Amd

yea im hoping they start producing some high end processors. it looks like they're aiming at the lower power low end market for mobile though. sad.
 
Eh, whenever my next build comes around it's gonna be Intel anyway. Their performance is way better than any AMD chips made in the last few years and I'm willing to pay a decent price for the extra performance.
 
voyagerfan99 said:
Eh, whenever my next build comes around it's gonna be Intel anyway. Their performance is way better than any AMD chips made in the last few years and I'm willing to pay a decent price for the extra performance.
Click to expand...

remember though amd hasnt released any cpu's for over 2 years. any new architecture's at least. right now, they're biding their time i think. hoping, personally, that one of their apu's coming up has higher efficiency and faster gpu performance. i think it'll also have some built in vram if they do it right, as well as support ddr3 and ddr4 because of the fact the ddr4 will actually help an apu.

if the single threaded speed is good enough and the gpu performance is good enough they may even take over mid-range markets. i mean its not that far off. most people buy on a strict budget anyways and an apu may offer higher performance and lower cost

im not talking about power users like myself either. i game at 144fps and 144hz. im talking about the casual console-type gamer only on pc playing pc games and stuff.
 
I'm still running a Phenom II 945 Quad-Core and it works good. For my next upgrade I want to keep my current hardware set up and go with a solid state drive. But the heaviest video game software I run is "Defense of The Ancient 2" though.

Edit: The AMD FX-8370E 3.3 gigahertz hardware looks to be a lot better than my current processor. That is good enough for me presently.
 
Last edited:
Eh, 'already' seems a bit surprising since he came into AMD in 2011. AMD really haven't done much in the last 3 years so I'm not wholly surprised.

I imagine the stock is going to take some more tumbling in the near future too as their only really profitable venues seemed to be the console deals.
 
voyagerfan99 said:
Eh, whenever my next build comes around it's gonna be Intel anyway. Their performance is way better than any AMD chips made in the last few years and I'm willing to pay a decent price for the extra performance.
Click to expand...
I'm surprised you are with AMD, Intel has been the clear leader since the Core Duo days.
 
I'm still using AMD. I don't know really! They got Jim Keller back and talking Zen. About dropping the module (CMT) and going with a faster core and using SMT. I don't see it until at least 2016. Don't even know if it will only be a APU. Don't see much happing until then. Maybe a new module stepping and/or dropping to 20nm.
 
WRXGuy1 said:
I'm surprised you are with AMD, Intel has been the clear leader since the Core Duo days.
Click to expand...

I've always been on a budget. My current and previous processors were always pretty good matched up against a C2D or C2Q. But now the i series are on their 4th generation, they rip and are significantly better.
 
I got my 8320 for 160 bucks and it tears through almost all of my games. So I'm fine with it. Their efficiency is pretty lacking and single core performance is pretty meh at best. Still. For what I use it for it's fine and gaming performance is great for the price I paid. I think people have unrealistic expectations when they compare an 8350 to a high end i7 and expect it compete. When matched with other Intel chips in its price range it does fine. Well that may not be true anymore but it did after it launched.

My avatar kind of makes it look like I'm an AMD fanboy when I'm definitely not. Might change it. :P
 
Been using AMD since the K5. The K5 and on, AMD held their own. The PIII gave them a run for the money. When the Athlon came out they kicked Intel's butt in IPC and held it all the way through the Athlon 64 X2. I think they started losing their way with the first Phenom. Just to have the first true 4 core on die in desktop they spent a lot of research and development. Ended up with nothing but 4 Athlon 64 Brisbane cores with added L3 cache. Intel's Core 2 killed it in IPC.

Core 2 caught them by total surprise in IPC and they were stuck with a new design and a older core architecture. From the K6 all the way to the Athlon 64 X2, AMD really had it together with having high IPC. Don't know what the mind set change was or what happen within the company to suddenly shift from IPC to as they call it (many cores). I understand Bulldozer was already in the works, but my god, the IPC failure with Phenom didn't teach them anything.

Here comes Bulldozer, in single threaded it was sometimes slower then the Phenom. There are times that you just close the book (if it will be late or not) and start a new faster IPC architecture. Your a CPU maker and don't get like everybody else that multithreaded programs were not moving as fast as expected.

I really hope that Zen will be going back to AMDs old mind set, low power and high IPC. I'm not a AMD fanboy but was pretty much a AMD pro under dog supporter. But with the crap AMD said before Phenom and Bulldozer, this grain of salt is one that I'm not taking until I see benchmarks.

Now I want to clarify how I feel overall.

The First Phenom was a disaster. Had the older Brisbane core, no improvement in IPC not enough L3. Plus even had a TLB bug.

Phenom II was actually a good processor. Increase in IPC and added more L3 cache. Released to late and still could not compete.

Bulldozer, I don't even know what to say really. The many core mentality from 2007 that didn't work still runs rampant. They should have just added 2 cores on the Phenom II, refined the core alittle. Closed the books on the bulldozer and saved all that research and development and started a new architecture. If so, probably Zen would already be on the market.
 
At first, I used to think that AMD was far superior, more cores, faster speed, cheaper. But my 60 dollar pentium crushes my friends a10 6800K in CPU benchmarks. AMD spends too much time refining their APUs, and has not released a mid range CPU in two years.


My question is why AMD doesnt perform as good as Intel, even if it is faster.
 
ninjabubbles3 said:
At first, I used to think that AMD was far superior, more cores, faster speed, cheaper. But my 60 dollar pentium crushes my friends a10 6800K in CPU benchmarks. AMD spends too much time refining their APUs, and has not released a mid range CPU in two years.


My question is why AMD doesnt perform as good as Intel, even if it is faster.
Click to expand...
You probably don't remember the Athlon 64 vs Pentium 4 and Pentium D days, but back then AMD was much more advanced than Intel in the high-end CPU market.
 
ninjabubbles3 said:
My question is why AMD doesnt perform as good as Intel, even if it is faster.
Click to expand...

Intel market cap: $164.15B
AMD market cap: $2.02B

Among others.

They used to be innovative and were the first to do things like put the IMC on the CPU. As stated before, the original Athlons and early Athlon XP as well as A64 were superior products, but it's been a long time and they've shifted their focus to other irrelevant venues.

I still think if they made a desktop APU paired with GDDR5 similar to the PS4 it'd be much more amazing than the crap they've been pumping out currently. It wouldn't really fix the CPU side of the fence although you do get some help with the Mantle API, but could be a stopgap while they are developing that 'Zen' platform thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top