• Why not to buy AMD
    113 replies, posted
FIST UND 4MOST, Intel has been consistently outperforming AMD since '05, and there are an absolute plethura of reasons why. Any "innovations" AMD has made, Intel has improved immensely on and done a die-shrink on top of that. Keep in mind that a lot of what I'm saying is contingent on my ability to overclock and taste in software. I currently have an i5 750 sitting stable at 4.5GHz, which is about 40% faster than a Phenom II at its highest overclock. My 3DMark 06 score with a cheap-ass 5770 is 2000 points higher than my GTX 275 (a much more powerful video card) and Phenom II (overclocked to the max) setup scored. 1st reason) Memory controllers. AMD did it first, but now, even with their Phenom II's, which are throughput reliant, the i7 920 frequently doubles the Phenom II's bandwidth. Not only that, but AMD chips are unable to run memory over 2000MHz without running into issues. My i5 is sitting happily with DDR3 2000 running at 2300MHz, 1.65v. 2) Clock-for-clock, Intel is literally generations ahead of AMD. AMD's Phenom II barely outperforms 3 year-old Intel chips such as the Q6600, and only overclocks a tad better. And Intel chips are literally twice as fast at calculating Pi. AMD's first attempt at touching C2Q's was with the original Phenom, which we all know are some of the worst chips ever released, second only to the Pentium 4's. I don't say Pentium D's because those chips could actually overclock (like hell) and were still about as good as Athlon's in price:performance. 3) Hard drive controllers-wise, Intel has almost always been ahead of AMD. The only place where AMD succeed was with Socket 939, but AMD being AMD, they killed it and went for a cheaper solution, and then hiked up the price of equivalent chips. I'll still swear by the ole Opteron's when it comes to hard drive controllers. However, even with AMD's most recent Socket 938, they've failed to compare to Intel. Onboard RAID performance is lackluster at best. 4) Video card performance-wise, AMD's most recent ad schemes have consisted of creating "platforms" via combos between AMD CPU's and ATI GPU's. The Spider, the Dragon, and now "Fusion". The only problem is these elitist "platforms" actually perform worse than compare Intel/ATI or Intel/Nvidia setups. There are benchmarks that clearly show that AMD's selling point, Crossfire, is null when compared to the same video cards on an Intel platform. A couple of 5870's, for example, would be severely bottlenecked by a Phenom II at the highest it can overclock. It will get ~20% more performance on an Intel "platform". 5) AMD's different steppings are pathetic marketing schemes. The only difference between the Phenom II 965, which can't really overclock worth a shit in the first place (500MHz is often the cutoff), and the C3 version is 100MHz more headroom. Basically fanboys are selling off their shit chips for slightly less shit chips so they can hit 4GHz. And worst of all, they still need 1.5v+ to hit that. Not only is that a huge power draw, but it's simply bad for the chip. They may be sturdy chips, but I guarantee you there is hardware degradation after a while. I've owned 4 Phenom II platforms btw... High-end ones at that. All of them eventually couldn't overclock as well. This is a similar issue to what plagued the original Phenom. The original Phenom could OC 300-400MHz at first (still pathetic), but eventually it was impossible to get past 2.8GHz. Intel has never had a similar issue. 6) The HD 3800 series and 4800 series... These only fit in because these were the series where AMD took charge in continuing the cycle of using the cheaping manufacturing possibly and disregarding drivers and software performance altogether. The HD 3800 series, like the 2900 XT, was terrible. The top-notch GPU, the 3870, was worse than the 8800 GT, and only cost a few dollars less. And then the drivers. Buggy textures abound, and Crossfire 3870's or the obscenely overpriced 3870 X2 jittered and microstutters worse than the 9800 GX2. At least the 9800GX2 had good driver performance and folded like a beast. Then, there's the 4800 series. A few people may disagree with me simply because they're fanboys, didn't notice these issues, or both. The 4850 is a good card. If you ask me, the only good card in the whole series. But the 4830, 4870 and 4890 are different stories. Both the 4870 and 4890 got horrible performance in Fallout 3, Far Cry 2, and anything with Vsync enabled... Both of the first two games would stutter and bug out frequently. You got a good framerate, but it looked and played like shit. With Vsync enabled on anything, these cards create lines all over the screen, and the the AF looks even worse. GT200's AF is up to 3 times more detailed than ATI's. AMD's only good series since the 9800 Pro is their newest, the 5800 series. Perfect AF, and decent drivers are emerging. I highly recommend a 5770 over a 4870. The only problem is the hardware in the cards is still piss-weak. A $400 HD 5870 will only fold a decimal better than an $80 9800 GT. Folding = HD video capability = software integration = rendering (to an extent), etc. It's a big deal. 7) Price:performance, this is debatable. Now, if all you do is play FPS with an average GPU and take no interest in significantly increasing your performance by overclocking, you might want AMD... but you'd also be a lifeless, money-wasting idiot. Intel's new Core i5 750 outperforms literally every Phenom II in performance in everything, and it will overclock twice as far with half the voltage tweak. That combined with signature Nehalem features makes the Phenom II a waste. All the reasons above apply for this processor. Intel also recently did yet another die shrink ahead of AMD, unveiling their new 32nm processors. These continue the traditions of outperforming AMD in every enthusiast aspect. The cheapest processor, a $120 dual core with HyperThreading, the new i3 530, is actually more powerful, at the same clockspeeds, in most applications, than the AMD's top dog, the Phenom II 965 C3, which costs $60 more (after a $75 price drop). But where the Clarkdales really shine is not only with the innovative features like on-chip video (never done before) and low power consumption, but with overclocking. Apparently, these 32nm chips don't break a sweat getting to 5GHz, with standard aftermarket cooling. Now who can get a Phenom II that high? Oh yeah, no one. Unless you have a supply of liquid helium at hand. So, what with the sub-$100 Intel P55 and H55 motherboards for these processors, you can't play the "price:performance" card anymore. As if it ever applied. Intel has simply been raising the bar with all their new processors, and all AMD has been able to do is lag behind and act like their chips at the same clockspeed compare for a lower price. And don't forget the Athlon FX's. Those things went up to $1000; their prices immediately fell once Intel released the far superior Core 2 Duo, which only ran at half the clockspeed. Thank you for reading. I hope I've changed some minds regarding this issue.
-snip-
A 5870 beats the crap out of 9800GT... D: In games [editline]05:29PM[/editline] Phenom II's are good if youre on a budget, but need a quad
oh look, it's phone, that guy who isn't a troll? yeah this thread is totally worth the time it takes to read it.
[QUOTE=thf;20473599]Phenom II's are good if youre on a budget, but need a quad[/QUOTE] Apparently you didn't read what I said about the i3 530, which has been known to outperform an AMD Phenom II X4 965. [editline]04:32PM[/editline] [QUOTE=reapaninja;20473659]oh look, it's phone, that guy who isn't a troll? yeah this thread is totally worth the time it takes to read it.[/QUOTE] Your ignorance only proves the low extent of your mental capacity, my friend. Read what I have to say before you go bashing.
No. 965 > i3 530
[QUOTE=thf;20473737]No. 965 > i3 530[/QUOTE] You are clearly misled by AMD's propaganda. Google it yourself and become enlightened.
man phone, I get how you could get bothered by everyone laughing at your pathetic attempts at trolling, but making even more pathetic attempts isn't the way to solve it
[url]http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=118&p2=102&c=1[/url] Seems to me that the 965 is better in all games
[QUOTE=reapaninja;20473783]man phone, I get how you could get bothered by everyone laughing at your pathetic attempts at trolling, but making even more pathetic attempts isn't the way to solve it[/QUOTE] You're obviously upset that I insulted your favorite brand. I can see right past your failed troll attempt. [editline]04:41PM[/editline] [QUOTE=thf;20473816][url]http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=118&p2=102&c=1[/url] Seems to me that the 965 is better in all games[/QUOTE] LOL @ Anandtech. Try finding an unbiased source. Also you didn't even read my post, which I will quote now: "the new i3 530, is actually more powerful, AT THE SAME CLOCKSPEEDS, in most applications, than the AMD's top dog, the Phenom II 965 C3"
psst only ever used intel, always recommending i5s, man I'm so biased towards AMD aern't I don't bother quoting sources, according to phone every source ever is biased
Great. A free-roaming Intel Fanboy detected. You are comparing new hardware to OLD hardware. AMD's answer to the iSeries isn't even out yet. €dit: Also Intel CPU's cost quite a few bucks more.
[QUOTE=reapaninja;20473914]psst only ever used intel, always recommending i5s, man I'm so biased towards AMD aern't I don't bother quoting sources, according to phone every source ever is biased[/QUOTE] [url]www.bit-tech.net[/url] is a great source. Also, for computer advice, I wouldn't recommend coming to Facepunch (excluding my posts, which are the only ones to make sense), but rather to [url]www.overclock.net[/url], which has people who actually know what they are talking about.
Anandtech is probably the least biased source out there.
[QUOTE=ph0ne;20473995]excluding my posts, which are the only ones to make sense[/QUOTE] oh man, my sides are killing no, wait, no they're not, that was a terrible joke
[QUOTE=Dominik93;20473969]Great. A free-roaming Intel Fanboy detected. You are comparing new hardware to OLD hardware. AMD's answer to the iSeries isn't even out yet.[/QUOTE] That's irrelevant considering Intel's offerings are currently the fastest available at this time. It would be great if AMD's Bulldozer will outperform i7 while maintaining a competitive price, but we can't say much about it can we? Considering that Deneb was released a while after Nehalem, it doesn't seem to me that AMD has an excuse for not making Deneb as fast, if not faster, as Nehalem. I guess Intel is a few steps ahead. [QUOTE=Dominik93;20473969]€dit: Also Intel CPU's cost quite a few bucks more.[/QUOTE] Have you ever grasped the concept of saving money?
