Why all the AMD hate, guys?

[werxen]

Let us stop the fanboyism and acknowledge AMD's market strategy - the AVERAGE consumer not troubled by synthetic benchmark scores or maxing our Crysis. I see too much hate going on from both camps - let us make love not war. But in reality anyone who 'hates' AMD needs a friggin reality check. Intel will not be on top forever - anyone remember the Athlon series? People were sure AMD would lead the way forever after that.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Intel does want to push into the game market with IGPs. But that doesn't mean I am wrong. Intel needs to increase IGP performance even for meager games like Bejeweled and such since they will start to utilize more GPU power for effects.

I mean if Intel didn't try to increase the power then they wouldn't even be able to run XP decently.

Its like why they increase CPU power even though most quad cores from the C2Q to the Core i7 are highly under utilized and will survive for probably 2-3 more years beyond their normal.

Hardware always stays ahead of software.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Intel-IGP-Sims-PC-Gaming,9333.html

 

[jimmysmitty]

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Intel-IGP-Sims-PC-Gaming,9333.html

You are still pushing way beyond what it is. As I said, Intel will try to increase performance as always. If it opens the door to more serious game then I am fine with that. But you have to stop looking it at a point that we are: Enthusiasts and look at it as a normal everyday average consumer.

Thats what I am doing. In my mind a IGP from Intel that will compete evenly with nV and AMD would be great but its not required for the average consumer. Most average consumers need it cheap and to do what I said: normal everyday things not extreme gaming.

If what I said was not true then Intel would not have a death grip on the GPU market. They have a hold of 50% because the IGPs they make are lower in costs than anything and do what the MAJORITY of consumers looking for a PC need.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Oh, and for those claiming games are mainly gpu bound by seeing certain benches

If, as Jawed points out, its CPU limited then the benchmarks are going to have limited use as each of the architectures you are comparing are going to be limited by the CPU. Games are fairly CPU bound (even ones that people often associate as GPU killers, like Crysis, are very CPU sensitive).
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=55289&page=110

The above quote is fairly well versed, and his words need more thought by many on here

As for Intel pushing perf on its IGPs, Theyve continually fallen behind, and this jump puts then close to the competition, so yes, there is a change, which Im happy about, and alot of people are wrong about

Heres the thing, will we see Intel claiming gaming? Yes we will. All those thatve said it wasnt their niche, wasnt what they made their IGPs for, well they see the writing on the wall, so maybe its best for others to too.

And as for the P2 vs i7 thing in harder games, look into what Mr Baumann is saying, youll learn alot, as games are very much cpu sensitive, which includes effects on the gpu as well, being run thru the cpu, or, its the slow down, or even jumpy, as we know what a gpu is capable of, and often dont see that perf, like micro stutter for example, and as gpus increase their memory and speeds, micro stutter should disappear in certain games, but it doesnt

 

[verndewd]

vern I sense some of that apathy has rubbed off ... watch out for transference.

Try not to get too involved with the humans.

Your shuttle leaves soon to go back to Magrathea.

They all get wiped out by that asteroid in a few years anyway.

No ... you can't keep any as pets.

not even the neighbor with more than adequate upper level food storage space for infants? hmm and wtf is magrathea?

 

[jimmysmitty]

Games are going to be limited in performance by a weaker CPU, that much is known. In Crysis it shows to be anything less than a 2.8GHz Phenom II and anything less than a 2GHz Cor i7 or maybe it could take less.

But when the graphics are maxed out and a CPU shows little to no scaling from 2GHz to 4GHz that means the CPU is not bottlenecking the game and that the GPU itself is presenting a bottleneck.

As for Intels IGPs, Intel has never made their IGPs for hardcore gaming. WoW is such a old game that I am suprised a current one can't (although a friend of mine with a Q8200 and a HD4500 is running WoW and L4D on it with no real GPU) run it. Sims 3 is not a majorly graphical game. BF: Heros isn't either and honestly TF2 is a better game over it anyways.

My point is that Intel will be pushing into the gaming but its still going to be mainly two things: cheap and efficient. They will still push casual gaming but there is no way that them trying to push older or even newer but less graphical demanding games means they are pushing their current IGPs for hardcore gaming.

Of course with LRB v2+ thats a different story.

 

[verndewd]

ElMoIsEviL wrote :


I don't hate AMD,

If anything, as a company, I rather like AMD (especially ATi). I used to work for ATi and was quite fond of the way they treated their employees. When I ran my own computer business, I ran it as an authorized AMD reseller. I found AMD to be quite the willing company. They would assist with marketing materials (banners, signs etc) as well as marketing and sale strategies.

I found AMD to be quite the good partner. By contrast, Intel was never good to us white and grey box sellers. Intel was too busy pleasing the large OEMs and seemed to ignore us small guys.

But there is a difference, to me, between Corporatism, Favoritism and the facts. The fact is that I am a performance enthusiast. I enjoy building highly overclocked rigs tweaked to perfection. This leads me to be the candidate who is the least able to be biased. I buy what performs best. Brand Loyalty is not something I strive for (in fact it's a nuisance).

What has irritated me is that certain individuals love for a brand (fanbois) have begun spreading lies and misinformation in an attempt to dupe would be buyers into supporting their favorite brand. So you have the willfully ignorant leading the ignorant into acting as mouth pieces, in forums, for all things AMD (there was a time when this fanboyism affected Intel just as well).

I despise these individuals and my fight against them leads me to sound as though I were allied with the Intel camp (this has been the case since around 2006 when the Core 2 Duo was released). Should the performance crown move from Intel to AMD... I can assure you that you will see my purchasing decisions move as well.

I am quite certain that most users are just like me in that regard.

Very well said and I completely agree.

As an avid distributed computing cruncher all I care about in the end is performance.

For quite a while I ran nothing but AMD CPU's and then all of a sudden the people running Intels were hammering me in output performance.

I switched to Intel and the scales moved back to where they'd been before.

If I'm going to use electricity then I want my PC's to produce and if they can't do it efficiently with one brand then I'll simply switch to the other.

I have no brand loyalty in that regard and realistically the fact is we need AMD to survive because in the end the competition between them and Intel benefits us in the form of lower prices.

If AMD folded we'd be paying quite a bit more for an i7 I'm guessing.

The other side to that is so called objective thinkers getting duped into a prescott because they get complacent. Sad to say the drones weigh heavier in the Intel court by the default of brand recognition pushing sales. Not really an arguing point but statistically correct.

I built mostly AMD and my whole fam damily runs them, its cheaper good computation thats does what is needed, mostly gaming but research on my brother and I 's pc's and gfx and music recording.

Honestly owning the best or fastest is simply epeen for most, mst people dont really need the speed, Most of the masses that is, the geeks here they need the feeling of free from lag fps but look at the cost to game like that. Id own an intel if I had the money , they are interesting chips and zippy, I just dont need the speed /cost for the most part. Could use it in music recording to lower latency , but its not that critical. it would change If I charged for recording. But with 6 core amd chips out I am just as inclined t stay with AMD.

the speed isnt that critical for anything I do.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Games are going to be limited in performance by a weaker CPU, that much is known. In Crysis it shows to be anything less than a 2.8GHz Phenom II and anything less than a 2GHz Cor i7 or maybe it could take less.

But when the graphics are maxed out and a CPU shows little to no scaling from 2GHz to 4GHz that means the CPU is not bottlenecking the game and that the GPU itself is presenting a bottleneck.

As for Intels IGPs, Intel has never made their IGPs for hardcore gaming. WoW is such a old game that I am suprised a current one can't (although a friend of mine with a Q8200 and a HD4500 is running WoW and L4D on it with no real GPU) run it. Sims 3 is not a majorly graphical game. BF: Heros isn't either and honestly TF2 is a better game over it anyways.

My point is that Intel will be pushing into the gaming but its still going to be mainly two things: cheap and efficient. They will still push casual gaming but there is no way that them trying to push older or even newer but less graphical demanding games means they are pushing their current IGPs for hardcore gaming.

Of course with LRB v2+ thats a different story.

Not what I was told, many many times, as Intels IGPs arent for gaming, and dont need to be, and dont be disingenuous here, you know this, and anyone reading it that wasnt making such claims know it as well, refuting it now is too late, and youve never been one of the died in the wool types against Intels ventures, but others have/were.
I get labeled for this, and its what makes me maddest of all, since Im right, theyre the true fans, and Im just pointing out facts needs, way before they happen, much like LRB.

As for the cpu scaling etc, its far more complicated than that, its not only just Ghz, tho its the giggest player, but if its still limited in other ways, it still will be even when cranking up the Ghz.
I dont claim to know all this, but just as we all agree games are a tough thing to reconcile a cpus ability, so too are Ghz vs other things, like arch, OS etc, so what Im saying is, sensitive taken this way means to me, like wavy Davey is saying means, not a bottleneck as we know it, but a continuation of a smaller bottleneck regardless of Ghz

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

An easy way to show/see system limitations is CF with halved cards vs 1 full card. same available memory and clocks.
CF loses, as the single card is faster overall.
Now, it isnt all cpu, as we obviously dont see 100% scaling on raising clocks on the cpu, but if theres limitations already existing in the cpu, theyll only be lessoned by raising the cpus clocks, not eliminated, and so too for the rest of the system.

Seeing P2 doing as well as it does despite its obvious lower IPC, could reside within P2s arch vs i7s arch, and the limitations are very apparent in the i7 in some games that uses the weaker parts of i7s arch where those limitaions reside more often, and could be a strongpoint, with lessor limitations on P2.

The problem here is, we know that scaling per clocks on the cpu isnt 100%, thus we know their limitations, and without knowing all the systems limitations, including the cpu, its very hard to pinpoint.
I invite you to read my link thru, as its ealier to understand possibly than what Im presenting here, tho I know what I mean, and the numbers prove it out

 

[gamerk316]

But thats my point. If it runs it good enough, why bother?

Now my quoted response for all XP vs 7 arguments against you 😀

Back on hand, Intel IGP's are not for gaming; everybody knows this. Granted, we get about 2-3 people per day who ask if their IGP can play game X, and we politly tell them no, and that IGP's in general stink. Even a lowly Geforce 9400 shows significant (double in some cases) gains against IGP's, but Intel has 50% of the market because 50% of the market is more concerned about the price of the PC and couldn't care at all about gaming performance.

To put it in perspective: At work, I'm considered lucky: I have a dedicated card: An ATI 7500 (paried with a Pentium II, no less, so its probably overpowered 😀)

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Then I repeat, if its good enough, why bother?
They just like spending money?
Their m32nm chips will have 45nm IGPs, so why bother? Add in the rest , AMD is going hard into this segment, ion is here as well, but all Ive been told, its not for this gaming thing at all, but then why bother if it isnt?
More than 5% steam users use Intel IGPs, or over 1 million people, and of course you can translate performance to usage, considering Intels IGPs as they pertain to gaming performance. Or, in other words, if they were better, thered be alot more.
Now of course, thats just steam, not the overall count by any measure, but again, I go back to perf in the overall numbers as well, again meaning, if they were better, those overall numbers would be higher.
You know fusions coming, and the low end gpus will become extinct, so having a comparable IGP, or a 2 tiered availability, is paramount for the future, and its what Ive been saying and wanting for awhile now, as it raises the bar for the minimums as it pertains to gaming.

 

[yomamafor1]

yawn...

Wake me up when there's something actually worth arguing about.

 

[Hellboy]

yawn...

Wake me up when there's something actually worth arguing about.

you mean when AMD have something to better Intel with.

 

[Chad Boga]

yawn...

Wake me up when there's something actually worth arguing about.

In about 12 months time we might have a hint of what performance Bulldozer will be capable of delivering, until then, 2010 is going to be a very, very boring year for CPU's.

 

[Upendra09]

yawn...

Wake me up when there's something actually worth arguing about.

Intel arch is superior to AMD's and i can prove it to you

 

[yannifb]

Intel arch is superior to AMD's and i can prove it to you

Ugh Upendra there has been something just itching at me for a long time now about your member config. It just says 'HP 2.0 GHz'... what processor is that supposed to be???

 

[jimmysmitty]

Then I repeat, if its good enough, why bother?
They just like spending money?
Their m32nm chips will have 45nm IGPs, so why bother? Add in the rest , AMD is going hard into this segment, ion is here as well, but all Ive been told, its not for this gaming thing at all, but then why bother if it isnt?
More than 5% steam users use Intel IGPs, or over 1 million people, and of course you can translate performance to usage, considering Intels IGPs as they pertain to gaming performance. Or, in other words, if they were better, thered be alot more.
Now of course, thats just steam, not the overall count by any measure, but again, I go back to perf in the overall numbers as well, again meaning, if they were better, those overall numbers would be higher.
You know fusions coming, and the low end gpus will become extinct, so having a comparable IGP, or a 2 tiered availability, is paramount for the future, and its what Ive been saying and wanting for awhile now, as it raises the bar for the minimums as it pertains to gaming.

You know many people said the same thing I say: Intels IGPs suck for gaming but still work for casual gaming.

And I am sorry but I have little faith in Fusion doing anything beyond removing the IGP from the mobo to the CPU. Even with Fusion or whatever Intel gets out to compete I gurantee that a discrete low end GPU will still be the better performer.

 

[sighQ2]

Let's see, I am an idiot.

Who gets the facts all confused? Me or You?

Who gives bad advice everytime they try to help someone? Me or You?

Who has no clue what they are talking about 99% of the time? Me or You?

OK, I am the idiot.

useless flame
and this you call communication?
and what do you mean by typing sarcastic - it's merely a low indulgence - thx for zero.

You can do better; but first stop hurting yourself.

 

[sighQ2]

becareful you might get called an idiot. lol

more flame
testing for paranoia? but it's all yours

 

[LoneWolf_53]

And people seem to forget, or choose to ignore the fact that AMD was charging $300 for an X2 3800+ (which later on dropped to <$100), and $1000 for FX-62 (a $1000 that couldn't outperform the $300 E6600).

AMD's in the market for innovation... my arse.

Ouch that brings back memories.

I tried to remain loyal to AMD and the last item I bought was the FX-60 and that turned out to be one of my worst decisions given how much Intel was already outperforming those things for a lot less money.

 

[sighQ2]

I see what you're saying but what you're saying doesn't make logical sense.

Thuban will be an AMD Istanbul chip with support for DDR-3 memory. Currently a Core i7 (Lynnfield or Bloomfield based so both 1156&1366) easily outperform Istanbul on Multithreaded applications with both CPUs being clocked at near the same speed (2.6GHz vs. 2.67GHz).

So it's nice that you can purchase an AM3 motherboard with a Phenom II X4 955 right now and upgrade to a Thuban when it comes available but you could also purchase an LGA 1156 motherboard with a Core i7 860 and get higher than Thuban performance RIGHT NOW for nearly the same amount of money as an AM3 motherboard and Phenom II X4 955.

So I really don't get your logic... why pay for two CPUs when you can pay for one today which will be faster?

See you're thinking Core i7 860 and thinking $279: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115214&cm_re=i7_860-_-19-115-214-_-Product
I'm thinking Core i7 860 and thinking $229: http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0317378

And a Phenom II X4 955 (C3 stepping the new one) is $175.99: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103808&cm_re=Phenom_II_X4_955-_-19-103-808-_-Product

That's not a huge difference... considering that if you want to get Core i7 860 performance you'll NEED a Thuban. That means buying a Thuban when it comes out.. so $175.99 + Thuban's price. Doesn't make sense.

You state that going LGA1156 means you're settling for second best. Going for AMD means you're settling for third best. I don't get your point there either.



Oh I see what you're doing. You're seeing AM3 as being a comparable product to LGA 1366 and LGA 1156 being second best. You claim features are lacking in LGA1156. Like what features exactly?

If you're talking i5 specifically.. it lacks QPi and HyperThreading... do AM3 CPUs now have HyperThreading?
If you're talking LGA1156 having less features than LGA1366 (Dual Channel vs. Tri Channel)... does AM3 have Tri Channel now? And yes we know LGA1156 lacks the QPi bus but from benchmarks comparing LGA1156 to LGA1366... it really doesn't make a difference does it?

The reason why your argument don't make sense is because you're tailoring the specifics and facts (it's called spinning) to suit your world view (AMD4Life!). It doesn't work that way.

AM3 does have some advantages over LGA1156. If for some reason a user wanted to pair two Radeon HD 5970s (not 5870s) in CrossfireX then the PCIe controller on the LGA1156 Processors might not be enough. You could claim that AM3 has two or more x16 PCIe slots available. But then you'd be ignoring the fact that both platforms would be GPU bottlenecked so it really wouldn't make a difference.

AM3 will have support for the initial Bulldozer CPUs. But if we look at AMDs track record with AM2 boards getting AM2+ support or worse AM2 boards getting AM3 support we're left with a sour taste in our mouths. Also many Phenom II X4 AM3 buyers bought cheap motherboards which, as is always nearly the case, likely won't get Bulldozer support added to them or won't be compatible due to VRM/Component issues (we know that nVIDIA Chipset based AM3 boards won't get support for example).

Right now... the only compelling reason to go AMD is if you REALLY can't afford the extra $50. That's it.

Well, you spend spend spend and you have a socket with a lifetime of 6 to 9 before spintel changes it again - but o yeh they can probably dream up some software errata repair job to keep people happy so it at least SEEMS to work - cos after all, we all trust LYING MONOPOLIES right?

