The CPU Vendor Bias Admission Thread

[Game_dev]

I'm an ARM fan

 

[crashtech]

I want to go back to AMD when they begin making competitive CPUs again, but for the last several years, I've been an Intel shop almost exclusively. Which is funny, since I copped to an AMD bias in the GPU thread.

 

[moonbogg]

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.

Not only would I buy it, but I would welcome back my long lost love, a high performance, completely badass FX CPU powering all of my entertainment needs, just like I had with my FX-57. That said, AMD sucks and I fully expect Zen to suck. Skylake-E here we come.

 

[Gikaseixas]

AMD fanboy for cpus here
But, but i'll buy what's best for me and that's Intel right now. When it comes to my money, i don't think twice, Intel has been really solid this past few years, so i'll reward them.

 

[AtenRa]

I have used both Intel and AMD in the past and Im still continue to use and recommend both of them depending on the usage/needs and budget.

Even on the Pentium 4 era, I was using more Intel CPUs (except of the first P4) because I liked them more due to higher Overclocks.

My vote went to no bias

 

[positivedoppler]

I am pro Cyrix 1st. Intel 2nd and amd 3rd. I have to admit this forum changed things. Relentless bashing, baiting, and borderline trolling by a few select individuals here who are almost professional at dancing that fine line at taking a swing at anything amd and I've noticed it's starting to work up a bias which annoys me greatly.

 

[Flapdrol1337]

I'd like to have an amd cpu, but I use this system mainly for games, and in many games the higher the per core performance the better.

Really starting to build a grudge against intel for increasing prices faster than performance.

 

[eton975]

I am pro Cyrix 1st. Intel 2nd and amd 3rd. I have to admit this forum changed things. Relentless bashing, baiting, and borderline trolling by a few select individuals here who are almost professional at dancing that fine line at taking a swing at anything amd and I've noticed it's starting to work up a bias which annoys me greatly.

Isn't the perf/watt of modern VIA CPUs pretty questionable?

 

[DidelisDiskas]

Pro amd (made a super budget amd "gaming" build recently), because of their recent open source linux drivers for gpus and because i don't want intel to be the only company making desktop cpus. Otherwise i recognize that intel has the superior products. Had 3 intel pcs and 2 amd ones.

 

[YBS1]

Neutral.

My only potential bias would be my bad experience with non-intel chipset 10+ years ago.

Exactly my thoughts, my experience with my A88X FM2+ platform has been rock solid though so I'd be willing to give AMD a go on the high end should they bring some heat to Intel.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Really starting to build a grudge against intel for increasing prices faster than performance.

Then its a good thing they are not.

 

[myocardia]

Then its a good thing they are not.

Oh, come on! They're nearly keeping up with inflation.

 

[Avalon]

I voted #3 based on my purchase history...

PII, PIII, Athlon, Athlon XP, Athlon 64 x2, Core 2, Core i5 (Lynnfield), Core i5 (Sandy Bridge), Core i5 (Ivy Bridge)...

Waiting to see if my next chip will be Zen or Skylake. Being able to overclock does play a factor into my purchasing decision. Not a big fan of the Core i5 K chips hitting $250 now. Would rather purchase something in the $150 range that I can overclock.

 

[DeathReborn]

I prefer AMD CPU's even though I currently use (mostly) Intel ones.

 

[cytg111]

Skylake-E here we come..

Broadwell-E is coming up, contemplating on a hex part instead of a 6700 .. not that much different from a 6700k (if pricing is conserved)

 

[JB24]

I've been an AMD fan for a long time, but the past few generations of AMD have really been pretty crappy compared to Intel. So this most recent upgrade I walked away from AMD and went with a i7 6700k. Runs WAY cooler than my AMDs, and kicks butt in Adobe Premiere.

 

[jihe]

The only bias I have is not touching AMD with a 10 foot pole on a laptop. Actually the same with atom. On desktop I will use anything as long as the price is right.

 

[Mahigan]

Best CPU gets my money. Don't care about the brand.

 

[IllogicalGlory]

I don't like any of them.

There's no CPU on the market that performs well enough to handle all the horrible software big studios inflict on us, and certainly nothing that's enough to handle the old single-threaded games like Oblivion and Warcraft III (seriously). Emulation is a problem too. Unfortunately, with the rate of performance increases, I don't have much to look forward to. Just waiting for some kind of huge shift that gets us away from this 5-10% every year and a half crap.

Honestly, all I've ever wanted was a perfect experience in modded Oblivion. Neither Intel nor AMD has delivered one. In a 10 year old game. :\

 

[coercitiv]

I don't like any of them.

There's no CPU on the market that performs well enough to handle all the horrible software big studios inflict on us, and certainly nothing that's enough to handle the old single-threaded games like Oblivion and Warcraft III (seriously). Emulation is a problem too. Unfortunately, with the rate of performance increases, I don't have much to look forward to. Just waiting for some kind of huge shift that gets us away from this 5-10% every year and a half crap.

Honestly, all I've ever wanted was a perfect experience in modded Oblivion. Neither Intel nor AMD has delivered one. In a 10 year old game. :\

But you don't just want increased ST, don't you? You also want equal or increased overall throughput.

If Intel makes a CPU with 40% increased ST performance and 60% decreased throughput, will you pay $399 just to play Oblivion and Warcraft III?

The only way I can see this happening is by using a CPU with strong MT performance in combination with another hardware/software layer that works to extract whatever degree of parallelization out of a single thread in order to run it on a few more threads. Something like using 50% of your CPU throughput to get virtual ST performance increase on remaining cores.

This way we can keep scaling MT performance, make only small but efficient ST improvements, and run legacy code with increased performance at the (high) cost of decreased efficiency.

 

[CHADBOGA]

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 have no need for 3ds Max, I only care about performance in games now and in the future, thus single core performance(when one has 4 cores in a quad) is KING.

The FX8350 is a space heater that was never a good option for my usage, or about 90% of people's usage.

 

[IllogicalGlory]

But you don't just want increased ST, don't you? You also want equal or increased overall throughput.

If Intel makes a CPU with 40% increased ST performance and 60% decreased throughput, will you pay $399 just to play Oblivion and Warcraft III?

The only way I can see this happening is by using a CPU with strong MT performance in combination with another hardware/software layer that works to extract whatever degree of parallelization out of a single thread in order to run it on a few more threads. Something like using 50% of your CPU throughput to get virtual ST performance increase on remaining cores.

This way we can keep scaling MT performance, make only small but efficient ST improvements, and run legacy code with increased performance at the (high) cost of decreased efficiency.

I would buy a CPU with low throughput and high single thread performance. Even for $400. A real CPU upgrade is worth a lot to me.

I don't know if anyone else would, but I know I would, especially when every CPU that's come out in the past five years provides an almost indistinguishable experience when overclocked. A CPU that legitimately does single-thread better would be amazing.

 

[poofyhairguy]

I would buy a CPU with low throughput and high single thread performance. Even for $400. A real CPU upgrade is worth a lot to me.

Me too, that would be an emulation powerhouse.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Me too, that would be an emulation powerhouse.

Poofyhairguy, meet my G4400 @ 4.455Ghz. Scores 2261 on CPU-Z ST benchmark.

 

[IllogicalGlory]

Poofyhairguy, meet my G4400 @ 4.455Ghz. Scores 2261 on CPU-Z ST benchmark.

Relatively speaking, that is a powerhouse, but it's still pretty far from the mark IMO. ()

My 4790K scores about 2140 and I still don't get the performance I want in Dolphin or other single/dual threaded programs.