"Why you should seriously consider an AMD PC" Opinion from techradar's Jeremy Laird
This is a great lil piece & kinda shows what I have said for MANY years on various forums then this one & get lambasted by the staunch intel supporter with there blinders on for only intel for the most part:
" But as the years tick by and the computing industry matures, raw performance is gradually becoming less critical. It's now just one part of a broader package and in that context, AMD is much, much more competitive. And that's something I'd personally lost sight of.
A big part of this is the question of "good enough" performance. For some applications, more performance always makes a difference. How quickly you can crunch through a video encode job is pretty much directly proportional to CPU performance, for instance.
However, that doesn't actually equate to the computing experience. As a home PC user, do you sit and wait, watching that encode job? The obvious comparison here is with gaming. Below a certain frame rate, let's call it 30fps on average, gaming becomes unpleasant.
In that context, performance is critical. And yet above a certain frame rate, let's call it 60fps, adding more performance makes absolutely no difference to the gaming experience. "
Read the rest here:
Why you should seriously consider an AMD PC | News | TechRadar
I've always maintained that AMD chips are 'fast enough'. I make the analogy of two cars: One is Toyota Camry, while the other is a Ferrari 458. Given the right conditions (a track, only two people, no luggage) the Ferrari will blow the doors off the Toyota. However, in most situations in which people find themselves, the two cars will be stuck in traffic or limited by speed laws. Ultimately, you've got a lot of wasted potential in the Ferrari, compared to the Toyota.
Yup, I have AMD & Intel and they perform different tasks.
The worst sheep floating around are the socket zealots that proclaim AMD keeps things upgrade friendly forever, like that article author. Barely 1 year old, how's that FM1 socket longevity working out?
Sorry, but there's a major flaw in his argument WRT desktop procs.... Intel has been very agressive in pricing it's lower end (yet still better performing @ similar price points) procs and it doesn't address the fact that their BD linup underperforms against it's own legacy PhII line.
I'd also argue that for a good portion of general use PC's these days, encoding time might actually be a major factor. Ripping media is a function that many (if not most) end-users will carry out on a fairly regular basis, and sorry, but in that case the differences can be substantial. Ripping a movie in 1/2 the time means that you can probably get some other work done, or perhaps even do more than one movie a night.
And if we want to talk about software releases.... how about trim support only starting on the 8XX series chipsets?
So basically all that we're left with is backwards socket compatibility which really only affects folks who already own AMD hardware, and in all honesty, for the sake of new tech (like USB3, or upgraded Sata) a person would be better served getting a new MB.
Why you shouldn't build an AMD PC. The amount of power draw from an 8150 is insane and anything you save on your PC up front will show up on your electrical bill by the end of the year... and you will have less performance at the end of the day. Also I have noticed a lot of games are really underperforming with AMD chips to the point where it is not "good enough". Makes i5 seem like a no brainer for me especially considering how cheap they are these days.
I run AMD at home because of the core count, I multitask/multi core apps enough that the FX is actually a upgrade over the PII for my needs. I don't think his argument is valid for the low end FX line that he is talking about. APU wise yes, I think the new APU combined with more software running GP GPU will make them more attractive then an i3. Or the very upper end FX line 8150 compared to intel higher end i series the AMD comes out cheaper for performance 30ish% slower at more then 30% difference in cost when taking in two comparable motherboards and cpus for what he calls good enough performance.
I see what he is getting at, but for the audience/price point he is talking about he is wrong. Slow news day for him.
In the end of the day you AGAIN show the point of the argument ... where do you this "less preformance at the end of the day"? Cause again if it comes back to gaming ... even MY system doesnt have games it cant play as the "intel" sheeps pc suposivly does better ... BlueByte understands it, OversizedRooster whom I think is also on this forum is ALSO another person whom gets that when you start doing multiple things the amd multi core chips shine vs the intel counterpart.
Before this FX Fiasco a lot of us ran Dual systems, a lot more people than you give credit for when you call us 'intel' sheeps. Which, by the way stops after this post.
We all had 990X boards, with X6's in them ready to go. And yet, our previous chips were getting clock for clock similarities in the ones that were ment to replace them.
Now, to reverse GBA's analogy. Yes, in most situations you will be more of a Camry than an Enzo. However, should a situation ever come up in life where you suddenly need the HP...you will be glad you made that decision to get the Enzo.
I would hazard a guess that it is a very small percentage of the total Intel chips sold actually get overclocked.
Its proven TODAYS intels outperform AMD's chips almost always. I dont get why people still say this crap and turn it in to a Fanboi argument. Just do your research and buy the product that works the best for you, just like GPU's.
This AMD/Intel Nvidia/AMD fanboi stuff is annoying, and the facts are almost always unfounded facts at that. :(
|All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:46 AM.|