Why do people hate AMD CPU's and GPU's? I don't have anything against Intel or Nvidia, but I just want to know why that is.
People dont hate AMD, idiots hate amd. I have friends that are the biggest Intel fans but they admit that AMD is the reason we have nice new GPUs and CPUs from other companies, as well as plenty of programs that they have pushed or pushed other companies through.....yes.... you guessed it CAPITALISM!!!!!!!!!!!! yes the all powerful dollar. So no people don't hate AMD, idiots that don't under stand "free" market and how an economy works don't like AMD
i like both amd and intel. im using AMD cpu and gpu at the moment and i realy like it ☺
i just like the best parts for the job, and the best bang for my buck offcourse ☺
+1 for reasonable people who want what is best for the money and will not put up with bull shit from big companies.
Don't read into it too much, you mainly just go with price for performance and according to what you feel you need. The loud fanboy types are stupid/young.
I think people hold a grudge from the ATI driver issues.
I love AMD. They seem more pro-consumer.
Yeah, AMD parts are a lot cheaper. I have an AMD CPU and GPU as well. Nothing against Intel or Nvidia, just not gonna pay extra for it.
I have enjoyed many hassle free builds from amd over the years. I am a bigger fan of that than any extreme performance levels.
Well, there are psychological reasons. People like to feel validated, so they feel better when they buy into the bigger club, especially if that club is also more expensive, seen as the "premium" brand. Marketing and PR folk know and use that, and guess which two of the three companies you mention have the most active marketing and PR departments.
There's also a kind of feedback loop. The bigger companies start to be the "default" companies. Look at the 3570k. Everybody on this forum (and every other forum) recommended that processor, and only that processor, for at least a year after it came out. Then, as more people bought it, they became part of the echochamber. It was the default position, and someone needed a reason to buy anything else.
Then there's the media. Anandtech, pcper, Tom's, etc. They tell people what to want, and all of them are biased in some way or another, to some degree or another. It's not necessarily that there's a large concerted effort to keep AMD down or anything, but there are, we'll say, tendencies acting in that direction.
Most reviewers don't outright lie to their readers. But, you don't have to lie to be dishonest, and you don't even have to be dishonest to mislead people, you don't even have to be aware of it (which I optimistically suspect is usually the case for most reviewers).
It can be anything from straight up lies (again, rare), to interpreting data for people (more common), to telling people which criteria are important (determined almost entirely by the media), and which benchmarks are used (again, entirely up to them, and there's a lot of room for bias). Except for the first one, the reviewer doesn't even have to be conscious of any of it. They can be fully convinced that they are acting fairly and objectively.
Other subtle biases can include the specific word choices in an article, the colors used, the placement and arrangement of things, the order in which things are mentioned, and even when the article is published. Any number of tiny details can nudge the reader one way or another without tipping them off, if the writer and/or webmaster so chooses.
Then there are actual, tangible(ish) benefits for going with Nvidia or Intel over AMD. Having the larger market share, they tend to get the most support. Software tends to run better on their hardware, simply because they constitute the larger portion of the hardware out there.
Combine all this together. Intel and Nvidia are the status quo. People like their experiences with Intel and Nvidia (hint: they would tend to like any computing experience they use regularly). They recommend Intel/Nvidia to their friends, and to online forums. The people recommending Intel/Nvidia outnumber those recommending AMD, so even more people buy Intel/Nvidia. Among those people, some of them become "journalists". Many of those "journalists" carry their past good experiences into their reviews, providing more pressure toward Intel/Nvidia, however small (debatable how big or small that is at this point).
The cycle continues.
It is essentially AMD's engineering team vs Intel/Nvidia's larger engineering team and even larger marketing team. If Intel/Nvidia fuck something up, they have people who will spin things in their favor, and a majority consumer following who will back them up. AMD does not have either luxury. Under those circumstances, AMD has done remarkably well, and is positioned to take huge chunks of both markets in the near future by good old fashioned innovation.
People may have sore tastes in their mouths w/ AMD GPU's, from the ATI days and they may cite "bad drivers" and such, but that's not really an issue nowadays. I think the hate has died down a bit, and AMD GPU's are currently very competitively priced to NVIDIA's GPU's. Each have their pros and cons, and that's good, more competitive marketplace.
On the CPU side of things AMD is good for budget builds (thinking FX 6300 and Athlon II X4 750K builds here), especially their APU's, they've pretty much cornered that market it seems. However, it's true, AMD just doesn't offer a good high end CPU, they just can't match and intel i5 or i7.
