Overclock.net banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Amd has no love

14K views 361 replies 72 participants last post by  PhilWrir 
#1 ·
I see a lot of users posting just get an Intel. I wonder how it is that the amd cpu are considering so bad for gaming that they can't make any minimum fps in games. The reason why I ask this.. Is I have never wanted Intel no hate just don't want one. I find it hard to believe that an amd can't game at a solid 30 fps which is decent enough for me. So without being fan boys tell me why people consider amds bad at gaming. I am sorta happy with my 8320.
 
#2 ·
In my opinion, its the fact that AMD are quite behind in terms of CPU's right now. We cannot really judge AMD until next year when they release their new series (Hopefully)
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: cdoublejj
#4 ·
They are also behind in price. Depending where your budget ends, going AMD could help you save for a bigger GPU.

Which will get you more FPS.

/haters.
 
#5 ·
benefit of AMD is that prices are reasonable not like intel flagship cpu
 
#7 ·
This debate has been done to death and back ever since the bulldozer launch. Small world hysteria on enthusiast forums who make up a minority of pc sales in the grande scheme. For the everyday plug and play customer or enthusiast segment on a reasonable budget Amd performs quite well in most games and is certainly not as drastic as seems. The Amd offerings are quite capable gaming chips and priced accordingly but to expect widespread enthusiasm for them in places like OCN where performance is king is pure folly.

If you are happy with your cpu, and you should be imo then there is no need to continue to beat a dead horse on the forum.
 
#8 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoReaper View Post

In my opinion, its the fact that AMD are quite behind in terms of CPU's right now. We cannot really judge AMD until next year when they release their new series (Hopefully)
I feel your pain. But I too am Happy with my FX 8320. It runs on my Daily computer. I also have an Fx 9590 Based Gaming computer. I do not use
Intel because Amd more than Takes care of me. Also After 60FPS the Human eye cannot tell the difference. But in my games I get more than that.
Do not let it get you Down. Most of the people you hear pushing Intel on the Amd forums are just Basic Trolls. They lack Pragmatic Persuasiveness
even when they are right. They do not give Amd their Due. That said I may someday own an Intel Based Computer. We will see.
But it would be nice if the Trolls stayed on the Intel forums. Just because you own Intel does not make you a Troll. I have all due respect fo Intel. My brother
Works for them. And if I decide to go Intel he can get me a discount.
 
#9 ·
For a budget gaming rig, it is hard to beat the g3258 in many instances. MMOs and Steam games rely heavily on single-threaded performance which the Pentium excels at.
Throw in a cheap Z97 motherboard and you could conceivably be set upgrade-wise for a couple years for under $150.

Putting a 760k in a rig that's going to play WoW or something like that can work, but I can't in good faith recommend it over the intel offering because it just doesn't make good sense, my love for AMD notwithstanding.
 
#10 ·
I was happy with my FX 8350...it over clocked very well and performed in games very well (gamed on 2560x1440@ 60hz with dual 7970s) I never had to worry about poor FPS.

I am also very happy with my current rig... 4770k and an AMD 290x No real difference as far as gaming goes except in Civ 5 that I really noticed.

The FX was cheaper and Performed well for the money.
The i7 was more money (but not much...Micro-center FTW there) but Performs a bit better and in some instances way better for what I do.

10/10 would build either system again.
 
#11 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by hazard99 View Post

I find it hard to believe that an amd can't game at a solid 30 fps which is decent enough for me. So without being fan boys tell me why people consider amds bad at gaming.
It's simple really: In most gaming scenarios current Intel setups will offer better gaming value once a certain minimum level of acceptable performance is met.

You can certainly build an AMD setup that can game competently. This is neither difficult nor expensive to do, but you may well achieve the same or better gaming performance with Intel for the same amount of money, or have other worthwhile advantages in other areas.

The niches that most of OCN focuses on are generally just done better by Intel at this time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfdoom7 View Post

benefit of AMD is that prices are reasonable not like intel flagship cpu
No one is talking about flagship CPUs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaimelmiel View Post

Also After 60FPS the Human eye cannot tell the difference.
Misinformation.
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: Ownster
#12 ·
FX 6300 here playing all games I play at great settings and great frames
thumb.gif
 
#14 ·
AMD is behind in terms of raw horespower but if all you're doing is gaming then AMD is still your budget cpu. the simple fact is in most scenarios for gaming the 8350 8 core is barely keeping up with intels main stream i5 processors. but that makes sense considering the 8350 is still cheaper than the i5 cpus.
 
#15 ·
The FX 6300 can be had for so cheap and can overclock extremely well. It can close the gap in IPC to sandy and ivy i5's, and many users on here understand and respect that. But the fact of the matter is, this site is inhabited by enthusiasts and naturally they talk about Intel more than AMD. Doesn't mean AMD sucks!
 
#16 ·
AMD CPU is still very good value if you do a lot of multi-threaded work (rendering, transcoding, etc). It is also acceptable for gaming depending on what games you play. It is sort of a niche CPU to buy right now. If you want to play RTS type games, you're going to have a really bad time with AMD. But a lot of AAA games that scale well to many cores do well.

I usually just say save money on CPU and bump up monitor resolution or display frequency and not worry about CPU too much. Obviously you don't wanna do something like run Pentium G with quad Crossfire or SLI. But 4m/8c AMD CPU is not a painful bottleneck in a lot of games, and if you raise settings and resolution high enough, the problem is not so bad.
 
#17 ·
Because in games where you need higher performance per core amd has really low performance on each core.and some games cant use the extra threads is up to the programmers/devs that the game supports many threads like crysis3 or battlefield 4.it depends o. What you play,now to do some work of video editing/encoding/ripping arent a bad choice compared to an i5 but multiples gpus would make a bottleneck in games because simply the mainstream resolution put more strain on.the cpu due tot he fact that the gpu arent fully used plus the poor multithreading that directx11 has when it comes to moves the calls easily
 
#18 ·
One thing to note is that the current FX processor line is 2 years old. When compared to intel processors of the same age they do pretty well at a lower price range. Unfortunatly, a lot of comparisons and recommendations are going towards haswell which is a far newer chip. I consider it an unfair comparison, yet many still do because its the newest chip out for both sides in the performance lines.

I only buy AMD out of preference, but even I can't recommend the FX lineup. Its out dated. But that said, its made a strong run in longevity.
 
#19 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyB View Post

One thing to note is that the current FX processor line is 2 years old. When compared to intel processors of the same age they do pretty well at a lower price range. Unfortunatly, a lot of comparisons and recommendations are going towards haswell which is a far newer chip. I consider it an unfair comparison, yet many still do because its the newest chip out for both sides in the performance lines.

I only buy AMD out of preference, but even I can't recommend the FX lineup. Its out dated. But that said, its made a strong run in longevity.
I would have to agree here. it is unfair because of the age difference but yet there is a sensce of being fair because as you said, both chips are the latest out. The 8350 trades blows with an i5 2500k easily but the i7 even for a sandy bridge they come out ahead of amd by a good margin.

I still love amd for budget but for my personal rigs i go with intel. you would be hard pressed to find an intel quad core build for even close to the price you can put together say a 4130 quad core build.
 
#20 ·
I certainly realize that this is a dead horse.. But as others have stated. Why come to an amd forum and suggest Intel that I guess was the issue I had. It certainly feels like adding insult to injury. Just for clarificstion I am using my current machine because my i7- 2500 I had in my asus rog g73 never stood out. I always felt like I was wasting cpu power. So at this point I'm opting to put more money into my video card. Than my cpu. Thank you for all who applied it just kinda bugged me that people who bought these parts where being told in an amd forum to buy Intel.
 
#21 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaimelmiel View Post

I feel your pain. But I too am Happy with my FX 8320. It runs on my Daily computer. I also have an Fx 9590 Based Gaming computer. I do not use
Intel because Amd more than Takes care of me. Also After 60FPS the Human eye cannot tell the difference. But in my games I get more than that.
Do not let it get you Down. Most of the people you hear pushing Intel on the Amd forums are just Basic Trolls. They lack Pragmatic Persuasiveness
even when they are right. They do not give Amd their Due. That said I may someday own an Intel Based Computer. We will see.
But it would be nice if the Trolls stayed on the Intel forums. Just because you own Intel does not make you a Troll. I have all due respect fo Intel. My brother
Works for them. And if I decide to go Intel he can get me a discount.
Please stop spreading that bolded horsecrap. Complete and utter misinformation. There is an absolutely insane difference between 60Hz and the usual higher refresh rate suspects (120/144Hz).

