From what I've gathered, the fanboys seem to be those who can't afford a high-end graphics cards.  Nvidia is the big "evil" corporation who excludes AMD from its many technologies and continues to increase prices, so it seems natural for someone who can't afford something like a GTX Titan XP or GTX 1080 to bash it.  On the various forums I've been on to discuss PC hardware, the fanboys seem to be those with mid-to-low-range graphics cards.  Folks with Fury X's seem to be neutral and quite pleased with their purchase, whereas it's this constant "RX 480 vs. 1060" thing to the others.  I actually think this hatred towards Nvidia isn't just from AMD fanboys, but many consumers in general.  It goes back to the notion of "big evil corporation taking advantage of little ol' me."  The same goes for Intel.  I think a little education in the realm of industrial organization could help these people.

Simple. People being cheap and not willing to pay for the good stuff. I don't even consider or look at any AMD cpu's or gpu's. I see AMD being a good budget brand and nothing else. It will always be Intel and Nvidia for me with cpu's and gpu's. If AMD ever got ahead for once. I might give them a glance. Until then. Yeah...

Prices are very reasonable for AMD graphics card but if you want incredible performance then you should stick to NVIDIA high end based graphics cards. 

I actually bought a Dell for my wife around 7 or 8 years ago. I've never had my own personal PC that I didn't build myself, but for my wife, she didn't want nor need what I would want or need, and it was cheap and got the job done. I replaced the hard drive with a 256gb SSD a year or two ago as a preemptive measure knowing that the hard drive wouldn't last forever, and the SSD made the machine feel snappier, which was nice. I picked up a really cheap upgraded CPU for my wife's machine off eBay that gave her like a 50% faster cpu for like $25. That machine will always be "fast enough" for my wife's purposes until someday it just dies. At that time I will consider using the cheapest AMD APU and doing a rebuild on her machine to keep her going.

Which all kind of supports what bobmitch just said. 

But that's not the way it used to be. Back in the early to mid 2000s AMD was at least tied with Intel and at times ahead of them. My first 1ghz was AMD not because it was cheaper. It was actually better. For nostalgia's sake check out this review from Anand Lal Shimpi of the 1ghz AMD Athlon vs the fastest Intel chips running Quake III Arena. AMD has 3 out of the 4 fastest framerates, including #1. In 2005 AMD shipped a dual-core server processor before Intel did, and then Intel only beat them to dual core on the desktop by like a couple weeks. And the AMD dual-core desktop chips rocked, as this gaming benchmark showed. We have AMD to thank for the x86-64 architecture that we all run today. They designed it and released the first Opteron processors. When Intel later released their own 64-bit x86 chips they had to follow AMD's lead and used AMD's 64-bit instruction set.
 
Also, AMD chips commonly used the same socket for 2 or 3 generations, while Intel was changing sockets with almost every new iteration. This made AMD machines more upgradeable. I slapped an AMD AthlonX2 4200 in 2007 or 2008 into a machine I'd originally built in early 2005 with an Athlon64 3000 single core, and it worked just fine. With Intel, at that time, I'd have had to replace the motherboard and probably also the RAM for a similar such upgrade.

So there were very good reasons for people to be AMD fans back in the 2000s. My memory is rusty enough that I'm not 100% positive anymore, but I think it really was with the Core 2 Duo release that Intel finally grabbed the performance lead back and never relinquished it. It's like AMD kicked Intel's butt into gear, and made Intel really improve, and then once Intel was pushing hard again AMD just couldn't keep up anymore.
 
It makes me sad how AMD has struggled over the last 8 or 9 years to catch up, or at least remain relevant, in the cpu space. It really will be interesting to see how they're looking once they release Zen. My prediction is that the fastest Intel chips will still be faster (they recently down-clocked an i7 6900 to 3.0 ghz to compare it with a 3.0 ghz Zen), but the Zen and other AMD chips will be as fast or faster than at least mid-range and lower Intel chips. I really hope they pull it off, because if they do, the next 3-4 years will see cpu improvements from both companies that will have our jaws hitting the floor. Competition is a great thing to have in the marketplace.
 
 

Ignoring any other reasons which a person may find along their way to becoming an AMD fan, I think the root cause and the thing which triggered their desire to be an AMD fan in the first place is deeply linked to "the underdog complex".
 
https://youtu.be/wwCZF4bGQGI?t=8m45s
 
We like to support people/organizations which demonstrate to us "grit, determination, hard work, and a desire to succeed".

bobmitch

ty_ger07
Ignoring any other reasons which a person may find along their way to becoming an AMD fan, I think the root cause and the thing which triggered their desire to be an AMD fan in the first place is deeply linked to "the underdog complex".
 
https://youtu.be/wwCZF4bGQGI?t=8m45s
 
We like to support people/organizations which demonstrate to us "grit, determination, hard work, and a desire to succeed".

Extending on that thought.  Can you imagine Nvidia's pricing if there were NO AMD? 

+1 for both of those ideas
 
Also, I'd add: Perceived Value

bobmitch

Zuhl3156
I almost bought an AMD desktop by HP from Walmart around 2006 or 2007 but that was before I knew better. Shortly afterwards HP announced they would no longer use AMD products and that was the clincher for me. I didn't know nothing about nothing at the time. All I know is that it met the minimum specs I needed to play certain games I had purchased.

I think that is AMD's point.  They are there for those who don't know any difference.  As a community, we are above normal computer users with knowledge of benchmarks and performances.  I recently helped a friend iron out some issues with his desktop.  It was an AMD...about a year or so old generation.  Windows 10 upgrade did a number on his machine, because of all the drivers released from Microsoft.  I installed all the proper drivers for AMD chipset, GPU, etc...and got the machine back to normal performance.  Then I proceeded to show him my rig with i7 5820K, 980 TI, and the like.  His answer to me was "My machine does what I want it to do and didn't cost me an arm and a leg"  I think that is most people's answer.  They don't know any better from a 980TI to an HD6450 (used this example as a massive performance gap).  They just want functional for internet, maybe word processing and photoshop elements.  Our goal is to push every last drop of performance from our machines...so we tweak, fiddle and tweak some more.
 

Same with my coworker at work. He was telling me that he picked up a new 480 from AMD. I asked him why he wasn't interested in getting a 1080. His response was the same as yours but in a different way. He asked me, "how much did it cost?" I told him the price. His response was, "That's why." AMD's sole purpose is to provide people hardware that they can afford and still utilize and enjoy, point blank. It's the people that make it a rage contest when it's totally not needed.

stalinx20

gridironcpj
From what I've gathered, the fanboys seem to be those who can't afford a high-end graphics cards.  

Gridironcpj,
 
any AMD fanboy would, in fact, argue with you with that statement, stating that AMD GPUs are just as good as Nvidia GPUs, and they're much cheaper. Yeah... I can actually hear them spewing venom over that right now, lol.
 
They even stated 2x 480s can beat a single 1080

People are idiotic.  If AMD could produce a graphics card on par with a GTX 1080, it wouldn't be that much cheaper, only marginally cheaper.  Why?  It would be stupid for AMD to cut its profits just to fuel the fire of its small, but very vocal segment of fanboys.  If you want a laugh or a facepalm, just check out the discussion section in each article on WCCFtech.  It's the internet at its worst.  
 
I also don't understand why anyone would buy two 480s.  They're better off buying a 1070, since Crossfire scaling isn't perfect, nor is it supported in every game (especially DX12 titles).  If they really want to stick with AMD, they could get a Fury X I guess, but it falls a bit behind a GTX 1070.  Not to mention, it requires liquid cooling since the card would probably hit over 90C under air (the card reaches the high 60s even with liquid cooling).  
 
I also want to reiterate that this thread is a discussion on AMD fanboys, NOT AMD consumers.  There is nothing wrong with being a consumer of an AMD product.  There is, however, a problem with fanboyism.  It's a very unhealthy way of life and fanboys are often the loudest on the internet, which is a minor nuisance.  Luckily, since they are often either very cheap, poor, or both, the voice that matters most for every consumer (their wallet) is of no consequence.

Fanboys come from all genres. It's a social defect which results in derision of anything that isn't within their spectrum of interest.
 
Star Wars vs. Star Trek;
Tea vs. Coffee;
Teacher vs. Pupil;
Manchester United vs. Manchester City;
BMW vs. Mercedes vs. Audi;
Trump vs. Clinton; and of course,
Men vs. Women
 
In the PC world this phenomenon has far less to do with fear of switching brands (as some have asserted) than other aspects of human desires. These include product familiarity and price range. If something isn't broken, why fix it? And if it isn't broken AND cheap, why fix it at a premium?
 
Truth be told there is nothing wrong with any of these brands. They all have their positive characteristics. Whereas Intel does indeed have the advantage in performance, AMD has undercut Intel in pricing. This, however, did not work and a new platform is required to regain market share. AMD chips don't seem to have the "well rounded" capabilities that Intel chips have. Some people don't need Intel's power and settle for a reasonably priced yet capable product.
 
The race between AMD and Nvidia I find to be closer than people like to admit. Currently, AMD has no answer to Nvidia's high end product, but that will hopefully end soon with the release of Vega. I believe they will at least match 1070/1080/Titan X(P) performance, and possibly exceed it. Whilst undercutting Nvidia in pricing once again, forcing them in turn to lower prices. Healthy competition means better savings for consumers.
 
Zen vs. Kaby Lake/Cannonlake through Tigerlake I believe will not play out well for AMD. I think Intel has the upper hand here, and will maintain it. I mean, they always seem to compete with themselves. Skylake, now Kaby Lake followed by Cannonlake in quick succession with more already on the horizon. AMD provided no answer to any of these chip releases. Zen is the first AMD marketed chip to garner significant hype since Athlon X64.
 
I used all of the products this thread is discussing and enjoyed them all. No problems and performance was well within what I needed. But now it has changed a little. I am no fanboy, I simply state facts. Intel is ahead of AMD, and Nvidia is ahead of AMD. Can AMD match performance? Yes. But remember to check the TDP and temperature of your AMD hardware when comparing similar performance of their competition. AMD's run hotter and swallow more electricity. Once the performance gap is on par I will once again consider AMD. Until then the price gap they provide is negated by wattage used to run their hardware. Is it a lot? No. But over time it adds up. So might as well go for the performance of Intel and Nvidia. Just seems logical.

howdy2u2

panzlock
Fanboys come from all genres. It's a social defect which results in derision of anything that isn't within their spectrum of interest.
 
Star Wars vs. Star Trek;
Tea vs. Coffee;
Teacher vs. Pupil;
Manchester United vs. Manchester City;
BMW vs. Mercedes vs. Audi;
Trump vs. Clinton; and of course,
Men vs. Women
 
In the PC world this phenomenon has far less to do with fear of switching brands (as some have asserted) than other aspects of human desires. These include product familiarity and price range. If something isn't broken, why fix it? And if it isn't broken AND cheap, why fix it at a premium?
 
Truth be told there is nothing wrong with any of these brands. They all have their positive characteristics. Whereas Intel does indeed have the advantage in performance, AMD has undercut Intel in pricing. This, however, did not work and a new platform is required to regain market share. AMD chips don't seem to have the "well rounded" capabilities that Intel chips have. Some people don't need Intel's power and settle for a reasonably priced yet capable product.
 
The race between AMD and Nvidia I find to be closer than people like to admit. Currently, AMD has no answer to Nvidia's high end product, but that will hopefully end soon with the release of Vega. I believe they will at least match 1070/1080/Titan X(P) performance, and possibly exceed it. Whilst undercutting Nvidia in pricing once again, forcing them in turn to lower prices. Healthy competition means better savings for consumers.
 
Zen vs. Kaby Lake/Cannonlake through Tigerlake I believe will not play out well for AMD. I think Intel has the upper hand here, and will maintain it. I mean, they always seem to compete with themselves. Skylake, now Kaby Lake followed by Cannonlake in quick succession with more already on the horizon. AMD provided no answer to any of these chip releases. Zen is the first AMD marketed chip to garner significant hype since Athlon X64.
 
I used all of the products this thread is discussing and enjoyed them all. No problems and performance was well within what I needed. But now it has changed a little. I am no fanboy, I simply state facts. Intel is ahead of AMD, and Nvidia is ahead of AMD. Can AMD match performance? Yes. But remember to check the TDP and temperature of your AMD hardware when comparing similar performance of their competition. AMD's run hotter and swallow more electricity. Once the performance gap is on par I will once again consider AMD. Until then the price gap they provide is negated by wattage used to run their hardware. Is it a lot? No. But over time it adds up. So might as well go for the performance of Intel and Nvidia. Just seems logical.

Very well stated, nice read to me anyway (others might feel differently) Last paragraph says it all, you Panzlock IMO win this thread!!
I too have used all of the products in this thread.

Fanboy(s) requiring their Safe Spaces

howdy2u2
Very well stated, nice read to me anyway (others might feel differently) Last paragraph says it all, you Panzlock IMO win this thread!!
I too have used all of the products in this thread.

And I didn't mean all products but certain products form all manufacturers. AMD, ATI, Nvidia and Intel.

It is what it is, 10 years ago everyone was making fun of Nvidia and Intel fanboys. How the Pentium D couldn't keep up and how the Geforce 7900 was getting spanked by the x1900XTX. It's just what it is.

fanboy = royalty to a company.