• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Enthusiasts and apologists: Why AMD?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
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?
I have always been a bang for your buck buyer and AMD has provided some of that, I also like price and platform flexibility and what is dominating game performance.
Back in the FX days I was Intel.
Now that Ryzen has shown to be a better fit in all the areas that I look for it is clear that AMD is the best choice
Intel is still performance benchmark king but when it comes to games my Ryzen 9 3900X runs circles around Intel's offerings @ the same price or slightly higher.
Then there is the "underdog" that is the why I lean AMD more than Intel.
 
...but when it comes to games my Ryzen 9 3900X runs circles around Intel's offerings @ the same price or slightly higher.
Ehh, you could buy an i5-9600K ($263) and it is just as fast as the 3900X ($500) at 1080p (LINK). I'd call it similar performance and Intel is much cheaper (even in the used market) for this purpose. In fact, the previous generation i5-8600 is as fast the 3900X. The 9900K, which costs the same, is 5% faster. Outside of the 5800X3D, AFAIK, Intel owned the gaming sector. But since 13900K, they took the crown back (even over the 7950/5800X3D.....until a 7800X3D gets released, lol).

3900X is a solid chip, don't misunderstand me...but in gaming, it's not running circles around anything at it's price point or higher. It keeps up with much less expensive Intel offerings.
 
Last edited:
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.
WHAT? What are you talking about?
I have never had issues with a CPU (unless it is operator error).
AMD has great software BIOS's are the responsibility of the MB manufacture NOT the CPU maker. You seem to be projecting it all on AMD and that is WRONG sorry.
There video card line is just as good as any nVidia line.
But yeah seeing your sig tells me all I need to know.
 
Ehh, you could buy an i5-9600K ($263) and it is just as fast as the 3900X ($500) at 1080p (LINK). I'd call it similar performance and Intel is much cheaper (even in the used market) for this purpose. In fact, the previous generation i5-8600 is as fast the 3900X. The 9900K, which costs the same, is 5% faster. Outside of the 5800X3D, AFAIK, Intel owned the gaming sector. But since 13900K, they took the crown back (even over the 7950/5800X3D.....until a 7800X3D gets released, lol).

3900X is a solid chip, don't misunderstand me...but in gaming, it's not running circles around anything at it's price point or higher. It keeps up with much less expensive Intel offerings.
Well I do just fine in games better than most.
I would still put my money on my rig than some i5 chump setup.
I also game in 4K now I am done with 1080p that is so 2008.

Also have several other gaming rigs all Ryzen.
My Ryzen 7 3700X is a BEAST!

Hell my Ryzen 3 1300X would make Intel's offing look like chump change in real world games. Not some TPU rigged benchmark either!
 
Ryzen was software was definitely wonkey in the Zen 1, 1000 series chips. Some of the bigger issues with memory "overclocking" could indeed be blamed to the market, as profiles were not being made for the new AMD architecture. That said, the Microcode in the BIOS comes from AMD, the board manufacturers integrate it with their hardware. A lot of issues have also come from forward compatibility updates not being well supported for boards, in other words, while you can run a 5600X3D on a X470 motherboard, you *may* have some wonkeyness. I even have had some minor issues moving from Zen+ (2000) to Zen 2 (3000) on X470. Some of this is a trade off for having more chips supported. But definitely some issues came from the microcode.

Yeah it's definitely better, but it's difficult to extrapolate the experience of one user to claim that this problem has never happened and if it has it falls on the shoulders of board manufacturers and not AMD themsleves.
 
AMD has great software BIOS's are the responsibility of the MB manufacture NOT the CPU maker. You seem to be projecting it all on AMD and that is WRONG sorry.
Actually, it takes two to tango...motherboard partners don't work alone with BIOS/AGESA.

it was well known that first Gen Ryzen launch wasn't as smooth as others. Memory compatibility was poor especially. That platform took some time to mature. THe 2000 series was better and the 3000 series is where I would say it was on par with Intel. Both platforms have growing pains, but, early Ryzen, hands down wasn't good. I'm glad you had a positive experience, but many others did not. It's well known, and well-documented, this stuff.

There video card line is just as good as any nVidia line.
True, outside of their RT performance which is well behind NV's implementation.


Well I do just fine in games better than most.
I would still put my money on my rig than some i5 chump setup.
I also game in 4K now I am done with 1080p that is so 2008.
I'm sure you do... but by no means does that chip beat Intel in gaming at the same price or higher... let's stick to the facts. :)
Hell my Ryzen 3 1300X would make Intel's offing look like chump change in real world games. Not some TPU rigged benchmark either!
LOL, now you're trolling. Rigged TPU benchmarks... get a grip, T.............. yikes.
 
