[citation][nom]amnotanoobie[/nom]http://techreport.com/discussions.x/7417Yes it was faster in some productivity apps, but is the ~20% performance increase worth the 30% increase in power consumption (and relatively, heat)?Northwood was "good" compared to Athlon XP's, but with Prescott Intel was fighting with raw clockspeed with little regard to power consumption or heat. They just wanted to top the benchmarks in any way possible.Did the Athlon 64 consume less power? YesDid the Athlon 64 produce less heat? YesDid the Athlon 64 outperform the Pentium 4? SometimesWas the Athlon 64 cheaper than the Pentium 4? Sometimes, but sometimes it was also more expensive.AMD being left out since the Core 2, is their own damn fault for being too confident with the X2 and FX line. Nehalem is just an additional kick in the balls, but AMD is starting to catch-up with Intel (though a little bit slowly). AMD seems to be more concerned now with selling by volume rather than getting the performance crown.I would have gone with the Athlon 64 before, but Intel seems to be priced lower before where I live.[/citation]
I'm confused if you have a reading problem, or you're grandstanding.
I never said the Pentium 4 was a better processor. I actually skipped it, because I hated it. But, I did say the Intel line was not slower for 9 years, and the Pentium 4 was not slower at every application. The top of the line Nehalem has a much more decided speed advantage over AMD processors.
Stick to that argument. I don't remember saying anywhere that the Pentium 4 was broadly a better processor than the Athlon 64.
But, to answer your question, I would take a processor that went 20% faster for 30% more power use in many situations. Think of engineering firms and other situations where the major cost is payroll. Electrical issues are insignificant. So are the costs of the processor. A lot of people whine about the $1000 processors because they can't afford them, and they don't make any sense in their situation, but when you're paying people $50+ an hour, and these things are saving time, they quickly recover their cost (also keep in mind big companies DO NOT overclock, I almost got fired for suggesting it years ago).
There were situations where the Pentium 4 was the better processor, albeit not that many. Outside of cost considerations, it's very difficult for me to say that about AMD processors. And it's not like AMD processors are so much smaller and easier to make - they are priced less because they can't sell them for more, not because they are cheap to make.
They are still good enough for most people, but, Bulldozer needs to come soon, and be much better than what they have now. Otherwise, they'll be back in their traditional bottom-feeder role for a long time. They can still survive with that though, especially with ATI, as long as the processor doesn't get too big. I wouldn't even mind them ceding the high end to Intel, and make a smaller processor that's cheaper to make - not as pathetic as the Atom, but small enough that they can undersell Intel and still meet the requirements for the mainstream market.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram