Why do AMD's CPUs get so much stick?

[Vossy96]

Every tech based site I go to, I constantly read about how poor AMD are compared to Intel these days, but I don't have a great deal of issues with them. I'm currently running the FX 6300 at stock, and I mean, I'm running FIFA 16 at 4K on Ultra @ 80fps (Alright, it's not the most demanding game), GTA 5 at 1440p at 40-50fps on high Fallout 4 on ultra at 40-50fps with 60fps in less dense areas.

Is it simply just because Intel are better? I mean, if Intel weren't as good as they are and they were on or around the same level as AMD, I suppose people wouldn't give AMD so much stick. My guess Intel have just set the standard in processors.

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

Not sure if troll or just new here.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

If you have the gpus to play with high fps at 4k, why aren't you overclocking that 6300? Heck, why don't you have 8xxx overclocked?

 

[myocardia]

Not sure if troll or just new here.

Quite obviously a troll attempt, since an FX 6300 can't even keep up with a GTX 970 @ 1080P low in GTA V. And as you can clearly see here, the FX 6350 can't even pull off 40 FPS in GTA V, with SLI'd GTX 980s:

edit: BTW, the word you were trying to find is shtick.

 

[Vossy96]

Are you guys genuinely serious? I'm not a troll. I'm playing on an R9 380 4GB with a stock 6300, at 1440p on GTA and 4K on FIFA 16, and getting about 40fps with occasional drops at high speeds to around 28-30 on GTA and around 80, give or take a few fps at 4K on FIFA. 4x MSAA on FIFA and no AA on GTA.

If you don't believe me I'll genuinely show you.

 

[Vossy96]

Quite obviously a troll attempt, since an FX 6300 can't even keep up with a GTX 970 @ 1080P low in GTA V. And as you can clearly see here, the FX 6350 can't even pull off 40 FPS in GTA V, with SLI'd GTX 980s:

edit: BTW, the word you were trying to find is shtick.

Oh, and btw, you might have 9000+ posts or whatever, but that doesn't give you any right to be naive or ignorant about it. If you don't believe it, maybe you shouldn't act like a little girl about it and give off a genuine opinion or question rather than going straight to assumptions and hate.

 

[Justinbaileyman]

I am pretty sure he means 1440x900 cause like the graph shows if he really is talking 1440p then hes delusional or trolling.

 

[IllogicalGlory]

My main problem with them is that I like to play older games, and a lot of those really need that single-thread performance.

From what I've seen of AMD CPUs, they can shine in some situations, but you can count on Intel CPUs for consistent performance across pretty much any kind of workload. Sometimes it's lower than AMD, but when AMD CPUs suck, they really suck. Intel doesn't have that problem.

 

[Justinbaileyman]

Do what?? There is no way in hell you are getting no 40fps in GTA V at 4k with your setup.. not happening.. Please post a video for proof and then I will believe..

 

[nerp]

I think if you read enthusiast forums and sites, you'll see a lot of passion and rage on the issue. The reality is most people are pretty ambivalent about the whole thing and wish AMD chips were more competitive. I have been a loyal AMD user for years and am currently running an Intel machine for above-mentioned reasons: Intel chips are faster, more energy efficient and run cooler. I would have considered an AMD machine if anything they had on the market came close to competing, but they don't. For most people, it's not a matter of bashing anyone for any particular reason. It's a matter of looking at the raw facts and being honest. AMD chips are not competitive these days. That doesn't mean you can't run an AMD processor and have a perfectly capable machine. By all means, you can build an AMD box that will work well and get the job done plus play games well, too. But for not much more money you can have something that just blows the doors off of it. That's where we are now.

Looking forward to Zen.

 

[ElFenix]

My main problem with them is that I like to play older games, and a lot of those really need that single-thread performance.

From what I've seen of AMD CPUs, they can shine in some situations, but you can count on Intel CPUs for consistent performance across pretty much any kind of workload. Sometimes it's lower than AMD, but when AMD CPUs suck, they really suck. Intel doesn't have that problem.

/thread.



maybe i'm getting crotchety in my old age, but did we really need another thread on this same basic topic?

 

[Vossy96]

Ironically the only games I have installed right now is Fallout 4 and FIFA 16 because I just done a fresh reset of Windows, BUT here's a couple of 1440p Fallout 4 images with the frame rates (hopefully you can see them if they're not too small)

I'm uploading the actual link so you can zoom or whatever if Afterburner is a little small:

http://tinypic.com/r/v3zyq1/9

http://tinypic.com/r/j8eh6d/9

Settings:

http://tinypic.com/r/21c9rts/9

http://tinypic.com/r/2ljsy6a/9

Give me a few minutes and I'll just do FIFA if this isn't enough for you to take my word on it.

 

[Vossy96]

For the record, I know Intel are better. I'm not here comparing the two performance wise. Hell, it's not even an opinion anymore, it's a total fact they're better. I used to have a 4670k paired with an R9 270x but I sold it to my friend as I moved away. I just don't think AMD are as bad as people seem to be making out.

 

[Vossy96]

Do what?? There is no way in hell you are getting no 40fps in GTA V at 4k with your setup.. not happening.. Please post a video for proof and then I will believe..

Btw Justin, GTA isn't in 4K, it's in 1440p. I tried it in 4K and it ended up at around 15fps at the best of times. I could probably get a steady 40fps if I put it at the lowest settings in 4K but clearly 1440p high is better than 4K low.

