AMD starting bitch fight with intel

It really doesn't matter what bait MAD uses to shill with, Intel will always be #1.

>>52526329
not 100% true.

an FX-8350 out performs a Skylake i5 in many situations, and the 8350 is what $150 for a high binned refresh version.

AMDs chips are good just made for non existant software.

Bet you Intel's test lab looks better than that.

>>52526307
why is he fidgeting...make him stop this is actually triggering me

>>52526356
If the 8350 is really that good, why are they being sold so cheaply?

>>52526515
why not?

>>52526329
>AMD
>shill
>implying they can afford marketing

>>52526307
were these the best spokesmen amd could find in their office?
holy shit, the autism

>>52526515
>If iPhone hardware is shit, why is it sold for so much?

>>52526738
Opposite problem. If the 8350 was good then AMD can take a higher profit margin on it, or intel would have to cut prices.

>>52526515
8350 + 2 electric towers > i5
ftfy

>>52526356
As somebody who uses emulators a lot, my only issue with AMD is the poor (compared to Intel) single core performance.

>>52526307
AMD has stated that Sysmark is useless for like a decade, and they've always been right. Not only is it a bench designed to favor intel with fluff workloads, but their HQ is inside of intel.

Its using a host of programs like 7zip, photoshop, and office software, but its weighting the results to deliver a totally meaningless composite. The office sections of the bench, which are the biggest, are the least intensive, and they contribute the most to the composite score.
They've intentionally created a bench using real world software that has literally nothing to do with real world performance.

>>52526780
People don't exactly make a purchase based on double blind real world performance data.

>>52526307
What the fuck is Sysmark and why should anyone care?

>>52527128
How would this weighting give an unfair advantage to one CPU manufacturer, though? Surely it's valid as a basis of comparison nonetheless, provided the test is always the same.

>>52528051
everything but Pi is a useless benchmark.

>>52528051
Finishing some excel function 1 seconds faster doesn't matter in reality, but it translates into a sizable difference in the composite score. No different from how Geekbench factors in some AES functions which can make one ARM part look better than others when in reality in falls behind or is only equal in other int/fp metrics.
Its not relevant to real world, and its not accurately measuring total system performance as it purports to.

>>52526515
because they cant afford to charge as much as intel as long as they're #2

If /g/ knew anything about cpus it would realise there is some validity in AMD's claim.

Excerpt from a story regarding a similar situation with PCMark favouring Intel. Likely this'll be the same thing

...In that instance the author was testing a new VIA CPU against Intel and AMD. The interesting thing about that new VIA CPU was that the CPU ID register was writeable, not read only. When they changed the CPU ID from "CentaurHauls" to "AuthenticAMD", the benchmark's performance magically jumped by 10%. When they changed it to "GenuineIntel" it jumped by 47.4%. That's running the same benchmark on the same hardware, but just changing the CPU ID register. Fascinating, isn't it?

It turns out that a lot of companies used Intel's compiler, and that compiler produced code that did different things depending upon the brand of CPU it found.