Jump to content



Photo

Are OEM's Giving AMD a bad name?


  • Please log in to reply
77 replies to this topic

#1 +warwagon

warwagon

    Only you can prevent forest fires.

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 30-November 01
  • Location: Iowa

Posted 24 April 2014 - 18:05

I know AMD makes some really solid CPU's that work really well, but i've seen so many computers come into my office that have low end AMD CPU's and they run like frozen dog pee. Even the customer comments that his computer is slow and sometimes slower than his old computer.

 

It's to the point, I just recommend everyone get either an i3 or i5 because I know the computer will run good.

 

What are your thoughts?

 

I think they need a better naming scheme. Like the Intel




#2 +LogicalApex

LogicalApex

    Software Engineer

  • Tech Issues Solved: 8
  • Joined: 14-August 02
  • Location: Philadelphia, PA
  • OS: Windows 7 Ultimate x64
  • Phone: Nexus 5

Posted 24 April 2014 - 18:10

I recommend people to buy what performs best within their budget range...

 

It is hard to blanket recommend Intel or AMD as there are a lot of additional factors at play outside of the CPU alone... Are you going with the lowest possible quality board, for instance?

 

And i3 isn't comparable to the lowest end segment from AMD...



#3 OP +warwagon

warwagon

    Only you can prevent forest fires.

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 30-November 01
  • Location: Iowa

Posted 24 April 2014 - 18:11

I recommend people to buy what performs best within their budget range...

 

It is hard to blanket recommend Intel or AMD as there are a lot of additional factors at play outside of the CPU alone... Are you going with the lowest possible quality board, for instance?

 

And i3 isn't comparable to the lowest end segment from AMD...

 

Correct. But that's also why It doesn't run like ass.



#4 Dashel

Dashel

    Disgustipator

  • Joined: 03-December 01
  • Location: USA

Posted 24 April 2014 - 18:13

Depends how low end, as there are many more AMDs in that budget space than Celerons from Intel when you walk into an average box store.

 

AMD still owns the entry desktop gaming segment, alas few of those cheap procs make it into vendor PCs and they end up with ###### A or E series ones typical in entry laptops.  The knock on AMD is on the upper end of the scale.



#5 Polarman

Polarman

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 17-June 07

Posted 24 April 2014 - 18:23

It all depends on the user behind the computer.

 

My wife for example is a complete zero when it comes to anything that has to do with a PC. So I could buy her the most basic/cheapest AMD build and that would completely satisfy her needs. Same for my mother and probably a few millions others exactly like her. Heck! I could even dust off an old Pentium 2 with XP and she wouldn't  even notice!

 

In the end, she doesn't really care as long has she can check the internet, email and play Bejeweled.



#6 Astra.Xtreme

Astra.Xtreme

    Electrical Engineer

  • Tech Issues Solved: 5
  • Joined: 02-January 04
  • Location: Milwaukee, WI

Posted 24 April 2014 - 18:39

Only once have I recommended somebody a laptop with an AMD APU (A6 I think), and it ran like absolute crap which blew my mind because it's a quad core and looked great on paper.  Needless to say, I now recommend an i3 at very least.  Plenty of options out there for $350 and up.



#7 Gotenks98

Gotenks98

    Neowinian

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 18-December 01

Posted 24 April 2014 - 18:55

I am gonna say its not the cpu or motherboard but all the other junk they have installed on the computer, or they have failing HW components. For the most part the difference between AMD and Intel as for as performance goes there isn't going to be a drastic enough different where the average computer user is going to be able to tell. Its when you are geeks like us who do gaming, video editing and other cpu/gpu intense things that this begins to make a difference. So for now I am going to say its other factors you might want to look at instead.



#8 OP +warwagon

warwagon

    Only you can prevent forest fires.

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 30-November 01
  • Location: Iowa

Posted 24 April 2014 - 19:01

I am gonna say its not the cpu or motherboard but all the other junk they have installed on the computer, or they have failing HW components. For the most part the difference between AMD and Intel as for as performance goes there isn't going to be a drastic enough different where the average computer user is going to be able to tell. Its when you are geeks like us who do gaming, video editing and other cpu/gpu intense things that this begins to make a difference. So for now I am going to say its other factors you might want to look at instead.

 

Before I made this thread I had a gateway computer in my office it had a

 

E1-1500 CPU

8GB of ram

Windows 8.1

hardly any crapware

500GB 7200RPM drive.

 

Ran like complete dog ####.

 

At one point in time I said out loud "OH COME ON!!!!!"