[QUOTE=ph0ne;20473995][url]www.bit-tech.net[/url] is a great source. Also, for computer advice, I wouldn't recommend coming to Facepunch (excluding my posts, which are the only ones to make sense), but rather to [url]www.overclock.net[/url], which has people who actually know what they are talking about.[/QUOTE] LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL You seriously think oc knows what they're talking about more than we do? Tell me, ph4ggot, what makes you think none of us know what we're doing? Because a few of us have different opinions? Are you in 7th grade or what? [editline]04:57PM[/editline] Seriously. Work on a build with Intel/Nvidia, then one with AMD/ATI. Make sure they both cost the same amount of money, and have the same parts other than CPU, GPU, and motherboard. Then benchmark both, tell me what comes out on top.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV2;20474083]LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL You seriously think oc knows what they're talking about more than we do? Tell me, ph4ggot, what makes you think none of us know what we're doing? Because a few of us have different opinions? Are you in 7th grade or what?[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, I couldn't comprehend the childish nature of this post. Please retype it in a clear and concise manner. And yes, OCN knows what they're talking about A LOT more than what you people do, being that they have actual experience in building computers, unlike you kiddies who just sit and read biased benchmarks. [QUOTE=ButtsexV2;20474083]Intel/Nvidia[/QUOTE] If you bothered to read my original post, you would know that I wouldn't hesitate to buy an HD5000 series card.
[QUOTE=ph0ne;20474121]I'm sorry, I couldn't comprehend the childish nature of this post. Please retype it in a clear and concise manner.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, I couldn't comprehend the pseudo-intellectual nature of this post. Please retype it in a clear and concise manner.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV2;20474132]I'm sorry, I couldn't comprehend the pseudo-intellectual nature of this post. Please retype it in a clear and concise manner.[/QUOTE] Being a stubborn 12 year old are we? You clearly have no idea what you're doing.
AMD is great for the budget holds out nicely. Wouldn't everyone want an i7 or even i9? Sure i5 is available and the fact that intel keeps on downgrading the shelf life time of products I can't keep up.
[QUOTE=ph0ne;20474163]I just turned 13 and I'm PROUD![/QUOTE] k
[QUOTE=blacksam;20474236]AMD is great for the budget holds out nicely. Wouldn't everyone want an i7 or even i9? Sure i5 is available and the fact that intel keeps on downgrading the shelf life time of products I can't keep up.[/QUOTE] At this time i5 (Intel's weakest Nehalem) is only 15 dollars more (on Newegg) than a 965 (AMD's top dog). Hmm, I wonder what the better choice is, considering how many times the i5 has consistently outperformed the 965 in just about every benchmarking site (albeit biased). [editline]05:09PM[/editline] [QUOTE=ButtsexV2;20474245]k[/QUOTE] lol 3,984 posts
[QUOTE=ph0ne;20474279]At this time i5 is only 15 dollars more (on Newegg) than a 965. Hmm, I wonder what the better choice is?[/QUOTE] Pricey boards- not all of us are super rich like you. 15 dollars goes a long way considering that most boards don't have onboard graphics cards.
[QUOTE=blacksam;20474321]Pricey boards- not all of us are super rich like you. 15 dollars goes a long way considering that most boards don't have onboard graphics cards.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128412[/url] Wow, this board is SO pricey! Note that this board has overclocked the i5 CPUs past 4GHz without a sweat. Or how about this one: [url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130240[/url] After all, it's been known to get an i5 to 4.3GHz: [url]http://www.hitechlegion.com/reviews/motherboards/1430-msi-p55-cd53-motherboard?start=18[/url]
[QUOTE=ph0ne;20474350][url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128412[/url] Wow, this board is SO pricey! Note that this board has overclocked the i5 CPUs past 4GHz without a sweat.[/QUOTE] Than we can compare with this board when the amount you have to pay when you need DDR3 ram and a dedicated graphics card. I'm not here to flame.
[QUOTE=ph0ne;20474279]lol 3,984 posts[/QUOTE] Yeah, that happens when you've been here for two years. That's 7 posts per day, well below average. I also like how you didn't make a rebuttal on my comment about you being 13.
[QUOTE=blacksam;20474379]Than we can compare with this board when the amount you have to pay when you need DDR3 ram and a dedicated graphics card. I'm not here to flame.[/QUOTE] Since DDR3 is about the same price as DDR2 nowadays, there's no reason not to get DDR3. Go ahead and check Newegg.
This threed fails... everyone got different opinions and if someone wants to buy an amd its theere choice and they arent stupid for just doing it amd will still do in most applications even if intel is faster.
[QUOTE=ph0ne;20474279]At this time i5 (Intel's weakest Nehalem) is only 15 dollars more (on Newegg) than a 965 (AMD's top dog). Hmm, I wonder what the better choice is, considering how many times the i5 has consistently outperformed the 965 in just about every benchmarking site (albeit biased).[/QUOTE] Also i5 only beats the 965 in synthetic benchmarks. In all real world applications, the 965 tears up the i5.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.