What do you think of AMD processors?

I've been hearing some pretty disparaging things about AMD across several forums and I wanted to ask you guys for your opinions.

How does AMD stand when compared to Intel in reliability, longevity and performance?

 

Older processors ran hotter than Intel's and were less powerful and effecient. Current processors are pretty good though.

 

I own a Vaio and they've started offering AMD models.
Considering I got this thing about £100+ cheaper than an i3 model I really cannot complain.

The fans love to come on every 20 seconds or so especially when using flash.
This thing certainly is noisier than my previous intel Vaio, but aside from that its fast.

I'm still trying to find out about AMD's reliability after prolonged use.

 

Processors last a long time. Rare that they go belly up. GPUs on the other hand..

 

Have an old HP Laptop with an AMD Chip (6+ years old) still runs, plus an old desktop with an AMD around 7+ years old. They're good chips - they do run a bit warmer than Intels, but still a very good option.

 

I only recommend AMD processors to people on a budget.

e.g.: At Best Buy the price difference between (budget)laptops with either an Intel Celeron or AMD dual core is so small(or not diff at all), but the AMD dual will be much faster.

 

Reliability and longevity are both non-issues with processors. I think they have a half-life of 10,000 years.

Performance-wise, you cannot compare "AMD" to "Intel" like that. You can get an AMD processor that outperforms an Intel processor and vice-versa. It is more like what is in your budget and what are your needs?

 

Theres no opinion about it.. its pretty straight forward...

If you're on a budget and looking to get performance for as cheap as possible, you buy AMD.

If you've got money to spend and want maximum performance, you buy Intel.

i7's are pretty far ahead of Phenom II's as far as performance goes in nearly every benchmark and game, but they also cost 1.5-2 times as much as Phenom II's.

I've been an AMD fan for as long as I can remember but I think they are making some big mistakes right now. They are pretty much nonexistant, up until now with the new AMD Fusion processors, in the tablet and netbook markets. They are losing ground quickly in the notebook market in general. You very rarely see AMD notebooks unless you dig deeper on some manufacturers websites, and even then they are usually only low end laptops.

The good thing is that they've gotten rid of their CEO now and hopefully this will result in big changes.

On another note, one of the largest computer parts distributors in the country (and one that Newegg uses) has dropped AMD processors and haven't been selling them for the last few weeks (and still aren't selling them). I'm not sure why this has happened and there appears to be no news about getting them back. I'm hoping this doesn't have a monumental effect on availability.

 

i suggest you do the same... i don't really recommend AMD unless you really don't have any budget..

Panther214

 

Amd's new APU's will definitely make me recommend them more than I have in the past.

 

Which AMD processors? The ones that just came out (Brazos) are good for the money they're being sold for -- essentially a much faster replacement for Atom. Their desktop processors are also not bad. They're far from matching Sandy Bridge and not that close to even Core i5/7, but they're good value for the money (or they were before Sandy Bridge came out -- there needs to be some price readjustment).

On the other hand, AMD's mainstream laptop processors from the past 4 years or so range from utter garbage to borderline garbage. The older ones performed poorly and ran hot enough to fry motherboards. The current ones still perform poorly and while they don't run that hot anymore, their battery life is much worse than Arrandale, never mind Sandy Bridge.

 

AMD's doing fine on desktop and netbook (Brazos) CPUs. They're completely off the notebook market though.

 

I don't know why anyone would not like AMD. I use AMD processors. It's all I use when I build computers. I don't like Intel mainly cuz they don't seem to live up to the specs advertised and they are way more expensive than AMD. The only downside is that AMD wants you to use ATI graphics cards and chipsets. And not nVidia. Altho AMD processors and chipsets will accept nVidia graphics cards and use them but sends you an angry message about it lol.
I have an AMD Phenom II Black Edition quad core processor and it's awesome. I've used a pc with an Intel i7 and my AMD is way faster than that i7. My laptop has a AMD Turion and it works almost as fast as my desktop computer that has an AMD dual core. I have never seen any Intel chip run fast except the Celeron M which is by my standards freaky fast for a laptop chip.

 

Ya actually the amd cpu thats starting to go into expensive netbooks with the 4220 gpu is state of the art. They have a few areas where they are better.

 

lol... expensive netbooks...

AMD is good in the sense of the pressure it puts on Intel to give us the real goods sooner, cheaper, cooler and much more powerful.

Competing on price is good for consumers. Businesses realize that the real cost is more than just 'price' alone.

 

Ya well the market that is like a thinkpad x100 or a fujitsu something, the $500 netbook

 

I don't think that is true. My N930 gets comparable battery life to the i5s in the dv6 (the dual and triple core AMD options get pretty much the same battery life as the i5 choices) and in multi-threaded tasks it is just as good. Sure it gets destroyed in any application or game that uses 2 or less threads but there are not exactly a lot of them anymore as multiple cores are the standard processor nowadays and software developers make their software able to use those cores. It also runs cooler than the majority of notebooks with Arrandale processors. My previous gen dv6z (dv6-1260se) with a Turion x2 Ultra also had no problems with heat.

 

My AMD P340 Athlon II in my Vaio never exceeds 54oc even after prolonged use.

The cooling fan comes on more often than not but its not loud and you cannot hear it when stuff is going on around you.

 

Before their new APUs, when it come to mobile processors I would always recommend Intel due to their better energy consumpion, lower heat, and performance. AMD would only be the choice if you wanted a budget notebook.

For desktops however, for like 90% of the population AMD's processors would give you the performance you needed at a lower price then Intel, so I wouldn't call them "budget" but rather low to mainstream while Intel I would recommend for multimedia professionals, businesses, institutions, and gamers who need performance and have the budget.

 

yes and no, for the hard core pro doing rendering a Tyan motherboard with 4 12 core opterion processors has sofar kicked the snot out of any Intel based unit I have built to date ( last week )

other than temps in the mobile market which apparently is supposed to be much better I find AMD chips fine for any application and have for the last 7 years. now if we wanted to compare the old AMD 80386DX 40 from 1993 ... different story.

 

Trololol.

What are you talking about, son? Prove to me that the OS was the same. Prove to me that the GPU, RAM, and HDD/SSD was the same.

The processor you have doesn't contribute a huge amount to everyday performance, unless you're comparing something like an Atom to an i7 2600K. It's pretty much down to the speed of the hard drive.

 

I will not buy/recommend AMD for 2 reasons...


the tri core, and the "core unlock" functions...


how the _____ does that make any sense?

 

AMD generally has a better cost/performance ratio for both desktop and laptop. However, I personally prefer Intel in both desktop and laptop applications - but I don't hesitate to recommend AMD for desktops. For laptops though I recommend you go Intel.

 

AMD or Intel? ... They're both fine with modern OS and software.
Just don't buy a Via one!!
I haven't bought an AMD-type laptop though.
For laptops I just run everything stock (drivers and timing).
For desktop processors, always buy the unlocked type.

 

I select AMD CPUs when I'm building desktops for clients. Most of them use a computer for office work and general surfing and email. They get by perfectly fine with an Athlon or Phenom X2 or X3. And if by some chance they do need more CPU power, the AM3 socket makes it easy to toss in an X4 or X6 if need be.

For higher-end laptops, I'll recommend Intel. I don't know, AMD's CPUs in that segment never really impressed me. When some lower range Intels can beat some of the best mobile Phenoms, something's off.

But like Jay said on the first page, the APUs are definitely going to be interesting.

 

The overwhelming majority of applications out there do not fully use 4 cores (which is the only scenario under which an N930 comes close to the mid-range Arrandales). You are right in that they're no longer single threaded, but that's not the same thing as pushing all 4 cores to the limit.

As to battery life, it obviously depends a lot the battery itself as well as usage conditions. Here is a review that compares more or less the same laptops (same battery) undergoing the same tests:

 

As it's been stated, AMD is better computing power for your money.

But for enthusiasts, business professionals, Intel's high end completely and utterly smash what AMD currently has now for the mobile solution. The Phenom II Mobile is a marketing ploy, oh well quad core @ 2.0 GHz but it's locked at that speed, Intel's i5 and i7 will turbo themselves. So single threaded apps will suffer greatly while even Core i5 will fly past the Phenom II quad cores.

I have seen Fusion, and AMD will dominate the low end market with Fusion unless Intel comes out with something real good..

 

I realize that there are very few programs that use all 4 cores. Even when I am doing something that only makes use of 2, like most games, I am hard pressed to notice a difference. It is maybe a handful of FPS.

According the the review the 4720s that got 4h48m comes with an 8-cell (73Wh) battery ( link). The difference between the 4520s and 4425s I can't explain but it still isn't as valid a comparison as comparing the battery life of the dv6t to the battery life of the dv6z.

 

According to Speccy I have the AMD K10, 45nm technology in my laptop.
What does that mean?

I know it said AMD Athlon II P340 on the box.

 

All current AMD CPUs are built on the 45nm SOI process and use the K10 architecture which first debuted with the Opteron CPUs (then the original Phenom for home users).

the heirarchy for AMD mobile CPUs from low end to high end are: Athlon, Turion, and Phenom.

The basic difference is the amount of cache the CPUs have. The top range mobile Phenom II is still not equivalent to a desktop Phenom II however, as it lacks L3 cache. This lack of cache gives Intel mobile CPUs a somewhat significant advantage. AMD mobile CPUs also use dated chipsets. AMD really needs to step up the game in their mobile sector.

 

What? What's wrong with triple core CPUs? I've got a buddy that has one paired with a GeForce 570, and it screams. It's a way to use CPUs that may have some defective transistors in one core, and it's still a very fast chip. As for the core unlocking... that's just the way the industry works. Intel does the same thing... I mean, why else would the i5-2500K clock from 3.3GHz up to 4.4GHz on air reliably? It's the same thing. Sometimes they put the chips into the lower-price range even knowing they could perform better because that's what the market demands.

Now we're getting into desktop hardware though. Mobile, AMD is still lagging behind Intel in raw performance and performance/watt. But they still aren't bad chips, and as others have stated their new APUs could be a game changer even in light of Sandy Bridge's vastly improved graphics.

 

i have one pavillion dv5 with amd puma.runs hot like crazy and even after doing all thermal paste work.
no relief.

but on other hand my home desktop is amd quad core.
it runs amazing.

so i recommend AMD for desktops (for keeping competition alive for intel !)
and intel for laptops.

 

People just keep on trollin' and rollin'. My AMD 720 tri-core runs very smooth no issues whatsoever. Though the defective cores are rare, AMD does disable cores to sell processors for lower price points. With certain BIOS they can be unlocked.

But you are absolutely correct Pita, AMD needs to step it up for the mid range/high end market.

 

only thing i wish in amd quad cores is core gating.
thats one amazing technology intel has perfected in sandy bridge.

 

AMD had a winner during the socket 939 days with Athlon 64 and Athlon X2. This was around the same time as the late "Netburst" Pentium 4s. Back then, parallelism in computing wasn't a big thing and both AMD and Intel where focusing on single cores, with insane clock frequencies, at increasingly diminishing returns.

During that product cycle, AMD had hands down the better cpus at every level of the market, including the server market with Opteron.

After Conroe (1st generation Core 2 Duo) everything changed and AMD just wasn't able to compete in the high end and mainstream consumer market or in the server market. AM2 did little to change that.

I think AMD has essentially ceded the mainstream and server market. The current generation of Phenom (i.e. Phenom II x4 640) however are very good if you are trying to build a desktop computer for less than 500 bucks.

I also think they have an opening in the netbook cpu market because atom has always been kind of crud. For a company like AMD I think they would be better off sticking to low cost, low power consumption, smart design because you can't "out Intel" Intel.

 

CPUs: Intel>AMD
GPUs: AMD>Intel

?

I remember i always had AMD CPUs back in the old days in my desktop. Worked like a charm. Then i bought my first laptop. It was Intel all the way. Must be the first impression i had.

 

Intel still outsold AMD though, just like the other times that AMD processors were clearly ahead.

I can't agree with your analysis. AMD has not "essentially ceded" anything. At every price point at which AMD has offerings, it has greater performance for the price. The only market segments where AMD does not compete are high end desktops, laptops, and workstations.

 

Trottel, I think Hayate's point was AMD was indeed making better products but Intel was selling more. Selling more doesn't equate to better products. McDonalds sells the most burgers in the world but does that make them the best in the world?

 

AMD is still competing quite well in all desktop markets. Their price to performance ratio still blows Intel out of the water. Their high end Phenom II Black Edition quad cores aren't as far as Intel's fastest i7's, but they are still very good in high end systems. Their low end Semprons and Athlon II's are extremely affordable. Especially the Athlon II Quad Cores.. Intel can't touch them in price. Places like Best Buy still sell cheap AMD quad core systems all day long to the average consumer.

Not sure on the server market other than AMD having the only 12 core server CPU. I hear its pretty good, too.

You're completely wrong that they have "ceded the mainstream and sever markets". They still have a pretty big hold on the mainstream market, for sure.

The new Fusion APU's look great so far. Unfortunately we haven't seen a new offering from Intel yet that will compete with the Fusion APU's. Atom dual cores are about the fastest we have from Intel so far. One of the main reasons AMD got rid of their CEO a few weeks back was because he had no vision and wasn't expanding into the tablet and netbook markets. This will definitely change if their next CEO has any plans to keep his job.

