Why would/did you buy an AMD CPU?

[CHADBOGA]

Why do people think that your next door Microcenter prices are indicative of the prices commonly prevailing over the rest of the world ? The latest AMD cpu+mobo combo is anywhere between 50 ~ 75% of the price(depending on the mobo) of 4770K + compatible board while delivering equivalent(to its price) level of performance & I suspect most other nations, where there are any number of taxes to be paid, we have the same issue !

Wow, I never realised that Intel only had the 4770K available for sale. 😵

 

[NTMBK]

I had an AM2+ motherboard, and needed a quick upgrade. Phenom II X4 fit the job nicely.

 

[R0H1T]

Wow, I never realised that Intel only had the 4770K available for sale. 😵

Certainly not but AMD with it's APU is certainly a better VFM proposition if you're aiming for a price bracket(cpu+mobo) below 300$ & that represents most of the market in terms of volumes, btw this doesn't even take into account the variable taxes we have to pay, also this argument about IGP not being good enough for gaming(even casual) is getting stale as the steam survey puts HD 4xxx being the most common GPU out there !

The avg joe doesn't need to spend a great deal of (extra)money on Intel parts when he can get 50~75% of the CPU perf at roughly the same/equivalent price, what he does get though is a much better GPGPU & IGP experience with AMD but sadly the Intel name still sells & the power argument is usually blown way out of proportion, to put it as a huge disadvantage when talking of AMD, even though we're talking about APU's in general !

 

[CHADBOGA]

Certainly not but AMD with it's APU is certainly a better VFM proposition if you're aiming for a price bracket(cpu+mobo) below 300$ & that represents most of the market in terms of volumes, btw this doesn't even take into account the variable taxes we have to pay, also this argument about IGP not being good enough for gaming(even casual) is getting stale as the steam survey puts HD 4xxx being the most common GPU out there !

The avg joe doesn't need to spend a great deal of (extra)money on Intel parts when he can get 50~75% of the CPU perf at roughly the same/equivalent price, what he does get though is a much better GPGPU & IGP experience with AMD but sadly the Intel name still sells & the power argument is usually blown way out of proportion, to put it as a huge disadvantage when talking of AMD, even though we're talking about APU's in general !

The average joe doesn't need to spend a great deal of (extra)money on Intel parts because from the i5 4670K down, Intel's parts simply don't cost that much and give much better CPU performance than AMD CPU's at this point in time.

It's appalling how people who are supposed to be computer enthusiasts and honestly discussing computer components, instead become disciples of a company and pump their inferior products for all they are worth.

How many people need or want only the GPU power of Kaveri(and no more) AND only need or want the CPU power of Kaveri(and no more), at the prices AMD are charging?

This must be a very small group of potential users, yet you have strange people pretending it would be the majority of users. D:

 

[R0H1T]

The average joe doesn't need to spend a great deal of (extra)money on Intel parts because from the i5 4670K down, Intel's parts simply don't cost that much and give much better CPU performance than AMD CPU's at this point in time.

It's appalling how people who are supposed to be computer enthusiasts and honestly discussing computer components, instead become disciples of a company and pump their inferior products for all they are worth.

How many people need or want only the GPU power of Kaveri(and no more) AND only need or want the CPU power of Kaveri(and no more), at the prices AMD are charging?

This must be a very small group of potential users, yet you have strange people pretending it would be the majority of users. D:

And you're saying this on the basis of what ~ the AT forums ?

Most people in this world do not need a quad core i7 or i5 for their desktop - fact
More people rely on IGP performance than on the xMIPS Intel CPU's pump because not very many apps are able to use that power(MT) effectively, if at all - fact

The combo I suggested (7850K+compatible mobo) costs almost 250 ~300$ at my place, including taxes of course, & that's after the fact that the A10 was just recently launched & will see a price a cut inevitably, sooner rather than later. The 4670K + mobo would cost in the range of 350~400$ & this is the price where most users would find it outside the US.

So what exactly are you trying to preach me that SSD's are more common than HDD or that dGPU are more popular than IGP out there in the real world, & let's not limit this just to the enthusiast community shall we ?

