Why do AMD's CPUs get so much stick?

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Yes, but look at the single threaded score. The haswell celeron is more than 60% faster. For normal everyday usage, i would take a big core celeron over a Core 2 any day of the week. Now the atom "celerons" are another story, and should not even be allowed close to a deaktop.

That doesn't make any sense. Why would you pay to upgrade to a vastly inferior chip? The multithreaded performance of Haswell Pentiums/Celerons is awful. So much that I sold my G3258 because of the constant game stuttering -- yet my Core 2 Quad soldiers on. Haswell Celerons/Pentiums are practically unusable at anything multi-threaded.

BTW, the Hawell Celeron ain't anywhere close to 60% faster versus a Core 2 Quad. You are cooking the books on that score. Its only around 30% - 40% better. And that respective Q9500 will still mop the floor with it in anything multi-threaded. A Haswell Celeron is an utter waste of money -- a sidegrade at best. Buy a real chip if you go Haswell (at least an i5) -- because the Celerons are practically useless.

Passmark Q9500 Single Threaded Score = 1211
Passmark G1840 Single Threaded Score = 1647

 

[frozentundra123456]

That doesn't make any sense. Why would you pay to upgrade to a vastly inferior chip? The multithreaded performance of Haswell Pentiums/Celerons is awful. So much that I sold my G3258 because of the constant game stuttering -- yet my Core 2 Quad soldiers on. Haswell Celerons/Pentiums are practically unusable at anything multi-threaded.

BTW, the Hawell Celeron ain't anywhere close to 60% faster versus a Core 2 Quad. You are cooking the books on that score. Its only around 30% - 40% better. And that respective Q9500 will still mop the floor with it in anything multi-threaded. A Haswell Celeron is an utter waste of money -- a sidegrade at best. Buy a real chip if you go Haswell (at least an i5) -- because the Celerons are practically useless.

Passmark Q9500 Single Threaded Score = 1211
Passmark G1840 Single Threaded Score = 1647

I specifically said "normal everyday use". NOT GAMING. I must have looked up the wrong number for the celeron, I thought it was 1800. In any case, I still would pick a 35% faster, much more energy efficient, modern cpu with a nice igp over a core 2 Quad for everyday use.

 

[TheELF]

In any case, I still would pick a 35% faster,

http://www.passmark.com/support/performancetest/interpreting_test_results.htm

The results are not a percentage figure. They are relative figures.
A computer with a CPU result of 4000 can process roughly twice as much data as a computer with a result of 2000.

Also the q9500 is far from your typical c2d quad...
Another also, the q9400 with a respectable sample size (unlike the q9500) gets 1133 single scroe@2,7Ghz
so the q9400 is ~13% faster then baseline while the celeron is ~65% faster then base.
And again those are the top dog c2d quads,far from the norm.

 

[Ketchup]

As far as putting together systems, I started with Intel with Pentium 4 Northwoods, when RDRAM went bye, bye. Before that, it was AMD back to an HP desktop with a Pentium 2.

Why didn't I stay longer with AMD? Because they were slower, hotter, and the price difference didn't justify the sacrifice.

Sorry AMD. You make a better chip (and chipset for that matter), and I'll buy it. But right now, I'm still (happily) waiting.

 

[Gunbuster]

AMD has nothing that competes, then to top it off even if they reached parity with the mainstream Intel 4 core parts stomping them down again is just a Xeon re-brand away. 6 cores? got it, 8 cores, got it, 10, yup, 12, yes, 14 cores, sure, 16, indeed, 18 cores/36 threads 45 meg L3 turboing up to 3.6? yes.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

I specifically said "normal everyday use". NOT GAMING. I must have looked up the wrong number for the celeron, I thought it was 1800. In any case, I still would pick a 35% faster, much more energy efficient, modern cpu with a nice igp over a core 2 Quad for everyday use.

But it's not even just gaming. As soon as you start zipping/unzipping files, do some video editing, encode a video in handbrake, run an emulator.... That Haswell Pentium just plain sucks. If all you are doing is web surfing, then I guess that CPU is fine. But justifying the investment for upgrading is nearly impossible unless moving to an i5 or better IMO.

I thought the G3258 would be enough power from the reviews. It just wasn't -- so many tasks humble it. I guess it was a decent placeholder until I moved to the i7 4790K. Dual cores just are very unpleasant nowadays -- and FM2 Athlon X2's are even worse.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

Dual cores just are very unpleasant nowadays -- and FM2 Athlon X2's are even worse.

This really cannot be overemphasized. Stay away from single module (1M/2T) FM2(+) APUs, unless you're on a seriously tight budget.

 

[Phynaz]

Why would you pay to upgrade to a vastly inferior chip?

That would be a question for AMD

 

[TheELF]

But it's not even just gaming. As soon as you start zipping/unzipping files, do some video editing, encode a video in handbrake, run an emulator.... That Haswell Pentium just plain sucks. If all you are doing is web surfing, then I guess that CPU is fine. But justifying the investment for upgrading is nearly impossible unless moving to an i5 or better IMO.

I thought the G3258 would be enough power from the reviews. It just wasn't -- so many tasks humble it. I guess it was a decent placeholder until I moved to the i7 4790K. Dual cores just are very unpleasant nowadays -- and FM2 Athlon X2's are even worse.

Try to record a game on 6 cores and it just kneels as the OP just showed us...
Multitasking needs user input to work well,it's that simple.