 

Intel.. traditionally durable.
AMD... traditionally priced low & efficient. Though with the flood of Core architecture.. AMD was beat up badly. But AMD does have better graphics.. I wish Intel can phagocytize NVIDIA one day.. then AMD has nothing to offer in comparison.. but I do hate Intel's separation of LGAs for i3/i5/i7. It's really dumb in eyes of consumers.

 

no way, intel rules the mobile platform. maybe AMD for some cheap desktop build, but never in a laptop.

my friend once smoked his AMD processor because he had a mishap with his cooling system. When my cooling system failed on my intel, the chip was still okay.

oh yeah, went a little something like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xf0VuRG7MN4&feature=related

 

I do recommend AMD, but with exceptions. My home-built rigs are all AMD, and I recommend AMD to anyone interested in "rolling their own" home desktop. I've had to deal with them once on getting a replacement part - in a totally my fault scenario - and everything from customer service to turnaround was absolutely spectacular. For prebuilt desktops, I just tell folks to go for the best machine for their need+budget combo - sometimes AMD wins in that matchup as well. However, on the mobile front, I cannot support AMD until they do something about their power consumption. Every Turion laptop I've seen has been a mediocre performer at best, while eating battery cell contents like candy and spiking the temperature in the room by several degrees.

I'm ludicrously happy with my quad core AMD desktop, and my various other AMD workstations, and looking forward to splurging on something completely unnecessary, hilariously overpowered, and running a Magny-Cours - or two - by summertime. The X120e interests me, but I just can't bring myself to believe the quoted numbers. AMD almost fooled me with the X100e, but after a day of using one, I could see clearly that my already 4+ year old X41 was a superior performer, with less roasted lap to boot. AMD just hasn't been competitive in the mobile segment.

 

I've used AMD on 2 previous custom desktops; always because of the budget.

AMD is the poor mans Intel.

 

Is the Pentium M single core architecture way better than the AMD processors of the pentium 4 era?
I have this thing with a 2.6ghz AMD athlon single core and x800 graphics, wondering if its basically as bad as the p4s.

 

It's not quite as bad as the P4s, but the Pentium M was the foreshadowing of things to come and thus quite good (though I don't think there was any Pentium M that was way better than a 2.6GHz Athlon from that time). The Pentium M was modified to create the Core architecture which then evolved into Core 2 and led to Intel's complete domination of the high end ever since. The Pentium M wasn't quite as powerful as its descendants, but it was probably the best thing you could get in a laptop at that time.

 

I have two desktop computers with AMD K6/2-CPUs. One is 12, the other one 13 years old. Both were running SETI jobs for almost 5 years (100% usage 24/7) and both are still working perfectly. Additionally I have a 10 years old Duron which was running SETI for 3 years. The main board got useless some years ago (yes, it was a dying IDE controller on a K7VT2) but the CPU was still running perfectly until the end.

Before someone asks: Yes, I had a flat-rate on electricity during my SETI era. Otherwise I wouldn't have run the 4 Pentiums alongside with my AMDs.

 

I recommend AMD for anyone making a low-end to mid-range desktop build.

Laptops, right now I can only recommend the Zacate platform. Perhaps the Llano can compete with Intel for people on a budget as long as it performs decently in this day and age and delivers decent battery life, which is very possible considering how APUs are doing.

 

Except none of that has been applicable for many years now. That comparison was from 2000 or 2001.

Are you sure you have a 2.6Ghz AMD processor or do you have an Athlon XP 2600? Athlon XP's couldn't reach Pentium 4's on the desktop because the Northwood core was able to reach such high clockspeeds, 3.06Ghz at the time I think. In laptops, Athlon XP's competed much more favorably since mobile Pentium 4's were not able to reach clock speeds much higher, if at all, than mobile Athlon XP's due to heat and power constraints. Laptops with higher end mobile Athlon XP's would trounce any Intel P4 based laptop except for the monstrosities using desktop processors at full clock speed.

 

...so is it better or worse that the AMD still tries to work at those temps where the intel decides to throttle? not a great comparison... of anything just saying.

Trottel, its definitely a 2.6ghz AMD single core and its a laptop, may not be an athlon I'll start up that beast later today and check it out.

 

Anyone on a budget = AMD
Anything else really = Intel

I myself don't prefer AMD but I do recommend them to people that need to stay under a budget and wants the latest and greatest, but for anything else, even Intel's Core 2's are more than enough for most people.

Then again I've always had Intel and Nvidia so