Also intels marketing dept is much better and has more money to throw at problems. For instance did you know that the core i range also suffered the TLB bug? Intel managed the problem much better and quieter than amd and thhrefore didnt pay the price like amd did.
I must admit I dont see the point in this release.
I think that this subject is highly overrated mostly by intel fanboys. As previously mentioned, the biggest problem was intel's dodgy business practices. On the performance difference Im yet to see anyone who could distinguish between an i7 and p2 platform without knowing which one is which.
The sad thing is that the biased minority is the loudest.
Imo, Price/performance wise amd is the clear winner.
You raised good points about Intel's monopoly abuse, however AMD can still take some of the blame for their more expensive to manufacture, slower Phenom/Phenom II processors.Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
However the part in bold is completely irrelevant to anyone that buys the chips. Process and die size are irrelevant to someone buying the chips. What is relevant is price, performance, stability and Energy consumption. The only people that care about anything else when buying CPU's are being foolish.
"In a perfect world... spammers would get caught, go to jail, and share a cell with many men who have enlarged their penises, taken Viagra and are looking for a new relationship."
At the low end, yes. At the mid range, they trade blows.
However if you have £1k+ to spend on a Desktop, there is no AMD CPU for you.
"In a perfect world... spammers would get caught, go to jail, and share a cell with many men who have enlarged their penises, taken Viagra and are looking for a new relationship."
Show me a processor from Intel for < £200 that only consumes 95W and can match a hex-core in heavily threaded tasks, then. Give it plenty of threads and a 1050T leaves an i5 750 in its dust, at the same TDP. So AMD win on price and performance, and draw on stability and energy consumption. Sounds pretty good to me...
I'm not sure I have been worried about stability when buying a CPU before; This did put me off buying a Crrix CPU iirc. OC/performance for free is definately factored into the equation.
I think it would be foolish not to consider compatability too.
The clue's in bold
Plus you've caveated the hell out of that. It's only faster in heavily threaded tasks, nothing else. How many people just do tasks that use 6 or more threads?
However when I said in the Mid range, I was actually thinking of AMD quad cores. The Phenom 2 is excellent value for money, as are the Athlon II's - dual, triple and quad core.
However the Quad cores cost AMD more to make than Intel's quad core i7 bloomfield and Lynnfield CPU's and they are relegated to selling them for half as much to remain competitive.
Last edited by badass; 20-09-2010 at 01:21 PM.
"In a perfect world... spammers would get caught, go to jail, and share a cell with many men who have enlarged their penises, taken Viagra and are looking for a new relationship."
I was quite staggered by the size of the cheque that Intel had to hand over to AMD as settlement for their practices, which says to me they were way beyond just shady.
AMD did make quite significant gains in market share though during that time despite the Intel tricks, There is bound to be plenty of selection bias on this graph but still I think it shows their market share did become significant:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/market_share.html
AMD did stutter, they announced the Bulldozer, then said they were switching to an evolutionary approach using existing cores, then announced Bulldozer again. No idea what happened there, perhaps it was infighting within AMD or perhaps like with Fusion they decided they couldn't fab it yet and delayed. I expect we will never know.
No-one I know of for home use, but at the office I think plenty of people could eat those 6 cores and ask for more.The clue's in bold
Plus you've caveated the hell out of that. It's only faster in heavily threaded tasks, nothing else. How many people just do tasks that use 6 or more threads?
However when I said in the Mid range, I was actually thinking of AMD quad cores. The Phenom 2 is excellent value for money, as are the Athlon II's - dual, triple and quad core.
However the Quad cores cost AMD more to make than Intel's quad core i7 bloomfield and Lynnfield CPU's and they are relegated to selling them for half as much to remain competitive.
Unfortunately the IT support people only buy Intel, so we only get 2 cores for the budget they will spend.
Reading around recently there was some kind of internal argy bargy over comments made by a senior AMD person and a number of other senior AMD people upped and left. That pushed development that was already running well behind the competition even further back.
The real problem for AMD is that they didn't forsee just how much better Core 2 was going to be than anything that came before. So they planned long term developments which were built around making minor enhancements to their existing core, then moving to monolithic quad cores, assuming that they'd at least be competitive even if they didn't have the absolute performance lead. Then Core 2 blew them away and they've had to balance their research budget between staying in the market now and becoming performance competitive again in the future. Having to split that budget really can't have helped...
It seems you can hit around 4.0GHZ to 4.1GHZ with the supplied cooler:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3937/a...-performance/7
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid...e=expert&pid=7
and 4.2GHz at 1.45V. This looks mighty interesting
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote