Is AMD good or bad for advancement of CPU and GPU?

In My Humble Opinion
1

First of all, AMD is losing on both battlegrounds. On the cpu side they already lost to Intel, with only a handful of fanboys still buying their cpu. On the gpu side they are losing, and it looks like they will continue to lose. Their market share continued to decrease since 2014 while Nvidia continue to dominate.

As for consumers, we all want the best CPU and GPU at a good price. So the question would be, does the existence of AMD hinder the development of CPU and GPU?

There is an argument that Intel and Nvidia deliberately let AMD “live” so as to avoid anti-trust laws. Nobody wants to be prosecuted by US government, and certainly not by EU which hands out heavy anti-monpoply fines without much legal proceedings.

Now in order to let AMD live, Intel and Nvidia can’t release newer powerful stuffs too quick, too powerful. Maybe that’s why intel’s CPU these years have been lackbuster with only about 7% IPC increase each generation (still totally muders AMD cpu in case you don’t know yet). It makes sense though, if they did any better, AMD would totally go under water. Intel also capitilize on the situation by establising itself as the premium CPU provider while AMD has to go for the low price route.

On the GPU side Nvidia could have murdered AMD if they decided to lower the price of the 900 GPU series even further. AMD took a huge hit back in late 2014 when Nvidia released these new cards and AMD had to cut the prices of their cards by $100 - $200 jus to stay competitive. Could Nvidia further undercut AMD? Absolutely!!! But it chose not to. Why not? Must be the anti-trust law.

Apparently without AMD and these anti-trust regulatrions, both Intel and Nvidia would release more powerful products at a faster pace and a better price.

On the other hand, there is an argument that AMD actually helps the consumers by being a competitor, claiming that wihtout AMD, both intel and Nvidia would take advantage of the situation and set higher prices and have no incentive to release better products at fast pace.

Which argument is more true to you? Is AMD hindering the advancement, or is it helping it?

2

AMD is pretty much irrelevant on the CPU side. ever since they fucked up on Bulldozer they’ve been pretty much aimless.

3

I really doubt AMD’s existence on the market holds back Nvidia or Intel in any way.

AMD’s current processors are outperformed across the board by Intel’s but I do not believe it is really that significant for most purposes. Until the last generation they generally kept up or outperformed Intel for video editing and other non-gaming applications. Even for gaming an high end FX processor is going to play pretty much everything very well, I doubt anyone would really notice the difference of a few frames per second. Processor performance has gotten to the point where it really keeps up with most software now. There really is nothing wrong with a high end AMD gaming rig; it is not going to be the boss at the lan party but it is not going to be left in the dust either.

I upgraded my old Phenom II 965BE system last fall to a i5 4690. That was an OLD processor, by far the longest in the tooth system I have ever had and it still kept up fine. It played every game I have with high (if not always max) settings. My new system is noticeably faster but not as much as every previous upgrade I have done. I revamped the old setup and gave it to a young friend that was using his laptop and he is more than satisfied with it.

Even though they do not keep up with intel, AMD systems are still a respectable option for a builder and I think it is a no-brainer for a budget system.

I do not see the lapse in the GPU department. AMD generally keeps up with Nvidia and they regularly leapfrog each other for the performance crown. Nvidia products run much cooler than comparable AMD products but performance gap is insignificant.

I am no AMD fanboy. I have no product loyalty, product loyalty is ridiculous. If I was a performance fanatic sure it would be intel everytime, but I have way better things to do with that money. I am pragmatic, and from a pragmatic standpoint AMD is still very much a competitor if I am building s system.

4

Moderator Note

Since this is looking more for opinions than a technical comparison between Intel and AMD, it is better suited to IMHO.

Moving thread from General Questions to In My Humble Opinion.

5

AMD video cards have often given more performance per dollar than the same tier Nvidia cards even if Nvidia had the best “top of the top” cards. When I bought my current card (Sapphire 7950 3GB) it was a good shot less expensive than the Nvidia equivalent. I’m interested by the next generation of AMD cards to see how they perform and whether they’ve managed to bring down the power consumption. But I’ve owned and used cards by both manufacturers and have no brand allegiance, just what benchmarks the best within my price point.

I use Intel processors in my desktop but when I was finding an inexpensive laptop for my nephew this past Christmas, the A8 processors offered better performance and some gaming capability within my sister’s budget than anything with an Intel processor. Intel integrated graphics are a joke.

I think that Nvidia and Intel have the best high end products but there’s a legitimate space for AMD below that high end tier.

6

I don’t believe for one moment that Intel lets AMD live. I also don’t believe that Intel holds back development of more powerful processors and GPUs for any reason whatsoever.

I also don’t believe that Intel is totally dominating the CPU and GPU market. Right now, if money is no object, then Intel is currently winning. If I were making a high end game machine that cost as much as some small automobiles, then yes, I would go with Intel. Most people don’t have that kind of budget, though, and as you start looking at different price ranges, AMD has a lot of offerings in the lower and middle ranges that beat the comparable Intel chips. If you look at the best CPUs for the price on Tom’s Hardware, you’ll find that AMD and Intel both listed at various price points in the low range and mid range CPUs. It is only the high range CPUs that Intel dominates.

And that’s only right now. Who knows what will happen in six months or a year from now.

I have been building computers since before PCs existed, and over the years I have had several AMD machines and several Intel machines. My last three have been Intel, AMD, and Intel, as those were the best that I can could get at the time considering the budget that I was willing to spend at the time. The one I happen to be typing this on is the AMD machine.

7

AMD is a better choice than Intel for me because of my personal experience.

PC is a better choice than Mac for me because of my personal experience.

I have found that when in the high end, Intel & robustness is not as good as AMD & robustness. I am not rich enough to ignore this trend.

I have found that the tip of the arrow in not a safe place to be.

One of the ways to be an old pilot is to not fly the ‘A’ model of anything.

Happy electron speed games day.

8

Sure - the absolute top end of any technological spectrum tends to be disproportionately pricey and maybe not quite as stable - as a general rule, you get better value from money a little lower down.

But in benchmark tests, Intel wipes the floor with AMD on all metrics, even when adjusting for cost. I don’t understand how personal experience can trump that?

Personal preference of course means you’re free to buy whatever you want, but how can your personal experience indicate that X is better than Y, when all objective measurements say otherwise? I genuinely don’t understand.

9

That’s true, since Intel makes money by having people upgrade to newer processors which can be sold for a premium.

If Intel doesn’t dominate the CPU market, I don’t know what your definition of dominance is. If Intel went away today, AMD wouldn’t be able to meet the demand for CPUs.
Everyone screws up a processor development project some time. AMD doesn’t have the resources to do many in parallel, so a screw up hurts more than when Intel screws up, and there are several new projects on the way.
The high range high pricepoint cpu is where the money is. For a given process node, it costs about as much to make any cpu of a given die area. High prices recover development costs. So, you very nicely describe why AMD is getting hammered.

10

I’d say it’s fair to state that Intel dominates the x86 CPU market. but the rise of mobile means ARM is threatening that dominance. traditional PC sales have stagnated and are declining as people realize they don’t really need to upgrade their systems all that often, while they probably get a new smartphone every 18-24 months.

they can’t get here soon enough, because AMD screwed the pooch on Bulldozer and four years hence has not rebounded.

Back in the day I was an AMD supporter because underdog and all that, but I’ve read a lot lately about what an undisciplined mess that company has been and at this point I don’t really care if they go away.

11

Plus the two main gaming consoles right now (sorry, Nintendo) both use AMD processors.

Edit: The Wii U doesn’t use an AMD processor but it does use an AMD GPU.

12

I usually build, instead of buy, systems. Because of this, I choose AMD processors, simply because of the cost. AMD is always significantly cheaper than Intel. The performance seems equivalent and I am not looking for a high-end gaming rig, just something more capable than the old box.

For GPU, though, I am stuck on Nvidia and I am not quite sure why. Probably, mostly, because I have not done the work to compare the AMD and Intel chips to the Nvidia chips. Mostly, though, I don’t buy cards manufactured by Nvidia but those with Nvidia components.

Bob

13

Without AMD, Intel and Nvidia have no reason to advance technology or be reasonably priced. A world without AMD would be one where CPUs and graphics cards are $5000, simply because they can. Want a computer? You’ll pay. Because you wouldn’t have a choice. AMD provides the only true competition Intel and Nvidia have. ARM and other mobile processors aren’t true competition as they’re targeting a different market entirely, one that thrives on extreme low cost/low performance. These aren’t the kind of products where there’s a low barrier for entry either, so once a company folds, that competition is gone forever.

AMD CPUs and graphics cards are better at some things and worse at others. And while AMD might be “losing” right now, there’s been plenty of times that they were also beating Intel and Nvidia handily. These things tend to be cyclical, AMD will find an innovation the others don’t and take advantage, and vice versa.

14

What is not to understand?

I have had several different things in my life that work like this:
The whole world say X is the best, all the numbers, all the reports say that X is better in all ways than Y.

Every single X in my life breaks, does not work, is junk, all bad every time.

All the Y’s work great… ( for me )

So I should use X because you and 50,000 French men say it is better??? Not going to happen. I stay with what works best for me.

I am not saying you should do as I do. Or believe as I do. I am telling you my experience. If you are trying to say my experience can not happen, well, we will just have to disagree.

Why is this hard to understand? :confused:

Question: Why do you or anybody else get to decide objectiveness on what factually/actually happens/happened to me? :confused:X2

15

Well, here’s the first hurdle: If all your Intel processors are junk, why do you keep buying them? If you didn’t keep buying them, how is it that you are able to make the comparison between the two? Does someone else (your workplace maybe) impose choice of CPUs on you?

Please feel free to point out anywhere in my post where I tried to tell you what to do.

And I am trying to understand how your experience can run contrary to empirical testing. Like I said, I wonder how your experience can happen.

Again, I don’t think that’s what I did.

16

Oh, please.

If AMD didn’t exist, Intel still wouldn’t be able to charge whatever they wanted, because the market wouldn’t bear it. And, if intel insisted on gouging the market, non-intel processors would be developed to compete.

17

yeah. people who say that don’t realize that Intel’s fiercest competition is its own installed base. and that’s why they’re declining; unless you’re a hardcore gamer, a new Core i5 isn’t perceptibly faster-enough than a three year old one.

18

This is just the moment Cyrix has been waiting for! :smiley:

19

You buy a processor, it is bad from the box.
you send it back, pay the postage, wait 3 weeks and get your new one. It is bad from the box.

How many times would you do this?

So you get a different brand, all is well.

You again drink the koolaid and because of Tom’s Hardware empirical testing evidence, buy that processor which dies 3 days past the warranty limit. You may again buy that processor but I don’t. I get that other processor which works just fine for years & years.

Now you may never have had an experience like that, with anything in you life, yay for you.

I have had several different things in my life that worked out like that, sucks to be me, I get the lemons… I use what works for me.

All the testing in the world does nothing to make that processor or gizmo or car or airplane or gun work best for me. Big whoop!!! ( But, But, it is the best!!! )

I am the problem. Maybe it is not the best for me? Ya think? :smiley:

Talk all you want about empirical testing evidence, but that means nothing when it does not work for me. Ergo, it is not the best for me and I do not have to sing it’s praises or agree that is is best… Or should I agree that it is the best when it does not work for me? :confused: Do I need to do X amount of testing before saying that I do not think it is the best? I have never trusted the French anyway… :cool:

You just believe 50,000 French men & I don’t.

If you still don’t understand my position, don’t worry about it. I’m glad you have the money to get the very best and so are not depressed by having to use less than the very best in your computer.

20

This is calling me a liar, insinuating that I am lying about what happened to me, I really am tired of it.

Your lack of understanding does not make me a liar.

Now get off my lawn.