I am using Phenom x4 980 clocked at 4.2ghz with HD7950 and now that 3570k prices dropped it would nice to switch for a performance boost so is there a point waiting for Kaveri 'high end' APU's?

no. in 2012 i switched from my Phenom II X4 955 3.6GHZ to my current i7 2700k, that made HUGEEE difference and that without oc at all, Intel quicksync is also nice but nvidia NVENC is better. anyway get Core I5 if mainly for gaming, and I7 if u need the best 😀 either u gonna be happy.

Well, at least AM3+ will be alive and kicking. 😀 Wantobe: Do you have any SSD's yet? You would see a performance increase with an cpu upgrade but, an SSD would be much better. Also, do you have that 980 overclocked? (An FX 8350 would be great as well except I am not certain how that board would handle it.) Edit: Thank Hilbert for the update.

no. in 2012 i switched from my Phenom II X4 955 3.6GHZ to my current i7 2700k, that made HUGEEE difference and that without oc at all, Intel quicksync is also nice but nvidia NVENC is better. anyway get Core I5 if mainly for gaming, and I7 if u need the best 😀 either u gonna be happy.

If you're only gaming, AMD is just fine. Unless you have a 3D or 120Hz display, an i5 will give you a minimal amount of extra performance but a lot of a price difference. This is what I don't get - in most everyday situations where you need live results, AMD is just fine. Today, Intel is really only worth it when you have a task with an indefinite duration that is *time critical*. However, Piledriver and Bulldozer are a little on the "not worth it" side when you go for an AM3+ board consisting of anything lower than a 6-core. I'm sure Steamroller will be more valuable, particularly to users who do a lot of single-threaded tasks.

Some people want a little better than just fine. I wouldn't even think about sli 680 if I was not on a h Decent oc 2600k.

Some people want a little better than just fine. I wouldn't even think about sli 680 if I was not on a h Decent oc 2600k.

That's fine, especially if you have the money. But when companies like AMD struggle to compete, you don't really have a right to complain and expect them to do better when your money went elsewhere. Not you specifically, just anyone who does.

People do not have the right to complain because amd is struggling? They got plenty of my money up intil socket 939. I went intel since then only because they are better. And if something comes along better than intel I will switch again. I am not a charity and will never base a purchase to help out another company buying slower cpus.

People do not have the right to complain because amd is struggling? They got plenty of my money up intil socket 939. I went intel since then only because they are better. And if something comes along better than intel I will switch again. I am not a charity and will never base a purchase to help out another company buying slower cpus.

:puke2: Use what you want, that is cool. But, do not come in here all high and mighty. Oh well, enjoy your new cpu/ new motherboard everytime upgrade cycle. I am pleased that AM3+ will be around for at least one more CPU by the looks of it. Oh, and my system kicks butt, both of them, which is why I am happy with them. Edit: Editted for sanities sake.

People do not have the right to complain because amd is struggling?

That's not what I said. People don't have the right to complain *that* AMD is struggling *if* said people intentionally went to intel, especially if they chose intel for a few extra FPS or another minute spared from rendering something. There are intel products that are worth buying and I personally would recommend - I think Intel is a better choice for some servers (not all), laptops with power efficiency in mind, and high-end workstations. But even for most people here, AMD is good enough. A lot of people on tech sites pretend they have a heavy workload but in reality, they're just impatient and are bad at managing their tasks.

If you do not like AMD, GTHO then. 😛uke2: Your complaints will only sound like whining to me anyways. Use what you want, that is cool. But, do not come in here all high and mighty. Oh well, enjoy your new cpu/ new motherboard everytime upgrade cycle. I am pleased that AM3+ will be around for at least one more CPU by the looks of it. Oh, and my system kicks butt, both of them, tough luck if you do not like that.