What people need & what people get are two different things(often separated by the tiniest amount of $) & I've always emphasized that even 50$ makes a world of difference to that purchase you're making, especially outside the US where taxes come into play.

 

[coercitiv]

How many people need or want only the GPU power of Kaveri(and no more) AND only need or want the CPU power of Kaveri(and no more), at the prices AMD are charging?

This must be a very small group of potential users, yet you have strange people pretending it would be the majority of users. D:

Most people would not be able to distinguish between similarly priced Haswell and Kaveri builds.

 

[inf64]

Most people would not be able to distinguish between similarly priced Haswell and Kaveri builds.

So true, especially if SSD is in both systems.

 

[Yuriman]

And you're saying this on the basis of what ~ the AT forums ?

Most people in this world do not need a quad core i7 or i5 for their desktop - fact
More people rely on IGP performance than on the xMIPS Intel CPU's pump because not very many apps are able to use that power(MT) effectively, if at all - fact

The combo I suggested (7850K+compatible mobo) costs almost 250 ~300$ at my place, including taxes of course, & that's after the fact that the A10 was just recently launched & will see a price a cut inevitably, sooner rather than later. The 4670K + mobo would cost in the range of 350~400$ & this is the price where most users would find it outside the US.

So what exactly are you trying to preach me that SSD's are more common than HDD or that dGPU are more popular than IGP out there in the real world, & let's not limit this just to the enthusiast community shall we ?

What people need & what people get are two different things(often separated by the tiniest amount of $) & I've always emphasized that even 50$ makes a world of difference to that purchase you're making, especially outside the US where taxes come into play.

An i3 is a better competitor, truthfully.

I don't know what pricing is in your area, but you can currently get a 7750 (or sometimes more) paired with an i3 for about the same price as a Kaveri A10 here in the states. The A10 only really makes sense if you have to go with a smaller form factor than allows full-height PCIe cards, until prices come down.

A few years ago I tended to put Intel chips in the computers of relatives in no small part because AMD's FX chips didn't have an iGPU, which drove up costs. I've done a few APU builds more recently, but more often than not, the extra iGPU grunt is wasted.

 

[SithSolo1]

If I hadn't wanted to do a mini-itx build and hadn't gotten my 4770k for $200 I'd probably be running a FX-8320 build atm.

I really wish they could get their heat and power draw down so that we could have 3 and 4 module mini-itx options for small budget builds.

 

[R0H1T]

An i3 is a better competitor, truthfully.

Yeas & that's why I said price wise an A10 gives say an avg of 50% of CPU perf of an i7 4770K as compared to 50% of its price(CPU+mobo) & has better IGP performance, the same goes for an i5 but when it comes to i3 the A10 will beat it especially in MT tasks.

I don't know what pricing is in your area, but you can currently get a 7750 (or sometimes more) paired with an i3 for about the same price as a Kaveri A10 here in the states. The A10 only really makes sense if you have to go with a smaller form factor than allows full-height PCIe cards, until prices come down.

The lowest price I've found on a 7750 is 100$ & that too in case of heavy discounts online, offline it retails for roughly 125$ or more depending on the state you're in. That in itself is virtually 40~50% of the price of an A10+mobo combo & makes it untenable to put a GPU when you're budget's limited to 600$ or less, including the display.

It is not what I recommend myself but for starters the A10 or A8 is the best choice to give the learning kids a start at their home. This is where most desktops are going to i.e. homes where kids are starting to get accustomed to PC's or the odd house where people need to do some kind of office related work & need not spend an extravagant amount of $ for the CPU grunt they won't be needing anytime soon.

A few years ago I tended to put Intel chips in the computers of relatives in no small part because AMD's FX chips didn't have an iGPU, which drove up costs. I've done a few APU builds more recently, but more often than not, the extra iGPU grunt is wasted.

It's a bit different in my part of the world where 50~60% of people are going for notebooks, the avg desktop is restricted to 30~40% of the market & 5~10% is the enthusiast community, the number does include corporate installations which mainly employ Intel only stuff, for some weird reason, otherwise the number of AMD chips sold would've been much higher.

Also the proliferation of 1080p screens makes the IGP more important than ever, even for light usage.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Looking at AMD's current line up, the circumstances where AMD's offerings make any sense, are such tiny niches, that I can only imagine that anyone going with AMD CPU's today, are doing so either out of sheer ignorance or a warped sense of "morality".

Yes, everyone who goes AMD is ignorant or has a warped sense of morality (what does that even mean?).


I think sometimes people get a little too wrapped up in benchmarks and fail to realize how that translates in to practical real world use. As Vesku said about his systems, I bet most people (even some of the most vocal anti-AMD posters here) would have a real hard time telling the difference between similarly priced AMD/Intel CPU powered systems.

Some of you look at it as AMD only makes sense in niche situations, I look at it the opposite to some degree. That is, either AMD or Intel CPU's will be fine (probably over powered even) for 99% of users. But for people who know you need added grunt you know what you're buying and what to purchase.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Most people would not be able to distinguish between similarly priced Haswell and Kaveri builds.

I also seriously doubt they could tell the difference between a sub hundred dollar Pentium and a 180.00 kaveri unless you are trying to game on the igp. The FX lineup is attractive if one is primarily doing certain productivity uses, and apus are a good choice for SFF uses where one wants to do light gaming as well.

Otherwise, the FX offers lower performance and higher power consumption with the necessity of a discrete card, while Intel offers better CPU performance and good enough igp performance compared to an APU.

I really don't think people these days are so deluded by advertising that they don't purchase a good product. I just think the market has spoken and clearly Intel offers the best product for the vast majority of the market.

 

[TeknoBug]

Been building and using AMD systems since the mid 90's and went through great CPU's like the Slot A, Thunderbird, Barton, Turion and of course the Phenom II's and then the flops like the Duron, MP, XP, original Athlon, etc. I have had a few Intel systems in between (original Pentium, Pentium II, dual Pentium Pro, dual Celeron), but my main PC is now an Intel because it does everything I do better than AMD at the moment. Years ago AMD was steps ahead of the Pentium 4 and Core2Duo chips.

I still have an FX 4350 (formally FX 8320) and A10 7700K system.

 

[sefsefsefsef]

Last year I bought a laptop with an A10-5750m (and no discrete GPU), because I wanted to see just how good the current best integrated graphics were (at the time), and I have a scholarly fascination with the Bulldozer architecture. So, mostly curiosity. I was not disappointed, though. The dGPU can handle WoW (1080p, and I go between "fair" and "good" settings) just fine for LAN parties, and I played through all of Bioshock (720p, medium settings), and Tomb Raider 2013 (720p, all "normal" settings except SSAO off) beginning to end, and found the dGPU sufficient.

So, mostly I bought an AMD chip because I wanted its dGPU, but I also find the Bulldozer architecture much more *interesting* (for whatever that's worth) than anything Intel has done lately, which is all very incremental and predictable. The experiment that is Bulldozer hasn't really worked out like they planned, but it's absolutely sufficient for my laptop needs, and I like to support that kind of thinking out of the box.

 

[spat55]

I would buy one mainly for the fact that you can keep the boards for years so you could save a fair bit there but I will have this i5 for 5 years so by then I will want to upgrade that as well. I prefer AMD as a company over Intel so that could as swing it for me.

 

[Leyawiin]

Most recent build is an FX-6300 on a 970 motherboard. Total for CPU and mobo was $160. That's the price of some i3 processors alone and quite a bit less than an i5 alone. Have them paired with a GTX 670 I've had for several years and its a capable enough gaming rig.

I've also never have used anything but AMD since I started building my own computers ten years ago. I guess inertia has something to do with my choice!

 

[Ketchup]

Overall, some pretty good conversation here folks.

It looks like if you find a good AMD bundle, that is the way to go. If not, it's a tossup. I mean, the latest Intel CPU's (i3 and up) have a pretty decent integrated GPU (enough for all those flash-based games anyway), and if it isn't enough, you would likely be buying a dedicated video card anyway.

Like I said in the OP, if they offered something that had the same or better performance at a noticeably better pricetag, I would go for it. Now they are offering a slightly lower pricetag for a noticeably lower performance? Meh.

I know the extra cores can come into play. But the average user/kids argument that has been mentioned a few times. OK, are the apps they use going to be utilizing 8 cores? Doubt it.

