When is AMD ever a good value?

[Arachnotronic]

I don't think many of you realize that AMD isn't out to give you a "good value"; their products are generally inferior with respect to the metrics that customers want, so they have to lower prices to move product.

Very few would pay $299 for an FX-8350.

 

[SPBHM]

I don't think many of you realize that AMD isn't out to give you a "good value"; their products are generally inferior with respect to the metrics that customers want, so they have to lower prices to move product.

Very few would pay $299 for an FX-8350.

I think everybody understands that AMD cannot compete in terms of pure performance with Intel (like a 3970x), or power efficiency from the rest of the Intel products, so they need to find something... and trying to position the products with a good enough price (with lower profit margins) is a way to compensate, so I don't see any problem here,

the point of this topic probably was, is AMD succeeding in doing so, offering something with better or good price vs performance on its price range?

it's not an easy task, simply because Intel have a big lead from the technical side, and has been somewhat aggressive with pricing, Intel have great CPUs for $50, $100, $200, $300, $600 so you have a lot of options compressed into the same price range...

AMD was in the same position and also have been in a more comfortable position in the past, just look at their prices back in 2005, Intel had the cheapest dual cores by far, not AMD, and you could argue that a Pentium D 820 was "good value" but it was certainly much worse than AMD CPUs excluding the price... but it looks a little irrelevant, when I'm buying a CPU I want to know if it's the best for the money and that's it.

 

[AtenRa]

I don't think many of you realize that AMD isn't out to give you a "good value"; their products are generally inferior with respect to the metrics that customers want

In order to match the AMD A10-5800K both in CPU and GPU performance you will need to get an Intel Core i3 3220 + HD6770.

AMD A10-5800K = $129,99

Intel Core i3 3220 = $129,99
HD6770 GDDR5 = $79,99

In order to match the AMD A8-5600K both in CPU and GPU performance you will need to get an Intel Core i3 3225

AMD A8-5600K = $99,99
Intel Core i3 3225 = $139,99

If we count that both AMD APUs can OC and have more features than their Intel counterparts its obvious that Intel products are inferior and overpriced.

 

[DominionSeraph]

In order to match the AMD A10-5800K both in CPU and GPU performance you will need to get an Intel Core i3 3220 + HD6770.

G850 vs A10-5800k

Hint: The A10 is not the one on top.

G860 = $66.22
g2020 (ivy bridge so should have some IPC gains over sandy) = $61.99

And a 5770 doesn't match the A10, it destroys it. And I don't know why you'd be using a 5770 when when the 7770 is even faster, uses less power, and comes with two free games for the same price.
http://us.ncix.com/products/?usaffi...8&vpn=FX777AZNF4&manufacture=XFX&promoid=1316

 

[Vesku]

If you are going to be using a discrete card but have a <$100 CPU budget, why wouldn't you get the FM2 750K as NTMBK suggested?

 

[cbk]

If you are going to be using a discrete card but have a <$100 CPU budget, why wouldn't you get the FM2 750K as NTMBK suggested?

What is a FM2 750K? FM2 is the MB format for AMD's APUs.

 

[littlebluesmurf]

What is a FM2 750K? FM2 is the MB format for AMD's APUs.

It is simply a APU with the graphics part disabled (most likely due to it not functioning correctly) and sold as just a CPU instead.

 

[AtenRa]

G850 vs A10-5800k

Since you are living in the continental US, thus English is your first language, what part of both CPU and GPU performance of A10-5800K did you missed ???

 

[Subyman]

There's the Intel motherboard markup, which tends to be $40 more for a comparable Intel board vs the AMD counterpart. I recently built a FX8320 ($145) + Asus M5A97 ($65 open box) for less than the price of just a 4670k. It won't perform at the same level, but its still a rock solid set up for super cheap.

As for Intel's pentium chips, they are actually very powerful for the money. Its hardly ever worth it to jump up to the i3 if you are looking for a dual core set up. Its surprising how well the $45 Intel chips do in games.

 

[SPBHM]

In order to match the AMD A10-5800K both in CPU and GPU performance you will need to get an Intel Core i3 3220 + HD6770.

AMD A10-5800K = $129,99

Intel Core i3 3220 = $129,99
HD6770 GDDR5 = $79,99

In order to match the AMD A8-5600K both in CPU and GPU performance you will need to get an Intel Core i3 3225

AMD A8-5600K = $99,99
Intel Core i3 3225 = $139,99

If we count that both AMD APUs can OC and have more features than their Intel counterparts its obvious that Intel products are inferior and overpriced.

6770(5770) = around 2x the APU performance, it performs like a 7750 DDR5, it's MUCH faster, not really comparable.

A10 APU = +- 6670 DDR3
a $50 Celeron with the 6770/7750 would beat the A10 in GPU bound games, or even CPU intensive games if you go for 1080P medium/high.

anyway, that's why I think the 750K is great,

 

[AtenRa]

A10 APU = +- 6670 DDR3

Heh my bad, I meant HD6670 GDDR5 (~$70.00)

Also, Intel Dual cores are a joke for modern games and CPU performance is way lower than A10-5800K. Only the Core i3 is comparable and you will need to spend more to have both CPU and GPU performance with the Intel and on top of that you will have less features.

 

[scannall]

AMD is often a good value. My HTPC uses an A4, and my laptop uses an A8-4500. At those price points, they were the best value, and best fit my goals. My gaming rig is Intel, as that was the best part for those goals and price point.

I'd rather buy what will work best in a given situation, for the best price rather than join some team rooting for one corporation or another.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Since you are living in the continental US, thus English is your first language, what part of both CPU and GPU performance of A10-5800K did you missed ???

What part of a G850/860/2020 being a CPU and a 7770 being a GPU did you miss? You know you can combine them in one computer to get both CPU and GPU performance, right?

 

[cbk]

It is simply a APU with the graphics part disabled (most likely due to it not functioning correctly) and sold as just a CPU instead.

Oh.

 

[escrow4]

Yes, that is what a budget build is. But what about the FX-8350? That chip is made for CPU demanding things like video editing and rendering, not for a budget build. You should read our supports for why AMD can be a good choice.

If I wanted demanding editing/rendering I'd go i7 or hexa core as speed would be important to me, not budget. As I said an extra $100-$200 long-term is nothing to me if I need the speed. Likewise if I really needed a hexa core I wouldn't think twice.

 

[AtenRa]

What part of a G850/860/2020 being a CPU and a 7770 being a GPU did you miss? You know you can combine them in one computer to get both CPU and GPU performance, right?

G850/860/2020 CPU performance is way lower than A10-5800K, not comparable

 

[Rvenger]

I don't think many of you realize that AMD isn't out to give you a "good value"; their products are generally inferior with respect to the metrics that customers want, so they have to lower prices to move product.

Very few would pay $299 for an FX-8350.

FX-8350 is $199 MSRP. You can find it for $180 without much effort. You can find the FX-8320 for $150 pretty easily now too. I guess it needs to be free in order for it to be a good value But then if it were free it would be a bad value because it would catch up to a $350 4770k in 3 years in costs due to poor power consumption.

 

[Rvenger]

G850/860/2020 CPU performance is way lower than A10-5800K, not comparable

BF3 runs 100% better on an A8 or A10 than any Intel dual core w/o HT. Period.

 

[sxr7171]

I think you could build a good HTPC with AMD and get better value.

 

[2is]

My 5 reasons:

DISCLAIMER: I am NOT against Intel, I love their processors! These are just reasons why you may want to but AMD over Intel.

1) The crazy amount of cores in the FX-6300 and the FX-8350 (6 and 8) are great for CPU demanding projects, like video editing and uploading.

Except an i5 beats AMD's 6 cores pretty easily and even their 8 cores in most things, even the stuff AMD is suppose to be good at. For the select few times AMD's 8350 comes out on top of an i5, it still falls behind an i7

2) AMD's CPUs pack a punch for their cheap price, and their APUs have the best integrated graphics, so I think that AMD's CPUs and APUs are great for budget builds. (A great example here) If you are not convinced, look at this: http://forum.oktabit.gr/topic/oktabit-vero-w-pc-mainstream-a6800a#comment-115079 these are some of the most convincing game benchmarks on the AMD A10-6800K APU I have ever seen.

Haswell has narrowed the gap significantly, if you're using a video card, it's a moot point. If you're looking at laptops, Iris equipped haswell outperforms AMD's solutions.

3) AMD's CPUs are great for OCing, the Catalyst Control Center makes it very simple when OCing. Plus, you can do all that crazy Bulldozer stuff with the FX series.

This is only relavent if you're looking at i3's or lower end on the Intel side. i5's and i7's are just as easily overclocked as anything AMD has.

4) AMD's CPUs only use a few motherboard formats, FM1, FM2 (for APUs), AM3 and AM3+ are pretty much the only boards you will be using for their CPUs. Unlike Intel's CPU's, where a new board is needed every time the next upgrade is released, when you upgraded to Haswell from Ivy Bridge, you had to buy a new MB. You rarely have to do buy a new MB with AMD.

Intel does not change sockets every generation 1155 was good for Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge. And you don't need a different motherboard if you get a processor with or without an IGP.

5) Even older AMD CPUs, mainly the Phenom II, a 2-3 year old CPU still fly of the shelves, that's saying something.

Older Intel CPU's fly off the shelve faster and with more value. That's saying a lot more. I can get more from a 920 than a Phenom II.

 

[Vic Vega]

I bought my X4 965 for pennies back in 2010 and have been using it every day since then to earn a living. It has literally been overclocked to 4.0GHz since the second time the system was booted after assembly (and later to current 4.1GHz). This is easily the most stable and reliable system I have ever build and has given me zero problems of any kind in three years.

To me, that's pretty damn good value.

 

[DominionSeraph]

BF3 runs 100% better on an A8 or A10 than any Intel dual core w/o HT. Period.

Would you like a list of games that would run better on a Pentium's superior single-threaded performance? (I'll give you a hint: It's 99.99+% of games ever released for PC.)

And BF3 on HD 7660D? If you're gonna reduce IQ that low, why not get some skills and play UT or CS:S?

G850/860/2020 CPU performance is way lower than A10-5800K, not comparable

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35204958&postcount=79

 

[Silverforce11]

It's beyond stupid to build a new rig today and go with low end intel pentiums without HT, with the hope that newer games coming out are not crippled on anything less than quad core.

So no, if you want to use discrete GPU and discount the iGPU, a cheap intel duo core + discrete is NOT a better option than a cheap AMD quad/hex + discrete. At the bare minimum, one would have to go with an i3 with HT on for 4 threads to maximize the lifespan of that newly built rig.

As for older games with single threads, it doesn't matter because anything can run them well to put the bottleneck onto the cheap discrete GPU. If you have an expensive discrete GPU, then for sure, intel i5 or i7 all the way, no doubts about it.

I build a lot of rigs for people, and I always ask them their budget range and their usage scenario, there are definitely situations where AMD's APU is the superior choice. I am not biased as you can see, in my own rigs, its both Intel CPUs.

 

[beginner99]

Didnt anandtech prove that an AMD chip on a single 7970 can do as well as any intel chip for significantly less cash in games.

Only for single player. And it its well known that as example BF3 64 player maps can be cpu limited pretty quickly.

Take a look at the Athlon X4 760k: 3.8GHz quad core Richland, overclockable, £63.

http://www.dabs.com/products/amd-at...boards and Processors - Processors&origin=pla

The best price I can find for the i3-2100 is £88- the only Intel part for a comparable price are the Pentiums, which I wouldn't recommend for any modern games. Not to mention the Athlon is overclockable, unlike the Intel parts.

Agree. Those APUs without GPU are pretty cheap, quads and overclockable. probably the only thing one can actually recommend. Downside is were I live it's not available...

The problem with AMD is that in some cases it's just a lot worse than intel chips like SC2. If you go intel you only loose to an fx-8350 in some highly threaded niche scenarios and then it's by like 5% or less and not by 50-100%.

I don't know why APUs get discounted so easily. I think that for a system where there is no room or budget for a discrete graphics card, the A10-6700 is hard to beat. I'm planning a mini-ITX build with one, but want to learn more about the thermals first. It certainly had the best graphics performance of all the options I researched.

If you get above Athlon + a $100 discrete card you don't pay much more than for an APU but the system will be much better for gaming. If you factor in total cost of the system including all software (games) this like $50 bucks more is extremely marginal and it would be stupid to not spend it and then have to play at 720p instead of 1080p and at worse settings.

 

[cbk]

Except an i5 beats AMD's 6 cores pretty easily and even their 8 cores in most things, even the stuff AMD is suppose to be good at. For the select few times AMD's 8350 comes out on top of an i5, it still falls behind an i7

The i5 is $100+ more than the 6300, and the i7 is $100+ more than 8350. (Haswell/Ivy i5 and i7) You shouldn't be comparing the 8350 to the i7. The 8350 is an equal price to the i5, and your statement proves that you agree that the 8350 is better $200 CPU!

6. AMD's $200 CPU, the FX-8350, beats Intel's $200 CPU, the i5. At the same price of $200, the FX-8350 > i5. So, if you have a $200 CPU budget, you should buy a 8350.