# Is AMD Dead?



## Killer_Rubber_Ducky (May 28, 2014)

I have been having a discussion  with some guys about AMD and Intel. They tell me that AMD is essentially dead and has no idea how to make money. I have tried explaining that AMD does not have as much loose capital to throw into R&D whereas Intel does. AMD has to make smart choices in what products to release. 
So, am I wrong and AMD is in the can? Or are they trashing AMD because it is not Intel?


----------



## natr0n (May 28, 2014)

AMD dominating graphics currently doesn't make me think they're dead.

Just some guys trying to act knowledgeable about nothing they know about.


----------



## Kursah (May 28, 2014)

AMD won't be taking home the best CPU performance crown anytime soon, but they are budget beasts and their APUs are solid for budget gaming at medium resolutions. I believe their APU is a solid saving grace for their CPU's, I have been super impressed with the 4500 that came in my Asus K55n laptop. I think they know where their niches are in their respective markets. Top-end CPU's aren't where they can be right now...but don't count them out. I fully expect something epic from them within the next 10-years, imagine 290x and 4770k power on a single die...consuming only 65-90W. That's where I think AMD is heading, and sure by then Intel will have way more CPU power...I think AMD will prove most gamers won't need it so bad when they can attract emptier pocket books to the higher quality PC gaming fringe. This could be a reverse miscalculation on my part...and look at my systems, I'm Intel biased all day long. But that doesn't mean I don't believe in AMD or think they're failing by any means. They're taking a different path and I think it's going to treat them well, especially if the era of Steam Boxes takes off and they get their Linux drivers aced. Just my two cents.


----------



## Steevo (May 28, 2014)

AMD/ATI has always been the underdog. They push with decent products, not always the best for every scenario, and with innovation. Without them we would have two essential monopolies, one in CPU's and one in GPU's and prices would be sky high, like when a CPU cost as much as a modern day build, and 128MB of RAM cost as much as a high end graphics card. 


Considering they bring in money off chips for consoles, chip and die sales, royalties on patents (like X64), I doubt they will become insolvent. Worst case scenario they are forced to split up, but there are enough safety nets to prevent that unless horribly mismanaged.


----------



## THE_EGG (May 28, 2014)

Well I mean AMD supplies some of the hardware for the PS4 and Xbox One so that should really help out the company. And the prices of the enthusiast gpus are pretty damn good too along with their APUs. I'd only say they have lost the plot when it comes to higher end processors and even then there are still some advantages of having all those extra cores over Intel's cpus.


----------



## Arjai (May 28, 2014)

People are always trashing AMD. Whateva! They still make awesome GPU's and their APU's are decent enough to game with, adding a discrete card, just like every Intel system needs.

Intel is better than AMD, at the moment in a number of ways but, AMD dead? Not in the least.

I have 2 older AMD systems that I love, see System Specs, I also have an Ivy laptop that outperforms them both, combined!

I am probably, sometime in the future, going to buy and assemble an Opty server, based solely on price being so much cheaper than a Xeon chip and board.  For my uses, it is not a downgrade to use AMD.

Hater's will be just that. If you look closely at what is needed for use and stop epeening, AMD is quite useful and quite a bit more economical. 

2cents.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 28, 2014)

Killer_Rubber_Ducky said:


> I have been having a discussion  with some guys about AMD and Intel. They tell me that AMD is essentially dead and has no idea how to make money. I have tried explaining that AMD does not have as much loose capital to throw into R&D whereas Intel does. AMD has to make smart choices in what products to release.
> So, am I wrong and AMD is in the can? Or are they trashing AMD because it is not Intel?


AMD is doing okay:
https://encrypted.google.com/#q=amd

AMD supplying APUs to Microsoft and Sony definitely helps.


When AMD acquired ATI, ATI was valued at about 10-20% of AMD's value.  AMD cannot survive on GPUs alone.


----------



## TRWOV (May 28, 2014)

AMD themselves announced that they were leaving the high end race so if your friends only consider Core i7 processors to be worthy of being CPUs then, yes, AMD is "dead" in the sense that they won't develop their products expecting to match or pass over Intel.

The APU line offers enough performance for the mainstream market and, if HSA takes off, that will only go up. Their small-cores APUs were POS but Kabini has switched that around (I'll be getting two 5350s myself).



Now, something that I would like to see is a new platform based on their server line. They could throw us a bone every now and then. I think that a 10 core Excavator FX CPU on G34 socket (LGA) would be a sweet deal.


----------



## Killer_Rubber_Ducky (May 28, 2014)

The main argument they are using is AMDs Financials. They have referenced the losses AMD has had in 2012 and 2013.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 28, 2014)

Killer_Rubber_Ducky said:


> The main argument they are using is AMDs Financials. They have referenced the losses AMD has had in 2012 and 2013.


All I can say to that is lets wait and see what the Q2 report brings (Jul 14, 2014).


----------



## Arjai (May 28, 2014)

^^ This!!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 28, 2014)

If they don't return to green, there may be merit to the idea but 1% loss in Q1 isn't going to really cause alarm.


----------



## suraswami (May 28, 2014)

Killer_Rubber_Ducky said:


> I have been having a discussion  with some guys about AMD and Intel. They tell me that AMD is essentially dead and has no idea how to make money. I have tried explaining that AMD does not have as much loose capital to throw into R&D whereas Intel does. AMD has to make smart choices in what products to release.
> So, am I wrong and AMD is in the can? Or are they trashing AMD because it is not Intel?


You talk to Intel Idiots that's what you get, use AMD, then you will know you have made a wise choice!!


----------



## WhiteLotus (May 28, 2014)

AMD are just realising that you don't need the super high end Intel chips to go on Facebook. Which I'd hazard a guess and say around 95% of the worlds population use their computers for.


----------



## Xzibit (May 28, 2014)

WhiteLotus said:


> AMD are just realising that you don't need the super high end Intel chips to go on Facebook. Which I'd hazard a guess and say around 95% of the worlds population use their computers for.



I'm happy being in that 5% myself.


----------



## 15th Warlock (May 28, 2014)

suraswami said:


> You talk to Intel Idiots that's what you get, use AMD, then you will know you have made a wise choice!!



And so the downward spiral begins, with a thread title like this, it was only a matter of time before people started calling other people names...

BTW, AMD isn't dead, their APU, GPU and Console business ends are thriving, if you believe what Wall Street says I suggest you invest your hard earned cash in some other stock, otherwise continue to enjoy your AMD powered 290Xs, PS4s, Xbox Ones and Wii U's, I know I do, and from what I read in the news so do millions of other people around the world. 

This message was brought to you by an "Intel Idiot"™


----------



## RCoon (May 28, 2014)

WhiteLotus said:


> AMD are just realising that you don't need the super high end Intel chips to go on Facebook. Which I'd hazard a guess and say around 95% of the worlds population use their computers for.



Pretty much this. AMD's APU market is flawless, and their GPU sector is doing great (I'm not a fan of the heat output, but sometimes you've got to crack a few eggs right?). Sure, their dedicated CPU market is utter trash, I couldn't understand why anyone would buy an 8350 over a 4670 when they cost approximately the same (at least they do in the UK), especially for gaming. I think their dedicated CPU division is all but dead in the water until they go back to some solid single core design like Thuban. Their APU market is thriving, as is their GPU market.

Maybe your friends were focusing on the FX line, as opposed to the rest, where AMD is more than likely making a profit now. I can understand them claiming the FX is dead (it is, it hasn't done anything besides OC to 5Ghz in many years), but besides that AMD are doing better than I can remember for a long time.


----------



## alwayssts (May 28, 2014)

Killer_Rubber_Ducky said:


> The main argument they are using is AMDs Financials. They have referenced the losses AMD has had in 2012 and 2013.



There were a lot of unfortunate scenarios (management/staff 'issues'...not to mention ATi gents having a little too much sway post Ruiz) and missteps (The whole essence of bulldozer) that mixed with some things questionably beyond their immediate control (GF having a lot of problems and their associated contracts) that have held back a company that really does have all the pieces.    

Rory (the CEO) is seemingly turning things around and attacking the right segments as they can, but sweeping changes don't happen overnight in microchips, nor will their seemingly bright future immediately be apparent to everyone (outside the folks like us that watch this stuff closely).  A lot of it depends on things like process tech/memory (bandwidth) technology hurdles just not possible/feasible for them at this moment.  

The turn started with the hiring of a bunch of ARM engineers (fairly immediately after RR took the reigns), as well as (and including) Jim Keller (whom is a one man game-changer).  From there we have the ditching of Bulldozer for two archs that handle it's shared purpose in a more targeted manner, the cleanup at GF (that seems to have a straight path to 14nm products in 2016 thanks to Samsung), and the inherit benefits of doing so.  A big part of their APU business will only come into it's own not if/when gpu compute starts to play a bigger role in applications, but also when we start hitting thresholds where their markets are satiated by their performance (and scaling.)  I'm not going to say '4770/290x' for a desktop, but surely more competative ipc and mixed with something in the realm of 260x-like architecture will be upon us soon, and then perhaps a new arch with Tonga-like gpu by 14nm.  Like-wise, when we start seeing something that is similar to the xbox360 (in performance) and then Kaveri's gpu in mobile, it will also be a big deal.

It also cannot be downplayed AMD set the yardstick for a gpu not only with the xbox360, but now with x1/ps4.  To think they don't have a plan to make products (not only gpus, but tdp-targeted apus) that will not only be similar, but then exponentially scale with them is just asinine.  That holds a lot of weight as we move through the next 6 years.

TLDR:  Yes, their recent past rough.  No, their immediate future isn't going to wow enthusiasts.  That said, their targeted approach is working, and will likely continue to work as they not only enter more markets, but build their ecosystem through newer and better products, slowly climbing the 'good-enough' ladder for more and more people and products.  Not only is the potential there for greatness in the next couple to few years, it's more-so on their doorstep than either Intel or nvidia, whom each lack a key component, and have their own design choice/process problems.  AMD's time to shine is rolling around again, and all indications increasingly point that they will be ready to take the stage.


