I just don't get it (amd rant)

Well I'll let the gaming industry fix that. The only game native on Linux that's actually relevant is CS:GO and its a gimped version at that. 

Don't get me wrong, I encourage the Linux revolution, but I'm not going to get hyped up about it whatsoever. Disappointment will only follow.

Why, do you have a nice arse? lol

No, I'm not such a big fan of the FX8k series, I've said that on many occasions before. They require pretty solid mobos, and as a solution they are not the cheapest deal for every application. I also use Intel products myself, and I'm a big fan of Intel Atom in general, and if AMD isn't careful, Intel Atom based chips will soon outperform AMD APU's, because right now, it's already possible to game quite well on quad core Bay Trail Celerons, which are nothing else but Atom Silvermonts basically. Of course the IGPU only has 4 ROPs, so GPU-dependent games are out of the question, but a lot of really popular games are not CPU dependent. Nonetheless, those games also run perfectly fine on any cheap AMD CPU or APU, and an APU can also offer pretty good graphical performance for the price.

The problem I have with the Intel Core range, is that it's evolving towards the same problem as Windows 8/8.1/10... they are becoming products of which - when you look at them objectively - you ask yourself "who is this made for". I get lower power (Atom is great for this), I get more cores for better and more economical asset management, but I don't get selling pretty much the same over and over again for more money, forcing people to upgrade mobos and memory, when there is no compelling performance reason to upgrade. If you get an i5, you have better IPC than on an FX8k, yet your total computing experience isn't any better than on an FX6k, in fact, for people that stream (and there is a lot of that going on since Steam In-House streaming, which is wildly popular!), the FX6k will probably still be the better choice than the i5.

Again, the problem is not that there is a need for more IPC, the problem is that people use a lot of software that is not optimized for modern computing, and that's not even that modern, multicore processing in consumer systems has been a thing for about a decade now. More IPC can compensate for some of that, but not in a very efficient way, in fact, it's fucking expensive.

Another thing is that AMD offers a great linux experience, because the products are full-featured and just work. Intel is still developing a lot of modern operating system features, and some products lack proper support, don't perform that well, or there are all kinds of problems with them, and not only for linux, but also in general, because the instruction code contains bugs, because there are hardware bugs (from bad thermal material to mathematical errors or faulty RNG's), because of bugs in UEFI or in chipset controllers. AMD has a lot less of those, because they take more time to bring products to market. That's the price of bringing stuff first to market, it's just how it is, and if that new stuff is basically pretty much the same as the old stuff, then I don't think it's worth the money to be honest.

Well, only for people that only use their system for Windows-based synthetic benchmarks.

For most people, it would be very hard to even notice a difference, unless of course they fire up Steam In-house streaming, in which case they will get a better experience from the FX system...

I don't agree...AMD FX CPU's are still BOSS and very powerful. Honestly, I have both AMD and Intel systems...and most of the time I notice very little difference between them doing what I normally do.

Are you joking or serious?

But if the rumors are true and AM3+ is dead, it's not worth it for the motherboard manufacturer to put a lot of R&D into a board like that since the audience will be small.

The simple answer is cost. When most people here are putting together a build, gaming is the main/only thing they have in mind. I don't think you will see many enthusiast builds with an AMD chip in it at the moment. Those days started to fade right around the time Intel came out with their core 2 duo's. They died out completely when nehalem was released. In most games the AMD chip is good enough, in an increasing number of titles however, intel is pulling ahead. I do find it a little disappointing how many people have no problem with AMD's lack of any meaningful upgrade in the high end cpu segment for the for the past two years. If anything they have gone backwards because now they are selling the higher binned 8350's under their own sku's for a premium price. If AMD would do anything in the high end market we wouldn't see as much of a premium on intel cpu's and they'd probably accelerate increases in general cpu power as a whole. 

Wouldn't the reason be that developers of software don't want to ostracize the large group of pc users by making cpu heavy software? On the technology front AMD just plain sucks though. Maybe Li will have more balls than Cory Read did and put amd back into the cpu space again?

+1. I remember how AMD used to be less than 10 years ago. They need to get back to that.

I remember at least three threads filled with people pissed about AMD launching low end apu to mid range apu and no meaningful FX update. Has the haswell refresh really been that great, didn't they just address the heat TIM for better clock speeds and more over clock headroom?

I do seem to recall intel just releasing an 8 core consumer chip. I thought that chip was introduced with a new platform that utilizes a new memory standard as well.  I may have imagined it though. AMD on the other hand hasn't had so much as a single update to their flagship cpu lineup other than selling higher binned fx 8350's under a new sku at a higher price. What has AMD done in the past 2 years? Competition drives innovation. Right now Intel has none in the high end market, so the progression has slowed down.

1) AM3+ platform is very mature at this point and unless you need top 1% of performance then FX series CPUs offer plenty of performance.

2) Anything outside of gaming that is heavily threaded then dollar for dollar AMD stuff is still pretty darn good. 

3) Overall cost is lower. $250 gets you an FX-8xx0 8 core and a full featured ATX motherboard with a good SATA III controller and SLI and Crossfire support.

4) AMD is a massive underdog and who doesn't like an underdog?

If you do physics simulations or video rendering for a living, then the premium you pay for an intel cpu means nothing. I've done simulations that run for DAYS. Time is money and the fact is intel's new 5960x is twice as fast as the fx 8350. The $800 difference in price would be made up in no time at all. The cost of ownership (once you put a value to time spent waiting on processing) is significantly cheaper from the intel side. There are also plenty of games where AMD lags behind. Single threaded performance is very important and AMD is severely lacking it with their current lineup. 

I will agree that for most people the AMD chip offers enough performance for ordinary tasks, the problem I have is the total complacency with the lack of forward progress from the green team. They honest to goodness haven't done a damned thing with their flagship cpu's in two years. What if Porsche didn't upgrade their car lineup for 15 years (pretty much the same thing as 2 years in computer terms) because what they offered was good enough and offered more power than the average person needed? You would lose a tremendous amount of respect for them. Why does AMD get a pass? 

Alot of people still do run pentiums, the problem with that for gaming is that some games require quadcores to work properly. An 8350 will be more than sufficent, it performs comparable to a 4770k on highly-threaded applications (DX12 suppose to be highly threaded) or under many program workloads, for significantly less albeit with inferior per core performance and slightly more expensive motherboards.

It depends what you are doing on it too, there are things you can do with an  FX990 chipset that you can't do with a X79 chipset for instance. Its really about performance per dollar, and what you want to do with it. Most modern games at reasonable resoloutions for the graphics card (i.e. not very low, and not way higher than the monitors refresh rate) will not really be CPU limited anyway if you have a modern quadcore.

I think new chips like the low power FX chips are a godsend for people with older am3 boards that dont have the oomph to run the non-low-power FX chips. If you had say a setup with a phenom and decent board, the upgrade path is now available in some instances (BIOS, etc dependent).

my 2c.

I didn't exclude x99 to make my case hold water, in fact I agree AMD seemed to have refocused on the lower and mid range after CMT didn't pan out and the constant binning of fx8x chips is just silly, lets not forget the bastard child FX apus. But z97 and haswell refresh seemed just as pointless, in  fact the most exiting thing with z97 was what mobo manufacturers where doing with their products.

Is that $800 including the premium you pay for ram, especially the amount you presumably require. Because I looked at how much that DDR4 ram cost and it is absolutely fricking insane, it is double what the current DDR3 prices are, and that is after the prices of DDR3 practically doubled from their low. And god knows what we are talking for ECC DDR4 that is compatible with an X99 board....

We are talking about $20 a GB just for the non-ecc stuff compared to like $8 for the DDR3, and I doubt it is that much faster anyway. That is an extra $384 for 32GB ($640 total) of DDR, that is ludicrous. At this point I don't even know why you are mentioning it, clearly X99 is not the platform for 99.99% of people.

At this point I am starting to wonder if it is even worth it for professionals to use the X99 platform, because there are alternative platforms, platforms for compute cards, actual servers with multiple xeons etc..etc.. That DDR4 just pushes the price up so much...

Kerbal Space Program on Linux not only had the 64-bit version available before Windows, but also managed to completely do away with the massive lag spike you get when changing warp speeds on Windows, and this even applies to my shitty mobile APU. I also no longer get any lag when crashing a large ship into the ground.

Whether the game is "relevant" or not, whatever that means, it is an excellent example of a CPU-bottlenecked situation completely cleared up by a change in OS.

RR was not in charge of AMD for long enough to have any significant input on their CPUs. With Bulldozer, they swung wildly and missed. It'll take a couple years to get back on track, but balls have nothing to do with it.

AMD just cant do high end stuff period. look at the amd fx 9590, tried to chase after the extreme edition, flop.