3 ms·

I've been an AMD guy for years, mostly because I was a poor college student when they were getting their start, and AMD had the best bang for your buck around.

I've been an AMD guy for years, mostly because I was a poor college student when they were getting their start, and AMD had the best bang for your buck around. Fast forward and my last purchase was an Intel for the first time in my life for no other reason that AMD just couldn't keep up, not even in the same realm. Lo and behold if they do this again I'm going to regret not waiting a bit for the upgrade :) I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for AMD and I'm rooting for them. Even if that sounds a bit silly :)

pjmlp 11y ago
> Fast forward and my last purchase was an Intel for the first time in my life for no other reason that AMD just couldn't keep up, not even in the same realm. How happy are you with your Intel GPU?
- kijin 11y ago
  He could be using an nvidia graphics card (or two, or three) for all we know, making the GPU comparison totally irrelevant.
  - pjmlp 11y ago
    It is not irrelevant, because AMD's integrated CPU/GPUs dies still beat Intel's offering, hence my question.
    - reitzensteinm 11y ago
      It's quite hard for me to picture an enthusiast that pays the premium to get the best single thread performance, does not already own an external graphics card, and is then unhappy with what Intel HD graphics provides but would have been fine with the extra sliver of performance of an AMD APU. If you're maxing out your processor, both graphics options are either going to be more than sufficient for desktop use or woefully inadequate for games and compute. Maybe this will change with AMD's recent HBM announcement.
      - mreiland 11y ago
        You're spot on. I still game, although not as enthusiastically as I did in the past. The extra horsepower of my GPU probably isn't strictly necessary for what I do, but Tim Allen.
    - rsynnott 11y ago
      That's a bit of a niche, though. The enthusiast gamer crowd (and other niche markets requiring hefty GPUs) will be using a discrete card anyway, while non-gamers will be generally fine with Intel.
    - dijit 11y ago
      Well, my machine has a i7 4930k, which has no on-board GPU, I use an nvidia K2000 for displaying video. in the laptop even the old GMA500 drivers are enough for 2D render, if you're playing games then don't use on-board graphics? Onboard graphics are "good enough" for most scenarios, less so in graphics production and gaming- which only leaves onboard (or on-die) in the mobile platform. And AMD simply isn't competitive there due to power consumption.
      - pjmlp 11y ago
        Thanks for the clarification. I do use on-board graphics on my travel netbook for 3D programming on the go (just as hobby), and Intel on-board GPUs were never a match, specially given their OpenGL drivers.
        sharpneli 11y ago
        Intel has improved their OpenGL support by leaps and bounds lately. Mostly because they need a good implementation for Android tablets. The support is actually better than what AMD has now. As an example AMD has (or had, been few months) a horrible bug in OpenGL compute shaders that pretty much break them completely. Whereas with Intel it works nice and dandy. But yeah. Price-wise cheap AMD laptop (sub 500€ range) is a better choice all in all. For anything more expensive Intel + Nvidia tends to dominate completely.
- mreiland 11y ago
  Nvidia GTX 980. The sad part? I honestly don't run anything that requires the GPU horsepower that often. But OH. MY. GOD. it renders that console sooooo hard! All kidding aside, I've also been an 'Nvidia guy' for years due to their Linux Drivers. I know ATI does pretty well nowadays and I've owned exactly 1 of their high end GPU's (cashed in when the bitcoin frenzy crashed a few years ago and all these cheap GPU's were coming on the market). It was a fine card, but all things being equal, I tend to stick with Nvidia unless there's a strong reason not to (like a super cheap upgrade, LOL!) edit: And it's kind of weird the bias' you get as you age. I will never own an MSI motherboard. I would rather compute on an old 6502 processor than deal with them again (I'm exaggerating, but you get the idea). I've had so many people tell me MSI does perfectly fine, but I've had 2 boards and trouble with both. Asus/Gigabyte or bust. I know it's silly and I don't even care :)

pjmlp 11y ago

> Fast forward and my last purchase was an Intel for the first time in my life for no other reason that AMD just couldn't keep up, not even in the same realm. How happy are you with your Intel GPU?

kijin 11y ago
He could be using an nvidia graphics card (or two, or three) for all we know, making the GPU comparison totally irrelevant.
- pjmlp 11y ago
  It is not irrelevant, because AMD's integrated CPU/GPUs dies still beat Intel's offering, hence my question.
  - reitzensteinm 11y ago
    It's quite hard for me to picture an enthusiast that pays the premium to get the best single thread performance, does not already own an external graphics card, and is then unhappy with what Intel HD graphics provides but would have been fine with the extra sliver of performance of an AMD APU. If you're maxing out your processor, both graphics options are either going to be more than sufficient for desktop use or woefully inadequate for games and compute. Maybe this will change with AMD's recent HBM announcement.
    - mreiland 11y ago
      You're spot on. I still game, although not as enthusiastically as I did in the past. The extra horsepower of my GPU probably isn't strictly necessary for what I do, but Tim Allen.
  - rsynnott 11y ago
    That's a bit of a niche, though. The enthusiast gamer crowd (and other niche markets requiring hefty GPUs) will be using a discrete card anyway, while non-gamers will be generally fine with Intel.
  - dijit 11y ago
    Well, my machine has a i7 4930k, which has no on-board GPU, I use an nvidia K2000 for displaying video. in the laptop even the old GMA500 drivers are enough for 2D render, if you're playing games then don't use on-board graphics? Onboard graphics are "good enough" for most scenarios, less so in graphics production and gaming- which only leaves onboard (or on-die) in the mobile platform. And AMD simply isn't competitive there due to power consumption.
    - pjmlp 11y ago
      Thanks for the clarification. I do use on-board graphics on my travel netbook for 3D programming on the go (just as hobby), and Intel on-board GPUs were never a match, specially given their OpenGL drivers.
      - sharpneli 11y ago
        Intel has improved their OpenGL support by leaps and bounds lately. Mostly because they need a good implementation for Android tablets. The support is actually better than what AMD has now. As an example AMD has (or had, been few months) a horrible bug in OpenGL compute shaders that pretty much break them completely. Whereas with Intel it works nice and dandy. But yeah. Price-wise cheap AMD laptop (sub 500€ range) is a better choice all in all. For anything more expensive Intel + Nvidia tends to dominate completely.
mreiland 11y ago
Nvidia GTX 980. The sad part? I honestly don't run anything that requires the GPU horsepower that often. But OH. MY. GOD. it renders that console sooooo hard! All kidding aside, I've also been an 'Nvidia guy' for years due to their Linux Drivers. I know ATI does pretty well nowadays and I've owned exactly 1 of their high end GPU's (cashed in when the bitcoin frenzy crashed a few years ago and all these cheap GPU's were coming on the market). It was a fine card, but all things being equal, I tend to stick with Nvidia unless there's a strong reason not to (like a super cheap upgrade, LOL!) edit: And it's kind of weird the bias' you get as you age. I will never own an MSI motherboard. I would rather compute on an old 6502 processor than deal with them again (I'm exaggerating, but you get the idea). I've had so many people tell me MSI does perfectly fine, but I've had 2 boards and trouble with both. Asus/Gigabyte or bust. I know it's silly and I don't even care :)