AMD Selling More CPUs, Posts Record Quarter Too

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]lradunovic77[/nom]Here is a deal with AMD.CPU line is a joke compared to Intel, and i don't think that any review sites can show that right. I have being using i7 i920 now i am on i7 6 core and i did play with quad and six core AMD counterpart, no AMD cpu is match to Intel in any aspect of work and gaming. Someone says that his overclocked X3 runs as i5 and i7, well buddy i have a news for you overclocked i7 i920 is put that difference back. You know you can overclock i7 CPUs way more then AMD you have!Speaking of AMD/ATI cards, good cards on paper but absolutely crap because of drivers. CCC 10.4 is only good set for Crossfire setup, everything else sucks pretty much. How sad is that. I did buy HD5870 Crossfire setup and it is the worst purchase i did ever mae and can't wait to get to rid of that crap.[/citation]
Here's the deal with idiots:
They don't understand that there isn't any significant real world user difference between a $500 and a $200 CPU. They don't understand that there isn't any tangible real world difference between Intel and AMD (other than that Intel is more expensive). They must always believe that whatever they themselves chose is awesome and everything else "is a joke", due to their various own, personal loser syndroms. And they absolutely don't understand that they actually can't teach anyone on a hardware site about their own imagined, contrieved or invented 'knowledge'.
And they also don't understand (do they understand anything?) that trying to do it anyway make them look like...
 
[citation][nom]amstech[/nom]Intel CPU offerings are not alot faster then AMD's, sorry to burst you bubble. Did I read 30%? In your dreams, my overclocked X3 benches right with i5's and i7's. Intel's CPU's are over-rated.[/citation]
In games? Sure. In computationally intensive things like rendering and scientific work? Not even close.

 
Whether one uses AMD processors and other products or not (I am a self-proclaimed AMD/ATI "fanboy" I fully admit), having competition against Intel is good for all of us. Without competition, we would all still be using 386 based systems. Competition helps drive innovation while lowering costs for consumers. AMD deserves a word of thanks from us all. HOOAH!!!
 
[citation][nom]lradunovic77[/nom]Here is a deal with AMD.CPU line is a joke compared to Intel, and i don't think that any review sites can show that right. I have being using i7 i920 now i am on i7 6 core and i did play with quad and six core AMD counterpart, no AMD cpu is match to Intel in any aspect of work and gaming. Someone says that his overclocked X3 runs as i5 and i7, well buddy i have a news for you overclocked i7 i920 is put that difference back. You know you can overclock i7 CPUs way more then AMD you have!Speaking of AMD/ATI cards, good cards on paper but absolutely crap because of drivers. CCC 10.4 is only good set for Crossfire setup, everything else sucks pretty much. How sad is that. I did buy HD5870 Crossfire setup and it is the worst purchase i did ever mae and can't wait to get to rid of that crap.[/citation]

speaking of jokes, how intel prices doin for ya? lets see, i did this benchmark one time of a 1000$ computer vs the i7 980x, and the computer won HANDS DOWN 😛 next, with amds desktop market, you can buy 18 cores for a little less than 900 bucks. with intel, you are shelling out 1000$ for a 6 core, ill even say a "12" thread with HT, even though it really isnt. Next, you can buy about 2 x4 955s for the price of 1 i7 930. Not to mention the mobo cost and ram cost for the i7. intel doesnt even have a sub 100$ sector!!! atleast amd actually has reasonable prices, and amazing price to performance ratios. Intel charges and extra 100$ for every MHz they add on. You know how much the i7 920/930 has dropped in price since its release? 0$. you know how much the 955 has dropped? 85$, id know, i bought it when it was 245$.Intel makes great fast cpus no doubt, but the real joke is intels pricing, and how you think a 70$ cpu is suppost to compete with a 270$ cpu.
 