He actually made a good point in his first post. Some people do demand more than "just fine" performance levels. That's exactly why my HTPC has an AMD APU in it. For my needs and available budget, it gave me more than Intel's Celeron and Pentium processors could offer, graphics wise. Now, people bitch and whine about the performance of AMD's mainstream and "performance" processors. The problem is, it takes money to make "better" products. Most tech forums seem intent on pushing as many people (and as much money) away from AMD as possible. The fewer customers AMD has....the less money they have and the slower the pace of improvement.....which seems to be the sole purpose of a lot of Intel's fanboys these days.

i was AMD user since AMD64 days in 2005 to 2011. i chose intel core i7 because it was and still the best cpu all around same goes with I5. i don't want good multithreaded and poor performance with high TDP, i want perfect performance across ALL applications that i use, single threaded and multi, and intel on top so there goes my money. heck emulators like PPSSPP only make me happier that i chose intel over AMD but i don't want to create a fan war

Most users, even many gamers, are just fine with the almost €30($20 in US) FX-8350 and €/$60 cheaper than a 3570k. I don't really wanna argue on this, but for many and especially those building for the first time, those price premiums is a big factor.

I've got an intel CPU, yes, but I've used AMD GFX since I built my first "proper" gaming rig 3 years ago. nVidia are just overpriced for what they do. I'm building several light gaming rigs for friends, all AMD based. My laptop is AMD based. If I were to redo my rig now on a budget, it'd be AMD based.

He actually made a good point in his first post. Some people do demand more than "just fine" performance levels. That's exactly why my HTPC has an AMD APU in it. For my needs and available budget, it gave me more than Intel's Celeron and Pentium processors could offer, graphics wise. Now, people bitch and whine about the performance of AMD's mainstream and "performance" processors. The problem is, it takes money to make "better" products. Most tech forums seem intent on pushing as many people (and as much money) away from AMD as possible. The fewer customers AMD has....the less money they have and the slower the pace of improvement.....which seems to be the sole purpose of a lot of Intel's fanboys these days.

If you even begin to think that this forum (no offense Hilbert) has any impact on AMD sales then that is megalomania. How many people have passed through here in the last five years asking for AMD systems? 500? 1000? 2000?A completely inconsequential number is what it is compared to how much an OEM moves every day. HP last year sold 6,944 PC systems each day. That is what's killing AMD, their complete inability to compete with Intel on OEM markets is what's costing them. And the reason for this is (and there is no other way to look at it), they don't have the product that the OEM's and market is looking for. So all you guys can whine about "anti-AMD bias", but the bottom line is that they don't have what it takes to compete and I'm not about to advise people to get an inferior product out of some crazy brand loyalty nonsense. So what if AMD goes under (theoretically)? They will be bought out by another company who can put their patents to good use. There will still be others to compete with Intel. People said the same things when VIA, IBM, Centaur, Transmeta, etc, all dropped out of the market; and look where we are today? We have insanely fast CPU's that are extremely stable and backed by thorough warranties while sipping energy and having large generation advances, all while costing damn near nothing for the performance given.

Most users, even many gamers, are just fine with the almost €30($20 in US) FX-8350 and €/$60 cheaper than a 3570k. I don't really wanna argue on this, but for many and especially those building for the first time, those price premiums is a big factor.

Well said! I honestly don't know why AMD sells so little, I think its down to Intel and their massive wallets when it comes to marketing and getting their brand out there. AMD's CPU's may perform lower than Intel's but all in all they perform very well indeed. Enthusiasts like us have basically killed them off, we know they can't compete with Intel when it comes to performance and how big their wallet is. So this is reflected in their chips performance but also their price! For an 8 core 4.0GHz CPU you can have that for UNDER £200 and that is a great deal they offer very good bang per buck and then if you want to you could upgrade your cooling and get even more performance. This is also reflected in their GPU's as well being priced extremely well against Nvidia but performing along with the price tag on it. Not to say that AMD wouldn't do what Intel and Nvidia does now and price their slightly better chips way above what they should actually be priced at in order to make more money, you can bet as much as you like that AMD would do exactly the same if in that position. Its all business after all.

