3 ms·
iirc, amd was beating intel on single thread in the pentium 4 era with way lower clocks.
by leetcrew 7y ago
iirc, amd was beating intel on single thread in the pentium 4 era with way lower clocks.
- opencl 7y agoThe FX-60 from 2006 I think was the last AMD CPU that held this crown. 2.6Ghz and it beat Intel's top chip at 3.5Ghz. The only thing on the market with higher single threaded performance was their own FX-57 which was single core with a slightly higher clock speed. https://www.anandtech.com/show/1920 https://www.anandtech.com/show/1920
- gothroach 7y agoI still have my old FX-60 in an antistatic clamshell. I just could never bring myself to get rid of it, I loved that processor so much. That and XPx64 held me for a very long time.
- nolok 7y agoThat's when Intel "let's go faster" made them meet the 4Ghz barrier head on for the first time. More than a decade later and we're still pretty much there. One has to wonder how things would have gone if they didn't have the Core-M architecture on the side back then.
- cptskippy 7y agoIntel knew that the Netburst Architecture was power hungry so it had established an Israeli team to develop a mobile architecture in tandem. I believe they started with Tualatin or another late PIII design and optimized the hell out of the microcode. I believe that became Banias and they continued to bring in aspects of Netburst to produce the precursors to the Core line.
- agumonkey 7y agonetburst was rapidly killed, nobody hid that it was a failure
- nizmow 7y agoIts death wasn't rapid. RDRAM, though, that was rapid. But that was only a fraction of Netburst's problems.
- throwaway2048 7y agoNetburst lasted for 6ish years before it was not intel's premier product, and then another 2-3 afterwards in various forms.
- agumonkey 7y agoReally.. my memory is bad then. I thought it was 5 years including a 2 years lingering period.
- lunchables 7y agoYeah that's why they invented the nomenclature such as "AMD Athlon 3200+". It was equivalent to a 3.2Ghz pentium in performance.