And it's only 50 bucks in about 3 different places so your talk of and AMD supporter being cheap is smokescreen - o maybe you weren't meaning it that way.

Get of the spinner circuit - this is another flamewar thread full of lies. People don't wanna know that spintel crap REALLY IS NOT SUPERIOR.

It is made to LOOK superior thru spintel compiled cherry picked BENCHMARKETING - it's just background support for the up front invisible ANTITRUST SCAMS.

Don't you know? - you used to sell AMD? DOUBT THAT

the compiler and the instrux sets are IMPAIRMENTS - if you recompile, you suddenly discover the rocket potential of the socalled inferior.

get with the program and quit intimidating people with your blowhard bs.

If you have a point make it. Leave the beatdown to some of the other lamer flamers - they are endless anyway. You can do better.

But I wonder about the paycheck - hmmmm. possible but I don't think so.

ya figure?

 

[sighQ2]

no problem

i agree with AMW101, i didn't know certain facts but i wasn't to trying to idolize AMD

no harm done though

ahh gee

too bad they smokescreened you - these guys are all on the spinner payroll.

they don't know the truth either - just what was programmed into their empty heads at the latest idf meeting of the natzee party - this will be the way of it - and then it is - even if it makes no senses, it will be accepted as proof of truth, and they will even prove it to be true - duh.

example - we are going to make an LRB that will rule the world.
oops cancelled sorry.

but to cop out to discreditation of serious knowledgeable people - that low even for an L Mo - bring it baby.

 

[sighQ2]

Ok to clarify the argument someone on the last page was making about 1156 vs AM3 is this:

1156 will never have more than a quad core cpu. Don't argue with me on this, just look at the intel roadmap Toms hardware put up a few weeks ago.

AM3, he argues, will have Thuban (which i honestly don't think is that big of a deal) and Bulldozer (which i do think is a big deal).

There. He actually does have a point in terms on future proofing. And not too far off either.

Thank you for that accurate information = browbeating does not make truth after all - imagine that L Mo - bring it baby hahaha.

 

[sighQ2]

Ever considered that every single thing intel does is designed purely to hurt competition, maintain their monopoly and hold back progress?

If not, perhaps you should read up on the FTC lawsuit and see what you think after that.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/184883/faq_ftcs_lawsuit_against_intel.html

If you support intel in anything they do, you are nothing but a fool. This is the single most corrupt company on earth and they are stifling progress while fanboys lap up their overpriced chips and think they are doing the world a favour by telling us how superior intel is.

And I thought I was the only one who thought that way, or talked that way.

Yes, people just don't seem to get it; or are paid not to; or are paid for some other sleezy task; or somehow get some enjoyment/pay from it. Some are mere impressionable innocents; victims of the propaganda. It's quite huge; reminds me of a scene in revelations.

 

[BadTrip]

Children see above posts

 

[cjl]

Well, you spend spend spend and you have a socket with a lifetime of 6 to 9 before spintel changes it again - but o yeh they can probably dream up some software errata repair job to keep people happy so it at least SEEMS to work - cos after all, we all trust LYING MONOPOLIES right?

And it's only 50 bucks in about 3 different places so your talk of and AMD supporter being cheap is smokescreen - o maybe you weren't meaning it that way.

Get of the spinner circuit - this is another flamewar thread full of lies. People don't wanna know that spintel crap REALLY IS NOT SUPERIOR.

It is made to LOOK superior thru spintel compiled cherry picked BENCHMARKETING - it's just background support for the up front invisible ANTITRUST SCAMS.

Don't you know? - you used to sell AMD? DOUBT THAT

the compiler and the instrux sets are IMPAIRMENTS - if you recompile, you suddenly discover the rocket potential of the socalled inferior.

get with the program and quit intimidating people with your blowhard bs.

If you have a point make it. Leave the beatdown to some of the other lamer flamers - they are endless anyway. You can do better.

But I wonder about the paycheck - hmmmm. possible but I don't think so.

ya figure?

Hmmm....
That's interesting, since I know a friend with an AMD Phenom II 955, and my computer is a LOT faster for solidworks flow simulations (which I run all the time) than his. I would guess ~30%. This is on simulations that can take several days too, so it's pretty significant (I've got one running right now that's been going for 42 hours, and has another 16 or so to go). I'd say that either I'm hallucinating, or my inferior spintel crap is actually quite a bit faster in real world computational tasks.

Of course, AMD is pretty close for gaming. That's because games don't use as much multithreaded performance, and in general don't take advantage of faster CPUs as much as they do faster GPUs.