3 ms·

Agreed. And Bulldozer was an ultimately underwhelming run, but AMD still set the stage during that time for many technologies and practices that continue to rai

Agreed. And Bulldozer was an ultimately underwhelming run, but AMD still set the stage during that time for many technologies and practices that continue to raise the tide for consumers. Mantle API was opened to Khronos and became Vulkan, and opening their hardware has allowed open driver development to keep parity with the proprietary, negating the GPU vendor as middleman problem. And not all of the A-series were awful, but it seems those were the favored ones for OEMs to put in the very popular $300 Ultrabook competitors. I'd also hazard to say that if we went back and benchmarked the Intel CPUs of that time with the mitigations of today, they wouldn't have fared better than AMD's. We've come a long way from the world before smartphones, parallelism, SoC, and affordable flash, and I'm just glad we're finally here.

ohithereyou 7y ago
>opening their hardware has allowed open driver development to keep parity with the proprietary, negating the GPU vendor as middleman problem Except until recently, AMD GPU performance was a bag of wet farts for both industry and gaming.
- onli 7y ago
  That's not accurate. AMD only recently lost the ability to compete with Nvidia in the high end for a while. But they still had cards like the RX 580, that are the best option for their budget, and Fury, Vega and the Radeon VII all were not slow. They just were not better than Nvidia's cards. See https://www.pc-kombo.com/benchmark/games/gpu https://www.pc-kombo.com/benchmark/games/gpu (I run a meta benchmark that includes those cards).