Are AMD CPUs a legit choice? Not one of them ranks high on good goy benchmark sites

Are AMD CPUs a legit choice? Not one of them ranks high on good goy benchmark sites

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=_uVmIiSI1sY
youtube.com/watch?v=WZ_5p9wd2dk
youtube.com/watch?v=7j8flO3IVJk
youtube.com/watch?v=OV6EyhNb6vg
youtube.com/watch?v=nWDgrAQ678g
cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-FX-9590-vs-Intel-Core-i3-6100/1812vs3511
cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-FX-9590-vs-Intel-Core-i5-6600K/1812vs3503
twitter.com/AnonBabble

AMD-chan is so cute desu~~~~~
I wish I hadn't thrown mine away for a Xeon.

AMD cpu>icore garbage
CPU is the only not shit thing AMD produces

From what I've been told, no. Just get an i5 or i7

...

Next year there will be pretty much no difference between AMD and Intel in regards to gaming

performance is a buzzword

Looks hot

What a shit drawing

bottom one should be a straight, 45 degree line

...

Why?

What about AMD VGAs?

Don't forget that AMD line includes both CPU and GPU oriented research. It's laughable when people think they can openly compete with either Intel or nVidia

well, you wait intel to release something then reverse engineer it

Didn't intel just pull out of the smartphone market because they can't compete?

they really are a fucking joke. I don't know anyone at my company who would order anything other than xenons for their servers. the fact of the matter is most software can't take advantage of massive multi-threading, and you can easily make a hadoop / spark / etc. cluster to get you similar functionality if you've set up your servers with 10gb networking.

AMD fandrones say this every year tho i have been seeing this for atleast the 6th time

I think you'll find Intel is this

>Our sales are down 2.5% lets give 300k to feminist bullshit and claim we're doing the right thing! That'll get those gamers on our side!

...

>the bigger company spends more
>the company illegally established a monopoly and got heavily fined for it spends more

wow what a SHOCK.

b-but intel can do no wrong

...

They're ok if you're on a budget. I have an FX-8350 and it's pretty good for the price I got it for. But otherwise, not really.

They are awful. They were pretty good when they were new, right now they're super outdated - power hungry, hot and even the top models are wrecked by i3s in games. New Zen models coming out next year will probably be an okay choice if you want AMD.

Latest amd cpus are not good desu go intel or wait for zen.

Utter thrash
Don't hold much hope for zen either

...

To be fair GPUs are hardly bottlenecked by CPUs even at high resolutions unless you're going multi-GPU.
The only reason you might want a more powerful GPU is for media editing and there you can have as many cores as you want.

>GPUs are hardly bottlenecked by CPUs
GTX 1050 ti 100%s core i3 6100
youtube.com/watch?v=_uVmIiSI1sY

OP here, should I just go with an I7 6700k then or can I do better with that amount of money? It's the highest I'm willing to go.

I just bought a gtx 1070 and I need a new cpu

This, AMD FX 6350 gets you maxed settings based on your GPU, with the exception of a few PC exclusives because they actually attempt some complex functions GPUs just can't manage on top of being pushed to the limit.

And a lot of that can probably be fixed/compensated for with Vulkan implementation.

If you want to max out Star Citizen, Squad and whatever future equivalent of Witcher 3 might be, then get a strong CPU, but I'd wait if you can, since ZEN means you have choice between AMD or Intel for DDR4 systems, which is another major jump not just for the CPU.

You are mostly correct, but there are a few games are heavily multi-threaded and take advantage of a better CPU.

youtube.com/watch?v=WZ_5p9wd2dk

>1050

r u reatard?
Not to mention BF4 runs near flawlessly and looks effectively the same with half the requirements, go DICE!

>the company illegally established a monopoly and got heavily fined for it spends more
AMD only exists so Intel would not be considered a monopoly. They could have wiped them out in the 80s

AMD is shit. Avoid if you can.

imo buy AMD CPU and overclock it, best price/performance solution.

I use a AMD...never had problems so I think it's ok...but I'm the kind of guy that don't even use a 1080p monitor because I think it still is kinda of expensive for what it increases so I will wait until my monitor breaks

AMD FX 6300 is capped on GTX 1050 2 GB running BF1, while GPU is at 60% load
youtube.com/watch?v=7j8flO3IVJk

They are unsupported garbage

yes they could have.

because they had backhand illegal deals.

aka they fucking cheated.

I'm skeptical about the 6600K because it's a DDR4 system, which puts at least 2/3rds of those CPUs out of range being in DDR3 systems.
It's not a perfect example but that's why I'd say wait for ZEN, we're entering a new era of PC tech and there's no AMD solution yet.

It will require a fucking liquid cooling plant
Just buy i5 6500 like a nonretarded person would do

They were always bigger. If intel didn't allow them to produce x86 processors AMD would be long gone

Let me tell you two things op, AMD has been under poor management for a long time. But now its new leader seems to be running things much better. The new zen cores are rumored to match the intel chips and for half the price. So id wait a bit longer to see how they fare. Jan 17th they reveal them.

BF1 is also a trash game and managed to throw away several years worth of development on BF4 (a decade including BF3 since they're almost identical) for ???

Competent developers are equally as important as what you put in your build.

...

True, but all benchmarks I've seen show minimal performance impact from RAM speed alone. From my own testing GTA 5 scales incredibly well with CPU speed, which is the game that has the biggest difference in the video.

No. Not at all. Not anymore. Either get intel right now or wait until Zen comes out in Q1 2017.

perfect

Match for half price sounds like underperform for two thirds the price.
But unless you have a job (and as a result this is all irrelevant in a 1st world country that doesn't have exceptionally expensive PC parts markets) that's just fine, especially considering the already large gap with FX cores being so old.

>I can't run it on my potato therefore it's thrash episode

Intel was and always will be shit.

Also, don't forget AMD64 (LoL at Intel). Intel is a shitty Jewish onglomerate which is stuffing its pockets with monopoly money.

Thats what everyone is saying but so far the people who have had their hands on them already are saying its confirmed. But Im still waiting for public testing before I believe anything but so far there has been no news to contradict that.

>I literally defend DICE

I need say no more. Big developers are not to be trusted just for their public appearances.

Zen will beat Intel.

Guys I have an fx 6200 OC'd to 4.4 ghz and an RX 480 and I STILL can't get more than 30 fps on Hitman.

I have windows 8.1 so I cant do dx12. Is this CPU really THIS fucking shit? What am I doing wrong?

To me I think its that Intel has the monopoly and is killing AMD on this right now so they are jacking up prices. Its crazy to think that an intel chip is the same price as a whole gaming console hell even like 100 dollars more.

>the cost of a semiconductor chip fabrication plant doubles every four years
AMD heavily outsources manufacturing processes and they still don't have money to keep up with Intel.

Run MSI afterburner overlay. If it shows that your gpu load is 40% when your cpu is at 100% like it will likely do then you are another satisfied AMD consumer.

I think you're probably right but not as much as you sound.
Honestly? They can blow more money on tighter binning requirements so you get more power, because they can afford to churn out more "duds".

14nm is still relatively new after all, and AMD can't churn out 480s as much as they can 470s since they'll just be rejected 480s. Same process, nobody's fault for flaws.

Turn off supersampling genius, that's superior (assuming you mean 6300 since 6200 doesn't really exist) to my build and I get 50FPSish.

Hitman is unstable usually due to AI, but if you're still struggling it's likely unrelated to your build and more to your background processes.

Intel is competing with mobile, not with AMD anymore. Actually the only reason AMD probably still exists is because intel quietly throws them their old, dead-end and unsuccessful designs so ant-monopoly orgs won't run after them.

Wait for Zen. Otherwise look at this:
youtube.com/watch?v=OV6EyhNb6vg

AMD doesn't really OC without watercooling. If you're air cooling you can squeeze a bit out but not that much.
You might have OCed your 480 badly too, wattman has a few quirks, and stuttering will be lowering your FPS.

Guide: youtube.com/watch?v=nWDgrAQ678g

How do their pc parts compete with mobile and how does that affect pricing?

Also why is Sony and Microsoft using AMD chips in their consoles?

less expensive and better performances for the price, when you get 70% of the performances for 30% of the price the choice is easy to make

>How do their pc parts compete with mobile and how does that affect pricing?
Their laptops compete with ARM transformers. Desktop is lost cause already.
>Also why is Sony and Microsoft using AMD chips in their consoles?
Because AMD is desperately poor and therefore is the cheapest bidder.

>Are AMD CPUs a legit choice? Not one of them ranks high on good goy benchmark sites
AMD FX is outdated, especially their AM3+ mainboards, because AMD canceled chipset development, once they figured out Bulldozer was a turd. The existing chipsets are 2008-tier with no USB 3.0, no PCIe 3.0, not even properly supporting SSDs etc. Not viable for gaming at all.
So if you go for a PlayStation-tier AMD CPU, choose the more recent FM2+ platform with chipsets from 2014 at least. You might get Intel Celeron/Pentium-level CPU performance without the limitation of only two cores.

The FX line is garbage, don't fall for it.

bullshit
AMD has nothing to do with actually manufacturing chips, they just designed the APU and were told to GTFO

I've been running an 8350 for a few years and it has had decent performance. I don't think most games are optimized for its architecture, though.

>Also why is Sony and Microsoft using AMD chips in their consoles?
Because nVidia was not available.

You should be getting a good aftermarket cooler anyways for high end gaming.

An all in one liquid cooler is more than enough to handle and AMD overclock and no more expensive than any other good aftermarket cooler.

>AMD has nothing to do with actually manufacturing chips, they just designed the APU and were told to GTFO
ARM doesn't manufacture chips either, they license designs too.

next year is the year of the 8-cores

AMD is not even licensing anything
Sony hired them for job to design the APU for PS4. It's Sony property now. That's why nVidia wouldn't do it.

When we have enough cores, we can stop using GPU and just play games on CPU alone with swiftshader!

if you want AMD, wait for Zen to be released in q1 2017. Zen is AMD's new architecture that is meant to remedy all the issues they had with the Bulldozer tech. if Zen is shit just buy an intel i5 and call it a day.

AMD still exists because they own the x64 assembler code.

AMD and Intel are at a permanent stalemate. Intel owns x86 and AMD owns x64 and they both need a license for the other instruction set in order to make modern PC CPUs.

She looks genki as fuck, literally the best archtype
How can intel even compete?

Is it hard getting things that wrong or does it come naturally to you?

>You should be getting a good aftermarket cooler anyways for high end gaming.
When i built my last rig, AMD CPUs were still competing (just barely), but asked for too much power. After adding the required aftermarket cooler to the price, AMD immediately lost it's cost-advantage, so Intel it was.

Buy an AMD CPU only if you use applications optimised for 8 cores and shit.

Otherwise buy intel CPU and AMD gpu so you don't get cucked a year later.

Intel revenue is 55 billion while AMD is 1.5
they could but AMD and won't even notice it really
but then anti-monopoly investigations would begin
PS4 APU is sony's property you dumb fuck
that's why AMD can't just sell it to microsoft which is stuck in 900p age because they didn't pay for developing it

>Buy an AMD CPU only if you use applications optimised for 8 cores and shit.
Intel is faster for those applications.

amd cpu are fine. I have no problems with them.

>Intel is faster for those applications.

Intel's price is also 3-5 times the price of amd.

guys i need help. i built a new pc, but i get no signal to my monitor. is there something i plugged in wrong or what? this is my first build so im not so sure what im doing

Brilliant, winter is around the corner after all. Poorfags don't have to buy a heater for their room.

>it's summer episode
>can only play Starcraft 1 and Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup because I'm afraid my PC would catch fire

not anymore.

the 9590 is only 3% faster than i3 6100
cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-FX-9590-vs-Intel-Core-i3-6100/1812vs3511

one of them has a tdp of 50 and the other one of 220 watts

>this is what amd users tell themselves

it really is embarrassing that intel can match, or even out perform, virtualization with half the physical cores. At my work, we have over 200 servers with old as fuck intel Xeons, and they still give our VMs better performance than our custom made AMD box.

depends on what you are using it for.

And according to your own link, i3 only has faster single core speed. 9590 flat out beats it in multicore speed.. which is something more and more games are using these days especially with dx12 and vulcan.

>Intel's price is also 3-5 times the price of amd.
Core i5 outperforms any AMD CPU in 8-core-optimized applications and is about the same price as FX-9xxx.

>And according to your own link, i3 only has faster single core speed. 9590 flat out beats it in multicore speed.
It should, because it costs more than i3, while still missing a GPU. Add two more CPU cores to the i3 (aka i5) and AMD 8core btfo.

6200 is exactly the same as a 6300 just underclocked. I have AA completely off, and I don't have much going on in the background I don't think. What do you have ad how are you getting that many frames?

you're comparing 2 real cores to 8 real cores though.
for 50€ more than the 9590 you get the 6500k

cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-FX-9590-vs-Intel-Core-i5-6600K/1812vs3503

which is also easily overclockable and is at 90W tdp compared to 220W

amd has no current flagship cpu

>To be fair GPUs are hardly bottlenecked by CPUs
Welcome to a new generation of console ports.
Current PC high end is equal to current gen consoles, and the lack of CPU revolution might floor it for quite some time.

That said, if Zen isn't complete shit and we gain our fucking 10-15% performance increase, it might be the new high end. Alongside the normal i5 rigs