Enthusiasts and apologists: Why AMD?

[P A U L]

I built an AMD PC about 10 years ago because, I can't remember the exact reason I held in my mind at the time, AMD were better somehow. I don't recall being impressed and maybe 0.1% disappointed (also can't remember why).

But it seems AMD is still very, very popular especially with Ryzen.

So... enlighten me?

 

[EarthDog]

AMD Ryzen CPUs, particularly from the 2000 series forward, has been quite competitive with Intel, actually surpassing them in the 5000 series. More cores/threads and slightly slower clocks than Intel, in general. But yeah, if you can actual ly utilize the additional cores and threads it (used to - Alder Lake from Intel is here flipping the tables again... mostly) they make for awesome chips. Great gamers too... now just a hair slower than Intel.

But yeah, there's reviews on our front page for ryzen that explain the architecture changes... plenty of great info.

 

[mackerel]

Ryzen has turned around AMD's CPU business.

Zen was sold on high core count at low pricing, although it was offset by fussy ram support and struggled to clock. Zen+ partially improved that allowing it to ride higher clocks more of the time.

Zen 2 is the first generation where it could be argued they passed Intel CPUs of the time clearly in architecture. Before that, Zen was slightly better in some respects, but a LOT worse in some others. Zen 2 removed most of those "others".

Zen 3 continues on from Zen 2 with further improvements, although you can also see AMD charging what they can now. Only top tier models are available for the full desktop CPU, and cheaper option is the much downsized/limited APUs.

Also consider Ryzen came out right when Intel were deep in their fabrication problems. Intel couldn't really do much more than Skylake but bigger and faster to respond to AMD. Only with Alder Lake have they shown their first steps to reclaiming leadership on desktop, but it might take some more years.

 

[Woomack]

For years, AMD was a brand for home entertainment which was slower but significantly cheaper than Intel, and that's why it was highly competitive. Business users were skipping AMD until about Ryzen 2000/3000 release and server/workstation chips based on the same architecture. I can say that business and professional users started to trust AMD since Ryzen 3000. Also about then, motherboard manufacturers, branded PC, and laptop manufacturers started to offer comparable quality products to the Intel series. AMD was accepted widely after the success of Ryzen 1000/2000 but when the 1000 series was released then was still too early to say much about it. People needed the time to gain trust in a company that had so many failures on the way. Now AMD has the next generation of Ryzen and they took over a large % of the home/office and business markets. Intel had a bump in sales in the last 2 generations (like 11/12), but mainly because of higher Ryzen 5000 prices and significant price drops on the Intel side.

I'm not on any side, but it's not hard to notice that AMD motherboards, graphics cards, and branded PC were always of worse quality and had worse support than Intel/Nvidia based products (fewer BIOS releases and any other improvements, cheaper components, etc.). It has changed about the time Ryzen 3000 and RX6000 graphics cards appeared on the market. I could say earlier but because of AMD premiere problems, users were fighting with failed BIOS/firmware for various products or cheap power designs. Right now all AMD motherboards are similar to the Intel series (at least at the same price level) and every RX6000 card has a power design based on AMD requirements, also regarding used components.

 

[EarthDog]

Ryzen has turned around AMD's CPU business.

Zen was sold on high core count at low pricing, although it was offset by fussy ram support and struggled to clock. Zen+ partially improved that allowing it to ride higher clocks more of the time.

Zen 2 is the first generation where it could be argued they passed Intel CPUs of the time clearly in architecture. Before that, Zen was slightly better in some respects, but a LOT worse in some others. Zen 2 removed most of those "others".

Zen 3 continues on from Zen 2 with further improvements, although you can also see AMD charging what they can now. Only top tier models are available for the full desktop CPU, and cheaper option is the much downsized/limited APUs.

Also consider Ryzen came out right when Intel were deep in their fabrication problems. Intel couldn't really do much more than Skylake but bigger and faster to respond to AMD. Only with Alder Lake have they shown their first steps to reclaiming leadership on desktop, but it might take some more years.

Awesome details here (and Woo's post). Just in case the OP isn't aware of the (desktop) processor series that go with the generations, here's a list...

Zen = 1000 series
Zen+ = 2000 series
Zen2 = 3000 series
Zen3 = 5000 series

 

[David]

I've usually went AMD with desktops because of price - they are usually (at the times I've been buying desktop parts) better value for money (IMO) and I've not run into issues.

I've tended to go Intel for laptops, because there is a wider choice and the flagship models tend to be Intel ones. I've also leaned towards Intel for many-core workstations/computing resource because the AMD chips are still not available as widely and the purchasing arrangements that my employer has with Dell, HP, etc. make it uneconomical to go for e.g. a Lenovo TR system.

 

[Janus67]

I went with a Ryzen/AMD system for my first AMD CPU-based build since a San Diego 3700+ days. Works a treat! Tons of cores and plenty of speed with not too much wattage usage.

 

[BugFreak]

Very interesting information above. Much of it I had no idea about. For many years I was an AMD loyalist primarily because of baseline price and with a little work I could closely compete with an Intel system for a much cheaper price tag. Once AMD software like drivers and BIOS started getting wonky I gave up on them. It seemed every time I bought a new AMD product I had to wait weeks for software that worked properly to come out so I could use it. Now that AMD seems reliable there really isn't a price difference so I stick with Intel. Maybe down the road I'll give them another shot.

 

[Mr.Scott]

As an enthusiast and overclocker, I always indulged in AMD because there were more knobs to twist. The end result was always more satisfying to me than the Intel counterparts.

 

[mackerel]

Awesome details here (and Woo's post). Just in case the OP isn't aware of the (desktop) processor series that go with the generations, here's a list...

Zen = 1000 series
Zen+ = 2000 series
Zen2 = 3000 series
Zen3 = 5000 series

As of about an hour ago, we now also officially have:
Zen 3+ = 6000 series coming soon to APUs
Zen 4 = 7000 series 2H this year

 

[EarthDog]

As of about an hour ago, we now also officially have:
Zen 3+ = 6000 series coming soon to APUs
Zen 4 = 7000 series 2H this year

I've been watching too!

 

[Itchie]

In my case I've always liked rooting for the underdog which has meant going with AMD. Ever since I built my first PC in 2000 (Duron 750) all my builds have been AMD (although all my laptops except 1 have been Intel). I suppose if I had to build a PC during the Bulldozer fiasco I woudl have gone with Intel but I skipped that generation. My next PC will be AMD too, just waiting for AM5/Zen 4 to release.

 

[freeagent]

I rolled an X58, then a Z77 system for 10 or 11 years. I had the opportunity to upgrade and I took it. I almost went with Intel 10th gen at the time just to play it safe.. go with watcha know right? Instead I decided to see what the fuss was about with Ryzen.. pretty glad I decided to see for myself what the hype was about, it really is an impressive setup. Of course not as fast as ADL, but ADL was not live last year

 

[Niku-Sama]

Cost per Mhz was my main reason. that gaps closing now that AMDs had some home runs in recent history but we'll see how long that lasts. Athlon XP days didnt last for ever.

I found them easier to overclock as time went on. My first AMD system was a 850Mhz Duron. it was what i could afford and it kept up with my friends athlon XPs at the time. They went with their A XPs and skimped on videocards with Riva 128s and Rage cards. I skimped on the CPU and got a GeForce 2 GTS. After a while i felt like it could do better so i set out to OC the thing. I could get a max of 1.2 out of it in the end but the copper Zalman flower cooler couldnt handle it so it got run at 1Ghz daily. Man that was a long time ago.

this wasnt my first ever build though, just first AMD

 

[don256us]

AMD has always been competitive although some years it could be questioned. One of the main reasons I went with AMD was that they 'tend' to keep sockets around longer. Meaning that I could spend out on a nice MB and cheap out on the CPU. Then, in a few years, get a new CPU that works in my MB. Saved money over the long haul. I currently rock a Threadripper because it was the cheapest way to get a TON (maybe a metric ton I don't know) of PCIe lanes for all of my folding cards. Intel either skimps on PCIe lanes or charges a boat load for them. I don't know what sized boat but it's loaded.

That said, Skt 754(?) burned me. AMD had a skt that they themselves hated so much that they ditched it as soon as I bought into it. It happens. Intel is NOT the scourge of the earth but I prefer AMD for CPUs.

 

[EarthDog]

AMD was not competitive performance-wise from FX/past socket 939 until ryzen (price point saved them during those few generations of notably inferior performance)...really 2nd gen ryzen is where they got competitive again... and the prices went up to match.

With intel, you can generally get 2 generations out of a board so technically you can do the same thing (amd spanned 3 gens iirc)... you just have to know what chipset supports what. For example, z690 supports 12th and the unreleased 13th gen. Z790 supports both 12th and 13th too. I'm honestly not sure I want to go more than 2 cpu gens on the same board as there's the potential to miss out on new shiney things you may want. But yeah, 5 years, two cpus seems like a good chipset life cycle to me.

 

[Woomack]

AMD has always been competitive although some years it could be questioned. One of the main reasons I went with AMD was that they 'tend' to keep sockets around longer. Meaning that I could spend out on a nice MB and cheap out on the CPU. Then, in a few years, get a new CPU that works in my MB. Saved money over the long haul.

Buying more expensive motherboard and a cheap CPU was giving a chance on an upgrade for longer, but wasn't the best idea because of how fast everything is changing. AMD sockets were for longer, but if you bought a cheaper motherboard then upgrades were always limited. Higher CPUs couldn't run because of worse power design or other issues. It was especially visible in FX series CPUs. For top CPUs were literally 3 acceptable-designed motherboards on the market. The same AM2, FM1, FM2, AM3 and AM3+ sockets weren't all compatible, so you could buy top AM3 motherboard that still couldn't support higher AM3+ CPUs. Most users still had to buy a new motherboard with a new CPU and it is like that right now too. No matter if it's AMD or Intel, a new CPU almost always means a new motherboard.

There is one more thing. Motherboards with design flaws were usually ignored on the AMD side as long as they were stable. Manufacturers like Gigabyte were releasing multiple PCB revisions of the same motherboards as it was cheaper than admit that the product is faulty (and cover the RMA). Surprisongly, they did that with the Z690 ITX series and will replace all motherboards to a new version via RMA system.

HEDT platforms were usually living longer, if not the new CPUs then had simply longer support. With a mid-shelf is a problem that after ~3-5 months after release, there are no BIOS updates except for critical updates. HEDT usually had support for over a year.
AMD had always worse support than Intel and only recently, manufacturers started to care more for AMD motherboards (recently like since Ryzen 3000).

Either way, we are beta testers for everything nowadays. Manufacturers are not performing proper tests and release unfinished products that are only "good enough" to not cause high RMA loses, but still sell well. We can only look at how many BIOS updates require every new motherboard series. The same story on AMD and Intel side.

The latest AMD CPUs cost significantly more than the previous generations to the point that the new Intel was cheaper than a year+ old AMD and the lower Intel CPUs started to sell much better than AMD (also because Intels have IGP and on the AMD side, only overpriced APUs in limited availability have IGP).

 

[freeagent]

I bought my Strix B550-F in November 2020.. and there has been literally 20 updates (or more) since I started using it. They kept some of the beta bios up, but a lot of the ones I used aren't there anymore..

Too bad, because some of them were really good.. wish I kept them

 

[Woomack]

I bought my Strix B550-F in November 2020.. and there has been literally 20 updates (or more) since I started using it. They kept some of the beta bios up, but a lot of the ones I used aren't there anymore..

Too bad, because some of them were really good.. wish I kept them

B550 were pretty good just after the premiere. They were better than X570 after multiple updates. When B550 hit the stores then a lot of X570 still had initial BIOS and no support for 5000 Ryzens out of the box. I remember when I bought MSI X570 Unify about 2 years after X570 release and it had the first official BIOS without Ryzen 5000 support. It also had audio issues that MSI didn't care to fix for 2 years (MSI forums were flooded by these issues). The same was with some other X570 motherboards. In short, B550 was a fix to many X570 issues ... also cheaper, with better RAM support and no chipset fan.

ASUS often releases multiple betas and delete all betas when they release an official BIOS version. The same is doing Gigabyte or MSI but ASUS has larger BIOS team and for popular models are many more updates. I remember that B550I-Gaming had maybe 14 or 15 BIOS releases in about half year. After that there was nothing except for new microcode releases when new APU or 3D cache CPUs hit the stores.
In general, ASUS provides much longer support for higher ROG motherboards. I mean longer like 1-2 years of improvements, not typical half year. I don't count CPU microcode updates as most motherboards get them when new CPUs are released. By higher ROG, I mean Apex, Formula or Extreme. Strix gets more updates only when the specific model is very popular.

I just noticed that my Strix Z690-I Gaming has a new BIOS. Here is about the same story as with other series. Z690, no matter what brand, almost only has CPU microcode updates since March/April. So the manufacturers' focus on Z690 lasted 5-6 months and they moved to Z790 and AM5. On the other hand, they will work for half a year and I bet we won't get a stable BIOS for the premiere anyway.

Going back to the original question. I guess that most enthusiasts were bored seeing Intel leading the market for long years without real competition, and setting high prices. Here is one funny thing. Intel fans just buy Intel and complain. AMD fans buy AMD and assume that all works great and point out Intel problems, even though AMD usually works worse than Intel (because of mentioned worse support, but there are exceptions).

 

[ssjwizard]

I got on the AMD bandwagon back when they had the fastest chips around. I had a socket 7 Athlon thunderbird 1.4Ghz. Back in the old days when multipliers were locked on cpus. I like AMD for my desktops Ive always had a good experience and they are fun to tweak. I only have Intel portables right now, but I would buy a Ryzen laptop if I needed one and it fit my needs. I use alot of nVidia acceleration for various things we do in my studio, so I think finding a high end Ryzen with a Quadro would be hard to do.