Do AMD cpus at least give a smoother desktop experience w/more cores?

[DrMrLordX]

The debate stems from the fact that the OP did not ask if they were fine for general desktop use. He asked if they were SMOOTHER then Intel's offerings. It's right there in the thread title.

To repeat the general theme of my post, there's no difference on the desktop between an Intel and AMD processor of reasonably-recent vintage, given the ability to handle at least 4 threads.

Unfortunately, the OP's question brought out bashers who tried to make AMD processors look like they couldn't handle basic desktop duty, which is inaccurate.

FWIW, OP here.

I did consider AMD CPU's when building my computer, but looking at the math, both the extra power draw and the expense of the PSU unit, I went with Intel. The extra $50 or $60 I paid for the Intel would be made up in lower power consumption over two years.

But, eh, just curious if AMD's approach had any real life merit. Then again, my experience with phones has been that Apple's dual core solutions run circles around Android's 8 core solutions.

There's really nothing on the desktop that's going to make AMD chips run better or worse than Intel.

Has anyone done a test to see how much of the professor is actually utilized for most tasks? With reports that most software isn't very multithreaded optimized I'd reckon that most of the processor is actually idle much of the time.

Depends on what you're doing, and on how many different tasks you have running simultaneously. Though fluid task-switching is often more based on available memory and suchlike. But yeah, if you're of the old school and tend to close out applications to keep clutter down and stay narrowly focused on a few tasks with only a few tabs open in your browser, you'll find that you won't stress more than two cores much. It pays to have 2 more (logical or physical) to handle other OS tasks so the system doesn't bog down on you.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Dont think anybody said AMD couldnt handle basic desktop tasks. OTOH, the FX which a lot of posters are touting is not really a good choice for basic desktop usage because of the lack of an igp, high power usage, and more cores than will ever be used in that scenario.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Dont think anybody said AMD couldnt handle basic desktop tasks. OTOH, the FX which a lot of posters are touting is not really a good choice for basic desktop usage because of the lack of an igp, high power usage, and more cores than will ever be used in that scenario.

I tend to agree. I don't really think of "FX 8-core CPU" when someone comes to me and wants a basic desktop rig. An A8-7600, perhaps. Or a G1820. But not an FX, unless that someone is into video-editing.

 

[Arachnotronic]

I wish I could get hired there as someone in charge of their mobile strategy. My first project would be AMD's answer to the Ultrabook: Metal body. Radeon-brand SSD and RAM. Excellent keyboard. 1600x900 or better standard on all models. Prominent (but tasteful) AMD logo embossed on the lid. Impress the hell out of customers at first glance; yes, it's the SSD doing it, but how many ooh-shiny-consumer-whore types know that?

So...you'd build an AMD-powered MacBook Air?

 

[AMDisTheBEST]

8 cores mean better muti tasking meaning opening tons of apps and system wont slow down at all. It is also very difficult to cause a system freeze. Never did i see my fx 8320 jumps to 100% and caused the entire system to freeze, assuming you have an ssd of course.

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

So...you'd build an AMD-powered MacBook Air?

I had in mind something more along the lines of "lesbian lovechild of the Zenbook UX303 and the HP Probook 64xx series." Slim, but not stupidly so, with an air of business about it. Something that wouldn't exactly turn heads but would garner respect on sight.

Specifically, something with the kind of keyboard travel the Thinkpads used to have, which will of course preclude building anything as anorexic as Apple's latest drool-catchers. The idea is to give good value for the money and make it usable just about anywhere: the underlying message is "AMD is always by your side."

 

[superstition]

I tend to agree. I don't really think of "FX 8-core CPU" when someone comes to me and wants a basic desktop rig. An A8-7600, perhaps. Or a G1820. But not an FX, unless that someone is into video-editing.

Then you're not looking at gaming benchmarks because a $100 (from Microcenter) 8320E overclocked to 4.4 or so is going to outperform any APU. For those without Microcenter 8 core chips have been on sale for as little as $90 from Amazon and TigerDirect.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Then you're not looking at gaming benchmarks because a $100 (from Microcenter) 8320E overclocked to 4.4 or so is going to outperform any APU. For those without Microcenter 8 core chips have been on sale for as little as $90 from Amazon and TigerDirect.

I said "basic desktop rig", did I not? Why bring up gaming benchmarks? The FX CPUs are more expensive than the APUs, mobos included, and require better cooling and PSUs. They are totally unnecessary for a basic desktop rig.

 

[superstition]

I said "basic desktop rig", did I not? Why bring up gaming benchmarks? The FX CPUs are more expensive than the APUs, mobos included, and require better cooling and PSUs. They are totally unnecessary for a basic desktop rig.

Most basic desktop PCs are used for gaming to some extent. Otherwise people will just use a laptop.

Gaming on a laptop is generally very noisy at best.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Most basic desktop PCs are used for gaming to some extent. Otherwise people will just use a laptop.

Unless they're on a budget, or, *gasp*, they prefer a desktop.

But yes, I'm including Facebook-style "gaming" in "basic desktop PC usage". 3D gaming like CoD, no.

 

[mrmt]

Oh give the bias a break for once. "Desktop experience" would likely include running Linux -- which is where an FX-8350 manages to outrun an i7 3770k for a lot of tasks.

Source:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_fx8350_visherabdver2&num=1

Linux is 1,47% of the overall PC OS client usage on the web. I'm not sure on why anyone unbiased would likely include Linux on any relevant test.

 

[DidelisDiskas]

Linux is 1,47% of the overall PC OS client usage on the web. I'm not sure on why anyone unbiased would likely include Linux on any relevant test.

Well, that's still a ton of people (myself included) if you consider how many people use the internet.

In any case, i have been enjoying reading some of the comments, but i think there are not enough death threats in this thread.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Most basic desktop PCs are used for gaming to some extent. Otherwise people will just use a laptop.

Gaming on a laptop is generally very noisy at best.

Laptops have shitty displays, shitty built in keyboards, shitty mouses, very limited connection ports, almost no expansion ports, and very poor heat management.

I understand laptops are handy because they are portable, but they are severely inferior to desktops in every other measure by leaps and bounds.

 

[superstition]

Laptops have shitty displays, shitty built in keyboards, shitty mouses, very limited connection ports, almost no expansion ports, and very poor heat management.

I understand laptops are handy because they are portable, but they are severely inferior to desktops in every other measure by leaps and bounds.

I guess you should use a Macbook Pro.

 

[mrmt]

Well, that's still a ton of people (myself included) if you consider how many people use the internet.

If you were designing a processor for consumers the last thing you would have in mind is the 1,47% of linux users out there, and an even smaller number of Linux users run multi-threaded workloads as their main workload selection. 1,47% in a TAM analysis would be akin to a rounding error, not a market segment you would be serious about serving it, at least as your main market.

So whenever I see users discussing general benchmarks for desktops processors bringing Linux I can only wonder whether they are aware that Linux is outright irrelevant on the client market or they themselves are outright dishonest. Prioritizing this 1,47% over the 80%+ of the windows ecosystem is not what would I call unbiased.

 

[desprado]

I do not understand even AMD PR and in official benchmarks AMD do not use their CPUs then why people are having a hard to understand that even AMD admit that their CPU is bad.

 

[myocardia]

I do not understand even AMD PR and in official benchmarks AMD do not use their CPUs then why people are having a hard to understand that even AMD admit that their CPU is bad.

Brand bias is a strange malady, that science/medicine do not quite yet understand, unfortunately.

 

[Timur Born]

I guess you should use a Macbook Pro.

Besides a desktop PC I am using a (bootcamped) Macbook Pro and it has a sh*tt* display. Ok, it's a 2011 one, because that one at least has a 17" display and a plethora of expansion ports.

Lots of software is bottlenecked on both the 4-core (+HT) laptop and 4-core (+HT) desktop by being single- or dual-threaded. So for the discussion itself my main argument stands that desktop computing still benefits less from higher core-count than from higher IPC/frequency, regardless of CPU brand. Regrettably so.

 

[mrmt]

I do not understand even AMD PR and in official benchmarks AMD do not use their CPUs then why people are having a hard to understand that even AMD admit that their CPU is bad.

You would have a hard time to admit AMD CPUs are bad if you had spent the last few years saying how the FX would "age well", or how an overclock would be enough to close the gap with Intel, how multithreaded games would shift gaming towards the FX, how Mantle would take the API market by storm, I think you get the picture, and because of that you had invested a lot in your FX rig.

But the real hard time would come if you were a reseller, and instead of telling this to yourself and your friends you would have told all that to your customers. You can't just back down from your AMD spin just like that. Your customers, especially the more recent ones would come for you.

 

[DidelisDiskas]

If you were designing a processor for consumers the last thing you would have in mind is the 1,47% of linux users out there, and an even smaller number of Linux users run multi-threaded workloads as their main workload selection. 1,47% in a TAM analysis would be akin to a rounding error, not a market segment you would be serious about serving it, at least as your main market.

So whenever I see users discussing general benchmarks for desktops processors bringing Linux I can only wonder whether they are aware that Linux is outright irrelevant on the client market or they themselves are outright dishonest. Prioritizing this 1,47% over the 80%+ of the windows ecosystem is not what would I call unbiased.

Sorry, i think i misunderstood you, i thought you were talking about benchmarks.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Linux is 1,47% of the overall PC OS client usage on the web. I'm not sure on why anyone unbiased would likely include Linux on any relevant test.

Well, by your train of logic -- then the Macintosh would be excluded from Desktop usage as well also due to market share. But nobody is going to do that, either. BTW, Chrome OS and Unknown OS are also Linux by the statistics you are using -- so actual marketshare is hovering around 5.77%. But thanks for distorting the facts...... Good for another laugh.

 

[mrmt]

Well, by your train of logic -- then the Macintosh would be excluded from Desktop usage as well also due to market share. But nobody is going to do that, either. BTW, Chrome OS and Unknown OS are also Linux by the statistics you are using -- so actual marketshare is hovering around 5.77%. But thanks for distorting the facts...... Good for another laugh.

OSX is with 9,47% on the statistics I'm using, far above the Linux rounding error, and it operates in a very profitable segment of the market, so they are far more relevant than Linux.

The Chrome OS is just 0,5%, and not grouped with Linux. Unknown OS *may* be based on Linux, but not only Linux, at least his is what the results tell us. They can be anything, Android laptops and BSD based systems for example, or even a Linux modified enough to not look like what any of the distros would on the web. The funny thing is that these unknown systems are more than double the Linux systems by these statistics. Now tell me, who is distorting facts here?

I'll say again, to include an operating system used by just 1,47% in a general benchmark discussion is outright dishonesty or ignorance. To be fair with you, I think this is just one more of your gems, I should update my signature as soon as I get home.

 

[TheELF]

Well, by your train of logic -- then the Macintosh would be excluded from Desktop usage as well also due to market share.

For someone that asks for AMD CPUs and desktop performance yes,Macintosh would be excluded since it doesn't even run on AMD and nobody is going to use AMD for a hackintosh build.
Like it or not,unless otherwise specified,everybody is only talking about windows.

 

[Yuriman]

I tend to agree. I don't really think of "FX 8-core CPU" when someone comes to me and wants a basic desktop rig. An A8-7600, perhaps. Or a G1820. But not an FX, unless that someone is into video-editing.

I'm with you.

My father is still using a Core2Duo E5xxx, and with a fast, modern Samsung SSD, the performance is plenty adequate for him - he uses his machine to browse, youtube, view images and PDFs for work. If I were to upgrade his PC, it would not be with the aim of making it significantly faster, CPU-wise, but rather to modernize the platform and do away with the discrete video card, allowing for SFF and a reduction in power usage, footprint, and wire clutter. Ideally, the upgrade would be VESA-mountable.

I'd be hesitant to put a cat core or Atom in his PC out of principle, though it would probably work out fine. He doesn't use his GPU practically at all, so by that metric, an AMD APU would hold no advantage over a Celeron, but I feel an AMD quad would probably be a better overall performer. It's really a wash though, because the deciding factor would probably be what inexpensive ITX motherboards were available (or what NUC-like units are on sale).

I suspect a vast majority of desktop users are really like him - a bit behind the times, accustomed to how computers have always been, but very undemanding of the hardware.

 

[2is]

Well, by your train of logic -- then the Macintosh would be excluded from Desktop usage as well also due to market share. But nobody is going to do that, either. BTW, Chrome OS and Unknown OS are also Linux by the statistics you are using -- so actual marketshare is hovering around 5.77%. But thanks for distorting the facts...... Good for another laugh.

I find it hilarious that your entire post was a distortion of facts and you turned around accusing someone else of doing it.

Listen, AMD processors suck. I know it hurts your feelings, but I'm assuming you're an adult and it's something you simply a fact of life you need to get cozy with.