3 ms·

Except for the Sandy Bridge era. AMD was definitely not ahead for a while there. https://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-review-intel-core-i7-2600

• nabla9 6y ago
  It seems like you misunderstand the argument. It's not about absolute performance of the processor. CPU performance is always combination of microarchitecture and process. Traditionally Intel had better processors with worse microarchitecture due to better process technology.
  • paulmd 6y ago
    Intel had undeniably better microarchitecture between the launch of Conroe up to at least the launch of Zen2 (and arguably still has better microarchitecture for some tasks, just not across the board like they used to). Not just process - Bulldozer first-gen was a 32nm chip and couldn't keep up with Nehalem (45nm) let alone Sandy Bridge (32nm). AMD was significantly worse microarchitecturally for pretty much a decade. They were ahead with Athlon 64, starting to fall back to equal with X2, Phenom they were moderately behind, bulldozer was a dumpster fire, Zen1 was a dumpster fire, Zen+ was moderately behind, Zen2 back to on par in general performance and better in core count/server chips.