4 ms·
Did Athlon and opteron really do well or did net burst do really bad? I want AMD to continue to compete and push but one bad architecture takes a while to over
by TheCondor 14y ago
Did Athlon and opteron really do well or did net burst do really bad?
I want AMD to continue to compete and push but one bad architecture takes a while to overcome. Bulldozer++ needs to deliver.
- zanny 14y agoNetburst was bad because they hit a mhz ceiling on the architecture and couldn't force the thermal enveolope any higher, while AMD went with dual cores and x64, which proved the correct path. They just hit a home run. What nobody ever seems to consider is that AMD has revenue that less than what Intel spends in R&D. The fact they can even compete on the scale they do with Intel is a testiment to their success. Intel was always way too big for AMD to compete directly against, and after Athlon's sucecss they tried to move into the big leagues and fight Intel one on one, and lost just due to raw funding (I'd argue, at least). It is why they had to sell off Global Foundries to buy ATI, and such.