Are OEM's Giving AMD a bad name?

[spaceelf]

That's a newer Atom, not an older Atom.

[+Warwagon MVC]

That's a newer Atom, not an older Atom.

 

Meh, the moral of the story is you don't see many Desktop systems in retail stores like walmart with with Atom CPU's.

 

But what you do see are PC's with E1-1500 CPU's which is even worse than the E2. People don't know the E1 or the E2 are comparable to Atom CPU's. They don't even know what an Atom CPU is. All they know is they take their computer home and it runs like balls.

 

[Draconian Guppy]

Moments ago I was remotely connected to a PC cleaning it up. I'm like.. MAN this computer is running like ball sack (even after I cleaned it up). Checked the CPU ... E2-1800

 

Between GotoAssist, Avast and CCleaner we are using around 89% CPU

 

CCleaner is using 14 - 20%

Wow, almost smartphone performance :laugh:

 

Seriously though, I think this is the perfect example of how using severely underpowered CPUs gives AMD a bad name. Why? Simply put, the owner will just say "man this AMD system runs like ######, I will never buy AMD again". It probably is the consumers fault for not doing research, but still, most consumers just want something that gets things done, when suddenly, they found out, they have a very underpowered processor.

[+Warwagon MVC]

Wow, almost smartphone performance :laugh:

 

Seriously though, I think this is the perfect example of how using severely underpowered CPUs gives AMD a bad name. Why? Simply put, the owner will just say "man this AMD system runs like ####, I will never buy AMD again". It probably is the consumers fault for not doing research, but still, most consumers just want something that gets things done, when suddenly, they found out, they have a very underpowered processor.

 

Exactly!

 

In fact. A girl who was looking for a PC sent me these 2 photos.

 

 

She was looking to buy a computer. I told her those were crap. Then I found an i5 Intel Core i5-3330S @ 2.70GHz All in one 23 inch for $350 on the local facebook swap. I told her it had good specs and much better than the other 2 she was looking at. Through I did tell her I can't vouch for that computer and don't blame me if it dies in a month. But then I said look at this

 

and sent her this link

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=2005&cmp[]=1794&cmp[]=1885

 

I said 

 

"Here is a CPU comparison between the PC on swap and the 2 you sent me photos of

on that chart the AMD E1-1500 APU was the 1st all in 1 u were looking at

judging by that chart it gets annihilated by the i5 "

 

She responded with "WUUHHHHHH? .... I don't know what that means.

 

So yes, people have no clue what they are buying even when shown a pretty chart :laugh:

[Alwaysonacoffebreak]

Meh, the moral of the story is you don't see many Desktop systems in retail stores like walmart with with Atom CPU's.

 

But what you do see are PC's with E1-1500 CPU's which is even worse than the E2. People don't know the E1 or the E2 are comparable to Atom CPU's. They don't even know what an Atom CPU is. All they know is they take their computer home and it runs like balls.

 

 

 

E1? Seriously?

 

But yeah, OEMs are much to blame. About 6 months ago I was looking for a laptop with AMD inside it and the best I c?uld find was A10 Richland but the rest of the specs, jesus christ. Not even an 720p screen, an 5400rpm drive etc.

[+Warwagon MVC]

E1? Seriously?

 

But yeah, OEMs are much to blame. About 6 months ago I was looking for a laptop with AMD inside it and the best I c?uld find was A10 Richland but the rest of the specs, jesus christ. Not even an 720p screen, an 5400rpm drive etc.

 

Had she not consulted me she probably would have bought it. She also does photo editing so i'm sure she would have wondered why photo editing was so horrible on that machine.

 

Oh and that computer i'm still remotely connected to. Between Gotoasst and Malwarebytes we are using up 99% CPU ... The threat scan is now going on 35 minutes.

[spaceelf]

Meh, the moral of the story is you don't see many Desktop systems in retail stores like walmart with with Atom CPU's.

 

But what you do see are PC's with E1-1500 CPU's which is even worse than the E2. People don't know the E1 or the E2 are comparable to Atom CPU's. They don't even know what an Atom CPU is. All they know is they take their computer home and it runs like balls.

You'll probably also see lots of Pentiums and Celerons.

 

There's no shortage of computers that run like balls in the budget category, IMO.  The Atom 3xxx was the first time I was moderately impressed by the category.

[Alwaysonacoffebreak]

Had she not consulted me she probably would have bought it. She also does photo editing so i'm sure she would have wondered why photo editing was so horrible on that machine.

 

Oh and that computer i'm still remotely connected to. Between Gotoasst and Malwarebytes we are using up 99% CPU

 

No wonder. E1 and E2 are the lowest ones you can find from AMD. I have an E2-3000, while it works for browsing and all that when I switch to my 9590 with an ssd in the desktop Id love to throw it out the window in a second I need to use the E2 again...

 

Some may know me as an hardcore amd fan but even I can admit AMD needs to scrap the E-series. Like a friggin snail on a sandpaper.

[+Warwagon MVC]

You'll probably also see lots of Pentiums and Celerons.

 

There's no shortage of computers that run like balls in the budget category, IMO.  The Atom 3xxx was the first time I was moderately impressed by the category.

 

Actually yes, I've seen a lot of Pentium Dual cores, and they do not run like ball sack. They run pretty well actual i've been impressed. I have nothing bad to say about the Pentium Dual cores.

[Alwaysonacoffebreak]

But war. you need to keep in mind also that Intel probably spends billions on ads in a quarter, more than AMDs marketcap is. its been like that for a loooong time now. OEMs wont stand up and pay for you to advertise your CPU/w.e for nothing.

[+Warwagon MVC]

But war. you need to keep in mind also that Intel probably spends billions on ads in a quarter, more than AMDs marketcap is. its been like that for a loooong time now. OEMs wont stand up and pay for you to advertise your CPU/w.e for nothing.

 

Yes, that's true. But in the end consumers associate slow with AMD

[Alwaysonacoffebreak]

Not just the price but also the "local IT guy" reccomendations which usually are so biased towards Intel (in some cases they are true,sure, like the E series) its actually funny.

 

Go look on the biggest hardware sites on the net and see what the "IT Pros" are saying whenever someone asks about AMD or their desktop CPUs for example.

 

Slow = AMD. Whos fault is that they bought the cheapest crap they found? You get what you pay for. You wouldnt be much better of with an Atom or an Celeron anyway, all those CPUs are meant for casual use like browsin, email etc.

[Alera]

In my opinion it's about 10 years too late to ask this question, the answer is yes. You only have to look at Intels marketing strategy and use of OEMs to push their own products into the market while ignoring AMD to notice how they push others out of the game, there is a reason that the revenue gap of both companies is widening, it has nothing to do with AMDs recent collapse in competition.

 

Coupled with the adverts and anyone who continues to push Intel (mostly fanboys that say you need a 4770K to play games with) despite the price/performance benefits of switching every now and then between camps and you have people unwilling to give AMD a try, thinking they're slow or simply not good enough.

[Alwaysonacoffebreak]

Lets just put this here and remind some people why AMD doesnt have OEM support in the first place. http://www.dailytech.com/FTC+Intel+Reach+Settlement+Intel+Banned+From+Anticompetitive+Practices/article19265.htm

 

Or Google/Bing

 

Intel paid 6 billion to Dell (Not to use AMD, which they still dont)

[spaceelf]

I think the point is pretty well moot.  AMD tech has been improving massively for some time now, and it's starting to come back to the only true advantage Intel having is their fabs.  Things releasing this year and onward are pretty impressive.

 

I know, no E series stuff has released yet this year, but it looks like the E1-6010 and E2-6110 are due soon.  I'd love to see how those compare to the Atom 3xxx line since that was also released this year.

 

- (Hmm, looks like they'll be pretty competitive http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-tablet-processor,3813-2.html )

[+Warwagon MVC]

I guess it would also show, Intel is wasting their money on advertising :D

 

I think the point is pretty well moot.  AMD tech has been improving massively for some time now, and it's starting to come back to the only true advantage Intel having is their fabs.  Things releasing this year and onward are pretty impressive.

 

I know, no E series stuff has released yet this year, but it looks like the E1-6010 and E2-6110 are due soon.  I'd love to see how those compare to the Atom 3xxx line since that was also released this year.

 

- (Hmm, looks like they'll be pretty competitive http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-tablet-processor,3813-2.html )

 

 

 

The problem is regardless on how good these CPU's will be when I hear the name E1 and E2 I think Crap. It's the same problem Intel has with their Atom brand. The Atom brand was completely destroyed by slow netbooks, which is why when the new Atoms came out people said, for the love of god intel, do not use the Atom brand name because people instantly think crap.

[Neowinuser1991]

I have a AMD in my HP laptop. (AMD A8-5545M w/ AMD RADEON HD 8510G), with 8.1 with no issues. I can play sims 3 and war thunder no issues. 

 

There is two HP all in ones in the house as well, which are also AMD based. There also incredibly fast. Actually feels faster then mine (but probably because there hard drive is 7200 RPM vs 5400 RPM).

 

Yes the low AMD's are to stay away from, but here in Canada (or at least Alberta), the god awful Pentiums are common. The i3 and higher end AMD's are common in the price range of $550+, but anything under that is crap Intel or AMD.

[spaceelf]

The problem is regardless on how good these CPU's will be when I hear the name E1 and E2 I think Crap. It's the same problem Intel has with their Atom brand. The Atom brand was completely destroyed by slow netbooks, which is why when the new Atoms came out people said, for the love of god intel, do not use the Atom brand name because people instantly think crap.

I used to agree with that sentiment wrt Atoms, then I used a Asus Transformer T100TA(?) and I loved it.  I kinda want one, but I'd prefer to wait for an AMD version.  If that will actually happen.

[hagjohn]

And this is why OEM's are not selling computers. They should know slow chips mean slow computers. I think AMD should drop a fair number of their slower chips.

[goretsky Supervisor]

Hello,

 

My experience with AMD CPUs has been quite limited:

? ThinkPad X100e with AMD Athlon Neo Single-Core MV-40 (1.6GHz, 512KB L2) 8GB RAM, 60GB SSD (circa 2010)

? ThinkPad X100e with AMD Turion Neo X2 Dual-Core L625 (1.6GHz, 1MB L2) 8GB RAM, 60GB SSD (circa 2010)

? ThinkPad X120e with AMD Fusion E-350 (1.6Ghz, 1MB L2) 16GB RAM, 120GB SSD (circa 2011)

but it was my impression that the Neo's offered lower overall CPU performance than their Atom equivalents, but better graphics due to their integrated Radeon IGPs. The Turion-equipped X100e was a little better, but both X100e's suffered from higher than expected TDP. The X120e works much better, and is definitely usable for Microsoft Office type productivity apps, web browsing and maybe even some casual gaming.

In any case, these systems were pretty much eclipsed by my 2007-era Intel C2D-equipped T61p in everything but price.

As I said, though, my experience with recent AMD systems is limited to these systems.

The main issue or concern I have with AMD is that I would like to see them manufacture motherboards. For years, one of the reasons I kept to the Intel camp was because I knew that if I plugged an Intel CPU into an Intel motherboard, I would get a system that worked perfectly. No weird issues, no economizing on components, no missing drivers. Just stability. Of course, there was typically no overclocking with Intel brand motherboards, but that's a non-issue for me.

I don't think that AMD has really had the ability to showcase the reliability of systems based on their processors because the majority of OEMs are focused on making AMD CPU motherboards as inexpensively as possible, and investing more in designing higher-end, more reliable motherboards for Intel CPUs. There are exceptions, of course: All the Tier 1 motherboard manufacturers have their gaming editions, but there's also the Biostar, ECS and FICs of the world, who rarely seem to be mentioned in comparison to ASUS, Gigabite and MSI.

I think that if AMD were to manufacture (or even OEM, as Intel sometimes did) its own motherboards which stringent quality controls on the components, assembly, driver software, etc., they would have a much better stock valuation. But, I suspect that being tied up so intimately with so many other motherboard manufacturer precludes this, and thus, there's less high-end AMD kit being ordered, which perpetuates the race to the bottom of AMD's CPUs.

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky

[Alwaysonacoffebreak]

 

The main issue or concern I have with AMD is that I would like to see them manufacture motherboards. For years, one of the reasons I kept to the Intel camp was because I knew that if I plugged an Intel CPU into an Intel motherboard, I would get a system that worked perfectly. No weird issues, no economizing on components, no missing drivers. Just stability. Of course, there was typically no overclocking with Intel brand motherboards, but that's a non-issue for me.

 

I think you've had some strange AMD motherboards go trough you if you have had problems with issues, components or missing drivers. Of course I've only dealt with higher end mobos like Sabertooth or Asus PRO versions but those two haven't had a single problem. Just put the CPU in and you're ready to go, except of course for graphics drivers since AMD CPU's don't have an IGP.

 

Sure there have been some pretty crap mobos, especially from the early GB versions but thats on them I think not AMD. I had and 970 something mobo from GB and that plain out sucked, after that I just went with Saber and got to say, it's one of the best AMD mobos out there. I don't even thinkk after Saber the ROG version is worth it's price.

[PGHammer]

I think you've had some strange AMD motherboards go trough you if you have had problems with issues, components or missing drivers. Of course I've only dealt with higher end mobos like Sabertooth or Asus PRO versions but those two haven't had a single problem. Just put the CPU in and you're ready to go, except of course for graphics drivers since AMD CPU's don't have an IGP.

