So iam just curious, I got into this sorta stuff about a year or so ago, according to some people AMD was once the king of CPUS? Then what happend Intel started beating them all of a sudden or did amd did just fall back? i guess what iam trying to say is how did Intel pass them up was it something amd messed up on or was Intel just better?
AMD's golden period was around 1999-2006. The K7 and K8 designs were very serious competitors with Intel's lineup, and AMD was usually beating them out performance-wise with the Athlon XP, and soon after they kinda slapped Intel around with their K8 Athlon 64's. 2006 was around the time AMD began falling behind, and this was the same year that they did indeed buyout ATi. They did this way back then for the purpose of what used to be called "Fusion" (a.k.a. The Future Is Fusion, etc.) which is basically HSA and such. Funny thing is how back then, AMD were the ones who told everyone "IPC is more important than clockspeed" and it was proven with Intel's P4 Netburst which has lived on in infamy since then. An Athlon 64 would outperform a much higher-clocked P4 Netburst chip, for example. Funny how years later, the tables have turned...
There were a lot of things, such as bad management decisions and lots of delayed products, products shipping with issues, etc. A lot of people put the blame on Dirk Meyer and Hector Ruiz, who later were ousted from the company. Barcelona (K10) was initially delayed and was late, and by then Intel had debuted their Core 2 architecture where they took the performance crown and have kept it ever since. The first Phenom series, after it arrived late suffered from low clockspeeds and lower performance than Intel's chips, had issues like the TLB bug, etc. which were fixed with later revisions. Then later AMD released the Phenom II series which, while a lot better than Phenom I, still didn't take back the performance crown. When PII launched though, it was very competitive price/performance-wise with Intel's equivalent chips.
It's worth noting that Bulldozer itself was scrapped once or twice and got delayed. There was a lot of hype surrounding the original Bulldozer which from what I've read in the past, was supposed to launch in 2008 or so. There were some sort of issues or something that caused AMD to scrap it and start over, and eventually we got the 2011 version which released to a pretty lukewarm reception, to put it mildly.
Do you guys think Amd and Intel will be tied in cpu performance soon, or has Intel drifted way to far ahead for them to catch up (single core) performance? Also the Overall quality of the chip itself,would you guys say Intel has the better product in terms of being able to handle more heat? As apposed to amds chips?
I think AMD could catch up with Excavator, since Intel hasn't been making huge strides in performance for quite a while. Haswell was fast indeed, but not much faster than Ivy Bridge. Intel has made it clear that it is focusing more on improving power consumption and things of that nature, mainly for the mobile products, which is mainly where Haswell delivered. What is really happening with CPU performance is that we're kind of hitting a ceiling with performance. Current CPU's are very powerful and we won't be seeing such massive increases generation-to-generation like we used to.
In regards to handling more heat and such, one of the criticisms of Ivy Bridge and to an extent, Haswell is that they run really hot, especially once overclocked. This was caused by problems with their IHS's, which led to people "de-lidding" their chips to reduce temperatures to much better acceptable levels. Bulldozer was known for running real hot, mainly the octocore chips, and Piledriver is mostly the same once you start overclocking with the 83xx chips. So honestly, assuming most enthusiasts would overclock, both companies make chips that you can beat the s*** out of, the user just has to be prepared to manage their temps a little better and potentially be ready for some modifications.