4 ms·

Same, I had bad experiences with the early Athlons and bought Intels after that, never had any stability problems. But now I'm seeing douchey behaviour from bot

Same, I had bad experiences with the early Athlons and bought Intels after that, never had any stability problems. But now I'm seeing douchey behaviour from both Intel and nVidia. I've been a big fanboy because of the performance, but the business practises are becoming polarising, and AMD seems to have caught up or surpassed in performance terms. Plus, they handled the vulnerabilities disclosure much better (even a smug 'AMD processors are not affected' on more than one). I always used to root for Intel because AMD made their entire business model off copying (later licensing) Intel's x86 designs (including the model numbers), but that's becoming a lot less relevant now. I upgraded my desktop's Geforce 550Ti with a Radeon HD 7850, and though it's gotten off to a slightly rocky start (Windows logins are noticeably slower, seems to be a known issue), performance is great, benchmarks showing it on par with the 970m in my laptop. When the Haswell i7 needs to be upgraded, I may start looking at a Ryzen. Never thought I'd see the day.

sitkack 8y ago
> AMD made their entire business model off copying (later licensing) Intel contracted AMD to second source their processors as a requirement for being in the IBM PC (requirement dictated by IBM). AMD existed long before their version of the x86, producing the venerable http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/2901/ http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/2901/ which was widely used in minicomputers of the time. The amazing thing about the 2901 and family, was that the engineer could design a board level CPU and full freedom over register sizes, numbers, alus, etc. Don't forget that the 64 bit x86 ISA was created by AMD and licensed to Intel.
- gargravarr 8y ago
  Huh, I didn't know that. I thought AMD started competing with Intel by cloning the 286 and beyond. Had no idea it was for the IBM PC contract. I knew about 64-bit (Athlon 64, anyone?), but I've always heard x86-64 described as a kludge and an awful hack, not a well-designed architecture. The greater RAM accessibility and native execution of 32-bit code are advantages, but shortly thereafter Intel went multi-core, which seems to have done drastically more for system performance than x64 did.

sitkack 8y ago

> AMD made their entire business model off copying (later licensing) Intel contracted AMD to second source their processors as a requirement for being in the IBM PC (requirement dictated by IBM). AMD existed long before their version of the x86, producing the venerable http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/2901/ http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/2901/ which was widely used in minicomputers of the time. The amazing thing about the 2901 and family, was that the engineer could design a board level CPU and full freedom over register sizes, numbers, alus, etc. Don't forget that the 64 bit x86 ISA was created by AMD and licensed to Intel.

gargravarr 8y ago
Huh, I didn't know that. I thought AMD started competing with Intel by cloning the 286 and beyond. Had no idea it was for the IBM PC contract. I knew about 64-bit (Athlon 64, anyone?), but I've always heard x86-64 described as a kludge and an awful hack, not a well-designed architecture. The greater RAM accessibility and native execution of 32-bit code are advantages, but shortly thereafter Intel went multi-core, which seems to have done drastically more for system performance than x64 did.