Intel over amd WHY?

V F · 5 May 2014 at 13:00

Luke_Bowman said:
Interesting point. I think that boils down to the fact that Intel leave their chips at a reasonable clock out of the box (2.4-3.6ghz) whereas AMD basically clock chips to 90% or more of their max at the factory and release them so they can claim higher clock speeds as a marketing tactic

Bizarre how 10 years ago this wasn't the AMD way.

Luke_Bowman · 5 May 2014 at 13:00

P4Clock said:
in the real world they mean nothing

Which is why it's a benchmark

Martini1991 · 5 May 2014 at 13:00

P4Clock said:
in the real world they mean nothing

They can quite easily.
Many many people would be able to tell the difference between using an FX6100 and an i5 2500K (Obviously, depending heavily on the situations)

If you're not willing to accept that there's real world differences, what's the point in creating the thread? To tell us we've all wasted our money and we should have bought an FX6100?

ExRayTed · 5 May 2014 at 13:05

Sliver said:
I said 'tend'. I was talking about the range of chips. You've just done a straw man and picked the example that bucks that trend.

Keep your rolleyes to yourself.

You said this: Intel tend to overclock better than AMD. So for enthusiasts, you're getting more performance.

That statement is incorrect. Fully incorrect. Strawman arguments have nothing to do with it.

The Haswell overclock lottery has shown that you can be unlucky with Intel, exactly as you can also be unlucky with AMD I hasten to add. If anything, AMD tend to overclock better at the moment, statistically speaking.

Historically AMD have usually always clocked well, all the way back to the Thunderbird architecture. The issue (for me at least) is that it's practically mandatory to over-clock AMD chips to be able to compete with their stock Intel equivalents.

Martini1991 · 5 May 2014 at 13:08

You can't be blanket about overclocking, given you know percentages and clock gain, end clock and stock clocks.

An i5 2500K overclocking to 4.8GHZ has overclocked more than an FX8350 going to 5GHZ for example.

ExRayTed · 5 May 2014 at 13:11

Oh I can when talking about the percentage of Intel chips that overclock well compared with the percentage of AMD chips that do. I wasn't talking about the over-all performance gain, which I agree is not so clear

Luke_Bowman · 5 May 2014 at 13:12

P4Clock said:
Sorry if this starts a fight or if it already been asked

Sliver · 5 May 2014 at 13:14

ExRayTed said:
Keep your rolleyes to yourself.

You said this: Intel tend to overclock better than AMD. So for enthusiasts, you're getting more performance.

That statement is incorrect. Fully incorrect. Strawman arguments have nothing to do with it.

The Haswell overclock lottery has shown that you can be unlucky with Intel, exactly as you can also be unlucky with AMD I hasten to add. If anything, AMD tend to overclock better at the moment, statistically speaking.

Historically AMD have usually always clocked well, all the way back to the Thunderbird architecture. The issue (for me at least) is that it's practically mandatory to over-clock AMD chips to be able to compete with their stock Intel equivalents.

Again with the fallacious argument. :rolleyes:

Sorry but I stand by my original point. Maybe someone else would like to jump in ?

dacads · 5 May 2014 at 13:17

Luke_Bowman said:
The FX-9590 (which is AMD's best CPU) is simply inferior to Intel's high grade CPU's.

Even with 8 cores at 5Ghz it does not compete very well

It's hardly the best otherwise more people would have bought it

Like you said it's inferior so was a flop, AMD need to stick to the budget game plan

Luke_Bowman · 5 May 2014 at 13:18

dacads said:
It's hardly the best otherwise more people would have bought it Like you said it's inferior so was a flop, AMD need to stick to the budget game plan

I just went by the most expensive, highest clocked CPU to be honest

But AMD do play hard ball with the budget CPU market

abbotsmike · 5 May 2014 at 13:27

ExRayTed said:
He's the exception rather than the rule though isn't he? And I think you knew that. I was being broad because the question was broad. I wasn't going to state individual cases but If you'd prefer me to be precise I will be.

No-one with any sense would tell someone to sell existing and current AMD kit for Intel, unless there is a big performance gain to be had. It makes no sense to do so, and I can't recall people here doing that

Happy?

I'm with you on this one. I don't think I've ever seen genuine advice (not just fanboys) given to someone telling them to drop AMD and move to intel. people who are looking at upgrading anyway yes, but not just for the sake of it.

Martini1991 · 5 May 2014 at 13:33

abbotsmike said:
I'm with you on this one. I don't think I've ever seen genuine advice (not just fanboys) given to someone telling them to drop AMD and move to intel. people who are looking at upgrading anyway yes, but not just for the sake of it.

I'm pretty sure he's implying upgrading from current AMD stuff to current Intel stuff, and no one has suggested that during upgrade advise threads? (Which isn't the truth, as during upgrade threads, people do indeed suggest that many times), not people saying for the sake of it.

Because otherwise that makes no sense, why would someone randomly chirp up in a thread "Sell up and move to Intel"?

abbotsmike · 5 May 2014 at 13:42

Martini1991 said:
I'm pretty sure he's implying upgrading from current AMD stuff to current Intel stuff, and no one has suggested that during upgrade advise threads? (Which isn't the truth, as during upgrade threads, people do indeed suggest that many times), not people saying for the sake of it.

Because otherwise that makes no sense, why would someone randomly chirp up in a thread "Sell up and move to Intel"?

People do suggest it when/if it makes sense. I see a lot of people recommending staying with AMD if the application suits it too. I don't find it the case that people blindly recommend intel.

Martini1991 · 5 May 2014 at 13:53

abbotsmike said:
People do suggest it when/if it makes sense. I see a lot of people recommending staying with AMD if the application suits it too. I don't find it the case that people blindly recommend intel.

With that I agree.

abbotsmike · 5 May 2014 at 13:54

Martini1991 said:
With that I agree.

In that case we think the same, communicating in english has taken a back seat to revising electronics at the minute!

V F · 5 May 2014 at 14:31

abbotsmike said:
People do suggest it when/if it makes sense. I see a lot of people recommending staying with AMD if the application suits it too. I don't find it the case that people blindly recommend intel.

There's some that decided to go multi-gpu setup then they're posting how awful the performance is. Then they say they're extremely disappointed because the money they spent. Then the heart sinks even more when they discover they've to spend more on Intel.

There's been numerous threads like this over the years. Starting out on AMD, single GPU setup. There was even one that turned into a big thread?…