Shadow_Monkey8192 :
I just have to say it you just can't defend AMD anymore, and for good reason, their is just nothing worth denfending they just SUCK.
I'll admit that he's wrong in bringing out a July 2007 article with outdated CPU's on both sides as a comparison, but AMD does not "suck". Even the Phenom isn't that far behind the current equivalent Intel quad core. Just look at the benchmarks in Tom's CPU guide.
In most cases, the benchmarks are closer than Intel was to X2 in the Pentium D days. Where Intel wins is in the "enthusiast" market, at the high end, where AMD has absolutely no offering. Since the 45nm Phenom's will be competing against new Intel architecture, but with only basically improved X2 architecture, I expect there to be greater gaps than at present. Even Swift will not close the gap, but will position AMD in the budget/mainstream category.
That does not mean "suck". Intel fanboys are just as trollish as AMD fanboys. AMD got complacent during the days they led with X2, just as Intel got stubborn with Netburst for a few years. When AMD pays off the debt incurred by buying ATI, then they'll be able to put more money into R&D and will probably have a decent offering at the high end.
Via CPU's suck for gaming. AMD does not. Intel didn't suck totally during Netburst days, they were just on the wrong track and they kept their market share and R&D money by foisting a slightly inferior processor on the "Dude you got a Dell" segment of the market. They had quite a bit of help with that, as many OEM's selling in big box stores did not want to buck the "Intel inside" trend.
Me, I'll upgrade to either a really good X2 for a year, or will just give 65nm Phenom a try. I have a couple of ASUS 690G boards that can handle a Phenom with the available bios flash. Were I building a new system right now, I might consider Intel, except their business practices actually suck. AMD's management sucks. Neither of them has tech that sucks, not even during the Netburst days.
Yes, AMD had the thermal advantage during the X2 vs. Netburst "war" but Intel has it today. We will see who has it when there are new architectures from both companies.
Shadow_Monkey8192 :
I dont hate AMD they have made some great processors in the past and I have enjoyed using them all they way. But I have lost respect for them this past year with their flat out lies and their stupid attempt to fool the consumer. If AMD ever falls their just no one else blame but AMD, I just hope they can better themselves to keep raising the bar, but it seems unlikely as of right now...
I almost hate Intel. They began the PC processor revolution, but their flat out lies and successful fooling of the consumer during Netburst days made me want to buy from any other company than Intel.
The fanboys I feel sorriest for are the Nvidia fanboys. They've got to be hurting since Intel decided to take AMD up on their offer of free Crossfire, plus the fact that AMD almost bought Nvidia. Now, SLI will mostly show up on new Nvidia chipset boards for AMD processors, while Crossfire shows up on both AMD and Intel platforms as the new defacto standard.
Me, I only buy one card per PC, so I'm looking forward to Swift and better hybrid Crossfire in 2009. What is going to happen to hybrid SLI when AMD integrates a 3000 series GPU as a core alongside 2 or 3 K10 cores? Will AMD eventually give up on CPU's without a GPU core, or will those just exist for the notebook market and budget desktop hybrid Crossfire market?
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram