Do you still have an AMD desktop and why?

Do you still have an AMD desktop and why?

Once upon a time, having an AMD desktop was a badge of pride for some PC performance enthusiasts. So what value do you place on it now?

The number of desktop PC users flying the AMD flag who have taken part in our "show us your tech-cave" project might be outnumbered by Intel users - but they're out there.

Over the years picking an AMD chip has meant anything from speed to upgradeability, getting bang for buck and for some, maybe the satisfaction of siding with the underdog.

So why pick AMD for a desktop tower now?

We've been pondering this since seeing AMD's recently released roadmap (download the slides here).

The general theme is about going further with the concept of combined CPU/GPUs - giving laptops better graphics performance without excessive power use, super thin (or Ultrathin as AMD is calling them) laptops, tablet chips, and making the GPU more useful for general computing.

Or, as a slide from AMD's latest presentations sums up, one aspect of AMD's direction is a move from "high performance products with emphasis on cores" to "focus on optimized cores."

For desktop PC users, Trinity and Vishera will be key chips from AMD.

We're seeing some interpret this with comments that the "days of AMD chasing Intel for the high-end desktop market are done" (from this story over at AnandTech).

As our Labs editor John Gillooly put it in a previous issue of PC & Tech Authority magazine, AMD's glory days of competing clock-for-clock with Intel are over. Everywhere it matters, Intel is faster, he stated back in our December issue. While we raved about AMD's laptop chips in 2011, their Bulldozer architecture wasn't everything we had hoped it would be.

Where does all this leave AMD in your mind? Would you still choose an AMD chip and why? Do you treat the CPU with as much importance as you once did - or are you content with a mid-range CPU, so you can use the rest of your budget on graphic, screens, and other things? Add your opinion below.

Source: Copyright © PC & Tech Authority. All rights reserved.

See more about:  amd  |  cpu  |  pcbuilding  |  intel  |  chip  |  fusion  |  apu  |  switch  |  roadmap
 
 

Readers of this article also read...

Best Android apps this week 

Best Android apps this week

 
First Look: MSI Z87 Mpower MAX Motherboard 

First Look: MSI Z87 Mpower MAX Motherboard

 
Exclusive First Look: Gigabyte's Z87X-UD3H 

Exclusive First Look: Gigabyte's Z87X-UD3H

 
Best iPhone apps this week 

Best iPhone apps this week

 
Photos: Samsung's Aussie Galaxy S4 launch 

Photos: Samsung's Aussie Galaxy S4 launch

 
Comments: 10
skipper_sams
7 February 2012
i have an AMD phenom IIx4 965 BE. At the time when I bought it, it was I think one of the best around, both in performance and especially in bang for buck. It also happens to be very easy to overclock, I have it running at 3.85 GHz.

However, I've got to say, the next computer i build will have an intel, no doubt about it. As you say, for pure performance intel is now a fair way ahead


Comment made about the PC & Tech Authority article:
Do you still have an AMD desktop and why??
Once upon a time, having an AMD desktop was a badge of pride for some PC performance enthusiasts. So what value do you place on it now?

What do you think? Join the discussion.
amcmo
7 February 2012
We've several AM64 based systems that work perfectly fine for standard office tasks.

There is no need to upgrade any time soon, and for everyday office tasks, every reason to continue using AMD for cost savings.
Snappy
7 February 2012
AMD are a far more Ethical Company than intel, that is why I will only use AMD.
amcmo
7 February 2012
I wouldn't go that far, however thanks to them, we have 64 bit x86 desktops instead of Itanium, and they do keep Intel from gouging too much.
TheToid
7 February 2012
AMD Phenom 965 BE here as well, personally AMD still give the best bang for buck, sure, they cant beat the high end intel, but who wants to pay that sort of dollars when you can get a CPU that is still 80% as fast but at 50% the cost?

People use words like "pure performance", but for what purpose?

Gaming? No, games these days rely on the GPU way more than the CPU.

Browsing? Ok, so 1.5ms render time might be important to some, but not me, not for the cost.

Its only really valuable if your doing incredibly CPU intensive things, transcoding, rendering.

I do wish however that AMD would rewrite the ATI graphics drivers, right now I only build machines with AMD CPUs and nVidia graphics cards. This might seem a bit backwards with AMD owning ATI, but the ATI drivers seem very buggy and crash prone in my experience. I don't see me changing in the foreseeable future.

Just my 2c.
ganjiry
7 February 2012
AMD all the way for me. AMD PhenomII x4 965be @3.8Ghz,AMD chipset, MSI R6950 2Gb PE. the price of my cpu and gpu combined would only just get me an i7 from intel. wtf! no thanks. intel is just way too expensive just to get a couple of milliseconds faster load times. i cant see the point in anythin any faster unless u do some heavy photoshop or vid editing. for gaming and general pc use AMD have it sorted.
Macropodmum
8 February 2012
My previous experiences with Intel were with a highly unreliable products, I switched to AMD and have never gone back and don't plan to...
da-hudie
8 February 2012
With AMD owning ATI, there is much better intergration between the the CPU and GFX processor in this team. Lets face it, Intel GFX chips are really lame performers. So for better intergration between 2 of the best performers, AMD - ATI is the best value for money and reliabilty. AMD with ATI has never given me any trouble, but Intel with Nvidia or ATI gfx cards has always given me heart ache.
raggamuffin
8 February 2012
I have an AMD A6 - I bought it because it was alot cheaper than the intel chips on a budget and it has more features that I like, for example it has some brilliant graphics, which an intel chip of that level can not match.
willtell
8 February 2012
I've got a custom built AMD 965 with a HD6870 at home running at 3.9GHz on air. Great value machine. That said I have an i5 under my desk at work. If the cost isn't a concern, I'd go Intel for the extra kick. Otherwise AMD is the best bang for buck when you consider overall system cost.
Comments have been disabled for this article.

Latest Comments

Latest Poll

Which broadband network do you think is the best choice for Australia?



or View results
The Coalition's.
  19%
 
Labor's.
  63%
 
Screw this I'm going back to smoke signals and string on a can.
  19%
TOTAL VOTES: 1787

Vote now
Ads by Google

From our Partners

PC & Tech Authority Downloads