Does AMD make good CPU's?

They haven't since phenom II

>>58526497
FX-83xx is still good if you have an AM3+ board and want to upgrade.

>>58526497
>The fx-8350 is a pretty good cpu

Wait for Zen and Vega

bi,p

>>58526497
yeah. for less than 100 i can run almost anything i want at 1080p at high settings.

using a fucking fx 8320e...not even overclocked. so yeah shit works fine.

Probably, but they aren't selling them

>>58527891
/thread

>>58527891
This
Unless you want to play recent games

>>58527928
games i play at high settings with a non overclocked fx 8320e are as follows...
hitman
dues ex mankind divided
alien isolation.
Tera mmorpg.
neverwinter
just played resident evil 7 demo

and several others...these are all recent games. played on high settings with no microstutters noticeable during gameplay. mind you i have several older games like stalker and such but the recent shit works just fine too.

1080p and im seeing no reason to upgrade yet...maybe its just me.

I mean they're still the second best company as far as desktop/laptop chips right now. AMD looks bad when you compare them to Intel but Intel is fuckhuge.

>>58528004
gpu?

HOUSEFIRES TO BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN

>>58526497
Layers of bait

File: Capture.png (2KB, 295x62px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 295x62px

>>58530403
Maybe that can burn your faggot ass american houses down, but here in the UK where houses are made of bricks instead of wood, cheese and bullets its fine.

>>58530403
only hypsters and muricans build houses from only wood
mfg saw burnt down houses(only walls standing) being rebuild within several months to brand new

>>58528004
How many fps do you get in Tera and which gpu?

>>58526497
They make ok CPUs in all but the highest end of the consumer CPU market. The best core i7s completely blows anything AMD offers as an alternative out of the water. Other than that AMD's offerings are usually an acceptable alternative to Intel's other CPUs, and are occasionally slightly better.

On the server and workstation market, Opterons have their uses. If you are doing something that benefits from more cores total vs performance of individual cores, it's a better choice. If you are doing rather mundane tasks that don't require high performance (like say hosting a web server) they are sufficient, and potentially preferable to more expensive Xeon systems of the same generation.

The current #2 of the Top 500 supercomputers in the world uses a combination of Opteron and RISC CPUs, albeit it's only technically the second most capable supercomputer. It has been criticized for the way it was designed to be overly complicated to use. By the time users who are potentially interested in buying time on it really learn their way around the system, it will be obsolete, and likely retired. Supercomputers tend to have very short lifespans--2.5 to 3 years in the top 500, and 2-2.5 more years of being sufficient enough to make it worthwhile to bother running, and maintaining it any longer--when a system costs upwards of 6-7 million dollars in energy costs alone per year, it had better be worth booting the thing up.