Originally Posted by Homeles
Originally Posted by Paratrooper1n0
The same drugs as the people who said Intel would recover when Intel was in the Pentium 4 era.
"What kind of drugs are you taking? You're hallucinating so well that I'd be interested in taking some."
Stop trying to change history to back up your, pathetic, desperate dream that AMD has ever been on Intel's level. Even during the P4 days, Intel was doing better than AMD.
While overall financially, AMD has never been on the level of Intel, they were getting quite big and taking quite a bit of Intels marketshare during the Pentium 2/3/4 days, it was at the point where Intel only had 50% of the marketshare which continued until they started paying off OEMs to use the P4, when you take out all of Intels other markets AMD was getting quite close back in the 90s.
Like I said, overall? Not a chance.
Originally Posted by Socks keep you warm
Originally Posted by perfectblade
Why does everyone invlove ARM? They are x64 based, Most programs we use everyday are x86.
They're 32bit chips, not 64bit and x64 generally means x86-64 (the 64bit extension of x86), and with MS also trying to get the move to ARM they're a big, big competitor to Intel right now.
Originally Posted by Homeles
Originally Posted by un-midas touch
it has never been on Intel's level, in terms of money? Or technology? Which are you claiming?
In terms of money.
"Intel has only been successful recently. AMD will get ahead and history will repeat itself."
Taking another look, it seems like he's talking about technological success. If that's the case, he's still dead wrong. They've completely dominated the scene since 2006, and prior to P4, they were generally stomping AMD as well:
During AMD's Althon 64/FX days, AMD's lead wasn't that large, at least relative to Intel's lead over AMD right now.
So he's awaiting the second coming of AMD. Their first time in the spot light lasted about 3 years.
3 years of AMD technolgical "success." That leaves how many for Intel, now? GG.
Uh, you do realise that the Pentium Pro was priced far, far beyond anything AMD sold at the time? Those Pentium MMX results bar the 200 are overclocked too, there was the 166, 200 and the 233, you also picked a time when AMD was still getting a product out..Compare the K6-2 and K6-3 there, Intel always had the fastest of the fast part but AMD only bothered to compete with their cheaper parts. Also, gaming required very different processors to what everyone else wanted back then, it was nearly entirely floating point (Or at least, the stuff that requires a lot of CPU work) which Intel always dominated AMD at, in the vast majority of tasks a K6-2 matched a Pentium II clock for clock and the K6 matched the Pentium, quite a number of smaller stores around the world sold AMD because it was slightly faster at the same price point.
For the most part in those days, AMD and Intel were equal until the Pentium 4 put Intel decidedly behind for most people.(I twas ridiculously fast when SSE was involved to be fair), but Intel was ahead in gaming due to their faster floating point performance..why do you think the only acceptible time to get the original cacheless Celeron was if you were a gamer and overclocked it to 450Mhz? It was a slug for business tasks and normal use but great for gaming because it was literally a Pentium II with no L2 cache.I suggest you read up on history some more.
That site is somewhat biased to AMD, but you generally get a fair idea of the market at the time. They also have some incorrect ideas of clock for clock performance, as far as I can tell. (Never bothered to try and find an old 6x86-PR200, K6-3 500, etc to compare IPC)
Also, look here
, you can see for the vast majority of people (ie. Running Office, IE, etc on Windows 95/98) the K6-2 was relatively equal to the Pentium II and also had some massive FP speed increases over the K6...The K6 wasn't even when AMD was at its best in the golden age of computing, lets compare Athlon/K7 results. As you can see, AMD trounces Intel
, it has higher IPC and clocks higher..There's a reason why AMD beat Intel to the 1Ghz barrier, the Athlon was just a far better architecture at the time. (Although the Pentium IIIs P6 architecture did pay off eventually)
Is that enough proof for you? I've got way more graphs from what was then a very reputable site (Toms only started showing Intel bias during the P4 years) as well as reports from a store that still operates to this day, another AMD CPU that trounced Intel in sales was the 386DX-40...Everyone wanted one, it beat Intels best offering for the most part (Unless the task was specifically recompiled for the 486 architecture or used floating point) while letting you get 8MB RAM vs 4MB, a big thing for those days, AMD had been equal to ahead of Intel performance since the K6 days bar a few slip ups until the Core 2 Duo hit.
Now, enough spamming this topic with irrelevant crap. AMD isn't going down any-time soon, they've actually gained quite a bit recently as you can see here
, they're trying to find a faster way back into the black and to deal with the low demand of CPUs and GPUs in the near future, this is why stock is dropping, their future is far from uncertain though, APUs are selling fairly well last I checked and the purchase of ATI has more than likely completely paid itself off by now, the amount of laptops I see with AMD graphics cards or APUs in them...Plus, if some of the major consoles are using AMD parts expect their stock price to jump up, I definitely think consoles are going to be AMDs savior though, their CPUs aren't really that much slower than Intels assuming you take Intels biased compiler out of the mix
and the benefit of having an APU for some extra performance over just a GPU, much like the PS4 is rumoured to do really puts having an all AMD console in a great light.