Originally Posted by mudd
at more of a price plus a newer technology core. just remember that intel just now recently took over the performance crown that amd has held since the thunderbirds....
I definately disagree.
Intel held more world records for performance than AMD ever did (pre-conroe). Intel's superpi time alone was about 4 SECONDS faster than AMD's. A dothan which is pretty much a crippled CPU due to platform limitations, could outperform an FX clock for clock EASILY. Not to mention that Intel is so ahead of the game technology wise it's not even funny. The only thing I've seen AMD destroy in was the early dualcores (Smithfield 8XX vs X2). Once the preslers came out, that was done.
45nm soon. Amd still doesnt have 65nm.
Quad core is OUT. Amd? Who knows.
2MB of L2 for a LONG time now. Amd? 1MB at the most.
SSSE3 on Intels.
Pinless CPU's for years.
DDR2 for YEARS while AMD is just getting there.
AMD has controlled the market due to HYPE. If AMD has been dominating, why is Intel a much bigger company?
Not to mention that good AMD's are dependent on steppings. Lots of AMD's are dogs just because of a bad stepping. Intel doesnt really have stepping issues.
Another thing AMD people rave about is 64-bit. Great. 64-bit = a waste of time so far.