3 ms·
AMD has always had the problem of having weaker cpu's that were better per dollar. I agree they should have highlighted the 5x advantage, but for a long time pe
by Buraksr 7y ago
AMD has always had the problem of having weaker cpu's that were better per dollar. I agree they should have highlighted the 5x advantage, but for a long time people have regarded AMD as the value weaker option; this is what changed this gen and what they are trying to higlight. Finally AMD gets more performance for cheaper and is no longer just a better value in some applications
- stefan_ 7y agoWell, they weren't better per dollar once you factored in power consumption.
- philjohn 7y agoFor bulldozer, maybe, but pre core uarch they were faster and more energy efficient.
- antisthenes 7y agoPhenom, Phenom II, Bulldozer & Piledriver, all had worse performance/power. Basically all of their CPUs from 2007 until 2014, a full 7 years.
- rodgerd 7y agoAre you factoring in the Spectre losses?
- philjohn 7y agoYes, as I said, pre Core uArch, which launched in 2006 for laptops and 2007 for desktops. Prior to that Intel was on the dead-end NetBurst and Athlon 64 and derivatives were the better chip when it came to performance per watt and outright computational power.
- nolok 7y agoWhich also got majorly reversed now, intel uses way more power than amd for equivalent performances