Sure AMD has not been up to par with Intel Clock for Clock recently, but as we stray further and further from the simple single and dual core days and single threaded applications, these simple comparisons are becoming less relevant in the real world (superPi lol).
Architectures have changed, therefore changing the way we compare chips. I think the only real way to compare is by price point, which is pretty much how they do it with GPU's anyways. It is usually
the wallet that determines what one can purchase (or for some, the credit card
). This is what has kept AMD afloat for the past so many years. They do not have the performance crown, but they have offered extremely good value for money, not to mention sticking to an easy upgrade path for existing users, allowing them to extend the useful life of their systems for minimal cash. Power consumption has also become a hot topic with rising costs of fuel, electricity, and Eco-conscious practices (for some). It seems that AMD's offerings will be near the forefront of power saving options.
If money is no object and users are looking for pure performance, comparing core vs core, clock vs clock, makes no sense when flagship CPU's are so different
, once again rendering the simple ghz/ghz core/core comparisons moot. You have to take the best Intel vs best AMD at stock, then OC the crap out of both and compare again to see which comes out ahead in the absolute
. Who cares if AMD needs 8 "cores" to beat SB, if it does indeed come out on top, being the champion will be all that matters. In this, I don't think AMD can edge out Intel just yet for the throne, but I believe it will be a MUCH closer fight than recent years.
Going back to the wallet, the plus side is that if AMD loses this again, the prices will be lower allowing users to splurge elsewhere if they so choose
In closing, I wait patiently for the results and will make my upgrade to AMD vs Intel decision when that time comes.Edited by whiteslashasian - 5/3/11 at 8:48am