 

[PPB]

Because I had the AM3+ mother already (direct replacement of a RMA'd AM3 one with 2 RAM slots DOA) and the 8320 was a decent upgrade over the 1055T I had. Its perf/$ is really hard to beat when using rendering software (the real deal, not that laughable bench people over here try to use as a measure of IPC).

PS: I had a OEM 4670K offered from a friend during the time I was deciding on upgrading my CPU. The intel solution, even counting this friend was giving me a discount on the i5, was still a lot pricier than the AMD one, specially on the motherboard area. I had a GA-Z87MX-D3H in mind, but it costed more than the ASUS M5A97 EVO R2 I got from RMA while lacking in some features compared to the latter. The hassle of having to sell my motherboard, plus having to add some bucks to buy the intel one so I could get similar rendering performance was a deal breaker for me.

 

[ethebubbeth]

I have a 5800k in my HTPC. It's good enough on both CPU and GPU sides to playback 1080p h.264 hi10p with madVR as renderer. I don't need any more power than that in an HTPC at this time.

I just grabbed an FX-8350k, 990FXA-UD3, and 16gb DDR3-1600 off craigslist for $260. It was for a spare computer to do virtualization and for people to play games on when they visit. For the money, it was an excellent deal.

My NAS has an Opteron 6320 because the G34 socket is the cheapest platform to get me access to more than 64gb of ECC memory. I don't care about CPU performance in that scenario.

Currently, my only intel system is my main desktop with an i5 2500k. Everywhere else, AMD has been a better value proposition for me.

 

[Phynaz]

One of my kids bought an AMD craptop. It was all about the price.

 

[hungtran]

I can afford whatever chip I want but still purchased the A10-7850K for my current build with 16GB 2400 RAM because I thought it would be fun trying out new technologies like Mantle, HSA and TrueAudio. Especially HSA. I don't game much, and I honestly can't feel the difference between this chip and the i7-3770 I use at work for everyday tasks like Excel and compression. The major speed boost has always been from SSD drives, not CPU. Most of my co-workers can't tell between an i7-4770K they use currently at work and the E8400s they upgraded from.

 

[Erenhardt]

When it comes to value, you get what you pay for. Arguing what is a better buy is pointless, the difference is so small, that the time wasted on doing analysis was worth more than the actual savings.

I choose AMD because I think developers should target their apps at multi-core platforms. I could choose 2 core intel or 4 core amd.

Other than that? Why would I give my money to a giant? I feel like it would be wasted. Supporting the underdog will help them compete better, giving us more options.

I wish we had more CPU vendors... VIA make me a desktop CPU!

 

[PliotronX]

Why would I? Because they're unlocked, decent APU performance, hexa/octa capability today, great bang for the buck.

Would I really? No because I like to run systems 24/7 and the power draw of said hexa/octa is insane and their IPC means they get spanked by 45W Core i3's. God if it weren't for greed and the i3's were unlocked.... :whiste:

 

[R0H1T]

I can afford whatever chip I want but still purchased the A10-7850K for my current build with 16GB 2400 RAM because I thought it would be fun trying out new technologies like Mantle, HSA and TrueAudio. Especially HSA. I don't game much, and I honestly can't feel the difference between this chip and the i7-3770 I use at work for everyday tasks like Excel and compression. The major speed boost has always been from SSD drives, not CPU. Most of my co-workers can't tell between an i7-4770K they use currently at work and the E8400s they upgraded from.

Precisely this, I've found more than 90% of the systems, owned by friends & relatives et al, including notebooks still employ traditional HDD.

Now I haven't benchmarked those systems but I'll hazard a guess & say that the difference between an i5 & an A10 is even less on those machines with an HDD, the major speedup is there when the slowest component(storage) is upgraded & for an avg joe SSD's are still a luxury, hell even large corps don't employ SSD in a work environment all the time unless it's an absolute necessity !

 

[dave_the_nerd]

To be fair, I wasn't trying to be biased, I was only going by what each respective company markets those chips as.

Intel doesn't market the i3 as a quad-core, they market it as a dual-core.

Likewise, AMD doesn't market the FX-6300 as a triple-module CPU, they market it as a six-core CPU.

Well, if I told you what I think of marketing, I'd probably get banned. 😳