AMD, doesn't suck. Right?

[Bartmasta]

People are saying that AMD sucks and I should've got an Intel CPU.

I have a 6000+ brisbane overclocked to 3.3 and my motherboard will also support phenoms.

Sure Intel is better, but it's more expensive and I don't have much money.

I'm just thinking if it would be better if I were to get E7300 as well as a Intel mobo. The CPU would cost 30 bucks more but it's better than a 6000+ than gaming when overclocked (not to the max but decently), right? Couldn't find it on tomshardware benchmarks, and the 6000+ was actually doing better than some phenoms and maybe some intel quads I'm not sure though.

What do you guys think, does AMD suck? Did I make a bad choice getting AMD? Or is it just as good and will the denibs kick some ASS?

 

[Kornowski]

AMD, doesn't suck. Right?

Left.

 

[Kornowski]

Nah, they aint too bad man! I wouldn't worry about it!

 

[Bartmasta]

Nah, they aint too bad man! I wouldn't worry about it!

That's what I'm trying to do

Well I think I'm pretty happy after looking at some benchmarks. I just hope that the Denibs will do good and be on par with Intel or maybe even better.

 

[lovely?]

don't get ahead of yourself, intel's i7 may not overclock and the benchmarks may not look great but clock for clock they are speedy little devils.

 

[Ethan3.14159]

AMD doesn't suck, but their processors aren't up to par for a lot of bleeding edge enthusiasts. They make good mid-high end processors at a good price. I think the big disappointment is the poor overclocking AMD's dual and quad cores have. An Intel E7200 is 2.53ghz stock and is already better than an AMD 6400+ 3.2ghz at stock, but the kicker is that on a good board most people can get the E7200 to 4ghz, yet the 6400+ would be hard pressed to get to 3.5ghz.

I don't think AMD will be putting out anything impressive for a little while. They have a lot of catching up to do, and the Core i7 will be hard to compete with.

 

[deankenny]

i use to always use amd but started blue screening alot and lacking in games now i got a intel and omg!!! what a good move run so much cooler i got min to 3.3ghz lol on air,

 

[Bartmasta]

We'll see how AMD does when the denebs come out

when do they even come out? January right? I can't wait.

 

[voyagerfan99]

I'm running a socket 939 Athlon X2 3800+ and have it overclocked to 2.20 GHz. It runs games perfectly fine on high (HL2, Dead Space, Doom3). I only had issues when I first OC'd because I did it too high and my OS freaked and killed the registry.

 

[Twist86]

If you have a budget they rock....but if your into high-end gaming the Intel chips atm have a better cache/clock speed and can overclock better with less power usage.

E8400 can OC to 4.0ghz that's impressive from a 3.2ghz chip.

 

[TrainTrackHack]

If you have a budget they rock....but if your into high-end gaming the Intel chips atm have a better cache/clock speed and can overclock better with less power usage.

AMD CPUs have IMCs so the lack of cache ain't such a big bottleneck, if one at all...

E8400 can OC to 4.0ghz to 5.0ghz that's impressive from a 3.3ghz chip.

5GHz can't really be used for anything except getting the screenshots, CPU-Z validation and SuperPi score... but you can't use that kinda score to game/bench. 4GHz is just fine, though.

The new Denebs are soming out Q1 of 2009, and more 45nm models are released thorough the year... the Denebs are first-ever AMD CPUs to actually beat Yorkfield clock-for-clock, but Nehalems still give them a thrashing...

 

[Mecal]

Assuming you don't want to overclock, is there any difference between the AMD and Intel chips?

 

[Twist86]

Assuming you don't want to overclock, is there any difference between the AMD and Intel chips?

Price. AMD will always strive to beat Intel prices to stay alive. IF they control the lower end market they can lay in wait till they make a superior chip.

 

[TrainTrackHack]

Assuming you don't want to overclock, is there any difference between the AMD and Intel chips?

Price-to-performance ratio at stock speeds seems to in AMD's favor (at least over where I live), even though usually only by a slight bit.

 

[Mecal]

alright cool, thanks.

I plan on building a new comp soon, but no over clocking.

How are AMD's quad cores?

I guess in the end it depends on what motherboard I get.

 

[Intel_man]

alright cool, thanks.

I plan on building a new comp soon, but no over clocking.

How are AMD's quad cores?

I guess in the end it depends on what motherboard I get.

Terrible compared to Intel's Q6600.

 

[Bartmasta]

alright cool, thanks.

I plan on building a new comp soon, but no over clocking.

How are AMD's quad cores?

I guess in the end it depends on what motherboard I get.

If you're mostly gaming and you are thinking of getting one of the worse phenoms (9500, 9600, 9700) i recommend getting a dual core like the latest 6000+. Tests have shown that the 6000+ gives more fps than the phenoms I just listed in games.

 

[Hugh9191]

Personally I have always used AMDs in my desktops (except for a spare parts one which I had to do with a pentium 3!). I find them to be good value and can't complain about the speed.

 

[MrBucket]

Price. AMD will always strive to beat Intel prices to stay alive. IF they control the lower end market they can lay in wait till they make a superior chip.

AMD isn't just "surviving" they carved they're niche in the low priced cpu's. Like instead of the "higher end" ipod i got a Toshiba gigabeat 40GB for a 100 bucks. Does everything the ipod does just cheaper. AMD is just the one who got caught in the budget consumer end, theres always a company like that in anything you buy.

 

[TrainTrackHack]

Terrible compared to Intel's Q6600.

Performance-wise, quite true (except for the highest-end of the Phenoms series), but price/performance ratio still seems quite decent.

AMD isn't just "surviving" they carved they're niche in the low priced cpu's.

Their. Otherwise, quite true.

If you're mostly gaming and you are thinking of getting one of the worse phenoms (9500, 9600, 9700) i recommend getting a dual core like the latest 6000+. Tests have shown that the 6000+ gives more fps than the phenoms I just listed in games

True. If you want a quad (or a tri-core), make sure you get one of the 9x50 (or 8x50) series CPUs. the 9x00 CPUs had this nasty bug that would occasionally cause system lockups, and the fix for it brought the clock-for-clock performance close to Athlons... but Athlons clock way higher, so for gaming you want a xx50 Phenom or a higher-end Athlon.