The only person trolling here is you by spreading wrong information. Everyone else here looks at the two with a more technical eye and just don't give two darns about fanboy garbage. Performance is performance, whether it be Intel or AMD leading the pack. And that is what the vast majority of people here on OCN will deviate towards. Right now, Intel owns that advantage by a considerable margin for most every-day activities done on a computer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hazard99 View Post

I certainly realize that this is a dead horse.. But as others have stated. Why come to an amd forum and suggest Intel that I guess was the issue I had. It certainly feels like adding insult to injury. Just for clarificstion I am using my current machine because my i7- 2500 I had in my asus rog g73 never stood out. I always felt like I was wasting cpu power. So at this point I'm opting to put more money into my video card. Than my cpu. Thank you for all who applied it just kinda bugged me that people who bought these parts where being told in an amd forum to buy Intel.

Why? Because this forum is going to help you get value for your $ (or whatever currency you are using). Right now, Intel holds that trophy. Its as simple as that. The majority aren't going to recommend a brand because of them being a fanboy. Right now, between Intel and AMD similar priced offerings, it just ends up going to Intel, and we aren't going to tell you to waste your money on something that isn't the best you can afford. In the end, it just ends up what is the better performer.
 
#23 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by hazard99 View Post

I certainly realize that this is a dead horse.. But as others have stated. Why come to an amd forum and suggest Intel that I guess was the issue I had. It certainly feels like adding insult to injury. Just for clarificstion I am using my current machine because my i7- 2500 I had in my asus rog g73 never stood out. I always felt like I was wasting cpu power. So at this point I'm opting to put more money into my video card. Than my cpu. Thank you for all who applied it just kinda bugged me that people who bought these parts where being told in an amd forum to buy Intel.
This generally happens in a "spec me a rig thread" the people who are happy to, and proficiently suggest system builds for others on this forum will generally know their stuff so will lean towards the best performance down to the last detail which will consider the stated use, within the op budget. Brand name rarely comes into it imo. Is unfortunate that there has to be a divide as such, am sure most on here seek a common goal, the most performance for the money regardless of anything else.
 
#24 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kinaesthetic View Post

Please stop spreading that bolded horsecrap. Complete and utter misinformation. There is an absolutely insane difference between 60Hz and the usual higher refresh rate suspects (120/144Hz).
I concur!! linus tech tips did a video on this a while back.
 
#26 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by hazard99 View Post

I certainly realize that this is a dead horse.. But as others have stated. Why come to an amd forum and suggest Intel that I guess was the issue I had. It certainly feels like adding insult to injury. Just for clarificstion I am using my current machine because my i7- 2500 I had in my asus rog g73 never stood out. I always felt like I was wasting cpu power. So at this point I'm opting to put more money into my video card. Than my cpu. Thank you for all who applied it just kinda bugged me that people who bought these parts where being told in an amd forum to buy Intel.
There are some Intel fanboys here who will tell you to buy Intel no matter what, but most of the time, the recommendations to buy Intel are simply because Intel makes more sense for the things they want to do.

There's nothing wrong with your FX-8320 and you can game perfectly fine on one; put it on something like BF4 that can use all eight threads and it's a killer gaming chip. But for most tasks, an Intel i5 in a similar price range will offer better performance.

If something is a toss-up or if a person really is better served by purchasing AMD hardware, then I'll recommend AMD hardware. But I'm not going to tell someone to buy AMD if there's an Intel solution that is a better value for them, just because I happen to like AMD better. Several years ago, when I needed to upgrade from S754, I bought Conroe myself because AMD didn't have anything worth a hoot for me to upgrade to. I only went back when the Athlon II X4 came out.

Most people are here to be helpful and give good advice, not to promote a CPU manufacturer's products. Right now, Intel has the best CPU's in most market segments. AMD APU's make sense in a lot of low-end builds, but AMD's FX line is moribund.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top