Thread: Goodbye Forever, AMD.

Originally Posted by HeavyG

AMD's APU lineup is still pretty decent. I have an A10-5800K that I like a lot. It costs $20 less than the cheapest Intel i3 product, and blows it away at pretty much everything.

AMD isn't down and out. They still have some good products, and their GPUs are back on par with NVIDIA, in terms of performance, and in most cases, better from a cost perspective.

There is still a dog in the fight. It is just a chihuahua with rabies.

AnandTech | Bench - CPU

Not sure what the hell you're talking about. You're also burning twice the TDP with the 5800k vs the i3, which means additional cost sunk into an aftermarket cooler, resulting in the same price either way.

AMD's only advantage in this market is that they offer their products for cheaper than their competition, which only hurts THEIR bottom line in the end. Ever wonder why AMD is constantly in the red (no pun intended)? It's because they're struggling just to move their products, nonetheless make a profit off of them, even in the GPU space.

AMD's only hope is merging their Steamroller (and onward) cores with ARM as they've announced. ARM and x86 combined with competent on-die GPU cores makes for a great all around package, they just have to keep that power consumption down (which has traditionally been AMD's weak point).

Originally Posted by Allane

AnandTech | Bench - CPU

Not sure what the hell you're talking about. You're also burning twice the TDP with the 5800k vs the i3, which means additional cost sunk into an aftermarket cooler, resulting in the same price either way.

AMD's only advantage in this market is that they offer their products for cheaper than their competition, which only hurts THEIR bottom line in the end. Ever wonder why AMD is constantly in the red (no pun intended)? It's because they're struggling just to move their products, nonetheless make a profit off of them, even in the GPU space.

AMD's only hope is merging their Steamroller (and onward) cores with ARM as they've announced. ARM and x86 combined with competent on-die GPU cores makes for a great all around package, they just have to keep that power consumption down (which has traditionally been AMD's weak point).

Well, for one, you need to do some research on the current GPU performance comparisons. AMD still has the performance/cost advantage. I am an NVIDIA guy at the moment, because I love their ecosystem and use many of their products, but if I was not, I would absolutely consider an AMD GPU. And I am not sure why you are under the impression that AMD is having trouble "moving" their products from a GPU standpoint. Their latest R9 release cards were sold out for MONTHS. Granted, a lot of that was because of the rise of scrypt mining for Litecoins, but either way... they were and still are selling cards by the truckload every day. Good cards at that.

For two, you are indeed comparing a last generation Trinity based APU to a modern Haswell APU. I should have specified that I was referring to the APUs of last generation. You would want to compare the Intel 4330 to the new AMD Kaveri APU, such as the A10-7600, which is similarly priced, with a similar TDP.

AMD A8-7600 Kaveri APU Review - HSA Arrives | Gaming Performance

Bioshock Infinite - AMD 108% faster
Skyrim (High) - AMD 33% faster
Tomb Raider (Normal) - AMD 46% faster

The AMD APU offering is still better than the Intel at the same price. Intel has the advantage on some synthetic benchmarks, for sure, but in overall gaming performance, the AMD chip CRUSHES the Intel in Average FPS. The AMD APU lineup is still a great product for home theater PCs, or first PCs for kids to learn on and be able to play some casual/mainstream games.

You know, it is one thing to come in with facts, figures, and opinions. I am fine with that. But please be informed when talking about how a company will NEVER be this or that. You can't predict the future, and you simply don't know. AMD is currently selling two APUs for every single XBOX One and PS4 that are manufactured. Their GPUs are doing well, and while their higher end CPUs are certainly NOT recommended for gamers and power users, they have products that are more than acceptable for the casual gamer and computer user.

And for the record, I have 10 computers in my house. 8 of which are Intel, and 2 AMD (1 happens to be in Retro Rig 1 - AMD Athlon Thunderbird 1400, and the other my A10-5800k). I am extremely slanted towards Intel in regards to my consumer based purchases, but I absolutely respect the products offered by AMD and will continue to recommend/purchase them if the part fits the need.

And AMD has been making the right move by focusing on consumer chips. They've recently started posting better profits when they stopped working on high performance chips.

AMD has always competed well in the GPU space, I own a second generation 7870 myself (which is prone to instability, despite the great deal I got on it). The point is that when you constantly lower your price, you reduce your profits, which reduces how much money you have for R&D or driver refinement.

And I don't recall saying that AMD would never be something. I was saying that their best move forward is to focus on these lower power chips and ARM integration.

And the GPU performance of their APUs is indeed great, I pointed to that in my second post. I never denied that. Most people who take gaming as a hobby, though will be very displeased with what those iGPUs can do, no matter how good they are. Keep in mind those benchmarks you posted have their average framerates at or below 30fps, which is borderline acceptable.

I too recommend AMD GPUs whenever I can, but in the CPU space, it's tough when people want fast and quiet, which AMD is currently working on. Like I said though, they're going in the right direction, it just doesn't mean good news for more hardcore gamers.

That's nice that they have a decent gpu on the die. But who uses on-chip graphics? Everyone knows that the AMD apus have decent gpu performance. But the whole APU niche was created by AMD to show they have the edge in SOMETHING. Nobody requested it and it's not needed.

Look at the cpu portion of that and compare like to like. The cpu is HORRIBLE. Most reviewers won't even compare them to an intel cpu straight up any more because they are pushing 40-60% of an intel i3's horsepower. They aren't even in the same league any more. So now they compare them with the gpu involved and again... everyone knows that intel HDXXXX graphics are piss-poor for gaming.

They are BETTER at power consumption than they used to be but still aren't quite there compared to intel. The a8-7600 has no level 3 cache... and it's closest intel competitor based on price being the 4330 i3 is a DUAL CORE that still stomps it.

Real world tests with cinebench, gimp, and encoding video show anywhere from 11 to 42% advantage to the i3 which has 2 less cores. It IS hyperthreaded but it's still 2 less physical cores than the AMD which their big argument has always been more cores is better.

I'll give them their video cards. They have something there. Even if they had to buy it to get it. Translated to on-board graphics, the APUs are good money if you want something to do light gaming or media functions. But they have nothing that can touch intel for raw cpu power.

Originally Posted by Kanati8869

That's nice that they have a decent gpu on the die. But who uses on-chip graphics? Everyone knows that the AMD apus have decent gpu performance. But the whole APU niche was created by AMD to show they have the edge in SOMETHING. Nobody requested it and it's not needed.

Look at the cpu portion of that and compare like to like. The cpu is HORRIBLE. Most reviewers won't even compare them to an intel cpu straight up any more because they are pushing 40-60% of an intel i3's horsepower. They aren't even in the same league any more. So now they compare them with the gpu involved and again... everyone knows that intel HDXXXX graphics are piss-poor for gaming.

They are BETTER at power consumption than they used to be but still aren't quite there compared to intel. The a8-7600 has no level 3 cache... and it's closest intel competitor based on price being the 4330 i3 is a DUAL CORE that still stomps it.

Real world tests with cinebench, gimp, and encoding video show anywhere from 11 to 42% advantage to the i3 which has 2 less cores. It IS hyperthreaded but it's still 2 less physical cores than the AMD which their big argument has always been more cores is better.

I'll give them their video cards. They have something there. Even if they had to buy it to get it. Translated to on-board graphics, the APUs are good money if you want something to do light gaming or media functions. But they have nothing that can touch intel for raw cpu power.

Just because you don't use APU graphics, doesn't mean there isn't someone else out there that does. Most people that own PCs don't buy gaming level graphics cards, and in the past, while they may have upgraded to a discrete card, now they don't have to. Most people that own computers are not hard core gamers. Some may want to play an occasional casual game, while others may simply be unable to afford a discrete GPU, so this is an alternative.

And as for the CPU being "horrible", again, it all depends on what you are doing with it. I have an i5-760 CPU that still does everything I need it to. I have a friend still running a Q6600 that is doing everything he needs it to. I have an i7-860s in my living room that is great. Old, but works like a charm. My point being that YOU are a power user. People buying a casual/mainstream product don't need a CPU that can convert, transcode, compress, etc at record setting speeds. They want to surf the web, stream some media, and occasionally play a game. There ABSOLUTELY is a market for those users.

Most people have never encoded a video or other media file before, and if they did, I am sure they wouldn't care about the few minute difference. What they will care about is if they get done watching Netflix and go to launch up Star Craft 2, Dota, or League of Legands, and the game runs like shit.

The buyer's expectations will be different depending on the product, but I wouldn't expect any power user to run out and purchase an i3 dual core CPU, as much as I would expect them to buy an AMD APU. These are budget/entry level components, one of which has superior graphical power, with the other superior CPU power. The buyer will decide what is best for them, and having an opinion of what is best for you is really not valid unless you are the buyer. It just all depends.

Lowering price doesn't mean lower profits. It certainly can increase demand. Doesn't always happen, but it does.

Sent from my SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

Sounds like a bunch of hogwash to me. Instead of typing a long poem....lol I'll say this.
They killed off Superman once......then brought him back more powerful than ever.

And can't suck fetus juice to recover

Sent from my SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

The high end CPU area is not a large part of the market. Sure, us gamers want them but you don't need an i7 to check your email. APU is where the desktop and laptop market is at. Why do you think Intel has been getting better and better in on die graphics? Because that's what the masses need. An i7 is like a Corvette. It shows how awesome you can be but you sell a lot more Cruzes than 'Vettes. Ford doesn't have a direct competitor to the' Vette. Ford makes plenty of money selling cheaper cars that get the job done. I have been as big of an AMD guy as anyone. My last high end build (in December) is an i7 4770k with a Radeon R290. It's wicked fast and nearly silent. That's all I want.

Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk