Originally Posted by Stay Puft
This is ot but say amd stayed with Thuban and released an X8 on 32nm instead of bulldozer. Would it have out performed the current 83xx.
And AMD would be in the same place as Intel right now, where they have an architecture where they can barely squeeze out 10% in specific situations and sometimes the gain from previous gen doesn't even exist.
The more I look back at Intel's history since Nehalem, the more I realize that they probably made a big mistake going back to such an old architecture. Since Nehalem, there hasn't been a compelling reason to upgrade from anything Intel has to offer as long as you're overclocking.
Yes there was as big difference between i7 920 and 2600k, but 2600k had a huge clock difference at stock and D0 920 could do mid 4ghz range easily.
AMD has had issues as well but look at their rate of change of improvement. They just released 11% clockspeed bump mid range CPUs just because process got better. It took Intel years to design a new architecture that's pulling 2% to 15% faster.
Thuban would have been better in the short term but AMD would have always been in the same position, trailing in all fronts and unable to catch up. At least with module approach AMD has a massive price to performance advantage in multi-thread and, to say it nicely, Bulldozer and Piledriver have a lot of low-hanging fruit; to say it not so nicely, BD and PD are broken and there's a lot of places to fix it.
Atom is getting a new archtiecture, I would not be surprised if eventually Intel abandoned the Pentium M derived architectures and then beefed up Atom and made those mainstream chips. They are going to have to make changes, if they are planning on continuing to change what they have now through Skylake they're going to only offer 5% per clock (and maybe better turbo/clocks) per shrink and at most 10% per arch change.
I do not see why people are so vigorously defending a company that is screwing us over. Intel's current plans involve
1. Ignoring us completely and not meeting our demands
2. hurting PC sales by not offering anything enticing to upgrade to
3. focusing on things that don't matter to us (GPU, power consumption, etc)
What bothers me is when people defend Intel's actions, like it's ok we waited so long for this because the GPU is better (it's going to blow on desktop, GT3 is reserved for high end mobile for the most part) and power consumption.
I don't understand why a group of people who are so obsessed with bar graphs in benchmarks are deciding that bar graphs in benchmarks no longer matter and "having a backup GPU in case something goes wrong with your main GPU (like you only have one graphics card in your entire house????)" or "POWER CONSUMPTION!" is more important than a performance increase.
We are enthusiasts, we care about performance. If performance wasn't our top priority, we would all be using Pentium Gs with green 5450s and slow green drives. But it's like we have no problem filling our cases up with 300w graphics cards but when someone lowers CPU power consumption it's the greatest thing ever.
Some of you need to step back and realize the stuff you're saying, it's the most ridiculous stuff I've heard in a very long time. Non of it is based on reality and a lot of you fanboys have no problem contradicting yourselves just to cheer your company on.