 

[Vossy96]

I think if you read enthusiast forums and sites, you'll see a lot of passion and rage on the issue. The reality is most people are pretty ambivalent about the whole thing and wish AMD chips were more competitive. I have been a loyal AMD user for years and am currently running an Intel machine for above-mentioned reasons: Intel chips are faster, more energy efficient and run cooler. I would have considered an AMD machine if anything they had on the market came close to competing, but they don't. For most people, it's not a matter of bashing anyone for any particular reason. It's a matter of looking at the raw facts and being honest. AMD chips are not competitive these days. That doesn't mean you can't run an AMD processor and have a perfectly capable machine. By all means, you can build an AMD box that will work well and get the job done plus play games well, too. But for not much more money you can have something that just blows the doors off of it. That's where we are now.

Looking forward to Zen.

For the record, how does your i3 perform gaming wise? I was seriously tempted to get an i3 mainly due to the upgrade options on the same motherboard, but was put off because I read that most modern games, especially AAA titles need to utilize the higher core count.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

/thread.



maybe i'm getting crotchety in my old age, but did we really need another thread on this same basic topic?

Isn't that the point of the forum?

For the record, I know Intel are better. I'm not here comparing the two performance wise. Hell, it's not even an opinion anymore, it's a total fact they're better. I used to have a 4670k paired with an R9 270x but I sold it to my friend as I moved away. I just don't think AMD are as bad as people seem to be making out.

Well that part is true. People like to exaggerate a lot on the significance the CPU plays in gaming for the average users, single GPUs.

But people here don't like to hear anything remotely positive, or even neutral, in regards to AMD.

 

[ElFenix]

Ironically the only games I have installed right now is Fallout 4 and FIFA 16 because I just done a fresh reset of Windows, BUT here's a couple of 1440p Fallout 4 images with the frame rates (hopefully you can see them if they're not too small)

I'm uploading the actual link so you can zoom or whatever if Afterburner is a little small:

http://tinypic.com/r/v3zyq1/9

http://tinypic.com/r/j8eh6d/9

Settings:

http://tinypic.com/r/21c9rts/9

http://tinypic.com/r/2ljsy6a/9

Give me a few minutes and I'll just do FIFA if this isn't enough for you to take my word on it.

1600x900 != 2560x1440. in fact, that's less than 40% of 2560x1440

Isn't that the point of the forum?

no, that's why we lock reposts.

But people here don't like to hear anything remotely positive, or even neutral, in regards to AMD.

i just don't like seeing the same 6 or 7 people have the same fight over and over and over and over and over and over and over again in fifty brazillian threads.

 

[moonbogg]

They get trashed because they suck. Truth has been spoken.

 

[DrMrLordX]

fifty brazillian threads.

Oh no Zika virus!!! Times 50!

. . .

seriously: OP, AMD gets flak because they won't release any of their modern designs in any form other than in CPUs that essentially compete against Intel's i3s (and even then, not always terribly well). Their 6t and 8t CPU designs are from years ago.

No matter what you think of their value proposition, it's rather disappointing.

 

[Phynaz]

Oh, and btw, you might have 9000+ posts or whatever, but that doesn't give you any right to be naive or ignorant about it. If you don't believe it, maybe you shouldn't act like a little girl about it and give off a genuine opinion or question rather than going straight to assumptions and hate.

You're calling myo ignorant?

Yes, you are a troll. Go away.

 

[Vossy96]

But he is being ignorant, is he not? He's based his "facts" on a benchmark and called me a troll based on my real world experience. Sure, he can go ahead and believe a benchmark because it's what's been achieved elsewhere, BUT that doesn't make me a troll. I've got exactly what I've said I've got, so maybe he shouldn't be so close minded and pretend just because he says something, it's apparently 100% correct.

 

[escrow4]

Every tech based site I go to, I constantly read about how poor AMD are compared to Intel these days, but I don't have a great deal of issues with them. I'm currently running the FX 6300 at stock, and I mean, I'm running FIFA 16 at 4K on Ultra @ 80fps (Alright, it's not the most demanding game), GTA 5 at 1440p at 40-50fps on high Fallout 4 on ultra at 40-50fps with 60fps in less dense areas.

Is it simply just because Intel are better? I mean, if Intel weren't as good as they are and they were on or around the same level as AMD, I suppose people wouldn't give AMD so much stick. My guess Intel have just set the standard in processors.

That ain't 1440p. AMD CPUs suck for gaming as they simply cannot keep up minimum frames. You might have gotten used to the dips but Intel is consistent. AMD isn't. Intel will push 60FPS, AMD will drop to sub 40s in jarring dips you will feel. The chipset is also ancient. AMD needs a new design and a modern 2016 socket. If Zen won't do all that its over. If you want to post proof post a video.

 

[Vossy96]

That ain't 1440p. AMD CPUs suck for gaming as they simply cannot keep up minimum frames. You might have gotten used to the dips but Intel is consistent. AMD isn't. Intel will push 60FPS, AMD will drop to sub 40s in jarring dips you will feel. The chipset is also ancient. AMD needs a new design and a modern 2016 socket. If Zen won't do all that its over. If you want to post proof post a video.

I will have to post the video on Fallout 4 and not GTA 5 unless you can wait a few hours for it to download and install? Surely Fallout 4 is more CPU and GPU intensive anyway isn't it?

 

[Pandasaurus]

Somebody said "AMD" and "gaming". I'll just leave this here...

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1289?vs=1367

Am I the only one that finds that comparison hilarious?

 

[AtenRa]

Somebody said "AMD" and "gaming". I'll just leave this here...

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1289?vs=1367

Am I the only one that finds that comparison hilarious?

Have a look here,

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2459963