----------



## Tatty_One (May 28, 2014)

Killer_Rubber_Ducky said:


> The main argument they are using is AMDs Financials. They have referenced the losses AMD has had in 2012 and 2013.


Tell your friends that Intel had a declining market in 2013 and first quarter 2014 (although they expect reasonable growth throughout the rest of the year) ......

http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatsp...preview-focus-on-new-markets-to-drive-growth/

In contrast, AMD are back in profit after a couple of very rocky years, in fact they are seeing considerable growth last quarter 2013 and first quarter 2014, far more growth in *relative terms* compared to Intel......

http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatsp...kets-helps-amd-close-2013-on-a-positive-note/

When I say "relative" you have to obviously take into account net profitability which sees Intel well ahead but things are looking brighter for AMD, certanly for this year.


----------



## micropage7 (May 28, 2014)

its a hard discussion, but so far not
AMD still has power on VGA cards 
and yes, they need offer more than their competitors at least maybe offering better performance per power ratio


----------



## Sempron Guy (May 28, 2014)

AMD dead? financially? I don't think so. And I hope they will never reach that point. The thought of that sends shivers through my spine.


----------



## SaltyFish (May 28, 2014)

On the CPU side, yes, AMD hasn't fielded anything competitive on the high-end. But there's more to a market than the high-end. I think enthusiasts, who have a predisposition for the high-end stuff, tend to lose sight of that. Most people don't need anything that fancy.

I remember reading that AMD is waiting for DDR4 before releasing a new CPU socket. If I were them, I'd push that new socket out after Haswell-E but before Skylake so the market would have a mainstream DDR4-using CPU line before Intel fields theirs. Haswell-E is 2H 2014 while Skylake is likely to be early 2016 given Intel's release schedule. That's a pretty large gap for AMD to swoop in (not to mention forcing Intel's hand).


----------



## Frick (May 28, 2014)

RCoon said:


> Maybe your friends were focusing on the FX line, as opposed to the rest, where AMD is more than likely making a profit now. I can understand them claiming the FX is dead (it is, it hasn't done anything besides OC to 5Ghz in many years), but besides that AMD are doing better than I can remember for a long time.



Aye this. They're probably gamers, and they are an ignorant bunch.


----------



## Recus (May 28, 2014)

Dead or AlMostDead?


----------



## Vario (May 28, 2014)

I don't find any of their processors appealing for what I do but they aren't dead.  Radeon still is a great brand with quality products.  A decade ago was a time when Intel and ATI was one side, Nvidia and AMD was the other and AMD was considering buying Nvidia.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (May 28, 2014)

You aren't wrong, but you're trying to explain a symphony with the sheet music for the brass section.  While strictly accurate, it isn't a complete enough picture to do anything with.


Explaining myself, AMD is basically three separate entities wrapped together.  These entities are the CPU division, the GPU division, and the licensing division.  The two former are easy to explain.  AMD was a CPU centric company in the "good ole' days."  They competed directly with Intel, and generally made more affordable (if mildly inferior) products.  AMD purchased ATI, which is the origin of the GPU centric segment.  The patents and licensing division is slightly anemic, but AMD has pioneered some technologies.  Leveraging patents is an easy way to make money, without capital investment.

Licensing is functionally not worth looking at.  Patent trolling aside, lawyers just don't make a company run.


CPU and GPU development is where AMD has tried to shine.  AMD lagged Intel because of significantly smaller investments into research, as well as targeting a completely different market.  

While some theorists will claim AMD had a fighting chance until Intel began to make back room deals, I believe AMD began to fail because they set themselves up as Intel's shadow.  When the PC market began to stabilize and contract (basically the same time that over-saturation began damaging the market) AMD found itself in a precarious position.  The traditional market for computers was contracting, so a budget minded company couldn't exist.

Cue purchasing ATI.  ATI and Nvidea were the primary graphics device creating entities.  By acquiring ATI, AMD gained a significant foot-hold into a new market.  By diversifying, they made it substantially harder to remove themselves from the market.  Floating along on profits from ATI, AMD maintained their CPU division.  When the economic down-turn came, AMD found itself in a difficult position.  They couldn't compete with Intel on performance, and people that had extra cash demanded performance for their dollar.  It's at this point that cheap ARM devices were making it to the market, and I believe someone high up at AMD decided that a new plan of action must be hatched.  They began fusing the AMD and ATI strengths, to produce a low cost GPU/CPU hybrid.  

Now begins the story of APU.  It doesn't have any new technology, but it does make an integrated graphics option finally viable for a low cost solution.  AMD capitalized on the low cost low power device market, and made the bold move of changing architectures.  They went from a CPU and GPU glued together, to something more akin to their current vision of heterogeneous computing.  Very low costs, with decent integrated graphics.  The console manufacturers saw this as a cost savings measure (read: no dealing with power pc and easy porting from system to system).  With two of the three largest console manufacturers on board, AMD is in a very good spot.  They aren't pulling down large amounts of money, but they have consistent production.

So, is AMD dead; no.  Is AMD competing with Intel; not any more.  Is this due to a miniscule research budget; not really.  AMD bet on a new architecture, and a new form of computing.  Their pure CPUs are languishing because of this bet, but they aren't anywhere near dead.


----------



## de.das.dude (May 28, 2014)

Killer_Rubber_Ducky said:


> I have been having a discussion  with some guys about AMD and Intel. They tell me that AMD is essentially dead and has no idea how to make money. I have tried explaining that AMD does not have as much loose capital to throw into R&D whereas Intel does. AMD has to make smart choices in what products to release.
> So, am I wrong and AMD is in the can? Or are they trashing AMD because it is not Intel?


pretty sure AMD doesnt care about money even now. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonev...d-potentially-the-entire-pc-gaming-ecosystem/
while Nvidia is making secret specialty features like physx and all that stuff that runs only on their hardware, AMD is busy making real innovation with open source development  in making tressfx and other stuff that run on all platforms.

Good guy AMD.

also i still prefer AMD systems when using CAD. they just are faster.


----------



## GreiverBlade (May 28, 2014)

for having a Athlon X4 760K and game on it with a R9 270X i wouldn't say AMD is dead, as many said CPU side they don't care anymore about the race to power, yet their CPU/APU are quite more than enough to build a gaming system without too much compromising. a X4 760K or a G3220 for the same price ... the choice is made.  i want to go back to ATX build but i don't want a Haswell E setup... i guess R9 290, 990FX board and Centurion will be the next move once i got in a better financial state 

as for the GPU both brand hold it but my only leftover of nVidia (if i except the Tegra 2 in my Folio 100  ) is the nForce 2200+2050 in my "workstation" which sadly support only SLI 

i don't believe AMD to be kicking the bucket sooner or later...


----------



## ensabrenoir (May 28, 2014)

What are you guys talking about?.........Amd been dead for a while now.   You know......the *OLD * we're gonna beat intel at being Intel Amd. (dead and stinking) 
The new *were simply gonna do what were good at*  Amd is doing just fine and getting better.
Truly some interesting times ahead.....for everyone!


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 28, 2014)

AMD is not dead because they are really the only competition to Intel. AMD/Intel are a duopoly for all intents and purposes and duopolies rarely die unless broken up by government. That said, I am still waiting for AMD to go back up to $60 per share.


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 28, 2014)

Far from Dead, Yeah Fx hasnt been updated since 8350 came about. They been focusing on Apu and Server markets, Plus they have a deal with ARM in server market. I suspect Steamroller to be the DDR 4 FX platform


----------



## EarthDog (May 28, 2014)

Killer_Rubber_Ducky said:


> I have been having a discussion  with some guys about AMD and Intel. They tell me that AMD is essentially dead and has no idea how to make money. I have tried explaining that AMD does not have as much loose capital to throw into R&D whereas Intel does. AMD has to make smart choices in what products to release.
> So, am I wrong and AMD is in the can? Or are they trashing AMD because it is not Intel?


Sometimes I find it amazing how completely out of touch people are...


----------



## Frick (May 28, 2014)

de.das.dude said:


> also i still prefer AMD systems when using CAD. they just are faster.



Is this part of your "AMD systems just feel snappier" argument?


----------



## 64K (May 28, 2014)

I don't know if the people the OP mentioned are Intel fanboys but I suspect they are. At least they produced some evidence.

Obviously the absolute worst thing that could happen for all of us is for AMD to go under. If you think Nvidia cards are expensive now then what would their prices be with no competition?


----------



## de.das.dude (May 28, 2014)

Frick said:


> Is this part of your "AMD systems just feel snappier" argument?


its not just me, a couple of my contacts who use stuff like vray and kerkythea will agree that amds are faster. maybe because of more cores?


----------



## micropage7 (May 28, 2014)

for me AMD still offer me another option of upgrade and yes, i suggest AMD based especially for anyone who want better graphic than intel solution 
but if you take a look at their products just some of them that really pretty nice and could beat its competitors.
i guess its like when you read newspaper, the most that put in headline is the most wanted one and unfortunately AMD not often on the headline


----------



## Vario (May 28, 2014)

de.das.dude said:


> its not just me, a couple of my contacts who use stuff like vray and kerkythea will agree that amds are faster. maybe because of more cores?


IMO could be fast power saving state to full power state.


----------



## Batou1986 (May 28, 2014)

One thing is for sure AM3+ is dead


----------



## Solaris17 (May 28, 2014)

Kursah said:


> AMD won't be taking home the best CPU performance crown anytime soon, but they are budget beasts and their APUs are solid for budget gaming at medium resolutions. I believe their APU is a solid saving grace for their CPU's, I have been super impressed with the 4500 that came in my Asus K55n laptop. I think they know where their niches are in their respective markets. Top-end CPU's aren't where they can be right now...but don't count them out. I fully expect something epic from them within the next 10-years, imagine 290x and 4770k power on a single die...consuming only 65-90W. That's where I think AMD is heading, and sure by then Intel will have way more CPU power...I think AMD will prove most gamers won't need it so bad when they can attract emptier pocket books to the higher quality PC gaming fringe. This could be a reverse miscalculation on my part...and look at my systems, I'm Intel biased all day long. But that doesn't mean I don't believe in AMD or think they're failing by any means. They're taking a different path and I think it's going to treat them well, especially if the era of Steam Boxes takes off and they get their Linux drivers aced. Just my two cents.



This, I think Intel is running out of steam when it comes to AMD competition. CPUs upto 3+ generations old can still play todays games flawlessly it will sink in to gamers soon enough that the CPU power saturation has already taken place. That will be when people will look to alternatives that are cheaper like AMD and thats when AMD will shine.


----------



## douglatins (May 28, 2014)

Nah


----------



## GhostRyder (May 28, 2014)

AMD just changed their market strategy due to changes in the people, demand, and things that happened in the past.

Intel had an overbearing part of the CPU market and was able to sway it their way years ago.  There was a time where AMD was beating intel in the multi core and the single threaded performance but people rarely remember that segment due to Intel PR.  Big things that changed the way people view things were the Intel Compiler Scandal and the Offers to OEM's to delay or not use AMD CPU's.  A couple years back when this occurred Intel pushed/forced their compiler on the market which intentionally hindered AMD chips and caused a huge loss of performance in apps that used it which caused the AMD chips to look bad.  Along with that came the OEMs being basically told they are not allowed to use AMD chips and they would get either a bonus or they had a chance to lose the Intel chips which caused OEM's to fear even going after the AMD side of things which has caused years and years of losses for AMD and their dwindling market share.  AMD settled the lawsuit, but it was to late and the damage already took its toll and has caused a need for them to rebuild.

AMD nowadays chooses not to compete in the Ultra powered CPU race with more of a focus on the mainstream, GPU integration, and multi-core performance along with HSA.  Intel has that market covered up with a strong line right now and its not changing anytime soon.  But AMD is not dead and the APU line, Consoles, and their newly refocused GPU lines are showing to be a new force to be reckoned with.  The fact so many game companies have pledged loyalty to AMD is proof of that and will show up in time.

I would not say that they are "Dead" in any sense.


----------



## Hilux SSRG (May 28, 2014)

Killer_Rubber_Ducky said:


> The main argument they are using is AMDs Financials. They have referenced the losses AMD has had in 2012 and 2013.



The guys' argument looking at only two years worth of financials is akin to looking at someone's checking account after paying the monthly bills.  It's a small snapshot without any backstory - completely worthless.


----------



## Shambles1980 (May 28, 2014)

imo all amd need to do is get back to basics. do a bit more quality control and concentrate on the important bits of the cpu's to make sure they work to the full potential. its one thing to ct a few corners here and there to get chips on the market, but if they cant perform at the price point you want to sell them at to make a decent profit and you have to drop the prices then thats a problem. 
I would have liked to use amd this time arround but for me the price/performance wasn't there.  
if they had just not cut 1 or 2 corners then would have been good. 

Thats just desktop cpu's though. and a lot of people will say that price/performance is their for them so even then its not dead. 

If you look at consoles. its pretty much 100% amd and consoles are big sellers (even though i dont comprehend why consoles are big sellers) so amd is definitely not dead, by any stretch of the imagination.
just to expand on what i meant about cutting corners. 
the cpu's need to distance them selfs from ati and stop sharing resources. and just do each others own thing.


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 28, 2014)

Shambles the console is like a dvd player, plug n play, there is no software to install, no worry about hitting the wrong button just pop the disk in and it plays


----------



## TheGuruStud (May 28, 2014)

When any large company can cheat as they please, then why is this a surprise? Decades of criminal business strategies by intel and billions of dollars lost to AMD and this is your end result.

And intel is still doing it.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 28, 2014)

AMD Dead? Far from it.  However, just like most times, AMD is struggling and has to be smart.  Luckily AMD is a very smart company and has some very smart leaders in place right now.

Many people point to the fact that we haven't seen a new AM3+ processor as signs of AMD failing.  But AMD has to be smart financially right now.  And I believe they have chosen to dedicate the Fab time to the APU market, specifically the console APUs instead of producing an AM3+ part.  And financially that makes sense.  The console APUs are pretty much guaranteed revenue.  While a new high end AM3+ part is far from a guaranteed money maker.


----------



## Eric_Cartman (May 28, 2014)

natr0n said:


> AMD dominating graphics currently doesn't make me think they're dead.



You can't be serious!

NVidia is using 2 year old GPUs and still wiping the floor with AMD's latest offerings in both performance and power consumption.

Even with the custom coolers that were supposed to be the saving grace of the 290X it still couldn't outperform a bone stock 780Ti.


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 28, 2014)

Eric_Cartman said:


> You can't be serious!
> 
> NVidia is using 2 year old GPUs and still wiping the floor with AMD's latest offerings in both performance and power consumption.
> 
> Even with the custom coolers that were supposed to be the saving grace of the 290X it still couldn't outperform a bone stock 780Ti.



fanboy lol.


----------



## GreiverBlade (May 28, 2014)

Eric_Cartman said:


> You can't be serious!
> 
> NVidia is using 2 year old GPUs and still wiping the floor with AMD's latest offerings in both performance and power consumption.
> 
> Even with the custom coolers that were supposed to be the saving grace of the 290X it still couldn't outperform a bone stock 780Ti.


eh? a 780Ti outperform a R9 290X and wipe the floor with it? also the GK110 isn't technically 2yrs old like the GK104, yet a Titanzee (Titan Z sorry ...) can't barely get above a R9 295x2 (+/-15% is wiping the floor? )
now if you excuse me ... if you take in account the price of a 780Ti/Titan Black/Titanzee (arf Titan Z sorry again) i can't take you seriously.


----------



## Shambles1980 (May 28, 2014)

i can only think of 1 nvidia gpu that is better than an amd offering. and that costs a fortune..
so not to be thought of as a fan boy or anything. but nvidia isnt wiping the floor with any one or anything lol..
and if you want to talk bit coins then there is only 1 company wiping the floor with the other in that scenario..


----------



## Frag_Maniac (May 28, 2014)

I still feel I got a good price on my 7970, but when the high end Maxwells come out and drop to a reasonable price, I'll probably swap over. The games Nvidia's endorsing now are getting better and AMD's drivers lately have been focused primarily on Crossfire fixes, which does not apply to me. There's an increasing number of games that get spotty performance on AMD. A year or two after I got my 7970 AMD was really doing well on game endorsement and drivers, but now they're slacking.

And as was mentioned, the 700 series is a refresh, vs AMD's R9 series being new architecture. The differences when the high end Maxwells come out should be even more drastic. That said, price wise AMD is still doing fairly well. You get roughly 15% less performance on a 290x vs 780 Ti for roughly 15$ less cost. So the uber high end and game support is the only area where Nvidia really have the edge right now. You add that to working off refreshed chips though and it starts to paint the familiar old picture of Nvidia managing their money and R&D better.

I have mixed emotions about this. I like that AMD still offers some level of competition to the market, esp in the mainstream market where player's budgets are a concern, but as a business they're floundering financially so much they are always trying to play catch up. It would be really sad were Nvidia to ever completely control the GPU market. Their prices would stay high a long time. It's bad enough the way it is now in that regard.


----------



## Lionheart (May 28, 2014)

Eric_Cartman said:


> You can't be serious!
> 
> NVidia is using 2 year old GPUs and still wiping the floor with AMD's latest offerings in both performance and power consumption.
> 
> Even with the custom coolers that were supposed to be the saving grace of the 290X it still couldn't outperform a bone stock 780Ti.


----------



## erocker (May 28, 2014)

Nope. Not yet, thank goodness. CPU's aside, if AMD goes away I can't wait to see what Nvidia will charge without competition! Titan Black X GTX Xtreme for $6,000? Mmmmm Hmmm!!


----------



## GreiverBlade (May 28, 2014)

Frag Maniac said:


> You get roughly 15% less performance on a 290x vs 780 Ti for roughly 15$ less cost.



well for exemple : a R9 290X : between 450 and 500chfs now a 780Ti: between 590 and 650chf ... i gladly take 15% performances less for 90 to 200chf less (well when a 290X is effectively 15% under a 780Ti ... ) and even worse with the 290 ... its 290 to 350chfs less and nope the 780Ti doesn't crush any of them (until 30% difference i say they are on par  but that's just me )

and btw 780/780Ti/Titan/Titan Black are not refresh of the 700 line GK110 isn't GK104 oh well ... yes but not quite xD ok it's still the kepler arch, but the R9 are also a refresh, well not Hawaii ofc but GCN 2.0 is not so different than GCN 1.0 and 1.1


----------



## Vario (May 29, 2014)

erocker said:


> Nope. Not yet, thank goodness. CPU's aside, if AMD goes away I can't wait to see what Nvidia will charge without competition! Titan Black X GTX Xtreme for $6,000? Mmmmm Hmmm!!


Radeon would be purchased by another manufacturer probably.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 29, 2014)

This thread is ridiculous.

Ducky you are 30 something years old. Why the hell are you arguing fan boy crap with random people? Why not start another "I got 100 bucks from my grandma. What's better AMD or NVIDIA? WHAT DO?!" thread.


----------



## TRWOV (May 31, 2014)

There you have it. TMM has spoken.


----------



## Mussels (May 31, 2014)

AMD will make a big comeback with DX12, since its lowering the driver overheads. fast GPU + midrange CPU will be the new thing.


----------



## Frick (May 31, 2014)

Frag Maniac said:


> You get roughly 15% less performance on a 290x vs 780 Ti for roughly 15$ less cost.



Depends on where you live mate. Here this 780 Ti (the cheapest in that store btw) is about €100 more than this 290x (cheapest non stock, the cheapest stock is €435). The Asus Matrix Platinum 290x is about €13 more than that 780 Ti though.



TheMailMan78 said:


> This thread is ridiculous.
> 
> Ducky you are 30 something years old. Why the hell are you arguing fan boy crap with random people? Why not start another "I got 100 bucks from my grandma. What's better AMD or NVIDIA? WHAT DO?!" thread.



Wait seriously, he's really that old? o_o


----------



## Sir B. Fannybottom (May 31, 2014)

YUP! They're dead, I hear they're selling all their gear for super cheap too. Sell your stocks now guys!


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (May 31, 2014)

Id argue nvidia are on the ropes more, no ones buying tegra , their discrete share is dropping and their compute cards can easily be drop kicked by amd gpus or intels knightscorner in Dp and they are chasing autos same as everyone else for a buck atm.
But then this is just as stupid as the Ops statement despite being true because no.
Nvidia , amd , intel they all got their fingers in enough money jars to keep going. ....


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (May 31, 2014)

For the high end desktop enthusiast they're about half-dead since they've pretty much given up on competing with i7s, but we aren't where the money is. As long as they keep focused on the big markets they'll continue to do fine.


----------



## chuck216 (May 31, 2014)

I don't think so, I recently built the system in my specs, little by little just got the Videocard and SSD


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jun 1, 2014)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> For the high end desktop enthusiast they're about half-dead since they've pretty much given up on competing with i7s..


I think you're letting benchmarks and Intel fanboys deceive you there. Yes, Intel has higher performance in games that don't use more than two CPU cores, but those are mostly games you don't have to worry about frame rates on anyway. On quad threaded games the AMD CPUs do just fine, and are a great value.

Is it really getting killed or being "half dead" when an Intel chip produces 100FPS in a game that an AMD chip produces only 80 or less in? Anything beyond 60 is rarely even noticeable except in a bench test.

Then there's the huge business AMD does in laptops, consoles and budget gaming desktops. I see their cup as half full, not half empty.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 1, 2014)

Frag Maniac said:


> I think you're letting benchmarks and Intel fanboys deceive you there. Yes, Intel has higher performance in games that don't use more than two CPU cores, but those are mostly games you don't have to worry about frame rates on anyway. On quad threaded games the AMD CPUs do just fine, and are a great value.
> 
> Is it really getting killed or being "half dead" when an Intel chip produces 100FPS in a game that an AMD chip produces only 80 or less in? Anything beyond 60 is rarely even noticeable except in a bench test.
> 
> Then there's the huge business AMD does in laptops, consoles and budget gaming desktops. I see their cup as half full, not half empty.


There is a difference between 60FPS average or 60FPS constant. Intel has a far better constant. Not to mention Intel has far better mobo driver support.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jun 1, 2014)

Frag Maniac said:


> I think you're letting benchmarks and Intel fanboys deceive you there. Yes, Intel has higher performance in games that don't use more than two CPU cores, but those are mostly games you don't have to worry about frame rates on anyway. On quad threaded games the AMD CPUs do just fine, and are a great value. Is it really getting killed or being "half dead" when an Intel chip produces 100FPS in a game that an AMD chip produces only 80 or less in? Anything beyond 60 is rarely even noticeable except in a bench test. Then there's the huge business AMD does in laptops, consoles and budget gaming desktops. I see their cup as half full, not half empty.



Yeah you're over thinking it and greatly underestimating the need for top cpu performance in current games. AMD didn't stop releasing high end cpus because their current selection is good enough. They stopped because closing the gap is hopeless, so they've refocused on bigger markets that bring in more cash.


----------



## Shambles1980 (Jun 1, 2014)

i tried bulldozer.. honestly its not very good at all. and i wanted it to be good, and i wanted it to be good enough for me.. 
it simply wasn't it really isnt about avarage frame rates. or max frame rates, all that matters at the end of the day is min frame rates..
and my min frame rates with bulldozer were lower and more frequent than they are with an i5 2nd gen.. 
they were in the same ball park as an over clocked q6600. 
Bulldozer unfortunately put amd in a worse position than they were before they released it. 
Having said that i still dont think amd are dead, far from it. 
But its not bench marks and fan boys.. it really simply is the min fps which come in cpu heavy situations. and the fact that more of the time the intel processors will do what they do and do it well. when the amd cpu's can out perform them then the intel chips still manage to maintain a perfectly healthy min fps. the issue amd have is that when they struggle to perform on par with the intel chips the min fps suffer and drop below acceptable levels. 
Again i must stress that my opinion on this matter comes from using a bulldozer chip. 
Which makes me believe fully that the bulldozers did a lot more damage to amd than intel did. it would be very difficult for me to buy an amd cpu now unless i was just building a server. price - performance i cant see how you can beat an i5-2xxxk or i5-3xxxk to be honest with you. 
and thats a real shame too after phenom II's..

But many years ago it was all intel then amd smashed them and intel really didn't come back until the core2's. 
for me it was from 333Mhz cpu's up to core2 amd made the best cpu's, and thats a long time really. so im sure they can come back again and show how the underdogs do come out good every now and then.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 1, 2014)

miomol said:


> For me, nvidia is dead. I had 10 GPU's, friends: 3, 2, 4.
> 
> 6600GT, 8400GS, 9600GT and much much more - dead. GTX460 - hot as f..ck and driver problems. I never buy nvidia again.
> One of my friends is nvidia fanboy, has GTX760 but he said "I will try radeon when I buy new card".
> ...


Sounds like your friends don't know what they are doing.


----------



## Misaki (Jun 1, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Sounds like your friends don't know what they are doing.


We know what we're doing. Nvidia is dead for us, no matter what.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 1, 2014)

Doubt it.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jun 1, 2014)

Frag Maniac said:


> ...
> 
> Is it really getting killed or being "half dead" when an Intel chip produces 100FPS in a game that an AMD chip produces only 80 or less in? Anything beyond 60 is rarely even noticeable except in a bench test.
> 
> Then there's the huge business AMD does in laptops, consoles and budget gaming desktops. I see their cup as half full, not half empty.




What?  I can't express in simple words what I feel when someone says something like this.

I will defend AMD, Nvidea, and Intel as all having their benefits and problems, but if you're running all of your games at 80 FPS or greater either you've got miniscule resolutions, or you've forgotten to turn on all the options that make things needlessly pretty.  You should really be wary about proclaiming that there is no difference, when your benchmark is gaming four years ago, or in a situation that either is or will rapidly be outmoded.


Back on topic, AMD is more than the sum of its parts.  The APU division is doing well, and has acceptable performance in low power usage environments.  The GPU division is doing well, despite the mining bust.  Where AMD lacks is the CPU division.  I'm not going to argue whether the new architectures are viable, so much as they aren't moving units.  AMD has acquiesced to this, and rather than fight it they've introduced the idea of heterogeneous computing.  

I'm not holding out great hope for heterogeneous computing in high end PCs within this decade.  At the same time, if AMD gets power consumption somewhere in the realm of reason I can definitely see buying a device with enough chutzpah to deliver on what the Shield originally promised.  The ball is in AMD's court, and they've made it abundantly clear that the APU is it for them.  

For those of us who want more CPU power, AMD is dead.  They aren't even trying to compete with Intel, and that's a hard pill to swallow.  Fortunately, AMD isn't just giving up, they are refocusing on a different strategy.  Changing strategies isn't death, and if Intel fans want to argue this then they can go suck on Netburst.  As far as I'm concerned, my hardware isn't in need of replacement in the next three years (more than that if Intel continues to increase performance barely more than single percentage figures).  In that time I believe AMD will have either forced Intel to change, or be competing in a very different way.  Only time will tell.


----------



## johnspack (Jun 1, 2014)

AMD's video cards are monster.  They have a card half the price of the Titan-Z that can keep up with it.  Their APU market is superior to intel's.  They are doing just fine.....


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jun 1, 2014)

LOL, I think you guys are over-thinking what I said. I'm not saying AMD can compete on high end gaming rigs, but in mainstream gaming they are doing just fine. Uber resolutions past 1080p and multi GPU systems are not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the average joe's rig that makes up the bulk of gaming systems being driven just fine by their better CPUs.

And those dual threaded games typically are not a problem with constant vs average FPS. For a lot of gamers, a $200+ CPU would seriously limit how much GPU power they could buy, which is where AMD comes in. The gaming industry is much healthier with AMD  in the mix, but too many people treat them like they're worthless.

Besides that the thread is about AMD in general, not AMD CPUs specifically, and their GPUs need no defense. In GPUs if anything it's Nvidia that should be lambasted for not offering more VRAM than they are. It's a big part of why I went with a 7970.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jun 1, 2014)

Shambles1980 said:


> But its not bench marks and fan boys.. it really simply is the min fps which come in cpu heavy situations. and the fact that more of the time the intel processors will do what they do and do it well. when the amd cpu's can out perform them then the intel chips still manage to maintain a perfectly healthy min fps.



for me it's : "price/performance ratio, the lowest price for the average acceptable performances"  your problem is you tested buldozer, well testing piledriver would have be the same ... and a 8350 effectively beat a i7 in some conditions, but not gaming.

yet my Athlon X4 760k(FM2) paid 60$ new and a R9 270X  +8gb 2133 suffice for what i need (and i had also some intel and nV chips: i7-920 E3-1275V2 and 580(SLI)/770(single) ) why did i switch to a dubbed "almost dead" company?
because they are all but dead, for the resell price if the 2 previous rig i had (aforementioned) i could buy 4 rigs like the one i have in my sys specs as a main rig, but i was in a problematic phase so i bought only one  but that rig give me satisfying performances (ofc drop under 30fps are a bit a pain but they tend to come rarely) and above 30fps is perfectly fine (it's already unnoticeable, no need for 60fps for the human eye, well at last not for me) and i play BF3/4 Crysis 3 Far cry 3  skyrim heavy moded some MMO (and except the Fxaa i rarely play under ultra)

in 2 weeks my financial status will be back to the green, i intend to change my µReborn rig ... with what: a 8350 or a 9590 and a 990FX + eventually a R9 290/290X well because it will cost me half the price (even a bit less than half) of a i5 4570K a Z87 and a 780/780Ti and give me the same result.

so except for fanoboy talk or bench (instead of real situation case) AMD is not dead and as @Frag Maniac said it's much healthier for the gaming industry with AMD


----------



## jamesLyle (Jun 1, 2014)

Let us wait for the Funeral, first.
I detect a Heartbeat.


----------



## Hirotoshi (Jun 1, 2014)

Of course AMD isn't dead. Like for me AMD make GPUs with best performance/price ratio. Bulldozer CPUs? Well, mistakes happens. They actually good at APUs and notebook CPUs.


----------



## ne6togadno (Jun 1, 2014)




----------



## Shambles1980 (Jun 1, 2014)

what are those max avarage or minimum fps?
also a lot of the comments on the page seem to say they have the same cpu, and they dont get that kind of performance.


----------



## jamesLyle (Jun 2, 2014)

Amd cannot be dead I! just saw them In downtown Modesto,Ca. It was this Morning.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jun 2, 2014)

ne6togadno said:


>



LOL, I've seen this video and I noticed none of the AMD CPU bashers here want tot talk about it. That's because as the video suggests, A) Intel fanatics don't want to compare same price point CPUs, and B) they don't want to talk about the fact that Intel CPU benches often show specific games, like Nvidia ones do.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 2, 2014)

Frag Maniac said:


> LOL, I've seen this video and I noticed none of the AMD CPU bashers here want tot talk about it. That's because as the video suggests, A) Intel fanatics don't want to compare same price point CPUs, and B) they don't want to talk about the fact that Intel CPU benches often show specific games, like Nvidia ones do.


Used AMD for years. The fact is you get better performance with Intel. Want to go cheap? AMD is fine. However 2600K still smacks around 90% of AMD offerings for dirt cheap.

There is nothing wrong with AMD but you are an idiot to think they are in the same league as Intel CPU's and chipsets. The old school FX days are over. Time to move on. You want speed? You got to go Intel.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jun 2, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Used AMD for years. The fact is you get better performance with Intel. Want to go cheap? AMD is fine. However 2600K still smacks around 90% of AMD offerings for dirt cheap.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with AMD but you are an idiot to think they are in the same league as Intel CPU's and chipsets. The old school FX days are over. Time to move on. You want speed? You got to go Intel.



I have a hard time taking your posts as holistic truth when you are so biased toward a set type of game that meets your criteria for the eye candy you've spoiled yourself with. You're widely known as one of the most exaggerating eccentrics on the site because of it, nit picking to no end on trailers. This is the same kind of hype CPUs are benched with.

At the end of the day AMD still typically outperforms on equal price chips and even holds it's own when you bench *a wide range of titles, *instead of just Intel fanboy ones.


----------



## Hilux SSRG (Jun 2, 2014)

Frag Maniac said:


> LOL, I've seen this video and I noticed none of the AMD CPU bashers here want tot talk about it. That's because as the video suggests, A) Intel fanatics don't want to compare same price point CPUs, and B) they don't want to talk about the fact that Intel CPU benches often show specific games, like Nvidia ones do.



I have nothing against AMD, but that video [1.5yrs. old] compares a 8350 to a then 6mos. old 3570k.


----------



## Shambles1980 (Jun 2, 2014)

all i know for a fact is the fx-8120 was terrible and could not even come close to an i5-2500k.
i really hope that the 83xx are as good as that 1 review says, and that the rest of the review sites are all bought out by intel and wrong. 
(personally I dont like the review, no min frames and max frames.. so he could do a 20 min bench test. then stand by a wall for 10 mins with 400fps on amd and 200fps on intel then runs around for the next 10 minutes, the intel gets a min of 60 fps. and and the amd gets a min of 29fps. the lower frames of the amd drags down the avarages. but at the end of the 10 mins the amd is still 5fps ahead.. )
im not saying that is what happened. but its why i dont like the review/benchmark system. averages don't mean crap to me. all i want to know are the minimums.
Also some of the games tested really could not load either the gpu or cpu fully.  but some how there is a 100fps difference..
so im not sure how much i can take from the review.

in my own personal experience an 8120 is about the same as a overclocked q6600,. Its hard to imagine that a 8350 is 60-70% faster than an 8120.  but i dont doubt it has to be better than bulldozer.
i would also like to point out that i bought an 8120 because i bought the amd fanboy spoof that for gaming that the bulldozers were just as good as a 2nd gen intel really
.All that did however was get sold on almost instantly and replaced.
I would be pretty happy if the 8350 was able to out perform even an i5-2500k which would make it a decent choice of cpu. but i dont think the 10% better performance over bulldozer that amd states piledriver has is enough to close the gap that i saw with my own eyes.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 2, 2014)

Frag Maniac said:


> I have a hard time taking your posts as holistic truth when you are so biased toward a set type of game that meets your criteria for the eye candy you've spoiled yourself with. You're widely known as one of the most exaggerating eccentrics on the site because of it, nit picking to no end on trailers. This is the same kind of hype CPUs are benched with.
> 
> At the end of the day AMD still typically outperforms on equal price chips and even holds it's own when you bench *a wide range of titles, *instead of just Intel fanboy ones.


I'm sorry I thought this was an enthusiasts site? I didn't realize it was a mediocre gaming forum. Most PC gamers expect the best eye candy they can afford. This is why we are PC gamers and not console kiddies. If all you can afford is AMD then great! Its still better than consoles. However, you are beyond naïve to think AMD can hang with Intel on high end gaming rigs. Wanna play Farmville and 10 year old DX9 games? Sure AMD is awesome. Want to play Skyrim with a decent FPS? Yeah, you better go Intel. Sorry buckaroo that's just the way the chips fall.


----------



## broken pixel (Jun 2, 2014)

AMD still has the crypto comput advantage over Nvidia.


----------



## The Von Matrices (Jun 2, 2014)

broken pixel said:


> AMD still has the crypto comput advantage over Nvidia.



Not against the Maxwell architecture:



Spoiler



http://www.pcper.com/news/General-T...-Performance-Increases-Maxwell-and-GTX-750-Ti













Plus, I don't think AMD wants that market anyway.  Shortages of cards and high prices are bad when their PR focuses on affordable gaming.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Jun 3, 2014)

Yeah it's not exactly an advantage, miners are money grabbers and don't offer any brand loyalty at all. All they did was create shortages and push up prices forcing AMD's real target audience to sit there frustrated and priced out of the market.

In turn once whatever they are mining is deemed not profitable enough, they are quick to flood the market with cheap AMD hardware, again not doing AMD any favours (despite their PR at pushing prices down).

AMD will survive, it's kinda what they do... float along giving away tech and not making much money.


----------



## satindemon4u (Jun 3, 2014)

Maybe I am hard headed and ignorant for posting without reading some of the other posts BUT; it seems to me that if someone were arguing with you that AMD is dead they must have some sort of grudge against the company. Perhaps they received some piece of equipment from them that was DOA. Whatever the reason, it seems that there logic was backed by nothing but opinion instead of factual information. I must agree with you though that AMD doesn't have near the capitol to toss around like Intel does. I believe that AMD is doing a fine job. So much so that I personally have never purchased a video card from them but I think it may be my next.


----------



## buildzoid (Jun 3, 2014)

I still think AMD is optimum for entering pc gaming. An fx6300 or fx4350 + 970 mobo cost the same as a single i5 4670 have the same pcie lanes the same amount of sata and preform similarly well in most games excluding RTSs and MMOs. An unOCed fx 6300 + 7970 does 35 to 60 fps in completely maxed out Planetside 2 @ 1080p. That's only 10fps less than my 3960x got with that exact same card. and as long as people building gaming pcs know that AMD should be fine.


----------



## jamesLyle (Jun 3, 2014)

Intel Fans should all Be thankful for Amd. for with out the competition Amd has provided prices would be higher and the technology would not be as good.
This is a fact no one can deny. I am currently using amd. If I can afford it my next build will be Intel. I am thankful for both Intel and Amd. We should all hope that AMD sticks
around, If not we will all eventually suffer.


----------



## Vario (Jun 3, 2014)

Frag Maniac said:


> LOL, I've seen this video and I noticed none of the AMD CPU bashers here want tot talk about it. That's because as the video suggests, A) Intel fanatics don't want to compare same price point CPUs, and B) they don't want to talk about the fact that Intel CPU benches often show specific games, like Nvidia ones do.



Using a crystal ball tells me that discussing it will result in the thread being locked.
Here is the data, go crazy:
https://teksyndicate.com/videos/amd...s-3820-gaming-and-xsplit-streaming-benchmarks


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 3, 2014)

Get an 8350 to 5ghz  with decent northbridge speeds and they are easily game ready until way after windows 9 hits the Street.
I get a rock and I mean rock solid 30fps in watchdog's on ultra with temporal AA and vysnc x2, 2 x frames but admit turning off vsync makes for eratic fps and stuttering.
Amd cheap in well rocks and for those who just love to tweak and stress different ocs amd wins on features and settings by far they are more fun to oc imho.


----------



## JunkBear (Jun 3, 2014)

I'm not a knowledgeable guy in newer technology but I think that if AMD pushed their APU to  business minded people at large scale, schools and government offices they could make more money while keeping the dollars rolling. Cheap effective systems that cost less electricity and stay cool. Replacing these more expensive Intel cpu and lower integrated Intel gpu card with APU could be a bump also in imagery for hospitals purpose.


----------



## suraswami (Jun 3, 2014)

Vario said:


> Using a crystal ball tells me that discussing it will result in the thread being locked.
> Here is the data, go crazy:
> https://teksyndicate.com/videos/amd...s-3820-gaming-and-xsplit-streaming-benchmarks




Here you go, just to make your life easy!!


----------



## Frick (Jun 3, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I'm sorry I thought this was an enthusiasts site? I didn't realize it was a mediocre gaming forum. Most PC gamers expect the best eye candy they can afford. This is why we are PC gamers and not console kiddies. If all you can afford is AMD then great! Its still better than consoles. However, you are beyond naïve to think AMD can hang with Intel on high end gaming rigs. Wanna play Farmville and 10 year old DX9 games? Sure AMD is awesome. Want to play Skyrim with a decent FPS? Yeah, you better go Intel. Sorry buckaroo that's just the way the chips fall.



I'm glad the troll is alive and well. 

(i'm not saying you're wrong, just that you're a troll, because you are)


----------



## Dent1 (Jun 3, 2014)

suraswami said:


> Here you go, just to make your life easy!!
> 
> View attachment 57084



According to that chart, the AMD 8 core  is ahead in 3/5 of those tests.

Funny how the Intel trolls are not challenging it or disputing it.


BTW was that your own person test?


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 3, 2014)

Also interesting that the fx 9570 etc is all but forgotten when many troll amds high end cpu output ie they are still releasing something just not at intels accelerated yet largely irrelevant pace


----------



## heflys20 (Jun 3, 2014)

Dent1 said:


> According to that chart, the AMD 8 core  is ahead in 3/5 of those tests.
> 
> Funny how the Intel trolls are not challenging it or disputing it.
> 
> ...



To play devil's advocate, I saw another test(s) that included Metro 2033 where the 8350 is getting beaten by a 4430 (which, oddly, beat out both the 4670k and 4770k) and falters a bit in multi-gpu setups.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7189/choosing-a-gaming-cpu-september-2013/6

But that's all moot really.

Is AMD dead? Of course not, it's silly to assume such.


----------



## Shambles1980 (Jun 3, 2014)

Dent1 said:


> According to that chart, the AMD 8 core  is ahead in 3/5 of those tests.
> 
> Funny how the Intel trolls are not challenging it or disputing it.
> 
> ...


prehaps because the inetl users dont mind if they were better, its the amd boys that usually have a rage fit when things are said lol.


----------



## Vario (Jun 3, 2014)

So did the nice man from the video do minimum frame rates or maximum frame rate or average frame rate?

Here is a test of minimum frame rate from bit-tech













suraswami said:


> Here you go, just to make your life easy!!
> 
> View attachment 57084




Hes running x split.  Who is actually gonna encode and game at the same time?  Its gonna get really amusing when people are still comparing the 8350 to the 2nd generation core in a few years given that we are already on the 4th and it hasn't surpassed the 2nd (3 year old architecture).  How can anyone recommend that specifically for games, its like recommending a Pentium 4.  Its not even a budget alternative you have to buy a more expensive motherboard, more expensive power supply, more expensive heat sink fan.  By then you have already spent more money.

Hopefully AMD will kill the FX series soon so we never have to have another dumb thread like this.


----------



## ne6togadno (Jun 3, 2014)

Vario said:


> So did the nice man from the video do minimum frame rates or maximum frame rate or average frame rate?
> 
> Here is a test of minimum frame rate from bit-tech
> 
> ...


dude vidoe is 1.5 years old. 4th gen came out about 1 year after video.
btw if 3570 and 3770 is 2nd gen what is 3rd gen then
how did you get you need more expencieve mb for fx.
more expencieve psu? what for?
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/K7CGxr
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/QmtVD3
both builds same except cpu, mb and ram (1600 vs 2133 for fx). less then 50w difference!
so cause of those 50W you need 1.5kw titanium psu for 500$+? rly?


----------



## Bucho (Jun 3, 2014)

Of course is AMD not dead, and I am thankful for that!

AMD started in the x86 business by cloning (licenced by Intel) it's 8086, 8088 and later 286 CPUs. After that the struggle with Intel began and AMD had to reverse engineer the Intel CPUs to produce their own 386 and 486 CPUs. That's when they started to slightly differ in performance.
With the K5, the aquirement of NextGen and finally the K6 AMD went their own way and developed and created their own x86 CPUs.

Since then they had ups and downs but always offered a good choice for budget oriented users and sometimes even the high end users.
Some examples:
The Am486DX4 and 5x86 CPUs were cheap and most of the times could outperform the early Pentium CPUs that were way more expensive.
Then the Pentium (P54 and P55 models) dominated
The K6 was sometimes faster and cheaper than the Pentium MMX and sometimes even the first Pentium II
The K6-2/3/+ also had a nice fight with the Pentium II and early Pentium III CPUs.
Then the Pentium IIIs dominated again but only for a short time ...
The Athlon CPUs were faster than most of the P3 models and more important in the low budged/mainstream sector the Duron was way faster than the early Celerons.
The P4 had a hard way to go because the Athlon XPs were cheaper and sometimes even faster until the P4 finally reached high MHz and stayed on top.
Until the Athlon 64 made the high clocked P4s blush ... so Intel had to find new ways and tried to gain some land by releasing the P4 Ds and even higher clocked single core P4s.
But AMDs Athlon X2 were usually cheaper and ofter faster.
Finally the Core 2 dominated again and AMD had a rough start with their Phenom I architecture.
The Phenom II then again were pretty good again and could hold up and sometimes even beat the Core2Quad CPUs.
But since the Core i series AMD did not really had a comeback.

The GPU side is still good, most of the time AMD has the better price/performance ratio. I don't really favor a manufacturer here and it seems like most of the people that have problems with their cards or drivers just have bad luck (compatibility issues, driver issues, messed up systems aso.)
It's like the harddrive story, someone has made bad experiences with a brand and the other one with a different brand. You can't summarize it that way since every manufacturer had bad series and failing drives.

The APUs are interesting as well, but I don't really know where to put them. The only usage that comes to mind is a HTPC. If you want to do medium gaming most of them are too weak and the better ones are too expensive. Instead I would get a Athlon X4 760K and a dedicated GPU.
And if you only use it for internet/video/very minor gaming and daily use you could go with a cheapass Celeron G or Pentium G too.



JunkBear said:


> I'm not a knowledgeable guy in newer technology but I think that if AMD pushed their APU to  business minded people at large scale, schools and government offices they could make more money while keeping the dollars rolling. Cheap effective systems that cost less electricity and stay cool. Replacing these more expensive Intel cpu and lower integrated Intel gpu card with APU could be a bump also in imagery for hospitals purpose.


I don't see the need for that. As I said just above the quote, for the large scale (schools, offices ...) the low priced Intel CPUs are just fine. They have plenty of CPU power, the integrated HD graphics is good enough for what is needed and they are very power efficient.


----------



## Dent1 (Jun 3, 2014)

heflys20 said:


> To play devil's advocate, I saw another test(s) that included Metro 2033 where the 8350 is getting beaten by a 4430 (which, oddly, beat out both the 4670k and 4770k) and falters a bit in multi-gpu setups.
> 
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/7189/choosing-a-gaming-cpu-september-2013/6
> 
> ...



I should think so, the  i5 4430 is Haswell. The Piledriver FX 8 core was released was more inline to compete with the Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge. It's a Shame we never got a Steamroller FX.

But keep in mind on that chart the i5s, i7s and FX 8 core are within margin for error. 1-3 FPs separation so can't really make a logical assessment based on that.


----------



## ne6togadno (Jun 3, 2014)

Dent1 said:


> I should think so, the  i5 4430 is Haswell. The Piledriver FX 8 core was released was more inline to compete with the Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge. It's a Shame we never got a Steamroller FX.
> 
> But keep in mind on that chart the i5s, i7s and FX 8 core are within margin for error. 1-3 FPs separation so can't really make a logical assessment based on that.


if you look at other tested games you will see same results. intel has big advantage in 3 way cf setup (most likely in 4 way cf margin will be even bigger). in signle and dual vga config fx keeps it up quite well with intel cpus.
i cant understand why in cpu test civ5 is tested for fps instead for end of turn calculation time.


----------



## heflys20 (Jun 3, 2014)

Dent1 said:


> I should think so, the  i5 4430 is Haswell. The Piledriver FX 8 core was released was more inline to compete with the Ivy Bridge. It's a Shame we never got a Steamroller FX.
> 
> But keep in mind on that chart the i5s, i7s and FX 8 core are within margin for error. 1-3 FPs separation so can't really make a logical assessment based on that.



Well, the 4430 is beating the 4670k and 4770k in that bench, which are being beaten by the 8350. The 8350 is essentially dead even with the 2500k.



> i cant understand why in cpu test civ5 is tested for fps instead for end of turn calculation time.



It might be difficult to replicate the same results for each turn.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jun 3, 2014)

Vario said:


> So did the nice man from the video do minimum frame rates or maximum frame rate or average frame rate?
> 
> Here is a test of minimum frame rate from bit-tech
> 
> ...


well those number are perfectly acceptable the FX's perform way enough also the failure is to compare them to a 4770/4770K instead of the cpu in their price range. (since a 8320 cost 160chf where i am ... in that range you have what? i3 and low power i5)

i did the step for "upgrading" my µATX build well i go AM3+/R9 290 and it will cost me under the price of 3 i5 4590 and will still perfome enough to not make me regret a 4590+H87 with some fancy upgrades(sorry i mean H97) and a 780/780Ti

enthusiast forum ... yes but enthusiast can also be bound by a budget  
example: 
Intel setup: 1091.60chf 4590/H97/8gb/GTX 780/700w/entry level case and that's by selecting the cheapest etailer and brand around
amd setup: 745chf        8320/990X/8gb/R9 290/700w/entry level case, well indeed the mobo and 290 are 2nd hand but still fully covered by a 22 and 21month waranty


----------



## Tatty_One (Jun 3, 2014)

Graphs are wonderful things to prove a point or argument but they don't always consistently reflect real world experience in my opinion, for an example, my oldest daughter wants a "simple" desktop to just function as a surfing machine with possibly the ability to watch the odd streaming movie, she has a 7.1 inch tablet and does not want a bigger one, she already has a decent 23 inch monitor, so for kicks I thought I would get her one of the new(ish) socket AM1 CPU's (Athlon 5350) with motherboard, a setup tha can be had for around $75 in the US, but of course hardly "enthusiast".

So anyways, I thought I would do a little research on performance/capabilities, I came across a review site that had slotted in a GTX 750Ti as a descreet addition to this budget system, they didnt go for anything better because the x16 PCI-E 2.0 socket actually has ONLY x4 lanes electrical, taking this information into account, it may surprise some that in testing a number of modern games it bettered performance in one and pretty much matched it in another (so yes the 6 core was the winner but hey......  just 4 PCI-E lanes against 20 times the price?), this Intel 6 core CPU (3960x) cost $1000 at launch with the same graphics card, obviously those were not CPU intensive games.........

So my point? can I now say based on this link that a $40 AMD CPU can compete with a $1000 Intel 6 core CPU in some games?  Well I am sure I could but it wouldn't really reflect the true picture, but this is where the AMD market sits now, if offers a low cost solution that works, perhaps not as well as it's main competitor, but it still works.  To my surprise it was Battlefeld 4 it marginally beat, a game that is well known for stressing as many cores/threads as you can throw at it?


----------



## Vario (Jun 3, 2014)

ne6togadno said:


> dude vidoe is 1.5 years old. 4th gen came out about 1 year after video.
> btw if 3570 and 3770 is 2nd gen what is 3rd gen then
> how did you get you need more expencieve mb for fx.
> more expencieve psu? what for?
> ...


In games, 8350 can't compete with the second gen i5 2500k


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jun 3, 2014)

Vario said:


> In games, 8350 can't compete with the second gen i5 2500k


well i bet my 8320 will be fine ... who care ... even a 2nd hand i5-2500K cost more than a 8320 new and sometime i see people go ballistic over a 2500K and a 1chf start price transform in a 300chf buyout price  (at last they should take a 4770 if they want to spend 300chf on a intel cpu  ) 

well of course it can compete even with the higher cpu, as long as it give enough for the game to be smooth and at a min/max ratio of 1-4 i wouldn't say a 2500K crush it


----------



## Dent1 (Jun 3, 2014)

Vario said:


> In games, 8350 can't compete with the second gen i5 2500k



Get a dictionary. There is a difference between compete and "beat". You can underperform and still be competitive.

The 8350 is a second generation FX,  you are making it sound like its a 3rd, 4th or 5th gen FX. Your statement is misleading and has no merit.

Also in closing, whilst encoding, encrypting, compressing, transcoding, rendering, i5 2500k cant "beat" a second gen FX 8350. (I can play immature too )


----------



## Bucho (Jun 3, 2014)

@Tatty_One 
Yah those SoC AMDs based on the Jaguar cores are pretty sweet, but mainly for HTPCs and maybe like you said office/surfing PCs.
Interesting to see it paired with a dedicated GPU and some surprising scores there. I guess it shows what game is GPU limited with that 750Ti. 

But then again the Athlon 5350 is a brand new CPU with 4 cores (although only at ~ 2GHz) and I guess you would get about the same scores with a Core 2 Quad 8200 or Phenom II X4 910 or something that's like 5-6 years old now. 
An the Athlon 5350 is about 47 EUR here were I live and for that money you can also get a Pentium G3240 that should outperform the Athlon in any game that does not profit of the 4 cores. And for almost half the price (28 EUR) you could get a Celeron G1820 that also should be faster in any program that uses only up to 2 cores.

On the other side, I would like to see a 8 Jaguar or Puma core CPU clocked way higher to see how it really performs (<- that should be about a XBox One or PS4 CPU).


----------



## suraswami (Jun 3, 2014)

Dent1 said:


> According to that chart, the AMD 8 core  is ahead in 3/5 of those tests.
> Funny how the Intel trolls are not challenging it or disputing it.
> BTW was that your own person test?



I just compiled a chart based on numbers from the website link that vario posted.



Tatty_One said:


> Graphs are wonderful things to prove a point or argument but they don't always consistently reflect real world experience in my opinion, for an example, my oldest daughter wants a "simple" desktop to just function as a surfing machine with possibly the ability to watch the odd streaming movie, she has a 7.1 inch tablet and does not want a bigger one, she already has a decent 23 inch monitor, so for kicks I thought I would get her one of the new(ish) socket AM1 CPU's (Athlon 5350) with motherboard, a setup tha can be had for around $75 in the US, but of course hardly "enthusiast".
> 
> So anyways, I thought I would do a little research on performance/capabilities, I came across a review site that had slotted in a GTX 750Ti as a descreet addition to this budget system, they didnt go for anything better because the x16 PCI-E 2.0 socket actually has ONLY x4 lanes electrical, taking this information into account, it may surprise some that in testing a number of modern games it bettered performance in one and pretty much matched it in another (so yes the 6 core was the winner but hey......  just 4 PCI-E lanes against 20 times the price?), this Intel 6 core CPU (3960x) cost $1000 at launch with the same graphics card, obviously those were not CPU intensive games.........
> 
> So my point? can I now say based on this link that a $40 AMD CPU can compete with a $1000 Intel 6 core CPU in some games?  Well I am sure I could but it wouldn't really reflect the true picture, but this is where the AMD market sits now, if offers a low cost solution that works, perhaps not as well as it's main competitor, but it still works.  To my surprise it was Battlefeld 4 it marginally beat, a game that is well known for stressing as many cores/threads as you can throw at it?



As a parent and sole bread winner if you can provide the grin on your kids face for minimum money (well spent) then AMD achieved their goal!!

Just to continue this dumb thread, say if somebody wants to sell that 3960x CPU that was bought for $1000 after 6 years, what would be its value?


----------



## Dent1 (Jun 3, 2014)

ne6togadno said:


> if you look at other tested games you will see same results. intel has big advantage in 3 way cf setup (most likely in 4 way cf margin will be even bigger). in signle and dual vga config fx keeps it up quite well with intel cpus.
> i cant understand why in cpu test civ5 is tested for fps instead for end of turn calculation time.



I think when you start talking about 3 and 4 way CF, the sample of enthusiasts whom strive for that set up is so small its not worth even mentioning. Like I love reading reviews benchmarking those types of rigs but I cant imagine many people have the desire to own one.



Dent1 said:


> According to that chart, the AMD 8 core  is ahead in 3/5 of those tests. Funny how the Intel trolls are not challenging it or disputing it.
> BTW was that your own person test?





suraswami said:


> I just compiled a chart based on numbers from the website link that vario posted.



I see, funny how Vario didn't reply back explaining why the AMD 8 core won 3/5 in his very own link


----------



## Vario (Jun 3, 2014)

Dent1 said:


> Get a dictionary. There is a difference between compete and "beat". You can underperform and still be competitive.
> 
> The 8350 is a second generation FX,  you are making it sound like its a 3rd, 4th or 5th gen FX. Your statement is misleading and has no merit.
> 
> Also in closing, whilst encoding, encrypting, compressing, transcoding, rendering, i5 2500k cant "beat" a second gen FX 8350. (I can play immature too )



Yes, while encoding, encrypting, compressing, transcoding, and rendering, an i5 can't beat a FX 8350. You are correct.
But here was my post


Vario said:


> In games, 8350 can't compete with the second gen i5 2500k





Dent1 said:


> I think when you start talking about 3 and 4 way CF, the sample of enthusiasts whom strive for that set up is so small its not worth even mentioning. Like I love reading reviews benchmarking those types of rigs but I cant imagine many people have the desire to own one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Learn to read.  My "own link" was to the summation of the youtube video. Reply back was here:



Vario said:


> Hes running x split.  Who is actually gonna encode and game at the same time?


----------



## Dent1 (Jun 3, 2014)

suraswami said:


> I just compiled a chart based on numbers from the website link that vario posted.





Vario said:


> Learn to read.  My "own link" was to the summation of the youtube video. Reply back was here:



You learn to read. I'm responding to suraswami, whom said it was website link that you posted.

If you feel otherwise you should be messaging suraswami?



Vario said:


> Hes running x split. Who is actually gonna encode and game at the same time?



PS.  I game use to always have background tasks. Doing some light encoding or even burning a CD in the background is very common.  When I was a big gamer I never used to close games when switching to another game, so I would have 3-4 games minimised whilst playing another.



Vario said:


> Teksyndicate presents an unrealistic scenario where he is gaming and video encoding at the same time.  Obviously an 8 core will perform well at this.  That is the only video on the net where the FX excels over the i5 and i7.



Only an unrealistic scenario if you don't have a genuine 8 core processor.  Seriously, it may seem pointless but the more stress you put on the CPU whilst gaming, the better indication it'll perform when games become more intensive.



Vario said:


> Great, then the FX 8350 is a great cpu for you!  How many games can you play at once?



On this ancient 2009 Athlon II X4 620 I've had up to 4 games running simultaneously. Having 16GB of RAM helps a lot for this too. Been running 16GB since 2004.


----------



## Vario (Jun 3, 2014)

You said "Funny how Vario didn't reply", which was factually incorrect as I did.

Teksyndicate presents an unrealistic scenario where he is gaming and video encoding at the same time.  Obviously an 8 core will perform well at this.  That is the only video on the net where the FX excels over the i5 and i7, and its brought out every time someone wants to troll.  Best yet, The presenter will say verbally one frame rate when the screen shows another.  Goatee presenter just wants to generate controversy to get redirects to teksyndicate.


