1
•
•

[Discussion] Why is /r/buildapc filled with Intel fanboys? (self.buildapc)

submitted by Devildog6795

Honestly, its becoming annoying. Sure a $400 Intel will outperform a $200 AMD. But price-performance wise AMD is substantially better. So why are there so many fanboys? Ignorance? Teenagers?

Downvotes will just assure me of your ignorance.

edit1: Did anybody actually read the text? My argument is that AMD's price to performance ratio blows Intel's out of the water, of course Intel's $200 CPU will outperform AMD's $100 CPU.

edit2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIVGwj1_Qno

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc

edit3: This is kinda funny

edit4: I'm going to assume everyone here is a child since they apparently don't know how to read the text post and the edits

edit5: Seems like most people left so, I'm going to check on this thread less often. It's going to be longer between each reply from now on. if anybody acctually reads this freakin illiterate intel fanboys lol

edit6: Thank you for the replies, my question has been answered. There are two reasons for the hordes of intel fanboys:

  1. Domino effect. One intel fanboy affects another with biased sources. That fanboy makes more biased sources. It continues until there is so many biased sources that people begin to take those sources as facts and don't question the sources and are not skeptical. Skepticism is an extremely useful trait that is slowly being lost due to the need to fit in.

  2. Ignorance. Most intel fanboys have never used an AMD and want to make themselves feel better by spending ridiculous amount of money by stating intel has better performance. What they need to learn is that in the gaming world it isn't about performance unless you have an unlimited budget (which 90% of gamers don't have). It is all about the price to performance ratio. If you buy a CPU that is slightly worse but substantially cheaper, you can spend more money on components that affect your gaming performance more like a GPU. An intel CPU will outperform an AMD CPU by far, but as long as your CPU doesn't bottleneck your GPU (which most AMD's won't) and if you can by a better gpu with the same budget, obviously an AMD cpu is the smarter choice. I will probably have people that will downvote every submission I have ever made to reddit, but I don't care. I might become banned from this subreddit because of my mean/rude (but hilarious) comments. I couldn't care less.

edit7: READ THE TEXT POST YOU RETARDS

edit8: LOL my comment karma has taken a dive, also all of my posts have been downvoted. OH GAWD PLZ STAHP TAEKING MAH INTERNAHT POAINTS <---sarcasm

all 85 comments
sorted by:
best
best
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順

[–]fco2013 3 ポイント4 ポイント

There is no fanboyism. For gaming, which is by far the majority of what people do in this sub, Intel is just better. That's a fact, they're just better performing. There is no secret agenda against AMD. It's all about what's best for your money. There's certainly nothing wrong with going AMD, but usually for the price of an 83XX plus overclocking mobo, cooler, and stronger PSU you could get a locked i5 which will outperform an 83XX CPU. So people recommend that. It's all about what's best for the money, and for the use. If I see a [Build Help] for a budget editing PC I'm going to recommend AMD, because it's the best for the money for the use.

So there is no fanboyism going here, at least not to the extent you think. It's all about what performs better for the given task.

[–]Cpist 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Just because an intel clocks a whopping 5 FPS more than an AMD processor doesn't make it the Alpha wolf. AMD's price/performance beats intel because intel over-prices for nothing. Lets do some comparing. My rig (FX-6300, 8 GB RAM, 270X) and my friends rig (i5 2500k 16 GB RAM, 270X) playing Battlefield 4 all ultra. My friends PC clocks at around 50 fps while looking at an explosion. My PC, while looking at the same explosion, clocks the game at around 70-90 fps. While you can't directly see a difference, it still proves that an AMD CPU can be better than an Intel CPU.

[–]Sir_Zulu 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Intel is getter for gaming. Most people build gaming rigs.

[–]CocaFoca [score hidden]

Shows how stupid Intel fanboys are. Get an AMD and you will be enlightened.

[–]Cpist 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Yeah some much getter

[–]Devildog6795[S] -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

Intel is better, but not by $100. An extra $100 with intel will increase your FPS by about 5.

[–]Ramy1999 -1 ポイント0 ポイント

What processors are you comparing for this?

[–]Devildog6795[S] -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

6300 and i5

[–]Ramy1999 0 ポイント1 ポイント

But the i3 4150 is comparable in price to the 6300, and has comparable performance as well.

[–]Devildog6795[S] -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

It's comparable in price but not so much in performance, an i3 will bottleneck most modern GPUs

[–]Ramy1999 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Their performance is comparable. Are you pulling statistics out of your head?

[–]Devildog6795[S] -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

Are you pulling statistics out of your ass?

[–]Ramy1999 -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Actually no, from here.

[–]Devildog6795[S] -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

Is that a link to your ass?

[–]jorgp2 1 ポイント2 ポイント

I'm an amd fanboy going with intel, mainly because amd fucked up their CPUs.

[–]Ramy1999 1 ポイント2 ポイント

No, a $200 intel processor will outperform a $200 amd processor for gaming. Most people on this sub are looking to game on their pcs, which is why intel processors are recommended. A quad core intel will beat an 8 core amd processor for games, because most games only make us of 3 or 4 threads. The single cores of intel processors are much stronger than the cores of amd processors.

[–]Cpist 1 ポイント2 ポイント

While that may be true, half of those that post about gaming pcs tend to be at an age where they can't afford much. Teenagers. Therefore, The lower price aspect appeals to more of those who want to game for cheaper. AMD has its perks, while Intel has its performance.

[–]Ramy1999 1 ポイント2 ポイント

If a $200 intel processor beats a $200 amd processor, but the person can't afford either of them, why do they matter for comparison?

[–]Cpist -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

Buy a cheaper AMD and still get higher performance.

[–]Ramy1999 1 ポイント2 ポイント

An i3 ($120) performs similarly to an fx-6300 ($110), for gaming at least.

[–]Devildog6795[S] -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

it doesn't

[–]Devildog6795[S] -5 ポイント-4 ポイント

An i5 would definitely not outperform a 8350 in gaming

[–]Ramy1999 3 ポイント4 ポイント

No. You are just wrong.

[–]Devildog6795[S] -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

Explain how?

[–]Ramy1999 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Show your benchmarks. It is fairly common knowledge that games rely much more heavily on single thread performance than on the number of threads. AMD put their stock in games supporting multiple threads, which just hasn't happened.

[–]Devildog6795[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIVGwj1_Qno

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc

[–]Ramy1999 -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Those are all last gen intel processors. Find some current benchmarks and come back. I apologize if I have sounded overly fanboyish, or have been impolite. You simply haven't given me any reason to want to agree with you. I agree that in some cases AMD is better, but in many builds on this sub (which are primarily for gaming) intel will offer more performance.

[–]Devildog6795[S] -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

performance

I don't give a shit about overall performance, I'm giving shits about price to performance ratios

[–]georgie050 [score hidden]

Who is the fanboy now? You do nothing but bash intel. The only fanboy here is you. Intel is recommended for gaming because it performs better for a similarly priced AMD.

[–]Devildog6795[S] [score hidden]

I bash intel because intel bashes AMD

[–]Ramy1999 [score hidden]

Fine. Keep your processors. Suggest what you want. I will stick with intel because I believe it has a solid upgrade path, and offers good performance for the price. You can keep believing what you want. I am pulling out of this thread. I will not respond to any more comments. You are being impolite, rude and downright mean.

[–]Devildog6795[S] [score hidden]

TIL Intel fanboys are sensitive

[–]TheKeeperOfPie 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Even the i3 beats the FX-8350 in gaming: http://www.hardcoreware.net/intel-core-i3-4340-review/2/

There truly is no competition. Unless you need virtualization or some other hardware spec that the Intel chips don't offer, Intel is the better option. The Pentium and i3 dominate the low end market, and the i5 beats anything AMD has to offer.

[–]Devildog6795[S] -4 ポイント-3 ポイント

You are officially a retard for believing that. Learn to find an unbiased source.

[–]TheKeeperOfPie 0 ポイント1 ポイント

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-4340-4330-4130_5.html#sect0

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/11/14/intel-core-i3-4130-haswell-review/5

Also, I hope you understand the TekSyndicate results were invalidated due to its low ability to be reproduced. I've provided additional sources to back my claims, but you'll have to provide yours.

[–]Devildog6795[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Invalidated by whom? Tom's hardware?

[–]TheKeeperOfPie 0 ポイント1 ポイント

By basically every other review site. I would say a vast majority of gaming tests show the i5 4670K ahead, easily. If we're talking i3 vs FX-8350, even at the same price, it's a toss-up. The i3 will do much better in single-threaded performance games, and they both will do fine in multi-threaded games.

But if we're talking i5-4670K vs FX-8350, most gaming benchmarks will put the i5 ahead. I can really only think of BF4 and Metro:Last Light that may have the FX-8350 slightly ahead, but both perform well enough in those that it truly doesn't matter anyways.

/u/fco2013 gave you a bunch of sources up top that illustrate my point. We can easily provide varied and trusted sources that say the i5 is better in gaming, but as far as I know, the TekSyndicate one is the only one that says the FX-8350 is better. That makes it invalid simply due to being an outlier compared to all the other reviews.

[–]Devildog6795[S] [score hidden]

I'm not just talking about the 8350, I'm saying that AMD is much better when it comes to price to performance ratios, please read the text post next time

pleb

[–]TheKeeperOfPie [score hidden]

I'm uncertain what you are referring to? The sources I've provided still indicate the Haswell i3 as a superior choice for gaming, if we're talking price to performance. The i3 performs better in most games for a cheaper price, being $120 compared to the $140 for an FX-8320. Better performance and a cheaper price equates to a better price to performance ratio.

[–]Devildog6795[S] [score hidden]

i3 beating a 8320? Yeah, ok

[–]Cribbit -1 ポイント0 ポイント

According to what benchmarks? All I see (from both sides) are opinions.

[–]aziridine86 0 ポイント1 ポイント

As an AMD fanboy who proudly owns an overclocked FX-6300, you are an idiot if you think Intel isn't beating AMD for most price points right now.

[–]Devildog6795[S] -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

You sure you own one?

[–]aziridine86 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Yep. FX-6300 + Cooler Master Hyper TX3 + Gigabyte GA-970-UD3P

[–]Devildog6795[S] -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

Whats your GPU, also your motherboard has an older chipset, get a 990

[–]aziridine86 0 ポイント1 ポイント

The GA-970A-UD3P overclock's fine. It has 8+2 phase power delivery and a heat-sinked VRM.

If you are going to buy a 990FX board and a high-end cooler, you might as well just go buy an i5-4570 for the same price.

I'm not sure why you care but I'm running a GTX 760.

[–]Devildog6795[S] -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

heat-sinked VRM.

doesn't matter

If you are going to buy a 990FX board and a high-end cooler, you might as well just go buy an i5-4570 for the same price.

same price

check your prices

not sure why you care

were are talking about gaming, a GPU is the most important part of a pc If you had that setup you should be killing most games

[–]aziridine86 0 ポイント1 ポイント

The cheapest 990FX is $110. A decent 990FX is $120.

A cheap cooler (e.g. Hyper 212 Evo) is $30. A decent cooler (since I assume you want to do a lot of overclocking if you are buying a 990FX board) will run $50+

The FX-6300 is $110.

That's $250-$280

I can get a i5-4570 for $197.

That leaves $53-$83 for a motherboard, and since I'm not using overclocking to get performance, it doesn't matter all that much.

A board like Asus's H81M-A for $61 is fine.

If you were buidling an SLI system and had to spend $100+ on the motherboard regardless, then you might have an argument.

But if the only reason you are buying a 990FX board is to overclock an FX-6300 higher, its a waste of money.

[–]Devildog6795[S] -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

a $60 dollar mobo is gonna catch fire

[–]aziridine86 2 ポイント3 ポイント

If you say so.

[–]the_human_oreo -1 ポイント0 ポイント

But you're complaining about cpus...

[–]Devildog6795[S] -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

he brought in the whole mobo thing, so i had to back my argument.

[–]the_human_oreo [score hidden]

Because you couldn't accept he uses amd AND disagrees with you

[–]Devildog6795[S] [score hidden]

lol that was random

[–]Villanus 0 ポイント1 ポイント

I certainly don't see many nvidia fanboys right now, and I think that intel deserves its spot as number one cpu maker. Yes, intel might make more expensive chips, but they are usually better. The only way amd can compete with intel is to offer lower prices. That doesn't mean I won't use amd parts, but if I want to build a computer with a good cpu, I choose intel.

[–]Devildog6795[S] -5 ポイント-4 ポイント

Nvidia? I was talking about CPUs not GPUs. But with AMDs low prices, you could buy a better GPU and RAM and still not be bottlenecked. Also, being a fanboy for any company is bad, consumers should buy a product based on its performance/durability not by the brand.

[–]Villanus -1 ポイント0 ポイント

It depends. I would usually cough up $40 more for a better cpu, but when I see a budget build I often recommend the 8320. I don't consider myself a fanboy of either, but most intel cpus are better than amds, that is a fact. Even the fx-6300 isn't as good as a cheap i3. And amd has nothing that can compete with the i5 4690, they are just stuck at the awkward halfway point between high end i3 and low end i5. I do like that they don't unlock their chips though, that is one thing which intel doesn't really do. But the extra money you put into overclocking could be put into purchasing an i5.

[–]Devildog6795[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Other than a power bill (which isn't much unless your OC to like 8 GHz) it's free to overclock.

[–]Villanus -1 ポイント0 ポイント

I don't think you are considering things like a cpu cooler and decent motherboard. Yes, it is free to overclock. But if you want a stable, safe overclock, you need a cpu cooler, good motherboard, and a psu that handle it. That can easily cost $50. With that money you could buy a different cpu that would handle better without overclocking.

[–]Devildog6795[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント

$50 is too little to upgrade to an equivalent Intel cpu, you would need at least $100

[–]Villanus 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Ok man. I see that you won't listen to any sense. Right now, I would only recommend the 8320. That cpu costs $145. Great deal. However, for an extra $50 I can purchase a locked i5. The locked i5 will outperform the overclocked 8320. This has nothing to do with fanboyism, it has to do with numbers.

[–]Devildog6795[S] [score hidden]

biased numbers

[–]Ramy1999 -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Actually, no. You need a cooler, and a decent mobo (not all motherboards are created equal).

[–]Devildog6795[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント

You should have started with a decent motherboard in the first place

[–]Cpist -1 ポイント0 ポイント

I like you use of the word substantially. Upvote.