3 ms·
> All on non-Intel foundry processes. That was unimaginable 10 years ago. Not really. 15 years ago, AMD was outperforming Intel at a lower price.
by dpark 9y ago
> All on non-Intel foundry processes. That was unimaginable 10 years ago.
Not really. 15 years ago, AMD was outperforming Intel at a lower price.
- eonwe 9y agoThat was not because of foundry process, but because of better architecture. Intel was leading or tied at process width and clock speed the whole time.
- dpark 9y agoIntel isn't losing on foundry process now either.
- rasz 9y ago17 years ago AMD was leading due to foundry - they were the first x86 with copper interconnects. http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1141534 http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1141534 Somewhat hilariously Intel released "Coppermine" series of CPUs in 1999, but those used Alu interconnects :D and were famously unstable above 1GHz. AMD was also first to 1GHz. http://www.anandtech.com/show/498/4 http://www.anandtech.com/show/498/4 Intel was even trying to dispute that fact, but its hard to convince PC hardware journalists you are first when they are already testing 1GHz Athlons on their own desks while reading Intel press release about closed door demonstration. http://www.zdnet.com/article/1-ghz-intel-claims-it-was-first/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/1-ghz-intel-claims-it-was-first...
- triplesec 9y agoAMD always ran hotter. They were always about the same in technolgy level, just marketed differently because of design choices. Horses for courses.