Anyone who hates AMD is being a fanboy and is stupid imo, pick and choose your parts based on price to performance and what's the best deal out there, not just the name. I am rocking an FX 6300 with a GTX 650 TI boost, because I've gotten both for good prices.
I don't know, and i don't think people who are knowledgeable about technology even do hate AMD. I for one am using an AMD gpu, and I would be using an 8350 but for the fact I got a 3930k with an X79 Sabertooth for about $100 more than I was going to pay for the 8350 with an asus motherboard, and let's be real a 6 core intel DOES significantly outperform an AMD 8 core. The way it stands at the moment, AMD are fantastic for value, even getting to the reasonably high end parts, but for the real top performance, Intel and Nvidia have it at the moment.
I don't hate amd, I'm always trying to find a reason to like them. However, historicly intel and nvidia have always just worked with no hassles where amd/ati have caused me countless hours of frustration and productivity. I'm not broke, so an extra $30-50 on the front end has saved me a lot more in actual work time and sanity over the years...
-just my personal real life experience.
The FX8350 would like to have a word with you. It can match and beat i5's and i7's on more than one occasion. And for that price it's pretty much a beast. Most people, including gamers, don't have a really good excuse to ignore this one "because it doesn't perform as well as Intel".
I'm still curious about the BS about being editors and how much worse AMD actually does in REAL LIFE PERFORMANCES.
Most people I personally know who favor one over the other feel that way because they have had bad experiences with the other. My personal experience has been that Intel and AMD processors are both great, but I've had significantly more stability and reliability issues with ATI cards (I haven't gotten one since AMD bought them) than NVIDIA. Some people have had the same experience, and some have had the opposite experience. I definitely wouldn't say I hate, or even dislike, AMD/ATI cards, though, and I don't feel wary about buying some in the future.
I don't think there is a valid argument as to which company produces the top-notch product.
I've worked on a variety of PCs doing CAD/CAM, which is on tier with high-end gaming and video processing as the most taxing programs on CPU/GPU performance... I can honestly say I can notice a huge difference in consumer build AMD-based and Intel-based systems in a business environment running those programs (note: AMD builds tend to have significantly cheaper peripherals and use low end processors/motherboards, so it's not fair to begin with). I've had experience with high-end custom PC builds with both processors using MasterCAM and SolidWorks, and the Intel CPU-based PCs ARE faster at processing. However, many of the custom builds I've worked on use AMD Radeon GPUs, I've used one Intel (identical CPU) with Nvidia (comparable GPU) and didn't really notice a difference...
The real discrepancy is the low-end models where AMD loses it's credibility, though. If you buy the cheapest possible computer you can from Wal-Mart, you get a low-end 2 year outdated processor from AMD... and it simply underwhelms to a point you want to go Office Space on it when performing anything that requires processing power.
The bottom line, nobody that is objective about it will tell you ALL AMD processors suck. I highly recommend their GPUs, and their high end processors are good. If I wanted bang for the buck, I'd still buy a hyperthreaded i5... if I wanted top-end performance, I'd get a nice i7. Nothing bad about AMD, I simply prefer the performance from Intel on CPUs...
The real question is what do you want it for? And realize your CPU/motherboard/proper cooling are the things you REALLY shouldn't be cutting corners on... RAM is easily upgradable... just get what you think you need x2 is my motto ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awi14wDTxNw
Well, a more sane choice would be to completely ignore a brand if you don't like it. (not hate it). If you are so convinced the other brand(s) are losing hands down, then why does one feel a need to express it? Like Pyrophosphate says, people need to feel validated. Only few people can achieve a state of mind of simply ignoring the brand that they dont like for personal reasons (And deep down I admit I'm not one of them.)
More to the point, the way it's looking now, to me, is that some people do seem to put the bar with AMD's hardware way too high, mostly ignoring the price, and comparing pure performance, even with more expensive products. Some people then feel like AMD is "missing out" in terms of quality, and dismiss the brand.
That cracked me up. In america sure but well umm. I was going to get a 9590 for my pc back in August but ahh 4770k was cheaper. $380 vs $1040. Thats right $1040. Bloody Australian prices. I wanted to buy 3DS MAX. I could have spent $5,000 or I could fly to american, Pick it up for under 1k and fly back with money to spare. And the price hikes can be traced back to american corperations. AMD forces the high price of their 9590, Intels extreme processors are the same story. Though its even worse in nz... Tried building an animation system for a friend. My build 2.3k, hers was looking at 4k. 4K! and the only difference was a CHEAPER mobo and an SSD. While the equivalent build is about 1.4k in america.
I payed $500 for my Mobo. That same mobo is $183 in America. There is NO reason for such a price.