3 ms·
After running benchmarks on Intel and AMD CPUs from that era with mitigations, it's clear Intel never really had a performance lead due to design. That alone re
by washadjeffmad 4y ago
After running benchmarks on Intel and AMD CPUs from that era with mitigations, it's clear Intel never really had a performance lead due to design. That alone rewrites the entire "state of AMD" narrative.
If Intel only had a competitive advantage during that era because they traded performance for security, was there ever really an advantage?
I personally don't think Gelsinger is going to be able to fix their culture issues. He's been more intent on pumping stock and asking for handouts than innovating, which is part of what got them where they are in the first place, for good or ill.
- heresie-dabord 4y ago> they traded performance for security, was there ever really an advantage Security is important, I would always prefer a secure product. But given design habits that elide security for performance, as well as a compromised supply chain, the only choice we have is to side with the devil(s) we know.
- washadjeffmad 4y agoIt's just awareness that Intel hasn't shown they have any qualms about willfully overselling capability or externalizing technical debts. Even with longer fulfillment timelines, availability isn't necessary worth the surprise cost of competitiveness. Lifecycling early and having to buy additional hardware to meet capacity was passed onto our customers.