Do high end user use AMD instead of Intel?

[Sonikku]

AMD's APU's seem nice for Laptops. The very idea of spending $400 or so for a laptop you could play your WoW/Diablo/Starcraft 2 and the like on when on the go seemed unfathomable in the past because Intel's integrated graphics have always been awful. But now there's a viable alternative. I'm not talking 2560x1600 Crysis here or anything, but for the 1280x800 14" mmo budget gamer you can do a lot on a budget if you wait for the right amd laptop to come around.

 

[Yuriman]

In principle, yes, but battery life with Kaveri is just awful when compared with Haswell. AMD is advertising now that Carizzo (Kaveri's successor) will bring 3x improvements to idle and low-load battery life which will just about bring it on par with Haswell chips. I get 8-12 hours of battery life with my 14" Haswell Celeron laptop, while you could probably only expect 3-5 hours from a similar Kaveri-equipped machine.

If AMD delivers with Carizzo, I may buy one, but it looks like Intel's iGPUs with Broadwell and Skylake are going to be faster than anything AMD has for a while.

 

[Abwx]

If AMD delivers with Carizzo, I may buy one, but it looks like Intel's iGPUs with Broadwell and Skylake are going to be faster than anything AMD has for a while.

Not at all, unless you take 47W chips from Intel, Carrizo has superior GPU perf at 35W or 15W segment, and it will have better CPU perfs in the latter TDP..

 

[2is]

That apply rather to someone who use Xbitlab as reference..

You are aware that Anton shilov massacred AMD as much as he could once they stopped sending him some gear..?.

Heck, he didnt even deny that he received his 290/290X right from Nvidia, and also look at the massacre of Kabini while BT was praised, rewarded a few time later by the full Intel CPU line up...


Lol....and of course the "review" start with a series of Sysmark, an Intel troll bench biased at will, to the point that AMD made a public statement that it was rigged.

Let s see what more serious reviewer, not to say unbiaised, have to say about it, and with real softs used by professional people, not some 3D particle and other WebXPRT pseudo benches...

http://www.hardware.fr/focus/99/amd-fx-8370e-fx-8-coeurs-95-watts-test.html

I gave you an AT link as well. You don't want to have a "link war" if you think AMD is better. You will lose. Stop lying to yourself and others. It's either that or you're clueless. Take your pick because AMD isn't better and hasn't been for a decade or more.

 

[frozentundra123456]

In principle, yes, but battery life with Kaveri is just awful when compared with Haswell. AMD is advertising now that Carizzo (Kaveri's successor) will bring 3x improvements to idle and low-load battery life which will just about bring it on par with Haswell chips. I get 8-12 hours of battery life with my 14" Haswell Celeron laptop, while you could probably only expect 3-5 hours from a similar Kaveri-equipped machine.

If AMD delivers with Carizzo, I may buy one, but it looks like Intel's iGPUs with Broadwell and Skylake are going to be faster than anything AMD has for a while.

Problem with Intel is that the best igps so far have been limited to super expensive high end models. Perhaps that will change at some point if Carrizo is more competitive. TBH, I dont really see igpu gaming becoming viable until high bandwidth memory becomes common. Problem with that for an igp you need to use it as system memory as well, so you need at least 8gb.

 

[jihe]

AMD's APU's seem nice for Laptops. The very idea of spending $400 or so for a laptop you could play your WoW/Diablo/Starcraft 2 and the like on when on the go seemed unfathomable in the past because Intel's integrated graphics have always been awful. But now there's a viable alternative. I'm not talking 2560x1600 Crysis here or anything, but for the 1280x800 14" mmo budget gamer you can do a lot on a budget if you wait for the right amd laptop to come around.

amd is worse on laptops than desktops. they get hotter and have shorter battery lifes

 

[jihe]

Personal experience here:

If you have the money and care about max perf in all benchmarks, get Intel.

If you are on a budget, get the newest AMD releases (8320e or 8370e).

I did not buy Intel until I got out of college and had $$$ to get the dankest hardware.

When I build a new *basic* computer for someone, I go AMD, at least A6 7400k, knowing that the BIOS needs some tweaking for best power usage / performance.

Those chips cannot be beat for the features, and with 4 - 8 GB of RAM and an SSD, I noticed no difference in usage between that and my i7 for all everyday tasks. ( I did not have time to test BF4 on it, was late in delivering it, so, once Windows was on it, back to the customer it went! )

Frankly if you're on a budget buy second hand Intel.

 

[Sweepr]

Problem with Intel is that the best igps so far have been limited to super expensive high end models. Perhaps that will change at some point if Carrizo is more competitive. TBH, I dont really see igpu gaming becoming viable until high bandwidth memory becomes common. Problem with that for an igp you need to use it as system memory as well, so you need at least 8gb.

It should be noted that Skylake notebooks will arrive as soon as September (and most OEMs are waiting for Windows 10 in late July to release new stuff), the Broadwell era is almost over as far as mobile is concerned.
Starting with Skylake we'll have Iris Pro (GT3e) in the 15-25W segment and a new GT4e SKU. They are slowly moving Iris Pro to mainstream, Broadwell-K is another sign of that.

 

[TheELF]

Problem with Intel is that the best igps so far have been limited to super expensive high end models.

Justintime for windows 10 and dx12 ,igpus will be able to co work with discrete giving better performance.
It will make i5s look immensely superior to the aging FXs that have no igpu at all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cvmDjVYSNk

Now admittedly these kind of games are gonna be pretty sparse but intel thinks years ahead.

Let's see if skylake makes iris pro(crystalwell) standard on all cpus ,even celerons,without too much of a raise in price.
A celeron with even 64mb edram and similar performance to today's apus would really shake amd up.
(remember that dx12 will get rid of the driver overhead,basically the driver thread,which will give dualcores one thread less to worry about)

 

[Blue_Max]

"Do high end user use AMD instead of Intel?"

Not since the game-changing Core2Duo.

 

[AtenRa]

In principle, yes, but battery life with Kaveri is just awful when compared with Haswell. AMD is advertising now that Carizzo (Kaveri's successor) will bring 3x improvements to idle and low-load battery life which will just about bring it on par with Haswell chips. I get 8-12 hours of battery life with my 14" Haswell Celeron laptop, while you could probably only expect 3-5 hours from a similar Kaveri-equipped machine.

If AMD delivers with Carizzo, I may buy one, but it looks like Intel's iGPUs with Broadwell and Skylake are going to be faster than anything AMD has for a while.

According to Notebookcheck, Acer Aspire E5-551-T8X3 with Kaveri A10-7300 has 8 hours Idle but its a 15" model. This one was at 500 Euro last summer.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Acer-Aspire-E5-551-T8X3-Kaveri-A10-7300-Notebook-Review.122063.0.html

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Re: Iris Pro, why is it a surprise a much more expensive part is out performing a cheaper part?

Gaming on iGPU is a niche, cheap gaming rigs need only apply. As soon as your CPU is approaching $300, that's no longer in that niche.

Agreed.... I think most people are glossing over the fact that you can literally buy two A10 7870k's for the price of that i7 that is just edging it out on most benches. Shocking! (sarcasm)

 

[frozentundra123456]

It should be noted that Skylake notebooks will arrive as soon as September (and most OEMs are waiting for Windows 10 in late July to release new stuff), the Broadwell era is almost over as far as mobile is concerned.
Starting with Skylake we'll have Iris Pro (GT3e) in the 15-25W segment and a new GT4e SKU. They are slowly moving Iris Pro to mainstream, Broadwell-K is another sign of that.

Hope so, but since BW rollout fiasco, I am skeptical of any release dates or performance projections for 14nm parts. I mean BW 47 watt quad mobiles are supposedly released, but I havent seen any in a shipping product. Now we are supposed to see Skylake in 3 months?

Too bad they got delayed. If gt4e were available (or even gt3e), I might have gotten one instead of the gaming laptop I just bought for my grandson with a GTX960m. Dont think gt4e will reach that level, but he doesnt play the most intense games, so it might have been good enough. Even Kaveri might have been good enough, but the 37 watt parts are missing in action.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Justintime for windows 10 and dx12 ,igpus will be able to co work with discrete giving better performance.
It will make i5s look immensely superior to the aging FXs that have no igpu at all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cvmDjVYSNk

Now admittedly these kind of games are gonna be pretty sparse but intel thinks years ahead.

Let's see if skylake makes iris pro(crystalwell) standard on all cpus ,even celerons,without too much of a raise in price.
A celeron with even 64mb edram and similar performance to today's apus would really shake amd up.
(remember that dx12 will get rid of the driver overhead,basically the driver thread,which will give dualcores one thread less to worry about)

This will give a similar boost to AMD apus as well. But lets see if the devs really devote the time and effort to utilize this properly. I actually would expect better utilization of this feature from AMD, since they generally have better drivers than intel and do sponser some games. I agree though, it could be a big negative for desktop FX.

 

[2is]

If you're gaming. Haswell i5 + 290x is probably your best bet. If you're not gaming, i5 with the integrated video is perfectly fine. AMD GPU's like the 290x offer very good performance for the money. Their CPU's however do not. There is no reason for anyone to build around an AMD platform today IMO. The cost difference between an i5 4690k and an FX 8350 is $70 and the i5 does nearly everything better and consumes less power doing it. You're also not forced to run it on an outdated chipset.

Old platform, old inefficient processor that underperforms, and for what? $70 savings? Heck, crank that up to $100 and it still isn't appealing.

 

[TheELF]

This will give a similar boost to AMD apus as well. But lets see if the devs really devote the time and effort to utilize this properly. I actually would expect better utilization of this feature from AMD, since they generally have better drivers than intel and do sponser some games. I agree though, it could be a big negative for desktop FX.

I didn't imply anything else,as a matter of fact the guy in the video states that an apu plus amd vga will provide more benefits than combining different vendors.

Most of the benefit for consumers will come from disappearing driver overhead anyways,that's what most games will feature pretty fast.
Creating lots of objects on screen raises development costs pretty much so I don't really see this catching on for anything more than the top AAA games.

But it will provide a flashy benchmark for us to debate over

 

[Abwx]

Yes,let's please.

So at the same frequencies amd needs twice the amount of cores to get the same amount of work done...
Fx-8370e 3,3Ghz 95W vs I5-4670k 3,4Ghz 84W = same results

Because the bench suite doesnt max all the CPUs, the 4C/4T are the only ones to be maxed in all benches, for instance Virtual Studio allegedly use 6 threads but all the computing is done on 4 threads with the 2 other threads being almost idle..

Otherwise the 5960X would score 250-260 pts...

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/924-19/indices-performance.html

 

[2is]

There seems to always be a "reason" why AMD processors are underperforming. Underperforming seems to be a pretty solid constant for them though. I think the one and only reason is that they're simply not nearly as good. Anything else is excuses and delusions.

First, native quad cores was supposed to get them beyond Intel. Didn't happen
Then it was just a matter of optimization, software needed to be optimized for AMD. Didn't happen
Then came Phenom II, it was going to do what Phenom couldn't. Didn't happen
Then came Bulldozer with "moar cores" and surely that was going to get AMD the performance crown back. Didn't happen
Then it was the whole optimization argument all over again, programs needed to be optimized for AMD's modular design and they'd be back on top. Didn't happen
Then it was Windows 8. Windows 8 was going to have a much better scheduler that knows how to better leverage AMD"s modular design and get them the edge they need. Didn't happen.

 

[Abwx]

I gave you an AT link as well. You don't want to have a "link war" if you think AMD is better. You will lose. Stop lying to yourself and others. It's either that or you're clueless. Take your pick because AMD isn't better and hasn't been for a decade or more.

Fair enough for the AT link, so what can be concluded of this link, can you tell me to what extent it show intel s superiority in a an objective fashion and could you quantize this difference objectively..?.

I ll comment later on theses tests, once you have answered this question, that will be a good test to check one s scientifical integrity, so very curious to hear your opinion.

 

[2is]

Fair enough for the AT link, so what can be concluded of this link, can you tell me to what extent it show intel s superiority in a an objective fashion and could you quantize this difference objectively..?.

I ll comment later on theses tests, once you have answered this question, that will be a good test to check one s scientifical integrity, so very curious to hear your opinion.

What are you even asking? The charts speak for themselves. i5 > FX in far more than just gaming. We don't need comments, it's just more beating around the bush and excuses as to why AMD isn't competitive. That's all you have, excuses. If OP wants a sub par CPU and make excuses for it, he should go with AMD.

 

[Sweepr]

There's seems to always a "reason" why AMD processors are underperforming. Underperforming seems to be a pretty solid constant for them though. I think the one and only reason is that they're simply not nearly as good. Anything else is excuses and delusions.

First, native quad cores was supposed to get them beyond Intel. Didn't happen
Then it was just a matter of optimization, software needed to be optimized for AMD. Didn't happen
Then came Phenom II, it was going to do what Phenom couldn't. Didn't happen
Then came Bulldozer with "moar cores" and surely that was going to get AMD the performance crown back. Didn't happen
Then it was the whole optimization argument all over again, programs needed to be optimized for AMD's modular design and they'd be back on top. Didn't happen
Then it was Windows 8. Windows 8 was going to have a much better scheduler that knows how to better leverage AMD"s modular design and get them the edge they need. Didn't happen.

Pretty much this. Now it's all about selecting highly MT benchmarks from 1-2 reviewers and calling AnandTech and other websites biased if they dare to include anything that doesn't scale past 4 cores in their benchmark suite. The handpicking is going to be fun by the time Skylake launches.
I'm wondering if these people will call Zen a failure if it barely outperforms FX9590's MT performance but delivers much better ST performance at lower power next year.

 

[Abwx]

"Do high end user use AMD instead of Intel?"

Not since the game-changing Core2Duo.

10% better IPC than the A64 X2 in Cinebench, and worse perf/Watt generaly once the A64 was updated to the same node at its competitor....

 

[soccerballtux]

$80 and outclassed by a Haswell i3. And not many games can crack 60FPS minimums. Its a false economy. You buy an i5 even locked and an H97 mobo and you'll have a platform that isn't obsolete for one and won't suffer whenever you run anything remotely single threaded on it.

no, it's not outclassed for the i3 at $140. and I can encode 3x faster than the i3.

 

[Phynaz]

Pretty much this. Now it's all about selecting highly MT benchmarks from 1-2 reviewers and calling AnandTech and other websites biased if they dare to include anything that doesn't scale past 4 cores in their benchmark suite. The handpicking is going to be fun by the time Skylake launches.
I'm wondering if these people will call Zen a failure if it barely outperforms FX9590's MT performance but delivers much better ST performance at lower power next year.

Yep, the goalposts will be moved again, with lots of cherry picked benchmark results from hardware.fr.

Zen is over a year away and the AMD shills are already frothing over it.

 

[2is]

no, it's not outclassed for the i3 at $140. and I can encode 3x faster than the i3.

i3 has QuickSync, so you're closer to 3-5x slower. (perhaps even slower still actually)