3 ms·
For the price point amd has been superior to Intel for atleast a decade. You could buy an fx black for a couple hundred dollars that absolutely demolished anyth
by paulie_a 7y ago
For the price point amd has been superior to Intel for atleast a decade. You could buy an fx black for a couple hundred dollars that absolutely demolished anything Intel makes.
I don't know why AMD was ever seen as the underdog. They never released something like the P4 which used that crappy RAM. They also basically owned the console market. Intel certainly didn't. AMD stock price has always been the whipping boy that was easy to predict.
- toast0 7y agoDid you miss Bulldozer? It wasn't rambus bad, but it wasn't good. For most of Bulldozer's span, Intel was in tick/tock decent incremental increases every year, while AMD performance was pretty similar each year --- kind of like the last couple of years for Intel.
- paulie_a 7y agoIntel made small improvements while the fx from years ago smoked pretty much anything for a tenth of the cost. Intel is overrated. The atom was a piece of junk. The celery was marginally better. And they ditched the Pentium class. I can't remember when they last used its name after the P4 debacle. AMD has consistently been competing at a much better price point. Now they are crushing Intel. And you admitted bulldozer wasn't as bad as rambus
- LoSboccacc 7y agothat era athlons had lot stability issue and whatever you saved on cpu cost you had to spend in psu to run the thing.
- paulie_a 7y agoA 200 dollar chip and 100 dollar psu doesn't add up to the equivalent 500-1000 dollar Intel.
- LoSboccacc 7y agofx and x2 where _never_ that ahead of performance to be comparable to a twice expensive intel chip.
- paulie_a 7y agoMaybe I got a great deal but it measured 9000+ on cpubenchmark for 300 dollars. Intel equivalent was nearly 1000 for the same performance. Yes power requirements were higher but that's pennies on the dollar.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]