Originally Posted by Fr0sty
you can't compare different architeture and claim one is better for everything ... one architeture is good for a goal and isnt for others ...
+ different company have different goals ...
so stop looking at the numbers only and look at the bigger picture .. wich is engineering
Originally Posted by MinitroN
The Phenom IIs are 2+ years old. That's ancient in technology terms. Spin it how you want but that's the primary reason Intel demolishes AMD in performance.
As for the price/performance argument. The i3-2100 will outperform any AMD CPU including ones that cost much more.
Not to mention the difference in power consumption that inevitably comes with a newer technology.
No. Intel beats AMD performancewise, because Intel builds its marketing strategy on that. AMD builds on cheap producs, because AMD is cheaper company, unable to invest the same amount of money as Intel for CPU production.
That does not mean that AMD rests on old tech. Remember, AMD were the first to make 64bit CPUs. The AMD guys work as hard as Intel guys on developing new tech
Just the focus is shifted.
Right now Intel pushes the bounds of CPU speed, where AMD works on platform compatibility. After they bought ATi, now you can build a complete system only with AMD components (until recently - impossible for Intel).
You can have AMD CPU, GPU, chipset and RAM => the Dragon Platform. Soon, another platform (the APU) will take over.
As you can see, AMD does its fair share of tech push, just in different direction