 

Then again every computer I own does have an SSD, so maybe that's why it feels slow. But i've also worked on  customers i3's and they feel much better!



#9 elenarie

elenarie

    Newbie .NET / game dev

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 23-March 14
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro x64
  • Phone: Lumia 920 Yellow

Posted 24 April 2014 - 19:16

I don't think the issue is the CPUs, in general. But the stuff that OEMs put software-side. That, coupled with the cheapest-of-cheapest non-CPU hardware parts in order to build those low-end machines.

 

Before getting my pure (no-OS or bloatware) ASUS-G750JX laptop, I tried to use a Samsung ATIV Book 9 or whatever it was called. It had a high-end AMD GPU and a high-end i5 CPU, yet it run slower than a dead turtle. The first day, every reboot was followed with about a dozen minutes of the machine doing something "magical" in the background thanks to all the crapware that Samsung have put in it. Had enough after a few days and I replaced that piece of crap with G750JX.



#10 Aergan

Aergan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 8
  • Joined: 24-September 05
  • Location: Staffordshire, UK
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro | Xubuntu | OSX Yosemite| Server 2012 R2 | Ubuntu Server
  • Phone: Sony Xperia Z1

Posted 24 April 2014 - 19:18

I find usually it's the ####, worst of the budget single-platter OEM range HDD (usually Seagate or OEM Blue WD) that causes most of the slow downs or whatever the OEM decided to standardise on driver wise.

 

I've got two Seagate 250GB Barracuda's on my shelf that are from supposedly the same range, specifications etc. One is half the physical depth of the other (single platter) and runs like crap by comparison. One came in a HP OEM, the other came via dabs.

 

If they have 8GB, do them a favour and turn off the page file. At least the potential BSOD has some haptic feedback.



#11 elenarie

elenarie

    Newbie .NET / game dev

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 23-March 14
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro x64
  • Phone: Lumia 920 Yellow

Posted 24 April 2014 - 19:21

Depends how low end, as there are many more AMDs in that budget space than Celerons from Intel when you walk into an average box store.

 

Shouldn't matter how much low-end it is. Windows Explorer and all built-in parts of Windows should work just fine on a non-bloated machine.



#12 LaP

LaP

    Forget about it

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 10-July 06
  • Location: Quebec City, Canada
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro Update 1

Posted 24 April 2014 - 19:22

Only once have I recommended somebody a laptop with an AMD APU (A6 I think), and it ran like absolute crap which blew my mind because it's a quad core and looked great on paper.  Needless to say, I now recommend an i3 at very least.  Plenty of options out there for $350 and up.


i3 or AMD apu if the laptop is comming with a 5400 rpm hd it will run like crap.

Often when a laptop runs like crap the 5400 rpm hd is to blame.

#13 Dashel

Dashel

    Disgustipator

  • Joined: 03-December 01
  • Location: USA

Posted 24 April 2014 - 19:22

I do agree with your original point, AMD needs better branding on their 'usable' baseline as Intel has done with the i's.  They should subdivide their 'A' series.  The low clock (MHz still matters) on many of those multi-core chips doesn't help either, so if you are going AMD, I would say an A6 is the minimum for comparison with an i3.

 

Of course it matters how low end, as those are CPUs that can only reasonably power a much simpler device.



#14 bikeman25

bikeman25

    Neowinian

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 20-April 05
  • Location: US-Michigan
  • OS: Windows 8 Pro X64 with Media Center
  • Phone: Windows 8 Phone--Nokia Lumia 920

Posted 24 April 2014 - 19:23

My AMD (A6 Quad Core AMD A6-3620 2.20ghz Quad Core) Desktop doesn't run too badly, not all that fast as I would've expected, but at the time (June 2012) all I could afford to upgrade from AMD Athlon 64 3500+ Single Core Processor, If I had the money i'd so give this one to Mom, and go for an I3 or I5 with Nvidia graphics probably for myself, but don't have the money now. 



#15 Gotenks98

Gotenks98

    Neowinian

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 18-December 01

Posted 24 April 2014 - 19:25

Before I made this thread I had a gateway computer in my office it had a

 

E1-1500 CPU

8GB of ram

Windows 8.1

hardly any crapware

500GB 7200RPM drive.

 

Ran like complete dog ####.

 

At one point in time I said out loud "OH COME ON!!!!!"

 

Then again every computer I own does have an SSD, so maybe that's why it feels slow. But i've also worked on  customers i3's and they feel much better!

I am still going to say its something on the software. It could easily be filesystem issues, or failing Hardware. No reason that shouldn't run decent on a clean install of Windows.