Well said! I honestly don't know why AMD sells so little, I think its down to Intel and their massive wallets when it comes to marketing and getting their brand out there. AMD's CPU's may perform lower than Intel's but all in all they perform very well indeed. Enthusiasts like us have basically killed them off, we know they can't compete with Intel when it comes to performance and how big their wallet is. So this is reflected in their chips performance but also their price! For an 8 core 4.0GHz CPU you can have that for UNDER £200 and that is a great deal they offer very good bang per buck and then if you want to you could upgrade your cooling and get even more performance. This is also reflected in their GPU's as well being priced extremely well against Nvidia but performing along with the price tag on it. Not to say that AMD wouldn't do what Intel and Nvidia does now and price their slightly better chips way above what they should actually be priced at in order to make more money, you can bet as much as you like that AMD would do exactly the same if in that position. Its all business after all.

Again, it is megalomania to think that it is "Enthusiasts", who represent less then 0.1% of the market, that is killing AMD. AMD chips require a much higher power usage in order to reach inferior levels of performance compared to the Intel chips; this over time will make the AMD chips cost more than the Intel chips overall, all while providing inferior performance. It's for that exact reason why nearly all the OEM systems are Intel and not AMD, no one wants to buy AMD even if AMD theoretically were able to supply even a single large OEM in the first place. AMD played their cards wrong over the last few years and now they are paying for it, no two ways around it. They made horrible investments which cost them dearly.

If you even begin to think that this forum (no offense Hilbert) has any impact on AMD sales then that is megalomania. How many people have passed through here in the last five years asking for AMD systems? 500? 1000? 2000? A completely inconsequential number is what it is compared to how much an OEM moves every day. HP last year sold 6,944 PC systems each day. That is what's killing AMD, their complete inability to compete with Intel on OEM markets is what's costing them. And the reason for this is (and there is no other way to look at it), they don't have the product that the OEM's and market is looking for. So all you guys can whine about "anti-AMD bias", but the bottom line is that they don't have what it takes to compete and I'm not about to advise people to get an inferior product out of some crazy brand loyalty nonsense. So what if AMD goes under (theoretically)? They will be bought out by another company who can put their patents to good use. There will still be others to compete with Intel. People said the same things when VIA, IBM, Centaur, Transmeta, etc, all dropped out of the market; and look where we are today? We have insanely fast CPU's that are extremely stable and backed by thorough warranties while sipping energy and having large generation advances, all while costing damn near nothing for the performance given.

The OEMs are largely influenced by tech savvy people. When a company makes an order of hundreds to thousands of computers, they go with what their IT department recommends, of which there is typically only one person whose voice is heard. If that 1 person says intel, then everything moves to intel regardless of price effectiveness. It wouldn't surprise me if a large % of users on these forums work in IT or are even IT admins. So while us as individuals mean nothing, our decisions can spread pretty easily. It isn't just about company loyalty - I roll my eyes at some AMD users who think they've got such an amazing computer that probably consumes as much energy as their clothes dryer. The point is AMD is more than good enough for nearly all computers out there, yet people don't choose them simply because they're not the best. Such a point can be, in some perspetives, irrelevant if you go for intel but not intel's best. And no, it isn't likely someone will just buy-out AMD. If that were to happen, we'd have heard of offers by now. If AMD goes down soon, we're in trouble because x86 PCs are still a little too popular and intel will monopolize.

The OEMs are largely influenced by tech savvy people. When a company makes an order of hundreds to thousands of computers, they go with what their IT department recommends, of which there is typically only one person whose voice is heard. If that 1 person says intel, then everything moves to intel regardless of price effectiveness. It wouldn't surprise me if a large % of users on these forums work in IT or are even IT admins. So while us as individuals mean nothing, our decisions can spread pretty easily. It isn't just about company loyalty - I roll my eyes at some AMD users who think they've got such an amazing computer that probably consumes as much energy as their clothes dryer. The point is AMD is more than good enough for nearly all computers out there, yet people don't choose them simply because they're not the best. Such a point can be, in some perspetives, irrelevant if you go for intel but not intel's best. And no, it isn't likely someone will just buy-out AMD. If that were to happen, we'd have heard of offers by now. If AMD goes down soon, we're in trouble because x86 PCs are still a little too popular and intel will monopolize.

There will be others entering the x86 market or Intel will be split up, that's how American capitalism works. And any computer system from the last 5 years is "good enough" for 99% of uses. Let's face it, we fight over semantics here. I have a C2D (lower end) computer with an HD5450 and an old and slow SSD, and I can barely tell the day-to-day difference between it and my high performance system in my specs. Sure, once I open up a game or edit a video the difference becomes night and day, but for the average user that has little impact. I still don't understand how some people are under the illusion that a $2.46 Billion company (AMD) can realistically compete with a $111.50 Billion dollar behemoth (Intel). Intel in a single quarter made twice the profit as AMD lost over the whole last year. Intel has 8.1 times the R&D investment as AMD, how the hell is AMD supposed to compete with that? It's almost comical that people still believe that AMD stands a chance against Intel toe-to-toe.

There will be others entering the x86 market or Intel will be split up, that's how American capitalism works.

I guess so, but I'm guessing 90% of intel's profits come from CPUs. If we were to take everything else intel makes and put them into a separate company, it would still probably be a monopoly. I don't see how intel's CPU division could be divided without causing performance regressions in products.

And any computer system from the last 5 years is "good enough" for 99% of uses. Let's face it, we fight over semantics here. I have a C2D (lower end) computer with an HD5450 and an old and slow SSD, and I can barely tell the day-to-day difference between it and my high performance system in my specs. Sure, once I open up a game or edit a video the difference becomes night and day, but for the average user that has little impact. I still don't understand how some people are under the illusion that a $2.46 Billion company (AMD) can realistically compete with a $111.50 Billion dollar behemoth (Intel). Intel in a single quarter made twice the profit as AMD lost over the whole last year. Intel has 8.1 times the research investment as AMD, how the hell is AMD supposed to compete with that?

I agree with everything you said there entirely, in fact that's basically what my first post was saying, just in a different point of view. However, when you consider how minuscule AMD is compared to intel, they're doing pretty good. They are, in technology years, almost a century behind, but they're still "relevant" and have the ability to catch up. That doesn't mean seal the gap, just reduce it to a "good enough" level. The one thing I do have to say though is many everyday users replaced their C2D system because it was either a laptop (laptops today have compelling reasons to upgrade compared to models 3+ years ago) or because older systems aren't quite good enough to deal with all the bloatware people cram on their systems. With quad cores (or quad-threads) and SSDs being commodities these days, people can dump whatever stupid crap they want onto their systems and not notice it. Kind of stupid when you consider dual cores from 2006 are still sufficient for the average person if they just took care of their stuff.

I guess so, but I'm guessing 90% of intel's profits come from CPUs. If we were to take everything else intel makes and put them into a separate company, it would still probably be a monopoly. I don't see how intel's CPU division could be divided without causing performance regressions in products.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System Basically, you will have the fabs split off into [a] separate division/s, etc.

I agree with everything you said there entirely, in fact that's basically what my first post was saying, just in a different point of view. However, when you consider how minuscule AMD is compared to intel, they're doing pretty good. They are, in technology years, almost a century behind, but they're still "relevant" and have the ability to catch up. That doesn't mean seal the gap, just reduce it to a "good enough" level. The one thing I do have to say though is many everyday users replaced their C2D system because it was either a laptop (laptops today have compelling reasons to upgrade compared to models 3+ years ago) or because older systems aren't quite good enough to deal with all the bloatware people cram on their systems. With quad cores (or quad-threads) and SSDs being commodities these days, people can dump whatever stupid crap they want onto their systems and not notice it. Kind of stupid when you consider dual cores from 2006 are still sufficient for the average person if they just took care of their stuff.

I agree to a point. AMD's strength lies in their GPU division and they have failed to exploit it. They sold of their mobile Radeon division to Qualcomm (which renamed "Radeon" into "Adreno", check out the letters), they failed for five years to get their CPU and GPU division working together properly and release an APU product when it might have made a difference. They invested in all sorts of fabs, etc, which didn't pan out. They (and to be fair, Intel as well) missed out on the whole ultra-mobile revolution. Basically, incompetence is what killed them. So sure, they might still exist on the same benchmark graphs as Intel for the time being, but that is completely irrelevant in the real world where they fail to have any major design wins and the gap just keeps on widening.