Originally Posted by IRobot23
I am nitpicking words? Sure why dont you compare FX 8350 to i7 6900K.
If you are intel fanboy, thats okay... but you just cant deny that AMD did really great job there and personally I think that R5 1500X (4C/8T) is already i7 7700K killer.
If Bulldozer came out of the box at 5 ghz and overclocked to 6 ghz on air, no one would have said it was a failure. It failed because it had significantly worse IPC and clock speeds, both stock and overclocked.
Ryzen manages to have IPC almost on par, with stock clock speeds only marginally lower. That's why it's not the failure Bulldozer was. However, its overclocked performance is still significantly behind Intel's overclocked performance, and for overclockers (we are on overclock.net), that is a fail.
Originally Posted by KSIMP88
Let me simplify my point.
Whoever sells the most CPUs wins.
Doesn't matter how great something is. What matters is will the majority of consumers buy it? You need to create a product that is best for the target consumers. That means a better deal than the competition.
Again. It didn't matter when AMD or Intel has the fastest CPU. What mattered was who had the best deals. That's why Intel won for so long. That i5 was priced just right for it's performance.
Brand recognition, product support after the sale, and so on all factor in to what businesses and OEMs buy. Consumers who buy OEM machines are heavily influenced by brand recognition. AMD has a lot of work to do in this regard, as well as working with OEMs to have a broader OEM lineup to attract more attention from consumers.