4 ms·
I don't agree. Anti-competitive practices from Intel were orthogonal to the success of Conroe. It was a better processor: https://www.anandtech.com/show/1963 h
by fermienrico 6y ago
I don't agree. Anti-competitive practices from Intel were orthogonal to the success of Conroe.
It was a better processor: https://www.anandtech.com/show/1963 https://www.anandtech.com/show/1963
I agree that Intel did engage in a lot of horrible anti-competitive things, but that has nothing to do with how incredible Conroe was. I find it kind of funny how this whole AMD vs Intel competition gets people's emotions running as if its their team and turf.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- weare138 6y agoAMD created x86-64, Intel had just caught up by that point.
- leetcrew 6y agointel did a bit more than just "catch up"; take a look at the benchmarks in the linked article. they followed it up with solid improvements through sandy/ivy bridge. then they treaded water for eight years or so. even still, after the launch of conroe, amd didn't have a competitive high-end part until zen 2 (excepting a few high core count oddities along the way).
- hashtagmarkup 6y agothe userspace fixes required to make those intel implementation secure did a bit more than question those "improvements".