If AMD was at Intel's position they would have same pricing, let's not lie about it. Those company care about money they make and that is ok. We need competition, and AMD is not giving any to Intel --> That is a problem. And you don't need $1000 Intel CPU, you can get i920 for fairly cheap and overclock crap out of it and beat every AMD CPU out there including their 6 Cores.
 
YAYYYYY! *cough* Okay, now that my child has sprung out. I'm glad they are making money, that means business is good, and if business get's better, they will be able to make processors that compete in power as well as price to Intel's.
 
AMD is doing this well after only recently starting to see significant attention from OEM's, so just think how it could have done if Intel hadn't been paying everyone to avoid Athlons back in the P4 days...
 
[citation][nom]Vermil[/nom]Here's the deal with idiots:They don't understand that there isn't any significant real world user difference between a $500 and a $200 CPU. They don't understand that there isn't any tangible real world difference between Intel and AMD (other than that Intel is more expensive). They must always believe that whatever they themselves chose is awesome and everything else "is a joke", due to their various own, personal loser syndroms. And they absolutely don't understand that they actually can't teach anyone on a hardware site about their own imagined, contrieved or invented 'knowledge'.And they also don't understand (do they understand anything?) that trying to do it anyway make them look like...[/citation]
Thank you!!! You couldn't be more correct. As I write this, my Phenom II x4 940 is overclockled to 3.6Ghz but with CnQ running at 800Mhz in average use it's no slower than when it's at full blast! Granted, when it comes to heave load stuff, it sure would slow down, but the fact is that most of the time people are not gaming, or transcoding video, etc. This whole Intel vs AMD thing is nuts - I go for price/value instead of numbers/prestige nonsense, and I bet you that I don't wait 1 second longer for Windows to load, or to sign in to my email, or to surf the net.
 
the problem is that the everyday consumer does not trust amd. they've had intel all their lives, alot of people dont even know about AMD.

its funny, i was helping someone build their first gaming pc (he knew alot about it already) and so i told him how AMD's had the best price performance for his budget and so he ended up getting an phenom 940. later i was talking to him about it (he upgraded from a an old celeron 2.4GHz with a geforce 6600 to the 940 and a 4670 ddr3) and he said he never would have considered amd or ati simply because he had previously had intel and nvidia.


thats a great example of what im talking about. people think of AMD as the crappy company, the generic brand.

AMD really needs to have a few adds, like on tv not in computer magazines.

 
[citation][nom]lradunovic77[/nom]Here is a deal with AMD.CPU line is a joke compared to Intel, and i don't think that any review sites can show that right. I have being using i7 i920 now i am on i7 6 core and i did play with quad and six core AMD counterpart, no AMD cpu is match to Intel in any aspect of work and gaming. Someone says that his overclocked X3 runs as i5 and i7, well buddy i have a news for you overclocked i7 i920 is put that difference back. You know you can overclock i7 CPUs way more then AMD you have!Speaking of AMD/ATI cards, good cards on paper but absolutely crap because of drivers. CCC 10.4 is only good set for Crossfire setup, everything else sucks pretty much. How sad is that. I did buy HD5870 Crossfire setup and it is the worst purchase i did ever mae and can't wait to get to rid of that crap.[/citation]


yah sure the i920 is a great cpu. but it costs 280. the 955 is at 160 with a cheaper motherboard. much better performance for what you pay

the 6 core amd cpus suck i agree, except for modeling, the i920 beats the 1090t
anyone who bought one of the 6 core amd cpus for gaming is an idiot because the 965 would perform better and cost almost half as much

yah ati drivers suck, they crash every once in a while for me which isnt that annoying but still shouldnt happen. as for CCC, disable it you tard, msconfig, its that simple.

and yes im tired of people saying their overclocked amd will outperform some expensive intel. no s*** guys, the i920 can easily reach 4GHz which is a 50% overclock.

im so f****** sick of fanboys. yah sure i think intel fanboys come off as pretentious arrogent assholes, in general. but cmon guys, i dont say that out loud do i?

if your buying a cpu under $160 then AMD is your company

if your pretentious or need more power than that then Intel is your company

 
[citation][nom]luke904[/nom]yah sure the i920 is a great cpu. but it costs 280. the 955 is at 160 with a cheaper motherboard. much better performance for what you paythe 6 core amd cpus suck i agree, except for modeling, the i920 beats the 1090tanyone who bought one of the 6 core amd cpus for gaming is an idiot because the 965 would perform better and cost almost half as muchyah ati drivers suck, they crash every once in a while for me which isnt that annoying but still shouldnt happen. as for CCC, disable it you tard, msconfig, its that simple.and yes im tired of people saying their overclocked amd will outperform some expensive intel. no s*** guys, the i920 can easily reach 4GHz which is a 50% overclock.im so f****** sick of fanboys. yah sure i think intel fanboys come off as pretentious arrogent assholes, in general. but cmon guys, i dont say that out loud do i? if your buying a cpu under $160 then AMD is your companyif your pretentious or need more power than that then Intel is your company[/citation]

Actually I920 only beats the 1090T in resolution under 1600x1200... I only play games at 1920x1080. At resolutions that high the AMD platform as a whole is much faster even if you have i980x.

So whether your gaming or multitasking the Intel platform offer no benefit unless you have a small monitor :)

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/amd_phenom2_x6_1090t/9.htm

http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i5-655k-and-core-i7-875k-processor-review/15
 
True, but when AMD offered much much better products during the A64 days, Intel still dominated by far. Few people bought AMD back then. So no, Intel isn't selling expensive products due to the lack of competition, they're doing it because they can and people will still buy from them. Sad but true...

-----------

much like apple products...

people will buy anything as long as it is marketed heavily. Esp. tech stuff, your average computer/tech user is a brainless youtube facebooking troll and wouldn't know that amd puts out the best product for your dollar from cpu's, chipsets, and graphics cards.
 
Good for, you, AMD. I'm glad to hear you're making progress. :)

In regards to the Intel fanboys who wont stop bashing on AMD's news, this is for you. Yes, the top-of-the-line Intel processors are faster. Yes, they can beat AMD in benchmarks. Yes, they are also around twice the price of their AMD counterparts. I'm not sure what you people don't understand about this; I don't really care how powerful of a CPU Intel can make, because my Phenom II x4 965 with a 5770 can max out every single game that I own, and even if it can't, it's because of the GPU, not the CPU. Good for you, you have a $1000 processor that costs more than my entire machine and feels no different. Once again, yes, it can bench higher, but who cares? You have fun glaring at your benchmarks while I'm sitting here at a PC that feels no different than yours, uses less power, and was half the cost. 😀 Oh, wait, you say it can do more productivity-wise? Well, compared the a Phenom II x6 1090t, I sure do hope those extra 3-4 seconds you save are worth about $200.

Just my $0.02.
 
You guys boosting AMD because processor performance isn't so important make a valid point, but miss the big picture.

AMD processors are not cheaper to make than Intel's. It's not like AMD gets it, and they are making a small, inexpensive to make CPU and selling it cheap. They are selling expensive to make processors for cheap because that's all the market will allow them to sell them for.

They have no choice. They just have a bad design, not a design that was meant to address low cost.

They also use more power for the same performance.
 
[citation][nom]luke904[/nom]the problem is that the everyday consumer does not trust amd. they've had intel all their lives, alot of people dont even know about AMD.its funny, i was helping someone build their first gaming pc (he knew alot about it already) and so i told him how AMD's had the best price performance for his budget and so he ended up getting an phenom 940. later i was talking to him about it (he upgraded from a an old celeron 2.4GHz with a geforce 6600 to the 940 and a 4670 ddr3) and he said he never would have considered amd or ati simply because he had previously had intel and nvidia.thats a great example of what im talking about. people think of AMD as the crappy company, the generic brand.AMD really needs to have a few adds, like on tv not in computer magazines.[/citation]

Yeah, Ive been using AMD since I got off a P3 5 years ago lol. Started with a 1.8ghz sempron socket 939 (Let me tell you, that thing HAULED) then to a 2.2ghz athlon 64 x2 Manchester, and only a month ago I got myself this Athlon II x3 :) I still can run my games fine. Ive only used Nvidia for my gaming graphics though but will be GLAD to use Ati next time after the warming experience of my 8600gt. It 70C at max load is a little hot. Oh and 54 idle.
 
AMD losses to Intel in one big Area Marketing, that is why Intel is bigger. I have almost never seen a commercial on TV or any adds really and no good adds period these days. performance in not there there problem. when you talk to most non computer people (most people)they have never heard of AMD so assume they have bad products and people are afraid to buy something from them. so they go with what they know Intel and because they have had Intel in the past they trust them Intel has people in a comfort zone they don't want to leave.
 
AMD losses to Intel in one big Area Marketing, that is why Intel is bigger. I have almost never seen a commercial on TV or any adds really and no good adds period these days. performance in not there there problem. when you talk to most non computer people (most people)they have never heard of AMD so assume they have bad products and people are afraid to buy something from them. so they go with what they know Intel and because they have had Intel in the past they trust them Intel has people in a comfort zone they don't want to leave.
 
[citation][nom]konjiki7[/nom]Actually I920 only beats the 1090T in resolution under 1600x1200... I only play games at 1920x1080. At resolutions that high the AMD platform as a whole is much faster even if you have i980x.So whether your gaming or multitasking the Intel platform offer no benefit unless you have a small monitor http://www.overclockersclub.com/re [...] 090t/9.htmhttp://www.guru3d.com/article/core [...] -review/15[/citation]

the only reason it holds its own in higher resolutions is because then the graphics is more bottlenecked.

the lower the resolution, the less the game is taxing the gpu and thus the more cpu performance shines through.

you may argue that you play at *this* resolution and so it doesnt matter to you, but it still doesnt hide the fact that the 1090t is slower

though i will admit, those benchmarks look alot better than the ones toms posted..


 
and just in case anyone is wondering...

im running an AMD 7750 black edition with a radeon 4850 1 gig

i dont think i can see myself getting an intel system... well... ever
i just dont need to spend that much to get the performance i need.

 
[citation][nom]cjl[/nom]In games? Sure. In computationally intensive things like rendering and scientific work? Not even close.[/citation]

Actually, I work somewhere that has scientists. We have compute servers and other types of servers. We don't use a single intel-based server. They don't perform as well as AMD-based servers. Intel recently got better with 2 threads per core (allowing simultaneous i/o, which AMD was doing for a long time), but still they don't perform as well.
 
You intel goons can say what you want, but I bought an AMD X2 240 for $50 and dropped it in a 3 year old computer and overclocked it to 3.3 GHz easily. Good luck trying that with an i3. You can easily spend more on an intel processor than an entire AMD machine.
 
[citation][nom]shadowmaster625[/nom]You intel goons can say what you want, but I bought an AMD X2 240 for $50 and dropped it in a 3 year old computer and overclocked it to 3.3 GHz easily. Good luck trying that with an i3. You can easily spend more on an intel processor than an entire AMD machine.[/citation]


he makes a great point

intel has not priced socket 775 processors in a reasonable range. it just doesnt make since for someone to upgrade their cpu in a 775 machine, most core 2 quads and core 2 duos are at nearly the same price as they were 3 years ago.

the e8600 costs $290
th q9550 costs $279

but amd has made it so that you can easily upgrade your old cpu
for $117 you can drop a p2 940 into an old am2 system
and if you have an am2+ system your gonna be set for awhile



look at intel sockets... 1366, 1156, 775, 478

none are compatible with eachother



 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom