When is AMD ever a good value?

[frozentundra123456]

When I see posts like this in these threads, I often think they do the opposite of what was intended, at least for me they do. I think a better question to ask would be why anyone would spend a penny over what an FX6300 costs to game? Even in this very bad case, the FX6300 still managers to come very close to 50FPS as a min. Why pay more for performance that you won't see?

Unless you're building a balls out gaming system or are very sensitive to FPS/want 120Hz, pretty much any CPU in the FX6300 price range or higher (by either comany) should do the job.

I dunno, why does someone want a camry over a echo or a ford Fusion over a focus? Why do you want a 50 in TV instead of a 30 in one? Why do you want a nice house when one that is half the price will suffice? Some people just want a better product that fills their needs and gives some satisfaction of having more than you need.

Personally, I think computers is one of the easiest places to indulge yourself in something better than "good enough", because the prices are so low relative to other areas we spend money on.

 

[monstercameron]

I dunno, why does someone want a camry over a echo or a ford Fusion over a focus? Why do you want a 50 in TV instead of a 30 in one? Why do you want a nice house when one that is half the price will suffice? Some people just want a better product that fills their needs and gives some satisfaction of having more than you need.

Personally, I think computers is one of the easiest places to indulge yourself in something better than "good enough", because the prices are so low relative to other areas we spend money on.

not everyone is as privileged or just want to spend carelessly for some internal struggle...

 

[frozentundra123456]

That is a good point that I didn't think of. I suppose if the area benchmarked isn't very representative of the rest of the game or is too light, then that could mean trouble for the slower processors in other areas of the game.




I wasn't trying to argue AMD vs. Intel, just that singular post because I have seen numerous posts like it in various different threads over the last few months. But since you brought it up (and I purposly didn't since this is just my gut feeling) we can talk a little about more demanding games in the future and AMD/Intel. So what does a future 'more demanding game' release mean once a low IPC/higher core count AMD chip is in both the Playstation 4 and Xbox One? Will a fast dual or quad core perform well enough? Or will APU's become to new gaming performance standard and all this is moot?

To me it isn't a difficult concept either. But I think a lot of the time enthusiasts struggle to realize a practical difference from a difference on paper. To me the benchmark above would not be a pratical real world difference (assuming those scores were representative of the rest of the game, as Balla pointed out) on 60Hz monitors. But obviously it is a clear win for Intel to most here, because their CPU's bench better in this beta game. Seeing how that game doesn't gain much going from a 2500k to a 3970X or from a 4300 to an 8350, I doubt it is very threaded. Now imagine that same game being created for the PS4 and XBOne first and then ported to PC, it'd be easy to see how the situation could change.

I have played COH2 quite a bit, and at least according to task manager, it utilizes 4 cores very equally on my i5. I dont know how accurate that is as a measure of cpu usage, but that is what I see without any sophisticated monitoring tools.

I also see your point about future proofing. The problem is that in order to "future proof",
for a possible, unknown amount of benefit you have to give up quite a bit in the current environment, i.e. less well rounded gaming performance over a wide variety of games, and higher power usage. Is it worth it?? Could be, TBH I dont know. All I am saying is that in order to be more future proof, one is giving up something as well.

Personally, I feel that if a quad intel, especially if overclocked, ever becomes inadequate for gaming, an 8350 would be as well, and either a true hex core intel or a faster AMD chip would be required anyway. But again, I could be wrong, it is just my best guess.

 

[Sheep221]

Why? Better question is why would anyone chose a processor that only manages to get 50fps in todays games only to screw themselves when a more demanding game gets released? Not to mention, this is just a single game. I'd rather spend the extra money and get an i5/i7 than save $100 during the time of my build only to have to spend more than that on processor upgrades down the road, because that's all you're doing. They're cheaper because they don't perform as good and will need to be replaced sooner.

Not a difficult concept. For me, going with Intel will give me better performance than you going AMD and a few years down the line, you'll have spent more on upgrades while only being able to match what my processor that's a few generations older than yours. All the while, in years past I enjoyed higher performance and lower power consumption.

Moral of the story? Intel saves you money and performs better.

While your opinion is rational, I disagree, you completely forgot about consumerism, as most of the people here upgrade every 2-3 years just for the sake of upgrading, the huge time scape has to pass in order to computer be totally obsolete for newer software and for games.

So arguing that you bought more expensive Intel to keep it longer time is just false idea because you sell it way too early before it becomes obsolete just like you would do with comparable AMD processor which would be cheaper on its acquisition. I agree intels are better, even probably better value for money, but I don't believe anyone on enthusiast forums like these, they bought stronger CPU to keep it longer or for future games, when they trade that rig in 2 years or will upgrade immediately when they will find first signs of slow performance.

 

[crashtech]

Back to the OT, it seems that for some mini-ITX builds wanting a bit of gaming performance, an A10 is the way to go, since using it gives better graphics performance than Intel's iGPU where no discrete solution is possible.

Once Haswell i3s are released, this equation might change somewhat. But for now, I believe the mini-ITX scenario is one that answers the OP's question.

 

[BigChickenJim]

I dunno, why does someone want a camry over a echo or a ford Fusion over a focus? Why do you want a 50 in TV instead of a 30 in one? Why do you want a nice house when one that is half the price will suffice? Some people just want a better product that fills their needs and gives some satisfaction of having more than you need.

Personally, I think computers is one of the easiest places to indulge yourself in something better than "good enough", because the prices are so low relative to other areas we spend money on.

I know that I'm a newbie poster here, but it sure seems to me that you've just applied your personal outlook on spending and wants to every other person out there as if we're all the same.

Personally, I don't want a mansion. I have no interest in anything bigger than a 30 in TV. What I want is to get good performance for a reasonable price. Sure, if I wanted to I could probably afford to go out and blow 10k on a gaming rig that would last for 12 years, but I don't want to. You can't just assume that everyone out there wants the absolute most expensive/best thing that money can buy at any given time. Some of us just want to play our games and have some dough left over for other things.

Intel may beat them hands-down in most tasks, but AMD still provides good real-world performance for end users at a fraction of the cost. No one who isn't a huge PC enthusiast is going to notice a 5-10 FPS difference without FRAPs running 24/7. Benchmarks mean very little to those of us primarily interested in actual, in-the-wild game performance, and AMD does just fine in that department judging from my rather lengthy experiences with them.

Or maybe I just want a to buy a bigger TV with that extra 100 bones.

 

[bgt]

AMD is always good value I never regretted having AMD CPU's. Intel is also OK but expensive for the bit extra you get.

 

[2is]

While your opinion is rational, I disagree, you completely forgot about consumerism, as most of the people here upgrade every 2-3 years just for the sake of upgrading, the huge time scape has to pass in order to computer be totally obsolete for newer software and for games.

So arguing that you bought more expensive Intel to keep it longer time is just false idea because you sell it way too early before it becomes obsolete just like you would do with comparable AMD processor which would be cheaper on its acquisition. I agree intels are better, even probably better value for money, but I don't believe anyone on enthusiast forums like these, they bought stronger CPU to keep it longer or for future games, when they trade that rig in 2 years or will upgrade immediately when they will find first signs of slow performance.

Not as far as I'm concerned. I'm not sure what you consider to be "obsolete" but I keep my processors until they don't provide the performance I'm looking for. Before my 3770k I had a Q6600 and kept it until I felt it's performance was holding be back. That took about 5 years and didn't happen until BF3. Even then I kept it a bit longer because IB had not been released yet and I knew it was coming. Had I decided on a Phenom (I) instead, I would have needed to upgrade far sooner, to a Phenom II for example, which would still not have provided spectacular performance in BF3.

 

[cbk]

Back to the OT, it seems that for some mini-ITX builds wanting a bit of gaming performance, an A10 is the way to go, since using it gives better graphics performance than Intel's iGPU where no discrete solution is possible.

Once Haswell i3s are released, this equation might change somewhat. But for now, I believe the mini-ITX scenario is one that answers the OP's question.

A-Series in mini-ITX = good idea!

 

[crashtech]

A-Series in mini-ITX = good idea!

With a caveat, the 100W versions would not be acceptable, and it remains to be seen whether the 65W versions stay cool enough in the cramped quarters of a mini-ITX enclosure. But I might be trying this out on my wife's next "desktop" build with a VESA mount to the back of her monitor.

 

[cbk]

Saw this vid, looks pretty convincing.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=HA2iC-ZfxJc&feature=related

 

[Phynaz]

1. Core i3 Graphics < A6 Graphics.

For an HTPC? No.

 

[Headfoot]

That deal sucks though. TigerDirect had the 6300 for $90 last week

 

[frozentundra123456]

I know that I'm a newbie poster here, but it sure seems to me that you've just applied your personal outlook on spending and wants to every other person out there as if we're all the same.

Personally, I don't want a mansion. I have no interest in anything bigger than a 30 in TV. What I want is to get good performance for a reasonable price. Sure, if I wanted to I could probably afford to go out and blow 10k on a gaming rig that would last for 12 years, but I don't want to. You can't just assume that everyone out there wants the absolute most expensive/best thing that money can buy at any given time. Some of us just want to play our games and have some dough left over for other things.

Intel may beat them hands-down in most tasks, but AMD still provides good real-world performance for end users at a fraction of the cost. No one who isn't a huge PC enthusiast is going to notice a 5-10 FPS difference without FRAPs running 24/7. Benchmarks mean very little to those of us primarily interested in actual, in-the-wild game performance, and AMD does just fine in that department judging from my rather lengthy experiences with them.

Or maybe I just want a to buy a bigger TV with that extra 100 bones.

I am not advocating anything. All I am saying is people buy more than the bare minimum. It happens in a lot of purchases. My point was that moving up to more than the minimum in a computer purchase was relatively economical compared to a lot of other areas. If that offends you somehow, I am sorry, but you cant deny that that is how people spend money, at least some of them.

Edit: I never even said AMD was not a good value, although personally I think it is only a good value in limited price segments, the FX6300 being one of them.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I dunno, why does someone want a camry over a echo or a ford Fusion over a focus? Why do you want a 50 in TV instead of a 30 in one? Why do you want a nice house when one that is half the price will suffice? Some people just want a better product that fills their needs and gives some satisfaction of having more than you need.

Personally, I think computers is one of the easiest places to indulge yourself in something better than "good enough", because the prices are so low relative to other areas we spend money on.

I agree 100%! I was responding with a general statement about benchmarks like the one Malibu posted. I wasn't trying to imply no one should buy anything above an FX6300 level CPU. What I was saying is iif that benchmark is one of the worst case situations for AMD, where even its lower end parts can average 60FPS, then are some people possibly putting too much emphasis on numbers that are just wins on paper and not 'real world'.

I understand that having a more powerful CPU now would be better for future gaming as that horsepower you have to spare may be put to use where a slower CPU that is 'good enough' now will be too slow then. But my contension is that with AMD in the two consoles that matter for PC gaming, with their lower IPC but moar core approach, that changes things. At least I think it will. We haven't had a single x86 CPU maker using a such a similar architecture in both consoles before... I think that'll make a difference and is why we cannot use previous console history as a model here. I might be right, I might be so wrong that an FX8350/A10 APU will struggle with Windows 9 Minecraft. I guess it'll be a few years before we know anything.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I have played COH2 quite a bit, and at least according to task manager, it utilizes 4 cores very equally on my i5. I dont know how accurate that is as a measure of cpu usage, but that is what I see without any sophisticated monitoring tools.

I also see your point about future proofing. The problem is that in order to "future proof",
for a possible, unknown amount of benefit you have to give up quite a bit in the current environment, i.e. less well rounded gaming performance over a wide variety of games, and higher power usage. Is it worth it?? Could be, TBH I dont know. All I am saying is that in order to be more future proof, one is giving up something as well.

Personally, I feel that if a quad intel, especially if overclocked, ever becomes inadequate for gaming, an 8350 would be as well, and either a true hex core intel or a faster AMD chip would be required anyway. But again, I could be wrong, it is just my best guess.

I think we're on the same page, just different opinions about what will be better in the future, which is cool. :$ If I'm wrong feel free to bump this thread in a few years.

I know that AMD's CPU's have plenty of downfalls compared to Intel. Its just that I believe a lot of those downfalls are overblown, but obviously each person has different requirements and tastes.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I agree 100%! I was responding with a general statement about benchmarks like the one Malibu posted. I wasn't trying to imply no one should buy anything above an FX6300 level CPU. What I was saying is iif that benchmark is one of the worst case situations for AMD, where even its lower end parts can average 60FPS, then are some people possibly putting too much emphasis on numbers that are just wins on paper and not 'real world'.

I understand that having a more powerful CPU now would be better for future gaming as that horsepower you have to spare may be put to use where a slower CPU that is 'good enough' now will be too slow then. But my contension is that with AMD in the two consoles that matter for PC gaming, with their lower IPC but moar core approach, that changes things. At least I think it will. We haven't had a single x86 CPU maker using a such a similar architecture in both consoles before... I think that'll make a difference and is why we cannot use previous console history as a model here. I might be right, I might be so wrong that an FX8350/A10 APU will struggle with Windows 9 Minecraft. I guess it'll be a few years before we know anything.

You are right, nobody really knows. As I posted earlier though, you do pay a price in less well rounded gaming performance in older and most current games, as well as higher power consumption, for possibly better relative performance in the future. So the choice is not really a simple one.

Edit: didnt see your immediate previous post before writing this one. Seems reasonable to me.

 

[BigChickenJim]

I am not advocating anything. All I am saying is people buy more than the bare minimum. It happens in a lot of purchases. My point was that moving up to more than the minimum in a computer purchase was relatively economical compared to a lot of other areas. If that offends you somehow, I am sorry, but you cant deny that that is how people spend money, at least some of them.

Edit: I never even said AMD was not a good value, although personally I think it is only a good value in limited price segments, the FX6300 being one of them.

No offense taken. I'm just saying that some of us are happy at 60FPS (or possibly even a little less) on our relatively cheap AMD hardware, and that's ok. If you want a monstrous rig that will still turn on and run games when it's discovered by archaeologists in 1,000 years, more power to you. You just have to remember that different consumers (and ESPECIALLY different PC builders) want/need different things for different reasons. There's no singular right answer betweem Intel or AMD; it's all subjective.

I may hae misinterpreted, but it just seemed as if you assumed that all consumers wanted the best performance available while the guy you were responding to assumed people only want value. I think the answer varies per person and per build. That was my only point.

OP: the TLDR version of all this is that yes, AMD is sometimes the best decision for some consumers. The same can be said of Intel. Nebulous answer, but it's the only one that holds water.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I think we're on the same page, just different opinions about what will be better in the future, which is cool. :$ If I'm wrong feel free to bump this thread in a few years.

I know that AMD's CPU's have plenty of downfalls compared to Intel. Its just that I believe a lot of those downfalls are overblown, but obviously each person has different requirements and tastes.

Perspective of course makes a difference, as well as needs.

Personally I'm predominately focused on gaming, if you look at my build I have a about probably $1300 before the cpu cost is even a factor.

What do I care if the 8350 is $200 and the i5-4670k is $210?

We're talking about a small price difference on a part that costs $200, when my VGAs cost three times as much.


Another way to look at it, if I go to a review, anywhere really and they're running a 4.5GHz i7-3770k like Apoppin runs with his 7970 at GHz speeds I can actually beat his scores in more cpu bound situations, that's a $100 price difference in cards at the same clocks where the slower, cheaper card is actually a hair faster.

Even if future games use eight cores, the 8350 will only reach similar performance levels, it won't exceed. Haswell has a better set of instructions, and you simply aren't going to rid yourself of the PC exclusive titles like SC2, PoE, WoW, Grim Dawn, these games thrive on single thread performance. As do any current titles, even threaded ones like Crysis 3, when it comes to multiplayer. 8350 tanks in these situations, and that's what I care about. I don't care if I'm getting 80 or 150 fps avg in a single player game, what I care about is what happens when things start to pop off in multiplayer.

Another sad, but true example is Skyrim. When that came out people with AMD processors were getting dreadful FPS, because of the x87 code. People were reporting fps in the 20's or lower in Whiterun, however if you had a i5-2500k overclocked to say 5.2GHz you'd be able to get around 44-46 fps in the same area. It's just things like this which separate the two choices for me, I can't control what software floats my way, all I can do is arm myself with the best possible configuration to deal with whatever comes down the pipe.

AMD does have a niche where they're very strong, it's just in the sub $600 build range, probably even lower than that. It isn't a performance brand anymore, it's a budget orientated compromise brand.

 

[Bradtech519]

AMD isn't a very good choice if you are buying new. I got my CPU, Mobo, RAM, and after market cooler for $300 used. The CPU alone going I7 new wouldn't have covered that. I care more about GPU performance in distributed computing. I've shot past several people with Core I7 processors and bad video cards (if they had the same GPU that wouldn't be the case). If I were to go play World of Warcraft I'd get good enough frame rate to enjoy the game on high. I run virtual machines and distributed computing 95% of the time outside of playing quake 2 DM runs at night. To me this last upgrade I got great performance for what I paid so I am happy.

 

[cbk]

Perspective of course makes a difference, as well as needs.

Personally I'm predominately focused on gaming, if you look at my build I have a about probably $1300 before the cpu cost is even a factor.

What do I care if the 8350 is $200 and the i5-4670k is $210?

We're talking about a small price difference on a part that costs $200, when my VGAs cost three times as much.


Another way to look at it, if I go to a review, anywhere really and they're running a 4.5GHz i7-3770k like Apoppin runs with his 7970 at GHz speeds I can actually beat his scores in more cpu bound situations, that's a $100 price difference in cards at the same clocks where the slower, cheaper card is actually a hair faster.

Even if future games use eight cores, the 8350 will only reach similar performance levels, it won't exceed. Haswell has a better set of instructions, and you simply aren't going to rid yourself of the PC exclusive titles like SC2, PoE, WoW, Grim Dawn, these games thrive on single thread performance. As do any current titles, even threaded ones like Crysis 3, when it comes to multiplayer. 8350 tanks in these situations, and that's what I care about. I don't care if I'm getting 80 or 150 fps avg in a single player game, what I care about is what happens when things start to pop off in multiplayer.

Another sad, but true example is Skyrim. When that came out people with AMD processors were getting dreadful FPS, because of the x87 code. People were reporting fps in the 20's or lower in Whiterun, however if you had a i5-2500k overclocked to say 5.2GHz you'd be able to get around 44-46 fps in the same area. It's just things like this which separate the two choices for me, I can't control what software floats my way, all I can do is arm myself with the best possible configuration to deal with whatever comes down the pipe.

AMD does have a niche where they're very strong, it's just in the sub $600 build range, probably even lower than that. It isn't a performance brand anymore, it's a budget orientated compromise brand.

Thank you for explaining my every thought! It's all in the budget!

 

[tential]

Thank you for explaining my every thought! It's all in the budget!

I'd say even in the budget realm AMD has its problems. I considered them for HTPCs, but after reading XBMC.org's hardware forum section, even people using small HTPCs STILL recommend intel. Programs and OSes that XBMC use just seem to work better on intel or there aren't drivers out that work with AMD. Intel has budget options available (I was surprised...) too.

For the HTPC market at least, from just my time on XBMC forums, it seems like size is the largest concern. People are expecting their PCs to fit in Intel NUC type boxes for HTPC and people aren't trusting AMD because they have more heat to dissipate. Maybe AMD's new processors change that and I'm sure over the upcoming months we'll see more consumer experiences with it, but from what I've just read over there, they aren't really a favorite.

The best application HTPC wise I think they could be used as, is a 720p Xbox type gaming rig. If you set your resolution to 720p, gaming is pretty realistic. We've gamed on the Xbox 360 and PS3 and most console users are very happy with that experience. You could emulate that for 300-400 dollars for with AMD, and still have functionality of a PC. That's the best application where AMD wins hands down.

 

[Silverforce11]

With a caveat, the 100W versions would not be acceptable, and it remains to be seen whether the 65W versions stay cool enough in the cramped quarters of a mini-ITX enclosure. But I might be trying this out on my wife's next "desktop" build with a VESA mount to the back of her monitor.

I've just built several mITX rigs with A10, case: Silverstone SUGO6, with included high quality 450W PSU. Space for a 120mm radiator cooler as well if one needs the OC power.

OC A10 with fast ram stomps all over Haswell, for much cheaper. It's a HTPC rig that can actually do gaming at acceptable quality and speeds.

So certainly, any build without a discrete GPU, AMD's APU is a great choice. As soon as the budget is increased for a discrete GPU, I would recommend Intel all the way. One has to keep an open mind and its definitely not Intel = automatically superior in all situations.

ps. For sure AMD simply cannot compete in the higher priced gaming PC, not until they improve their IPC for single or dual threads. But it will certainly be interesting down the road when cross platform games are designed ground up to run on AMD's ecosystem. By then, we may actually see the advantages of "MOAR COARS!!".

 

[Vesku]

I'd say even in the budget realm AMD has its problems. I considered them for HTPCs, but after reading XBMC.org's hardware forum section, even people using small HTPCs STILL recommend intel. Programs and OSes that XBMC use just seem to work better on intel or there aren't drivers out that work with AMD. Intel has budget options available (I was surprised...) too.

For the HTPC market at least, from just my time on XBMC forums, it seems like size is the largest concern. People are expecting their PCs to fit in Intel NUC type boxes for HTPC and people aren't trusting AMD because they have more heat to dissipate. Maybe AMD's new processors change that and I'm sure over the upcoming months we'll see more consumer experiences with it, but from what I've just read over there, they aren't really a favorite.

The best application HTPC wise I think they could be used as, is a 720p Xbox type gaming rig. If you set your resolution to 720p, gaming is pretty realistic. We've gamed on the Xbox 360 and PS3 and most console users are very happy with that experience. You could emulate that for 300-400 dollars for with AMD, and still have functionality of a PC. That's the best application where AMD wins hands down.

Not seeing a lot of platform complaints in general at http://forum.xbmc.org/index.php

 

[ibex333]

AMD is always good value I never regretted having AMD CPU's. Intel is also OK but expensive for the bit extra you get.

But that is simply not true. Did you read the whole thread and people's replies?