I think a lot of the debates are still based on old/inaccurate information. For years the industry had people comparing based on cpu speed even across platforms and it wasn't the most accurate way then but it has gotten even more apples and oranges since. Even today I find a lot of people asking how a 3.5ghz intel cpu core can possibly be faster than a 4.5+ ghz amd core. It's not always the fault of the individual, I blame a lot of that on the marketing hype spewed by the companies.
Another frequent myth that floats around is that amd offers more bang for the buck. Most of the time it doesn't and amd employees have often said that their price structure is made so that they're cost competitive with similarly performing intel products. Ignoring frequency speed and core count, the prices are often very close. If an amd cpu costs $100 and has more than twice the cores or appears to have faster 'speed' in terms of frequency than an intel chip at $100-110, the truth is the two are very much even in terms of performance. If the amd cpu were able to compete on a core to core basis, they'd be able to charge more for their products.
People have gotten so used to terms being thrown around that they take them for granted. Things like 'quad core' has become so common place that I see people asking questions like well if I get xyz cpu that's 'only' a quad core, will I be able to multitask? Will I be able to check my email AND watch a youtube video? A 7yr old dual core cpu would suffice for such a low work load. Gaming aside, the tasks many need to do require very little cpu power. The reality is that most 'budget' cpu's are much more than the average person needs. Marketing hype has gotten them paranoid that they need a quantum computer to watch a flash video or send an email and it just isn't true. People worried that an i5 isn't enough for a generic office pc, do they need an i7 - or is a 6 core amd enough, do they need an 8 core. The industry is flooded with paranoid misinformation.
In terms of overclocking, due to amd's overall low ipc performance overclocking and amd have become synonymous. Overclocking them helps reduce the difference in core performance though it doesn't eliminate it. I've seen many argue that amd offers better value because they all overclock and only a handful of intel chips overclock. The truth is, intel cpu's don't have to be overclocked to give better performance than even an overclocked amd chip. It's not fanboyism at all, it's the state of things and has been the past number of years.
It's not just the cpus themselves, overall amd has a lacking design when it comes to motherboards as well. I'm not sure if they're designed by the motherboard manufacturers themselves, or if the design is determined by amd. Either way, it's not uncommon to find a large amount of amd motherboards that have weak vrm's, overheating vrm problems etc. Problems which just don't seem to exist on intel boards. Amd cpu's generally draw more power and yet the intel boards have far more robust vrm setups with vrm coolers being pretty standard on most boards. It doesn't help the amd builds, especially when amd users attempt to overclock to shorten the ipc performance gap. They have to employ all kinds of vrm cooling solutions, adding heatsinks and whatnot or find out that the cheap boards available aren't enough to support the power needs of their chips. I personally don't fault amd cpu's themselves for that but overall the amd platform just isn't an enticing one in my opinion. I still don't understand why there are so many substandard amd motherboards.
There's nothing wrong with people being happy with amd, if it's all they need then there's no reason to spend extra. Overclocking to very high rates means little if the end result doesn't change its performance much in the real world. Frequency between amd and intel aren't comparable. I'm not sure why the statement that amd is very efficient, in terms of performance and power per watt they're anything but efficient. Intel's designs are much more efficient.
To be fair, comparing quad core to quad core regardless of benchmark performance, the fx 4300 uses 25% more power at idle than an i5-2500k. Under load, the fx 4300 system uses 22% more power than the i5-2500k. Factor the real world processing performance and no one would argue that the i5 is a much stronger, faster cpu but it was to make a fair comparison between core count to show physically equivalent cpu efficiency performance. So no, amd is not a very efficient design at all. It won't cost a sudden surge in the power bill costs for the average user, though there are some regions where power is quite expensive and may make a difference. It will make a much larger impact in a corporate setting where there are hundreds or thousands of systems in use over the course of several years since corporate environments upgrade much much slower than the typical home user.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/6
In terms of gaming, there's a significant difference beyond just 10fps in games. A more powerful cpu won't bottleneck a stronger gpu where a lesser performing amd cpu may. By the time you get an amd cpu that isn't bottlenecking upper end gpu's, you're talking about the fx 6300 or fx 8xxx, not the 4300. The price difference between those cpu's and say an intel i5 locked or k series cpu becomes far less than $200. Fx 6300 to i5 4460 is around a $40-50 difference. The difference between an fx 8350 and i5 k series is about $60. For the people who are spending $350-550 for a gpu merely for 'gaming' my personal take is that $50 average price difference isn't that significant. Not for a system that will easily last 3-4 years making the price premium almost non existent.
I don't think there's any question really that intel's cpu's are capable of higher performance in any number of tasks than what amd has to offer. As with anything, performance is always going to cost money. 1080p tv's cost more than 720p tv's. Z rated tires cost more than budget tires. Whether the performance is worth the cost is up to the end user. In terms of gaming if the user is ok with a bit less performance to save a few dollars then amd is a perfectly fine choice. Some people are perfectly happy gaming at medium settings and 30fps while others want high/ultra and 60fps. Overall those figures have more to do with the cpu and gpu, not just the cpu choice. It just goes to show not everyone wants the same things.
Worth is a very personal thing. I've literally had friends who argued that intel wasn't worth the price, was poor value increase for the price showing they were cost conscious. Then the very same person turned right around and gave me a microwave oven that was nearly brand new, I asked why. Because it was white and their kitchen theme was black appliances - they 'needed' to get a new microwave to match their color scheme. Go figure lol. Each person has their quirks and priorities.
39 is more than 30. You do get "ripped off" to some degree but that does not change the speed. It changes the cost to performance ratio.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram