The CPU Vendor Bias Admission Thread

[WackyWRZ]

Best CPU for the money is what I buy - that said I am an AMD fan because they seem more O/C and enthusiast friendly. In fact my first home-built computer was a K6-2 with an ATI AIW card. In my last build I just couldn't justify buying from them with their poor comparative performance - the savings just didn't add up. I REALLY want to see them succeed because when they were actively trading blows with Intel it seems like was when we saw some of the biggest innovations come out.

 

[Yuriman]

Voted agnostic.

AMD's CPUs generally don't have strengths in the areas I value lately. It's generally true that any modern CPU will subjectively feel about the same as any other, other than at the extreme low end, so I like those CPUs that I can put in a SFF box and still cool with a quiet, low RPM fan, and power with a small and quiet power supply.

For those who value raw performance, the best argument you can make for an AMD CPU is "You won't notice that it's slower because realistically the bottleneck will be somewhere else."

For my father, I might consider an FM2+ combo, but that's below my performance threshold. If I could build an AM3+ system that performed around the same as my i5 in the same form factor, with similar power consumption and noise, I'd certainly consider it.

 

[lehtv]

No bias here, for any brand, ever. To admit to a bias is to admit to being irrational, so I have no brand preferences, I just buy whatever product does what I need it to do at the best price.

 

[Yuriman]

No bias here, for any brand, ever. To admit to a bias is to admit to being irrational, so I have no brand preferences, I just buy whatever product does what I need it to do at the best price.

I'll freely admit that I'm irrational sometimes, but I try to minimize its negative impact on my life.

 

[Leyawiin]

I prefer AMD. My first home built PC was an Athlon XP 2500+ Barton and I stuck with them until 2014. Now two of my three PCs are Intel Haswell Refresh. They're awesome, but I still hold out hope that AMD will get back into the game with Zen.

 

[cytg111]

No bias

 

[DooKey]

I selected best cpu company gets my money. However, I have to admit I have an Intel bias because their products currently give me the best performance for my use case so I look at them first. If AMD matches the performance of Intel then I'll buy best $ value/features for my use case.

My use case is gaming and Distributed Computing. Intel has dominated this area for the last decade.

 

[CropDuster]

No preference. My cpu history has been pretty diverse over the years.

Pentium 3 600
Athlon XP 1800
Athlon 64 3000
i7 950 -> Xeon 5650
5820K

 

[monstercameron]

I should start an apu bias thread...

 

[sandorski]

AMD. Been using AMD's since the K6-2 300. Mainly for the Price, but also the Under Dog factor. Over the years I have owned:

K6-2 300
K6-2 500
Duron 650
Thunderbird 1200(IIRC, maybe 1300)
Palomino 1700+
Barton 2800+
X2 3800
Phenom 2 X6 1055T
and my current FX 8320

All served me well, some better than others of course, but I have no complaints.

That said, I don't really recommend them these days. However, if someone is going to get one or has one and wants to upgrade the system to play games, I don't automatically recommend a CPU upgrade if they are on a tight budget and/or other parts of their system are lacking. CPU performance just isn't as vital as it used to be and with DX12 it looks like it will be even less so, for Gaming anyway.

Unlike the Video version of this poll, these results are what I expected.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Well, other than mostly avoiding the Bulldozer / FX-series CPUs, I don't have much of a bias. I have a couple of, I think Beema, laptops (quad small-core AMD), and a couple of Thuban 1045T rigs that I don't currently utilize for anything. (They're pretty decent at DC though, having six real FPUs, compared to Bulldozer's four.)

Currently rocking some low-end Skylake Intel CPUs, overclocked (well, most of them, the i3-6100 isn't OCed).

 

[Silverforce11]

Unlike the Video version of this poll, these results are what I expected.

Same. On the CPU side there is few reasons for bias, x86 and x64 get along together, there's no ecosystem lock-ins.

If Zen is good, I would not hesitate to switch. Likewise if Intel's KL is good, will stick with them.

 

[UaVaj]

mostly gaming... so definitely intel. that demands max ipc.

as for everything else. amd definitely has a better overall value.

 

[happy medium]

No bias here , just always bought Intel. I usually prefer their chipsets also.

 

[moonbogg]

I voted Intel because AMD straight up sucks. What else can I do?

 

[Silverforce11]

I voted Intel because AMD straight up sucks. What else can I do?

Well, how likely would you to buy an AMD CPU if it was actually good. Like if Zen smashes it out the park, would you consider buying it?

That's the test for Intel fans to determine whether you are non-bias.

Basically Intel's CPU is very good and AMD's CPU is very crap for gaming, so it makes sense we all go with Intel (me included). But I would buy an AMD CPU if they ever make a good one.

 

[ThatBuzzkiller]

For years I have used Intel CPUs and for years I had never considered AMD CPUs ...

I do have a preference for Intel since no one takes AMD seriously in the CPU department but I am open to the idea of switching ...

 

[Ken g6]

I'm just biased toward the best parts, or the best parts for the money. I once had a Cyrix. When AMD came out with the awesome Athlon and Athlon XP, and Intel came out with the Pentium 4, I went with an Athlon XP. When AMD came out with the Bulldozer series, and Intel came out with the Core series, I went Intel.

Well, how likely would you to buy an AMD CPU if it was actually good. Like if Zen smashes it out the park, would you consider buying it?

If Zen is to Skylake as Athlon was to the early Pentium series (P2/P3), then...well, I only buy a new computer every 4-7 years, so I'll regret my recent Skylake purchase. :\ If they keep it up, I'd get AMD next time.

 

[CHADBOGA]

I'm amazed that people can punish themselves to buy lesser performing CPU's, just because they want to support a company for nonsensical reasons.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Well, how likely would you to buy an AMD CPU if it was actually good. Like if Zen smashes it out the park, would you consider buying it?

What is "smashing it out of the park" in concrete terms?

I think one problem with this discussion at a hypothetical level is that AMD is SOO far behind on CPUs that people lower the bar for them. Like if somehow AMD could only be four years behind instead of eight that is good enough.

Sandy Bridge IPC at Sandy Bridge speeds? Nope not gonna buy that, I have had it since 2012. And just throwing in more cores at Sandy Bridge IPC doesn't help when Xeon systems from that era are on eBay for cheap.

If AMD is gonna get me to buy I want Skylake IPC for cheap. Maybe the trade-off is power usage for the cheapness that is fine. If the trade-off is a lower IPC than forget about it.

 

[Abwx]

I'm amazed that people can punish themselves to buy lesser performing CPU's, just because they want to support a company for nonsensical reasons.

You have a 3570K IIRC and at the time the FX8350 was available at a competitive price in comparison, assuming i m doing some actual work using say 3ds Max, you think that it would have been a better choice to pick the same CPU as you rather than the FX..?..

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/913-7/cpu-performances-applicatives.html

Urban legends faced with realities...

 

[Cogman]

Agnostic, but generally I go with intel. The benchmarks just don't lie, AMD is behind. Which is too bad because I prefer to save a buck.

That being said, I feel like we are in a period of real performance stagnation. AMD is being given plenty of opportunities to catch up.

 

[Cogman]

I'm just biased toward the best parts, or the best parts for the money. I once had a Cyrix. When AMD came out with the awesome Athlon and Athlon XP, and Intel came out with the Pentium 4, I went with an Athlon XP. When AMD came out with the Bulldozer series, and Intel came out with the Core series, I went Intel.
If Zen is to Skylake as Athlon was to the early Pentium series (P2/P3), then...well, I only buy a new computer every 4-7 years, so I'll regret my recent Skylake purchase. :\ If they keep it up, I'd get AMD next time.

My sentiments exactly. I like supporting the underdog, however AMD has just been behind for so long.

 

[Silverforce11]

You have a 3570K IIRC and at the time the FX8350 was available at a competitive price in comparison, assuming i m doing some actual work using say 3ds Max, you think that it would have been a better choice to pick the same CPU as you rather than the FX..?..

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/913-7/cpu-performances-applicatives.html

Urban legends faced with realities...

I've always thought of the FX series as outstanding bang for buck for professional work, but they are pretty crap for gaming due to the time period back then when games were rarely well threaded.

High IPC single or two threads were the best for gaming.

It's only been since 2015 where games that are 6+ threads were common, and finally FX is matching i5 and sometimes even the i7, but it still uses more power.

So I never saw their value for my gaming builds. And i5 just does everything well, gaming and work, whether its single or multi-threaded and is not that much more expensive.

Though these days, Intel i5 carry a 50% premium over FX CPUs though and given that all the AAA games are so well threaded, the FX makes more sense than i5s. If I were to build a decent gaming rig now, for the price I would not hesitate to recommend the FX series. However, stepping up, the i7 has it beat but again it's easily 100% or more expensive.

 

[CuriousMike]

I have an AMD bias, but most CPU's in my house are Intel simply due to better performance.

Laptop 1 = intel (Dell)
Laptop 2 = intel (Asus)
Laptop 3 = intel (Macbook)
Laptop 4 = intel (Macbook)
Laptop 5 = intel (Chromebook)
Desktop 1 = Intel (4590)
Desktop 2 = Intel (2500k)
Desktop 3 = AMD Phenom X6-1045
Desktop 4 = AMD A-10 5800k