PC Gaming

Intel and their last couple of processor generations were a failure. AMD, on the other hand, been consistent. Look at all these tiny AMD APUs that can run C2077 on a 35W computer that fits in the palm of a hand? Valve is about to drop a nuclear bomb on nvidia, intel and microslop with Gabecube.

So the editor asked AI to come up with an image for the title "Gamers desert Intel in droves" and so we get a half-baked pic of a CPU in the desert.

Am I close?

So happy I chose to go with AM4 board years ago. Was able to go from Zen+ CPU to X3D CPU.

I remember people said back then people usually don't upgrade their CPU, so its not that much a selling point. But, people didn't upgrade because they couldn't due to constant socket changes on the Intel side.

My fps numbers were very happy after the CPU upgrade, and I didn't have to get a new board and new set of ram.

Yep. Intel sat on their asses for a decade pushing quad cores one has to pay extra to even overclock.

Then AMD implements chiplets, comes out with affordable 6, 8, 12, and 16 core desktop processors with unlocked multipliers, hyperthreading built into almost every model, and strong performance. All of this while also not sucking down power like Intel's chips still do.

Intel cached in their lead by not investing in themselves and instead pushing the same tired crap year after year onto consumers.

Intel until they realized that other companies made CPUs, too

I have to lower my 12th Gen cpu multiplier to stop constant crashing when playing UE games, because everything is overlooked at the factory so they could keep up with AMD performance. Fuck Intel.

Worse product and worse consumer practices (changing sockets every 2 generations) made it an easy choice to go with AMD.

Just upgraded from an i7-6600k to an RX 7800x3D. Obviously a big upgrade no matter if I went AMD or Intel but I'm loving this new CPU. I had an AMD Athlon XP in the early 2000's that was excellent so I've always had a positive feeling towards AMD.

I've been buying AMD since the K6-2, because AMD almost always had the better price/performance ratio (as opposed to outright top performance) and, almost as importantly, because I liked supporting the underdog.

That means it was folks like me who helped keep AMD in business long enough to catch up with and then pass Intel. You're welcome.

It also means I recently bought my first Intel product in decades, an Arc GPU. Weird that it's the underdog now, LOL.

I switched to AMD because of Intel's chip stability issues. No problems since

The United States government owns 10% of Intel now.

The last Intel I bought new was the Pentium 4 630. 3.0 Ghz, with hyperthreading. That's thing was a fucking space heater. And I loved it. But everything new since then has been AMD.

I know we shouldn't have brand loyalty, but after the near decade of quad core only CPUs from Intel, I can't help but feel absolute hate towards them as a company.

I had a 3770k until AMD released their Ryzen 1000 series and I immediately jumped over, and within the next generation Intel started releasing 8 core desktop cpus with zero issues.

I haven't bought anything Intel since my 3770k and I don't think I ever will going forward.

I remember, it was a huge issue for programs. Developers were just not supporting other chipsets because Intel was faster than the competition and mostly cheaper. Then they got more expensive, did some shitty business to MINIX and stayed the same speed wise.

So now we see what actual competition does.

One can only dream about people fleeing x86-64 and going ARM or, even better, RISC-V.

But no, it's only changing the collar to the dog. But the dog stays the same.