How to justify them? No normal office-PC needs more performance. It offers everything most people need @50$.'m all for some low-power (15-45 watt) dual core 45nm variants (and AMD desperately need better mobile variants), but beyond that, I don't see how AMD can justify processors much below (performance wise) their current offerings.
Agreed.So some quick googling leads me to believe the athlon 64x2 architecture launched around 2005 ( couldnt find a specific date ) and everyone knows the core 2 thrashed it.
They didn't perfect it; the large cache just hides it shortcomings (no integrated memory controller -- unfortunately software developers optimized their stuff for that crutch). The power consumption (also the mainboards are pretty hungry) and the clock speeds helped indeed -- thanks to 45nm.Intel perfected that winning architecture by adding more cache and lowering power consumption while vastly increasing clock speeds.
1. They don't need that much cache (see above)While AMD has yet to do any of these things. For the record, adding 2mb of L3 cache does nothing for rendering or anything outside of multitasking. And when compared to the massive boost intel put into the core 2's at L2 ( 12mb ) , which runs at a much higher frequency, its simply left in the dust.
Lack of money. It could be better for sure. Nevertheless the Phenom II offers great value for the money -- just like their graphics card. I don't need Intel right now.Where is the AMD that innovated, brought us the 64bit CPU, led the industry and at times dared to threaten intel's grip on the market. I want my old AMD back. I want a new architecture, I want to be able to brag about having an AMD cpu, and not have to settle for Intel. Intel has moved on, although im not fond of Hyper-threading and the shift to larger L3 caches, why hasnt AMD?