login about faq

To prove you're not a spammer, email newuser.lgqa@gmail.com with the subject "Account Request" to request an account.


Is there a stigma around using an AMD CPU over an Intel core? To me in general I've just perceived them as always being one step behind Intel and so have settled I to catering to those consumers wanting a more affordable option rather than pushing to get ahead of Intel, would you say that's true in any way? From what I understand AMD and intel were on a level playing field until the switch over to DDR2 where Intel switched chip sets to boards able to support DDR2 where as AMD chose not too right away, they then reversed this decision not long after releasing new cores.

This meant allot of their users had bought chips under the pretext that AMD would not be releasing a new chip set to accommodate DDR2 for quite some time compared to intel, but we're then left needing to replace their chip and board I order to get DDR2 an expense the average user can't justify. This also meant no further chips for their DDR1 boards, at least that's how it was explained to me and why AMD are now lagging behind Intel because they waited too long to switch over shrinking their sales and giving the competition a head start over any future chip design work.

asked Jun 28 '12 at 19:03

mutley2209's gravatar image

mutley2209
761122128135

edited Jun 28 '12 at 19:08


In the spirit of full disclosure, I do work for AMD but can help point you in the right direction for information. Today, AMD is the ONLY company that can give you x86 CPU cores and a discrete-class GPU core on a single processor, this processor is known as an APU (accelerated processing unit.)

The point you make above about memory transitions is not accurate. CPU performance had nothing to do with the memory transition. The memory transition had more to do with market readiness. DDR2 memory was still new to market and costs were still very high at that time and so AMD made a conscious choice to bring DDR2 products to market in 2006 when it was more economic for the end-customers.

In terms of the performance of the CPU cores, if you're going to look at synthetic benchmarks that measure only single-threaded performance, then you will see Intel win some of those benchmarks. But as the world is shifting to more multi-threaded workloads and applications that leverage the parallel compute capability within the GPU, AMD has a clear advantage over Intel. Take a look at this recent article from AnandTech that highlights the differentiation AMD brings with the APU - http://www.anandtech.com/show/5835/testing-opencl-accelerated-handbrakex264-with-amds-trinity-apu

answered Jun 29 '12 at 17:52

AMDphil's gravatar image

AMDphil
463

I am with you AMDphil. Talking theory of how a processor will not handle memory of another generation has no relevance. Limitations of functional capacity and access rates are the result of cost and desire. Designing a system with compatible components is the main goal focus. Operational efficiency can be obtained with well suited matching components. You can put a 35 horsepower outboard engine on a 16 foot skiff and it will go faster but not safely and the transom will wear out or collapse, and you could flip over from too much power. Matching power to size and function provides better performance than throwing the biggest and baddest parts at it. A dual core chip handles memory resources differently than a quad core and Windows7 OS accesses memory differently from Ubuntu Linux. Each component does its job and communicates with the others through the great bottleneck known as the MotherBoard. There is where most limitations are set. What I would like to see is a converter cable with port to access DDR2 along with other RAM chips. They can convert IDE to SATA with a cable link. HardDrives on the same cable spin at different speeds. Why can't they develop a universal memory cable that switches access speeds and formats?

answered Jun 30 '12 at 01:45

zitiboat's gravatar image

zitiboat
161

I never really thought there was a "stigma." I must acknowledged that as far as the R&D side of things Intel has it down, AMD is sort of a copy cat. Having used both I see pros and cons for both. With all that said I don't think AMD is a bad company. I view them like one of my new favorite companies Rigol. For those who don't know Rigol makes test equipment like Bench Power Supplies, Function Generators, Multimeters, and Oscilloscope. But they make it a great value! No they don't do anything that has not been done before, but they make a great product for a great price compared to competitors like Agilent and Tektronix.

answered Jul 04 '12 at 09:12

trueb's gravatar image

trueb
15.9k54105268

It is not that AMD is behind, it is that they currently offer nothing to compete with intel's high end CPU's, at mid and lower end, they offer better value overall, especially since they tend to stick with a socket longer, have cheaper motherboards in general, and charge less for their CPU's, and keep overclocking simpler.

Overall if you want a fast system on a budget then go with AMD, if you want high performance and are willing to drop around $1000 into a PC then go with intel.

depending on your budget and goal, building a balanced system is most important for good performance.

A $<800 AMD gaming PC will do better than a $<800 intel system as you will save on the CPU and still get great performance (the higher end AMD CPU's are at a point where there is little difference between high end AMD and the super high end intel on the more demanding games), also the videocard and storage usually becomes the bottleneck, and at those price ranges, the difference between intel and AMD can be getting a AMD system with a faster GPU and a SSD

answered Jul 04 '12 at 10:06

Razor512's gravatar image

Razor512
16.5k3683258

edited Jul 05 '12 at 15:59

I have used both Intel and AMD over the years. AMD beats Intel in their pricing any-day. Personally, I actually prefer Intel hardware (CPU'S and chipsets). However, when I built my desktop about a year ago, I had a choice to make. At the time, Intel's top 6 core processor was $1,000 and AMD's was about $300. They both perform about the same and would both do what I needed them to do and them some. Why spend 3x as much money for a product that would perform just as well as a $300 product.

The only thing I wish AMD would catch up on is Tripple channel memory support, that is what makes Intel chips and boards outperform AMD in the newest tech area. But again, you have to pay so much more for that Intel hardware to get the tripple channel support.

AMD still performs very well, and the customer gets so much more bang for his buck with AMD than with Intel.

AMD gpu's, on the other hand, well...I am an NVIDIA guy...

answered Jul 04 '12 at 06:21

Nate%20Thibodeau's gravatar image

Nate Thibodeau
12

edited Jul 04 '12 at 06:27

I think they could do with re-branding as i and i'm sure allot of other people instinctively perceive Intel's CPU's to be the better processor in part because of the price difference but also because of branding.

answered Jul 05 '12 at 08:38

mutley2209's gravatar image

mutley2209
761122128135

Your answer
toggle preview

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here

By RSS:

Answers

Answers and Comments

Markdown Basics

  • *italic* or __italic__
  • **bold** or __bold__
  • link:[text](http://url.com/ "title")
  • image?![alt text](/path/img.jpg "title")
  • numbered list: 1. Foo 2. Bar
  • to add a line break simply add two spaces to where you would like the new line to be.
  • basic HTML tags are also supported


Join Us in the Chat Room

Tags:

×272
×177
×10

Asked: Jun 28 '12 at 19:03

Seen: 1,477 times

Last updated: Jul 05 '12 at 15:59