Laptop Store

[HighLatency]

AMD CPUs are good if you are on a budget but they are lower in processing power compared to the flagship intel processors

[Mr Keshy]

AMD CPUs are good if you are on a budget but they are lower in processing power compared to the flagship intel processors

Even if you looking at a budget, Intels pentium and i3 line are still tremendous for the dosh. I don't think AMD has a place anymore (or at least now..), I mean, they're for sale for a reason.

[Bad Student]

AMD has been stuggling a bit lately.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/15/3646698/what-happened-to-amd

[abcdqdxD]

AMD has been stuggling a bit lately.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/15/3646698/what-happened-to-amd

Interesting read

[paulsterio]

Lmao, let's back that up with some benchmarking evidence, which I believe I have.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/700?vs=677

This is the Intel Core i3 3220 ($119) vs. AMD FX-4300 which is better and hence more expensive than the AMD FX-4170 ($134). The FX-4300 should be around $160.

For two very similar CPUs (Intel's even has the slight edge), I think AMD has no chance really in the budget arena.

[abcdqdxD]

Lmao, let's back that up with some benchmarking evidence, which I believe I have.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/700?vs=677

This is the Intel Core i3 3220 ($119) vs. AMD FX-4300 which is better and hence more expensive than the AMD FX-4170 ($134). The FX-4300 should be around $160.

For two very similar CPUs (Intel's even has the slight edge), I think AMD has no chance really in the budget arena.

Well I've been out of the tech world for a good 2-3 years, but back then I remember AMD was fairly competitive in the CPU market.. not to mention they were dominating nvdia in the graphics department. I guess they have fallen of now.. but what happened to them?!

[Truck]

yeah like I said I made my PC before i3/i5 came out, so yeah AMD was a viable option back then (and in fact when I was looking at benchmarks my chip was really the best value for money in terms of performance vs. cost). If i was building a PC today I'd probably just go i5...

[Mr Keshy]

Don't confuse AMD CPU's and GPU's!

AMD/ATI make very good graphics processors, still very competitive, it's just the CPU sector that's letting them down at the moment.

Lmao, let's back that up with some benchmarking evidence, which I believe I have.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/700?vs=677

This is the Intel Core i3 3220 ($119) vs. AMD FX-4300 which is better and hence more expensive than the AMD FX-4170 ($134). The FX-4300 should be around $160.

For two very similar CPUs (Intel's even has the slight edge), I think AMD has no chance really in the budget arena.

Well I've been out of the tech world for a good 2-3 years, but back then I remember AMD was fairly competitive in the CPU market.. not to mention they were dominating nvdia in the graphics department. I guess they have fallen of now.. but what happened to them?!

I remember when the Phenom 2 X4 was the stuff haha.

[Mao]

Why all the AMD bashing? At the lower end of the spectrum ($CPU<$100) for HTPC purposes, AMD 'APU's are much better bang for buck than Intel alternatives (e.g. A6-5400K vs i3-3225).

AMD at the moment doesn't have a place in gaming or high performance, but for lower-end purpose-built rigs, it is still a very competitive option.

[paulsterio]

The Phenom 2 X4 was never really "the stuff" - it was just a cut-price chip - good performance for the dollar. AMD were happy making small profit margins on their Phenoms to compete with Intel chips at that time. The Phonom 2 X4 never really held a candle to Intel's first generation i7, it was just priced at a lower price point, mind you the Phenom 2 X4 was AMD's top chip, either way, it's plagued by stability issues.

The last time AMD really had dominance was in the days of the AMD Athlon x64 and AMD Athlon x64 X2. The top single core Athlon model (the 4000+) was really dominating Intel's top single core chip at the time, the Pentium 4 (Prescott revision) in everything except video encoding, really. The dual core Athlon was better than the Pentium D in areas relating to power consumption and heat dissipation. Essentially it was this which forced Intel to end its Pentium series and move its focus onto the "Core" line of processors (remember Core 2 Duo) - which was a new architecture based on Intel's Pentium M - which in turn was based on the Pentium 3 microarchitecture, thus Intel returning to computing more per clock cycle rather than increasing the number of clock cycles per second (which generates heat and inefficiency).

Most of you younger kids probably wouldn't know much this far back because you probably would have been too young at the time, but that was AMD's heyday. Before that AMD's Duron processors didn't really match up to the Pentium 3 and after that, AMD never really caught up when Intel took off with the Core line, which evolved from Core 2 Duo to Core 2 Quad and now the Core i3/5/7 lines.

[Mr Keshy]

The Phenom 2 X4 was never really "the stuff" - it was just a cut-price chip - good performance for the dollar. AMD were happy making small profit margins on their Phenoms to compete with Intel chips at that time. The Phonom 2 X4 never really held a candle to Intel's first generation i7, it was just priced at a lower price point, mind you the Phenom 2 X4 was AMD's top chip, either way, it's plagued by stability issues.

The last time AMD really had dominance was in the days of the AMD Athlon x64 and AMD Athlon x64 X2. The top single core Athlon model (the 4000+) was really dominating Intel's top single core chip at the time, the Pentium 4 (Prescott revision) in everything except video encoding, really. The dual core Athlon was better than the Pentium D in areas relating to power consumption and heat dissipation. Essentially it was this which forced Intel to end its Pentium series and move its focus onto the "Core" line of processors (remember Core 2 Duo) - which was a new architecture based on Intel's Pentium M - which in turn was based on the Pentium 3 microarchitecture, thus Intel returning to computing more per clock cycle rather than increasing the number of clock cycles per second (which generates heat and inefficiency).

Most of you younger kids probably wouldn't know much this far back because you probably would have been too young at the time, but that was AMD's heyday. Before that AMD's Duron processors didn't really match up to the Pentium 3 and after that, AMD never really caught up when Intel took off with the Core line, which evolved from Core 2 Duo to Core 2 Quad and now the Core i3/5/7 lines.

I never specified what "the stuff meant"

I only really got into computers in 07, so around the Q6600 era.

I never knew I'd find someone on ANotes with this much interest in computers though!

[abcdqdxD]

LOL I'm running Q6600!

[paulsterio]

I never specified what "the stuff meant"

I only really got into computers in 07, so around the Q6600 era.

I never knew I'd find someone on ANotes with this much interest in computers though!

Yeah, the days of the Athlon 64 4000+ would have been in 2005, so around 2 years before the Q6600, which was Intel's third generation of Core chips for the desktop - so the first C2Qs (if I remember correctly, which I don't always - model numbers are a pain ).

Haha, interest in computers goes a long way for me, I knew how to type before I knew how to write and I was using all the common DOS commands like "dir" and "cd ...etc." before I was in primary school - it's actually really interesting to see how much DOS has carried onto modern day Windows, for example, before mice were involved, the way to access file would be Alt-F, which (surprisingly) is still there. If you're good with a keyboard you can essentially get by without even having to touch your mouse ;P

[Mr Keshy]

I never specified what "the stuff meant"

I only really got into computers in 07, so around the Q6600 era.

I never knew I'd find someone on ANotes with this much interest in computers though!

Yeah, the days of the Athlon 64 4000+ would have been in 2005, so around 2 years before the Q6600, which was Intel's third generation of Core chips for the desktop - so the first C2Qs (if I remember correctly, which I don't always - model numbers are a pain ).

Haha, interest in computers goes a long way for me, I knew how to type before I knew how to write and I was using all the common DOS commands like "dir" and "cd ...etc." before I was in primary school - it's actually really interesting to see how much DOS has carried onto modern day Windows, for example, before mice were involved, the way to access file would be Alt-F, which (surprisingly) is still there. If you're good with a keyboard you can essentially get by without even having to touch your mouse ;P

I remember the day when I first got into computers. I was in the motherland, and dad told me that he wanted to build a new computer for the family. So curiously, I asked him how much he wanted to spend and he said 3k!!!

So everyday until our return to here, I went onto various websites and kept adding to cart, trying to prioritise where to spend my money Was so fun, learnt so much about computers there. Now I'm actually building them!

Here's my current computer anyway!




It's a sheep in wolfs clothing if you know what I mean

I'll create a show your man cave thread tomorrow

[kenhung123]

Looks like a beast brah