Passmark shows the AMD FX-9590 pretty much equal with the i7 4790 and intel has tons of processors above that. If you highlight all the AMD products you get a very sparse showing in the top half of this list. http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html When you start looking at single core performance it gets even worse. http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html When it comes to high performance CPUs AMD is just not in the running right now.
Yea, when comparing benchmark numbers against Intel, I know they're nothing special, but when it comes to actually using them with games and such, they're not "very slow".
I don't want to see a single Intel/Nvidia hegemony controlling everything on the planet. Had an AMD processor back in early 2000's and it was fantastic and stable. I want to see AMD succeed and perhaps surpass Intel again.
Check the benchmarks. Yes, they're slower than similarly priced Intel CPUs. Also, a lot of things are incompatible with AMD if you plan to boot into Linux or BSD, and there's always some issue with AMD processors and a computer game. Better to avoid it.
Heard of AMD GPU issues under *nix systems, have absolutely never heard of any problems with an AMD processor under *nix, nor have I experienced anything wrong.
What games? If it's another Call of Duty or similar game that just uses the GPU heavily and nothing else, then I guess they're fine. - - - Updated - - - All I remember is that the two times I tried using an AMD machine to run Ubuntu, everything from the software store said that it was Intel only, and it was missing tons of drivers.
I call BS considering linux doesnt differentiate between amd and intel. The most they do is refer to i386 for 32 bit systems (which amd is compatible with) and amd64 for 64 bit systems (which intel is compatible with). Nor does intel vs AMD define your drivers.