Ryzen was software was definitely wonkey in the Zen 1, 1000 series chips. Some of the bigger issues with memory "overclocking" could indeed be blamed to the market, as profiles were not being made for the new AMD architecture. That said, the Microcode in the BIOS comes from AMD, the board manufacturers integrate it with their hardware. A lot of issues have also come from forward compatibility updates not being well supported for boards, in other words, while you can run a 5600X3D on a X470 motherboard, you *may* have some wonkeyness. I even have had some minor issues moving from Zen+ (2000) to Zen 2 (3000) on X470. Some of this is a trade off for having more chips supported. But definitely some issues came from the microcode.

Yeah it's definitely better, but it's difficult to extrapolate the experience of one user to claim that this problem has never happened and if it has it falls on the shoulders of board manufacturers and not AMD themsleves.
WOW I went from a Ryzen 7 1700X to the Ryzen 7 3700X to the Ryzen 9 3900X all on the same MB the ASUS TUF X570gaming Plus. Not an issue at all.
The only issue I had was all due to my stupidity.
But still AMD is just that something you can talk about. You would not be talking about Intel vs Intel now would you? And This is not that kind of thread.
AMD has a better bang for the buck and better fun.
Post magically merged:

Haters will hate.
AMD is just that much better, and Hatters be hattin..

Hmmm some one did not read this article....
Ryzen9 3900X VS Intel.
 
Last edited:
This is not that kind of thread.
This also isn't a thread where false information and gaslighting prevails.

I can't help it if you don't believe the dozens upon dozens of websites that say the same thing about gaming performance between these chips. It is what it is. You not accepting it doesn't look bad for any of us, I can tell you that.

Haters will hate.
AMD is just that much better, and Hatters be hattin..
:facepalm:



Hmmm some one did not read this article....
Ryzen9 3900X VS Intel.
This article supports exactly what I'm saying about the processor and is contrary to the talking point(s) you brought up, gaming. Look at the gaming chart!

Thanks! That's another review to add to the dozens who also agree (including TPU) along with the link above! Look at the gaming chart (is it the same one, lol)... I see the 9900K beating the 3900X in all but two titles at 1080p. If you do some napkin math, TPUs results have the CPUs closer together than this one... ;)

I'm glad you jumped to 4K. It's an awesome experience if you have a graphics card that can drive it to 4k/60. At 4K, the CPU isn't generally the part holding things back...that's well known and the difference between them shrinks. Still, at that res, it's just as fast as Intel... wins some, loses some... but by no means do they 'run circles around intel (cheaper or more expensive)', you'd be a fool to bet against Intel with AMD in gaming under your context, and a 1700X is slower than i7-7700K in gaming too.

I guess we've heard from an unabashed AMD enthusiast, eh?!!!
 
I can't help it if you don't believe the dozens upon dozens of websites that say the same thing about gaming performance between these chips. It is what it is. You not accepting it doesn't look bad for any of us, I can tell you that.
LOL this has to be the funniest thing I have ever heard.
LMAO! :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
Thank you so much.

AMD is a CHOICE just like Intel.
You took the blue pill; I took the RED pill.






L8R for you I need my steak real!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
AMD is a CHOICE just like Intel.
You took the blue pill; I took the RED pill.
Which is fine. Nobody is saying otherwise. :shrug: o_O

It's a great chip! But contrary to what you said, the early Ryzen platforms had problems and it isn't as great as you claim in gaming. It's just as fast as Intel...wins some and loses some too. In fact, YOU posted TWO links SUPPORTING what I was saying/linked (even though the gaming chart is the same in both I think, lol). Much appreciated!


Enjoy your steak! This conversation has certainly run its course. :)
 
Which is fine. Nobody is saying otherwise. :shrug: o_O

It's a great chip! But contrary to what you said, the early Ryzen platforms had problems and it isn't as great as you claim in gaming. I'll say it's just as fast as Intel...it wins some and loses some too. In fact, YOU posted TWO links SUPPORTING what I was saying/linked (even though the gaming chart is the same in both I think, lol). Much appreciated!


Enjoy your steak! This conversation has certainly run its course. :)
I think a lot has to do with the amount of money someone has TBH.
Not many can afford Intel and see AMD as the better offering or "Bang for the buck"
And that is why we choose AMD the bang for the buck. The fun and challenge.
It is just too easy to setup an Intel system and peak it out. You need to have some gravitas to work with an AMD.
 
Not many can afford Intel and see AMD as the better offering or "Bang for the buck"
And that is why we choose AMD the bang for the buck.
Sure, that was a thing back in the day. But as was said earlier in the thread, once AMD was 'as fast as intel', their prices shot up. The 3900X was $500 MSRP... 9900K was $20 less. That was THREE generations ago! Is there any bang for the buck if they cost the same? Fast forward to today, the 7950X was $699 and the 13900K was $589 MSRP. AMD had to drop prices to compete. It's also known that, in many of the low-end chips, Intel tends to be the better deal.

I guess what I'm saying is, things have changed from that 'AMD is the better bang for the buck' reality. It's not, and hasn't been for multiple generations/years. There may be an exception or two in the product stack, but overall that flipped or, pricing is the same on processors.
 
Doesn't matter how fast you OC it, Zen 2 is slow. AMD is not what I think of when I think bang for you buck, those days have been gone for a couple of years now..
 
I feel like this thread consists of people promoting past statements that may have held true for a long time but no longer apply. Yes AMD ruled price/performance for decades, but since becoming competitive and with their products in higher demand, they do not necessarily fit that category any more. Yes AMD was absent from the business world for probably a decade, but no longer.

Is the 3900x probably the best deal on 12c out there, if you need 12c, (and this is just off hand speculation), it probably is. Is a 5600x or 12400 or 9600k going to run your games in such a way that you couldn't tell the difference between them without pouring over graphs (especially at 4k) absolutely. So if you need more than 8 cores, it is probably the price to performance leader. It also can excel in games. But they don't go to shareholder meetings and state, "well we made the best bang for the buck for 15 years in a row, so we're not going to charge more than $XXX for our flagship," no they charge what the market pay.

Also freeagent, Zen2 (3000 series) is slow compared to what? Processors that are 2 years newer from both teams, sure. Contemporary Intel chips, not so much, it would depend on the workload but I don't think I would call them slow.

Why am I using AMD? To get back on topic nostalgia plus a good product. In the t-bred/barton era, they were bang for the buck, wicked overclockers, and all I could afford in high school. I have a preference for it sure, but that hasn't stopped me from making rational market decisions either, buying Intel laptops in the interim, just today I recommended an intel system for a coworker, not because I think one is better than the other (for office work it really doesn't matter), but because it was what happened to be in the system that was on sale. It met a need of price and specs and therefor was recommended. Would a little part of my teenage self have celebrated if it had been an AMD instead, of course, but ultimately I don't let that guide how I spend other people's money. For my own hobby, if I can afford it or if it can fill the need, absolutely.
 
The OP asked why AMD.
Well I ask why not?
So by your own words then AMD is as good as any Intel offering then it's all moot.
Get what you like I like AMD and can go toe to toe with Intel's same offering Even if Earthdog thinks I can't!
I used to work at the Intel plants here in Beaverton Oregon so there is that reason too (I put all the carpet tile in for one of the labs and the cafeteria).
 
the story repeats, making from users' beta testers.
I felt like an AMD beta tester for 3 years, going through Zen, Zen+ and Zen2. Which is why I passed on Zen3. This is becoming the way the industry works, rushing products out to get ahead of the competition, and early adopters become the testers. Not just computer hardware, but phones and TVs too.
 
Call it what you will.
I can remember my first Intel the 486DX4 what a MONSTER of a CPU it ran circles around anything you tossed at it.
I also had an AMD Am486-DX4-120 MHz that was my company computer.
Post magically merged:

Don't take the RED PILL!
 
Last edited:
I felt like an AMD beta tester for 3 years, going through Zen, Zen+ and Zen2. Which is why I passed on Zen3. This is becoming the way the industry works, rushing products out to get ahead of the competition, and early adopters become the testers. Not just computer hardware, but phones and TVs too.
I'm not saying that AMD was perfect. The main difference is that AMD released good chipsets and we haven't heard about any serious issues or it could be easily fixed with a new BIOS. Intel released multiple chipsets with PCIe, LAN, WiFi and USB issues. Some were fixed with BIOS, some required hardware updates, and some were never fixed as Intel released new chipsets to cover that. As I remember, it started sometime with Z68 chipset when USB had some problems with stability.
AMD failed multiple times too, but it was mainly because of their lack of trust to partners. They were providing firmware/AGESA way too late and motherboard manufacturers had no time to prepare BIOS on time. Still, AMD blamed motherboard manufacturers for all problems with motherboards.
 
Back