Why AMD is still a viable company.

Just posted this in another thread, seems like not enough people are aware:

For a desktop I'm AMD over Intel any day of the week. Notebooks are another story.

Check out this benchmark chart (desktop CPUs): http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

...while its true that Intel has the most powerful processors, AMD comes pretty close, and totally destroys Intel in performance per dollar.

PS: Those top Intel CPUs (6000 passmark +) sell for $1000 minimum,

AMD PHENOM II X4 965 and Intel Xeon x3360 (Identical Passmark scores), $200 and $330, respectively.

What would you buy?

 

Neither.
I am not such a sucker, I will buy Phenom II X4 925 (Black Edition) and overclock to 965 Speeds.
They are physically identical anyway.

 

The Intel chip. Why you say? Because there is more to computing then synthetic benchmarks.

 

I'd take and AMD any day as well.

 

First, I'm glad that AMD is able to push Intel onto bigger and better things. Really.

However, I am one of those that would spend the extra $130 to get the Intel brand. Whether it is a notebook or a desktop, Intel has never given me grief. Wish I could say the same about AMD.

Let's not even talk about the chipsets here (nVidia horror stories... still waking up in the middle of the night screaming ).

When you are buying a system for work purposes, Intel is the only game in town. AMD is fine for 'best for the price', 'cheaper', and even 'faster' in certain areas.

However, to me, those sound like excuses for not buying the very best available. Best being defined as performance with dependability too.

I have tried AMD systems many times - if I could not sell them or return them, they ended up collecting dust in the corner. Not because they weren't fast, or capable (when they worked), but because for one niggling reason or another, I wasn't able to trust them as a platform for the next two or three years when I'd be making my next purchase decisions for my company.

I have to admit, up until three years ago I was having a hard time justifying my Intel position on the performance side, but Intel finally woke up and showed the world that they too could be more than just 'dependable' and now dominate on almost every other aspect too, including price/performance.

When reliability, compatibility, stability and mature products and drivers are important, an increase in price is more than appropriate (to me) and Intel knows this all too well too.

AMD does fill a niche, but not one that I've been in for a long, long time.

Cheers!

 

I would take the new AMD Athlon II / Turion II than a Intel Celeron build. xD

But il think il wait and see what the new mobile Phenom brand performs.

 

The desktop I built last month has a Core i5 750 which cost me $150 (+~$5 tax). Intel's desktop processors aren't that expensive -- you just have to buy them on sale. Incidentally, the Phenom II 965 is not the best of ideas: you get roughly the same stock performance as the Core i5 750 (significantly less in applications that are not well-threaded because the latter has Turbo mode), but it's a lot more power hungry and the pricing is fairly close. It's also aesthetically displeasing in the same exact way that the high-end Pentium 4s were: all AMD is doing is trading higher clock speed for increased TDP (essentially a factory overclock).

That said, there is no doubt that AMD is still a viable company. For one thing, Intel can't afford to let them go down (the regulatory agencies of Europe and the US knock them for being a monopoly even as it is...). For another, they have the GPU business which is doing rather well. And finally, there's a fairly good chance that their next-generation CPU will be competitive with its Intel contemporaries (AMD just has to release it on time).

 

With all other factors considered equal, I'd take the AMD chips. Ez.

 

surfasb,

but, but, but... the other factors aren't equal - at all?

 

but, but, but, they are, at least in the desktop department, where nobody gives a flying **** what the power consumption or heat output are.

 

Well, count yourself as one of the nobody's, but I certainly care as I'm sure many others that maintain a large number of workstations care for the impact on the electrical/cooling bill for large installations.

 

It's not only important for corporate users, but for consumer users too. Especially a HTPC, where cooler components = less fan usage = less noise = less distraction while listening to something.

But for the gamer, the Phenom II works well in a pinch, and I would recommend it whole heartedly.

 

Great points!

 

I'm sure its a concern to some, but I really was talking in regards to gaming. The max heat encountered by even overclocked CPUs in a desktop system these days is really not so dangerous, and for MOST people efficiency isn;t much of an issue...maybe an extra 50 cents on your energy bill? (although there is the fan noise issue, and the industrial aspect).

 

I take whatever is better at the time. Which is Intel right now. Being a fanboy/girl of either one is dumb.

 

Angelic,

'better' is subject to a very broad range of definitions. My definition has never put AMD in that spot. Not a fanboy/girl, just isn't marketed to my needs.

 

AMD/ATI is viable because they can offer superior performance for different needs at different price points. The Phenom II and Athlon II are great bang for the buck. The 965 does well with gaming ( compared to the more expensive i7 920). Not only is the processor cheaper, but AM3 motherboards are much cheaper than X58 motherboards (and some even offer nice integrated chipsets - the 785G - for cheap builds). The cheaper processor and cheaper motherboard really add up to offer great gaming performance at a lower cost. AMD is successful at creating similar situations all across their line up. However, notebook wise they cannot compete at this moment... As such, I try to buy processors based on their merits, not because of some strange loyalty to a multinational corporation.

 

I use nothing but AMD on my desktops, but I will stick with Intel for my laptops.

 

It's more than just some.

As has been pointed out, the surge in the use of HTPCs has driven forward what was already a well-established niche market for quiet computing - the easiest way to achieve such a goal being to produce less heat in the first place, thereby requiring less powerful/noisy cooling systems.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that there are as many people strongly interested in quiet computing as there are in OCing/pushing their systems as hard as they can but those that are interested in it put at least as much time/effort/planning/etc into getting their rig right as those who are tweaking it for performance.

 

Well said. I would also add that AMD takes more trouble to ensure upgrade pathways for their desktop CPUs.

 

Yeah considering half their Phenom II and Athlon II CPUs are backwards compatible with quite a few AM2+ motherboards(given a BIOS update) it's a great thing when compared to Intel who switches socket with every CPU lineup >.>

 

Bog, Forever Melody, that is very true, AMD does do that.

But as a business user, doing constant 'incremental' upgrades are not cost effective when my time to setup, test, verify and reinstall my workstations is included in the calculations.

Somebody that is 'just' gaming is fine with that model, but most people upgrade the whole system when it is cost effective to do so (years after the initial purchase), so buying a completely new system gives you more bang for the buck and also gives you all the newer tech the new platform offers to for 'free' - with no hassles endured during endless upgrade cycles.

Which eventually will all be for naught anyway when we (as consumers) really want/need to be current and we have to dump whatever was holding us back before and take the plunge and buy the current 'best' platform.

This is the difference between AMD vs. Intel. AMD does not have a plan. Intel does; service it's corporate customers, properly.

Intel is the mature, stable company that takes care of its target market: businesses. AMD is/will always be the little guy giving cool features and sometimes, even better performance products, but failing to use the gains it makes when its on top to get the corporate users on side and on board.

I don't wish AMD any harm. Nor do I wish them to remain 'below' Intel. But as long as their attitude and their actions convey 'immature' to me, then they will never have me (or others that think similarly) as a customer.

Like I said before, I've tried AMD based systems many times for my own uses and have abandoned them. Even more 'current' AMD Opteron desktop systems that I work on for my clients leave me shaking my head in disbelief - my lowly VAIO with it's P8400 CPU keeps up to them.

No, I don't wish AMD to disappear. Just want them to offer something (soon) that will stop me from saying 'buy anything with an Intel chip in it' to users looking for a new system.

Yes, my bias is mostly business-minded, but why would I recommend something that I don't use myself? (People have called me on that very point).

Cheers!

 

That's probably a bug. I've seen something like it before: a single-threaded task that I expected to take a short time was taking 20 minutes on a 2-3 year old 2.8 GHz Opteron so I tried it on my 2 year old laptop with its 2.5 GHz Core2Duo (T9300) and it only took 5 minutes. Apparently, it was some combination of the laptop having its 4GB of RAM mostly free (the Opteron had various other things going on) and some weird glitch in the application.

One of the things AMD has going against it is that a lot more software was written and optimized on Intel machines. This is not visible in benchmarks because they deliberately avoid it and the corporations that release products in multiple nations at least check to see that they haven't broken one by optimizing for the other, but the smaller and more specific a program, the more likely the dominant player (Intel in this case) is better off regardless of processor quality.

 

You may be right, it may be a bug, but not one I've found so easily as you did.

Your second paragraph is the very reason why I don't (I can't) depend on AMD platforms. Software couldn't even be installed on an AMD Acer Ferrari notebook I bought, let alone run on it.

Of course, back goes the Ferrari (I was kinda a Porsche guy anyway ), once again.

The issue got solved in a few weeks I'm sure, but a few weeks with no computer system is suicide for a business.

This is what I see AMD lacking in: a vision to not reach, nor even surpass Intel (they were on top for how many years), but to Be Intel as far as compatibility and accountability is concerned.

Cheers!

 

That doesn't even make any sense; both AMD and Intel make x86 processors, how could software on one not run on the other?

 

This is good advice. You just can't beat the price/performance ratio of AMD on desktops, especially for DIY builds.

Their notebook chips, OTOH, tend to run hotter and provide worse performance. They're comparable to the intel pentium dual-core mobile line, but do yourself a favor and just invest the extra in a core 2 or core i3/5/7 system. You'll be much happier.

Also, to those who have claimed "compatibility" or "stability" issues due to an AMD CPU. . . I don't think I've ever heard of a CPU causing these kinds of issues. With the exception of a few instruction sets (which vary by model and really don't affect compatibility), AMD and Intel are identical when it comes to how they run software. Further, I've never actually heard of a hardware CPU failure, with the exception of overheating (which is basically unheard of now because the motherboard always has a failsafe shutoff when the CPU gets too hot).

 

Yeah, I know it makes no sense. That's why I returned it and bought an Intel platform, where I knew it ran with no issues.

When I went to the store to allow them the chance to make it run, they puzzled over it for half an hour, then their 'solution' was to take a brand new $2500 notebook and send it back to Acer to have it 'analyzed'. Right! I demanded my money back. And got it.

Cheers!

 

Intel > AMD
Nvidia > ATI

/Thread

 

So, it's your lucky day then, you get to hear of both problems!

See:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=437686


This is not a simple 'claim' this is a fact; AMD CPU's do not compute the same as Intel CPU's do. If they did, Intel would be suing them for IP theft. There are many examples of this, maybe not lately (I have no clue, idc), but certainly the last time I was considering an AMD platform for an upgrade to my existing workstation/notebook needs.

Hopefully you can help with the link above - the CPU throttles itself down to 200 Mhz - not a very lively performance possible there, not even with Win 7 installed.

Cheers!

 

What does your faulty Intel CPU have anything to do with AMD?

 

Was responding to 'never actually heard of a hardware CPU failure'. See your quote above.

Now, you have heard about it - twice.

Cheers!

 

My bad, but that's unfortunate about your AMD experience; I've never owned an AMD laptop, but may plan to get one.

 

Never had any issues with AMD chips. I have one in my server right now. I like them for cheaper builds.

 

You'd think so (after all, they're both x86-64 now), but it is not true. For example, look at the patch notes for the PC version of the Mass Effect. Notice that at the bottom (i.e. one of the first things they fixed) it says "fixed a crash running on certain multi-core AMD systems". Of course, 99%+ of the time it probably doesn't matter... but sometimes it does.

 

Make sure it is compatible with the software you need to run on it. When they work, they work awesome, I must say.

Also, another possible 'hardware CPU' failure:

See:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=450967

 

for laptops , Intel for sure... For desktops , maybe AMD but i want a corei7-975.... even if it costs way more... it can easily OC way more than the AMD Phenon II X 4 965...