----------



## Vario (Jun 3, 2014)

Dent1 said:


> You learn to read. I'm responding to suraswami, whom said it was website link that you posted.
> 
> If you feel otherwise you should be messaging suraswami?
> 
> ...


Great, then the FX 8350 is a great cpu for you!  How many games can you play at once?


----------



## Frick (Jun 3, 2014)

suraswami said:


> Just to continue this dumb thread, say if somebody wants to sell that 3960x CPU that was bought for $1000 after 6 years, what would be its value?



Probably about 40-50% of the price. At least that's what I'm seeing them go for. It's still quite the beast.


----------



## Vario (Jun 3, 2014)

Dent1 said:


> Only an unrealistic scenario if you don't have a genuine 8 core processor.  Seriously, it may seem pointless but the more stress you put on the CPU whilst gaming, the better indication it'll perform when games become more intensive.



Why not just run a cpu intensive game in isolation?  Oh, because its bad at that?


----------



## Dent1 (Jun 3, 2014)

Vario said:


> Why not just run a cpu intensive game in isolation?  Oh, because its bad at that?



Your question doesn't even make sense logically.

You are implying that FX 8350s performance will "decrease" when there is no background tasks.

Surely the fact that the FX 8350 out performed the i7 in 3/5 gaming benchmarks whilst encoding in the background is a "good" thing. Not a bad thing

Your question is like saying "Okay that moving truck is great at carrying 4 tonnes of weight, how comes it isn't tested empty...is it that bad"


----------



## suraswami (Jun 3, 2014)

Frick said:


> Probably about 40-50% of the price. At least that's what I'm seeing them go for. It's still quite the beast.



So it looses $500 by itself, hmm...


----------



## Hilux SSRG (Jun 3, 2014)

What category does the 8350 compete in, i3 or i5? Definitely not i7.  

AMD needs to release something new before their new architecture arrives in 2016.


----------



## Vario (Jun 3, 2014)

Dent1 said:


> Your question doesn't even make sense logically.
> 
> You are implying that FX 8350s performance will "decrease" when there is no background tasks.
> 
> ...


Think about it logically.

We are comparing an i5 to an 8350.  I proposed comparing them with a single CPU intensive game.  In isolation. It would be bad at that, it would perform much worse.  Just look at starcraft 2.

Anandtech:

*Starcraft 2*
1024 x 768 - Medium Graphics, Ultra CPU Settings
*8350 47.9
3570k 67.9*


----------



## Dent1 (Jun 3, 2014)

Hilux SSRG said:


> What category does the 8350 compete in, i3 or i5? Definitely not i7.
> 
> AMD needs to release something new before their new architecture arrives in 2016.



Go back a few pages, according to the link Vario and I are talking about in 3/5 benchmarks the FX 8350 outperformed the i7 in games when there was multi tasking in the background.

@Vario. I guess the real argument is who are we to say that games should be benchmarked in insolation. I think the more activities running simultaneously the better. If I'm dropping  money on a CPU I'm in it for longevity. Everyone's priorities are different. Some people only need what's fast today and don't care about tomorrow as they'll chop and change CPUs twice a year.



64K said:


> I consider the 3570k to be better than the FX-8350 for gaming though it does cost more.
> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html
> http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=701



Agreed. The FX3850 does well enough to be competitive even in defeat and it's price is very good.

Edit:

BTW Steamroller FX.....will this ever happen? Will there be another 6 or 8 core on the horizon. Their roadmap seems sketchy.


----------



## 64K (Jun 3, 2014)

I consider the 3570k to be better than the FX-8350 for gaming though it does cost more.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=701


----------



## de.das.dude (Jun 3, 2014)

64K said:


> I consider the 3570k to be better than the FX-8350 for gaming though it does cost more.
> 
> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html
> 
> http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=701


after the fx6300 nothing really matters for gaming since the retarded devs dont know how to utilize cores completely yet.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 3, 2014)

This place should be called TechMediocreUp with all the people willing to go for console level FPS in AMD.


----------



## de.das.dude (Jun 3, 2014)

staph troll baiting


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Jun 3, 2014)

This isn't about benchmarks. This thread has gone way off mark.

The question at hand from the OPs post doesn't seem to be so much about product line, but more about the company itself and honestly it doesn't look great.

Ever since AMD acquired ATI the stock has tanked and remained around the $4 mark. This is from $9 in 2011 to $4 in 2012 to present. That unfortunately is not a sign of growth. The ATI acquisition seriously hurt them and unfortunately while they did leverage some technology from the acquisition they were forced to sell the majority of this tech at a very small profit and often at a loss. Unless AMD comes up with something amazing or they acquire a company with new tech they can fold into their own they will remain flat-lined at $4. However any company that has this tech they could acquire will be sold to Intel or Nvidia since either of these companies can out bid AMD.

Treading water at $4 is fine if they can keep their heads above water and maybe they just need to do that for another year or two. But if they can't stay competitive in the mid-low end segment they will probably be acquired by another company, or stop making certain product lines (which makes the most sense). They will have to do something because no investor wants a flat-lined stock.


----------



## Dent1 (Jun 3, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> This place should be called TechMediocreUp with all the people willing to go for console level FPS in AMD.



Vario is so desperate for approval, he has to +1 you...he doesn't even get that you're being sarcastic.



ZenZimZaliben said:


> This isn't about benchmarks. This thread has gone way off mark.
> The question at hand from the OPs post doesn't seem to be so much about product line, but more about the company itself and honestly it doesn't look great.
> Ever since AMD acquired ATI the stock has tanked and remained around the $4 mark. This is from $9 in 2011 to $4 in 2012 to present. That unfortunately is not a sign of growth. The ATI acquisition seriously hurt them and unfortunately while they did leverage some technology from the acquisition they were forced to sell the majority of this tech at a very small profit and often at a loss. Unless AMD comes up with something amazing or they acquire a company with new tech they can fold into their own they will remain flat-lined at $4. However any company that has this tech they could acquire will be sold to Intel or Nvidia since either of these companies can out bid AMD.
> 
> Treading water at $4 is fine if they can keep their heads above water and maybe they just need to do that for another year or two. But if they can't stay competitive in the mid-low end segment they will probably be acquired by another company, or stop making certain product lines (which makes the most sense). They will have to do something because no investor wants a flat-lined stock.



Very informative. You're the only person that is seeing it from a share value point of view. I think these things go in a circle, sometimes shares increase/decrease for no good reason. I think as we head into these APU and mobile waters the tides will turn.


----------



## Vario (Jun 3, 2014)

Hey someone had to reply to ne6togadno's link dump. Fragmaniac also wanted someone to comment on it. I am merely providing a counter point to some of the claims in here.  I'll thank you too so you don't feel left out.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jun 3, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> This place should be called TechMediocreUp with all the people willing to go for console level FPS in AMD.


bahahahahah sorry i have nothing else to write about that ... oh wait ...

cute attempt tho, i didn't knew we were on a elitist tech addict forum, wait a sec ... oohhh the sarcasm (irony aswell judging by your sys specs  don't hit me i am red sided with some incursion to the green/blue side ... but always back to red  )

interested in a new site named TrollPowerUp ? i might need a admin to run it


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 3, 2014)

GreiverBlade said:


> bahahahahah sorry i have nothing else to write about that ... oh wait ...
> 
> cute attempt tho, i didn't knew we were on a elitist tech addict forum, wait a sec ... oohhh the sarcasm (irony aswell judging by your sys specs  don't hit me i am red sided with some incursion to the green/blue side ... but always back to red  )
> 
> interested in a new site named TrollPowerUp ? i might need a admin to run it


I dunno WTF you just said. Should I be insulted or flattered. Its like a fat girl hitting on me, I dunno what to do.


----------



## ne6togadno (Jun 3, 2014)

Vario said:


> Great, then the FX 8350 is a great cpu for you!  How many games can you play at once?


with 2 hands and 2 eyes only 1 but that is cause of me not cause of cpu
on my 8320 so far have tried with only 2 fully maxed + 30 tabs on opera. switching between 3 in the blink of the eye. if you like i can try with more but you might get disappointed from end result.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jun 3, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I dunno WTF you just said. Should I be insulted or flattered. Its like a fat girl hitting on me, I dunno what to do.


well as you are(have?) a "Big Member" judging by your custom title... i doubt a fat girl hitting on you would be a problem,unless it is physically but i am sure you would find a solution to that.

aaaaaaannnddd this conclude the OT parenthesis.

can we close the thread now? ... we all know AMD isn't dead and also that they still offer viable solution against the others (read ... ah whatever) there is no war only choice and no choice is wrong as long as you are satisfied with what you buy, and not only for console fan and low fps lover ... (i doubt my next setup will have performances issues)



ne6togadno said:


> with 2 hands and 2 eyes only 1 but that is cause of me not cause of cpu
> on my 8320 so far have tried with only 2 fully maxed + 30 tabs on opera. switching between 3 in the blink of the eye. if you like i can try with more but you might get disappointed from end result.



hum i did 5 account on 3 screen with 2 6950 2gb, 8gb 1333 and a X6 1035T on eve online all setup on maxed out (fleet mining and missioning and once a fleet warfare yet it was a bit harder the later because of the need to be active on the 5 ship involved xD)


----------



## Hilux SSRG (Jun 3, 2014)

Dent1 said:


> Go back a few pages, according to the link Vario and I are talking about in 3/5 benchmarks the FX 8350 outperformed the i7 in games when there was multi tasking in the background.



Those comparisons are old and not relevant anymore. Intel even announced retirement of the 3770k processor, today.

A FX 8350 [assuming that is the most current AMD offering, I don't know] doesn't compare to a i7 4770k/4790k, maybe closer to a i5 4670k?


----------



## Tatty_One (Jun 3, 2014)

Don't you just know it's time to close a thread when you get to that natural ever shifting state of movement from fanboism to Trollism   For once I think I prefer trolls!


----------

