4 ms·
AMD put a lot of resources toward the desktop. And from all the benchmarks I've seen they achieved their goal. Bulldozer is a pretty competitive desktop process
by eupharis 14y ago
AMD put a lot of resources toward the desktop. And from all the benchmarks I've seen they achieved their goal. Bulldozer is a pretty competitive desktop processor. Bulldozer is powerful.
But not energy efficient. There can be no Bulldozer laptop.
And the world switched to laptops. Right now the split is 18% tablets, 60% notebooks/netbooks, 22% desktops.[1] And desktops are losing ground rapidly.
AMD simply has nothing to compete with Intel in the laptop space.
For the same price, Intel scores something nearly double on the benchmarks (1700 for a4-3400m vs 2900 i3-2350m). For everyday computing in the real world, that performance difference is:
AMD: "This is so slow I want to tear my hair out."
Intel: "The CPU is no longer a bottleneck.
I need a new SSD for CPU speed to even matter."
And the Intel chip does all that using SO MUCH LESS power than the AMD (a4-3420m=35TDP and i3-2350m=15TDP).
And as you move up away from the budget laptops on the price/performance curve, things rapidly get worse for AMD.
AMD's failure was strategic, not technical. Even if Bulldozer had been 50% faster, AMD would still be on the verge of irrelevance.
[1]http://www.inquisitr.com/76157/tablets-to-overtake-desktop-sales-by-2015-laptops-will-still-reign/ http://www.inquisitr.com/76157/tablets-to-overtake-desktop-s...