Wintel conspiracy theory.
To be fair(yes I know the world isn't fair & whatever else) Linux does utilize the multicore/multithreaded microarch of BD/PD better than Windows, there is no disputing this fact, & seeing how alot of gamers swear to jump the ship with win8 & later iterations I don't see how taking Linux as a benchmark is anymore wrong than those supposed threatening claims by enthusiasts ?
Yes but for truly objective tests you must have an optimal platform, its because Windows is underwhelming that we need Linux, to benchmark two products just like how reviewers choose Intel processors over AMD in GPU tests(hint ~ its not because they're more popular) likewise one needs a better software environment for getting most out a machine.A lot of gamers have been swearing to jump ship every new generation of windows, then find out how suckholish it is to game on linux (this is what hear, just as you've heard that gamers in droves are swearing off winders).
Well how many games are there running on Linux? It just gets interesting now, since Steam announced their SteamBox.A lot of gamers have been swearing to jump ship every new generation of windows, then find out how suckholish it is to game on linux (this is what hear, just as you've heard that gamers in droves are swearing off winders).
Yes but for truly objective tests you must have an optimal platform, its because Windows is underwhelming that we need Linux, to benchmark two products just like how reviewers choose Intel processors over AMD in GPU tests(hint ~ its not because they're more popular) likewise one needs a better software environment for getting most out a machine.
Then why don't we go back to XP & test DX9 games ? Sure your argument is sound that we look for the most likely scenario akin to most user systems out there but you're point falls on the wayside when talking purely about performance, which we are discussing here !Again -- nobody cares about "objective tests". They care about tests that replicate their likely use scenarios. How well the CPUs do under Linux only matters if you are using Linux, and hardly anyone does.
What you are suggesting is the equivalent of responding to someone saying "Car A performs better than Car B on highways, main streets, side roads and dirt roads" by saying "Yes, but Car B is almost as good as Car A on the racetrack". Nobody cares.
Well how many games are there running on Linux? It just gets interesting now, since Steam announced their SteamBox.
Because that isn't the most common. Windows 7 is most common, and DX9 and DX11 are equally used according to Steam.Then why don't we go back to XP & test DX9 games ?
It's not how much they love it. It's how many use it.btw this should give you a hint that not everyone loves windows & definitely not as much as you think they do ~
Then why don't we go back to XP & test DX9 games ?
Sure your argument is sound that we look for the most likely scenario akin to most user systems out there but you're point falls on the wayside when talking purely about performance, which we are discussing here !
And its not like we're talking about an exotic closed source OS that is greatly criticized for security holes & what not btw this should give you a hint that not everyone loves windows & definitely not as much as you think they do
That isn't the only reason, the bigger reason is that win7 has DX9~11 & it'd be a royal PITA to install just the OS for a given set of features/eye candy & its the same reason reviewers haven't moved onto win8, because there aren't any DX 11.1 games IIRC, otherwise how would you explain this when XP was still the dominant OS ? I'd also add that XP without aero should give more FPS in games(DX9 titles) as compared to win7 so how would you rate this performance difference across separate windows versions ?Because that isn't the most common. Windows 7 is most common, and DX9 and DX11 are equally used according to Steam.
I think I've explained this part above but again FYI I was talking about performance in optimal conditions & not something like a race on a wet track!It's not how much they love it. It's how many use it.
You don't need to exaggerate & certainly not by pulling those numbers(99% really, is that like your favorite number :hmm out of thin air !I don't think that would be a bad idea, personally.
But the purpose of benchmarking is to help people make purchasing decisions, and people are not buying computers running XP. So that's why it isn't tested.
I don't use Linux, so I really don't care how well AMD does on Linux. Same applies to 99% of other PC users.
Just because you choose to look away doesn't change the reality one bit & I'm surprised that the verbal tirade you throw out here hasn't been reported till now, but then again it isn't so much as unexpected !Talking about performance is only meaningful in terms of how it affects real world use. If you want to make yourself feel good about your favorite hardware because of how it does in artificial scenarios, feel free, but it's little more than mental masturbation.
"Don't shoot the messenger" they say but I guess it would too much to ask you to see one of my earlier posts, I have an Intel machine that runs win8 & last week IIRC I was defending MS' decision to go this route cause apparently a number of so called enthusiasts aren't willing to spend half an hour customizing it when in fact they'd spend hours on their precious hardware(PC) or even a phone to do the same, so I guess calling them hypocrites wouldn't be a longshot !Got news for you -- not nearly as many people hate it as Windows-haters like to portray. I have virtually no problems with Windows 7 -- it does everything I need it to do pretty well, and I know that every piece of software out there, pretty much, will run on it.
And more to the point, as Sleepingforest said, the issue is not whether people like but whether they use it. And they do.
Your glee is practically dripping right through the screen.Anyway, enjoy your delusions. 14nm will be here soon, and that will put AMD's high-end CPU business six feet under for good.
You don't need to exaggerate & certainly not by pulling those numbers(99% really, is that like your favorite number :hmm out of thin air !
Among non-Microsoft operating systems, both OS X and Linux have stalled since October 2011, hovering around 6.9 percent and 1.2 percent, respectively.
Just because you choose to look away doesn't change the reality one bit & I'm surprised that the verbal tirade you throw out here hasn't been reported till now, but then again it isn't so much as unexpected !
Your glee is practically dripping right through the screen.