Are OEM's Giving AMD a bad name?

[+Warwagon MVC]

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

[+LogicalApex MVC]

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...

[+Warwagon MVC]

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.

[Dashel]

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.

[Polarman]

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.

[Astra.Xtreme]

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.

[Gotenks98]

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.

[+Warwagon MVC]

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!

[Guest]

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.

[Aergan]

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.

[Guest]

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.

[LaP]

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.

[Dashel]

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.

[bikeman25]

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. 

[Gotenks98]

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.

[+Warwagon MVC]

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.

 

I think they should leave Single Letter CPU names to the best, and then go with Single names for the Slowest

 

Much Like Intel has done

 

i3 - i5 - i7 for the Good stuff

Celeron for the slower stuff

Atom for the slowest.

 

Then like we do with intel we just tell customers to go with the i-series ... i3 or i5

[Noir Angel]

While at this moment in time Intel CPU's are generally a bit better AMD's budget line CPU's should still be more than powerful enough to meet people's basic needs so if their machines are sluggish there must be additional factors at play.

[bikeman25]

Mine isn't too sluggish, but I may tune it up some soon, remove Games/programs don't use, clean up hard drive space, temp files, and Dust clean out  Overall pretty happy with my AMD System, despite isn't the fastest system around, but meets my needs currently

 

 

Though i'll admit I've been using AMD based Computers since 2003, AMD Duron, AMD Athlon--Got a bad virus (boot sector in 2005, plus PCI Slot fan caught fire, so Shop did a free  Sempron based build at the time, so I had no choice but to take it then.

 Athlon 64, and Now AMD A6 Quad Core A6-3620, Future not sure what as yet, but if I ever come across money or save some, might go back to my first Intel based system in years, Perhaps 6 core by the time I can afford a newer one lol.   

Edited April 24, 2014 by bikeman25

[Dashel]

I think you are underestimating how slow the E series CPUs are, they are the Atoms of the AMD world.  A quick way to waste a few hundred bucks.

[Andre S. Veteran]

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.

That's also what I thought until I reinstalled Windows 8 on one of these things (AMD E1) and with a clean install with up-to-date drivers, it was barely usable for browsing the internet. 100% CPU, capped by the current running app, no background processes eating resources or whatnot. Forget about watching a high-res video on Youtube. They're just dreadfully slow.

[Noir Angel]

The newer AM1 series APU's actually look relatively reasonable for what they cost, but yeah unless all you're doing is basic browsing and document editing I'd advise steering away from low end E series and atom style CPU's. They were never designed with more demanding operations in mind, and unfortunately OEM's are known to use crap parts to bolster profits in lower end products.

[Gotenks98]

That's also what I thought until I reinstalled Windows 8 on one of these things (AMD E1) and with a clean install with up-to-date drivers, it was barely usable for browsing the internet. 100% CPU, capped by the current running app, no background processes eating resources or whatnot. Forget about watching a high-res video on Youtube. They're just dreadfully slow.

What about the hardware? This could easily be a failing drive that can make a system super slow. I have never had a bad experience with AMD. Not saying I am a fan boy but generally its something else. If the processors defective that could be an issue too.

[+Warwagon MVC]

What about the hardware? This could easily be a failing drive that can make a system super slow. I have never had a bad experience with AMD. Not saying I am a fan boy but generally its something else. If the processors defective that could be an issue too.

 

Is it just coincidence that every cheap AMD system runs like ###### (Actually ###### runs pretty quick I would guess... How about runs like frozen snot!)? Or do they all have failing hardware?

 

The system I was working on today got easily maxed out at 100%

[Andre S. Veteran]

What about the hardware? This could easily be a failing drive that can make a system super slow. I have never had a bad experience with AMD. Not saying I am a fan boy but generally its something else. If the processors defective that could be an issue too.

Did you try one of these E1 laptops? If you look around you'll see many users reporting the same experience. 

 

As far as I can tell, there's no sign of a failing hard drive, just high CPU usage and slow response. It's not overheating either. 

 

For the record I also have an A10-based system in my living room and it's decently fast, but these E1-E2 CPUs are in another class entirely.

[ViperAFK]

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.

I recently recommended my brother a laptop with an AMD APU (machine was ~450 dollars, with a 2.5ghz AMD A10-5757M/Radeon HD 8650G and 6 gigs of ram). He wanted a laptop that could do some gaming but had a tight budget, and this was about that best I was able to find, since intel graphics isn't a good option for gaming, and with his old machine which had both intel and dedicated graphics, he had nothing but problems with the hybrid graphics, so an AMD apu seemed like a good choice. I was surprised with how well it performed, he's been playing civ5 and DOTA 2 on it with no issues. Pretty good bang/buck IMO...

 

His previous laptop was an HP with an intel i3 , 4gb ram, and a dedicated mobility 5750 with 1gbvram, and the APU actually performs better. (and the old laptop had severe overheating and battery life issues, the APU runs much cooler and he's had no issues with it so far).

 

This is the first time I've even used a laptop with an amd apu, and so far it doesn't seem so bad to me, especially for the price.

 

If you make sure to get one of the better APU's (A10), performance should be fine.

 

 

BTW, afaik the A6 series is only 2 or 3 core, not quad core. the A10 series is quad core.