 

Sure there have been some pretty crap mobos, especially from the early GB versions but thats on them I think not AMD. I had and 970 something mobo from GB and that plain out sucked, after that I just went with Saber and got to say, it's one of the best AMD mobos out there. I don't even thinkk after Saber the ROG version is worth it's price.

I've seen good and bad (and just plain awful) AMD-based portable hardware (of the same era) - the worst of all in my experience came from (shockingly) Toshiba.

 

Toshiba may be known for great portables - in fact, Toshiba doesn't build desktops at all.  However, the AMD-powered Satellite subseries (as opposed to their Intel-powered relatives) I refuse to recommend whatsoever.  (Rather amusingly, I have no such issue recommending AMD-driven portables from Acer or HP - of the same age; tell me, what did both HP and Acer get right that Toshiba fumbled?)

 

Now, AMD's Fusion APU-powered portables are slick pieces of work - they all support Hyper-V, which isn't the case with the Celeron or Pentium-driven portables they compete against.  If you want a portable for business - not gaming - use, that is why I have nary a problem recommending an AMD-driven portable - especially one from either Acer or HP.)

 

I personally haven't built an AMD-driven desktop since the infamous AM386DX-40 (which was the core of the first desktop I ever built) - however, that has more to do with trying to avoid getting caught behind any eight-balls (due to ongoing issues concerning the financial viability of AMD).

[goretsky Supervisor]

Hello,

 

From about 2001-2004, I ran a typical computer fixit business, repairing, cleaning systems and subcontracting out to various local network and software consultants when they needed a "Windows OS /PC guy" to go on site.  At some of the larger businesses (and even a few small, very well-run ones) there were some attempt at standardization, and tended to get either higher-end consumer or business-grade systems.  But I usually ended up working on systems that were either from a brand name (from big box retailer like BestBuy; ordered from web site like Dell, HP, Compaq, Gateway, IBM etc.) or they had been sold by one of the handful of local computer stores.

 

The latter were, by far, the worst.  I saw far more motherboards in those from companies like Biostar, DFI, Elitegroup, Foxconn, Freetech, Lucky Star, Matsonic, PC Chips, etc., than I did from companies like Abit, EPoX, IWill, Shuttle, Soyo (which I considered to be good mid-tier brands, not too expensive) or even top-tier manufacturers like ASUS, Gigabyte, Intel, MSI, SuperMicro, Tyan, etc.  I spent a lot of time doing things like hunting down motherboard manuals, BIOS updates, vendor-specific drivers (when silicon drivers from ALI, AMD, Intel, SiS, ULI, VIA, Winbond, etc. would not enumerate) and the like.  Aside from crashing (which, admittedly, could often be due to Windows 95/98/Me/2000/XP cruft) these computers were never great performers even with a fresh OS load, reinstall of apps, patching and restore of old customer data.  Another thing they all had in common was that the computer owner had usually been told they were getting a "super high-end" gaming computer, workstation, etc., and instead had been given systems with low end Celerons (for Intel) and a lot of Durons and Semprons (for AMD).  I remember one person, a moviemaker, who paid thousands of dollars for a nonlinear digital editing workstation, and got a Pentium 4 CPU on a motherboard that used PC133 SDRAM.  Not exactly the kind of high-performance component to put into a system, especially when RDRAM and DDR-RAM were battling it out for "who's fastest" on the desktop.

 

Regards,

 

Aryeh Goretsky

 

I think you've had some strange AMD motherboards go trough you if you have had problems with issues, components or missing drivers. Of course I've only dealt with higher end mobos like Sabertooth or Asus PRO versions but those two haven't had a single problem. Just put the CPU in and you're ready to go, except of course for graphics drivers since AMD CPU's don't have an IGP.

 

Sure there have been some pretty crap mobos, especially from the early GB versions but thats on them I think not AMD. I had and 970 something mobo from GB and that plain out sucked, after that I just went with Saber and got to say, it's one of the best AMD mobos out there. I don't even thinkk after Saber the ROG version is worth it's price.

[+Warwagon MVC]

Just got a call from a customer who called about his new Windows 8 Machine. Said it was slow (Slower than their XP machine) and that they just got it. Apparently they got a cheap walmart one before that and took it back and replaced it with this one. I checked out his CPU and it was a E1-2500. I told him to return it and get something decent like an i3

[+Warwagon MVC]

This cracked me up!

 

 

The rest of the conversation went like this ( I don't have a screenshot of)

 

Adam : Umm... Atom is a Intel CPU

Him : Let me reword that, they don't care if it has an AMD or intel sticker. (A.k.a trying really hard not to look like an idiot after what he just said above.

 

He has since removed all of his posts responding to mine.