avoiding a statement on multicore turbo boosts for all future chips including CFL

[ARikozuM]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Meanwhile everyone else who hates Intel is arguing the exact opposite, that Intel are intentionally holding back innovation and product advancement becasue they are so far in front.

This is a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't". 

[Jito463]

10 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

AMD has literally had their head up their *** for 10 years not providing a single competitive product

First off, it was closer to 6 years.  Secondly, competitive in what fashion?  On the high end?  You're right, AMD didn't have a high end offering to compete directly against Intel.  Mid-range?  Not much to offer, but AMD did have some decent chips.  Low to mid-range?  AMD was actually fairly competitive.  Truth be told, it really wasn't until 6th gen (maaaaybe 4th gen) that AMD was truly not competitive, but even then they still had a semi-decent price-to-performance offering.  And by that point we know they were already working on Ryzen, which finally launched a competitive product against 7th gen.

 

Long story short, 'competitive' isn't some catch-all word that covers all aspects.  You have to define what manner of competition you believe they failed to provide.

[mr moose]

20 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

First off, it was closer to 6 years.  Secondly, competitive in what fashion?  On the high end?  You're right, AMD didn't have a high end offering to compete directly against Intel.  Mid-range?  Not much to offer, but AMD did have some decent chips.  Low to mid-range?  AMD was actually fairly competitive.  Truth be told, it really wasn't until 6th gen (maaaaybe 4th gen) that AMD was truly not competitive, but even then they still had a semi-decent price-to-performance offering.  And by that point we know they were already working on Ryzen, which finally launched a competitive product against 7th gen.

 

Long story short, 'competitive' isn't some catch-all word that covers all aspects.  You have to define what manner of competition you believe they failed to provide.

not only that but with the compiler debacle from Intel, AMD's performance in the enthusiast realm looked worse than it actually was.  When accounting for that and their loss of income from the anti trust stuff, I think they did a sterling job of not going tits up and being bought out by huwaei or something like that. 

[TheOriginalHero]

12 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

I dont understand this logic either. AMD has literally had their head up their ass for 10 years not providing a single competitive product while intel didnt have to even try and intel is the evil company? This is business, you expect companies to dump billions into R&D when in the end it doesnt matter because AMD wouldnt step up. Yeah AMD was the leader in price to performance but that is moot when performance is dukey. 

 

This is not a coke vs pepsi situation since thats opinion based. Intel vs AMD is pure hard numbers based. One being better than the other is a hard fact proven in benchmarks. Paying for a product thats proven worse is a waste of money be it intel, amd or nvidia.

I personally prefer amd over intel as a company (still would buy from intel though) due to how intel behaved in previous years. This video basically sums it up well enough

 

[mr moose]

36 minutes ago, TheOriginalHero said:

I personally prefer amd over intel as a company (still would buy from intel though) due to how intel behaved in previous years. This video basically sums it up well enough

 

I would urge caution when listening to this guy talk about stock process and what drove them.   The market is a very complicated beast and basic CPU performance is not enough by itself to drive prices high as he suggests.  There was also something else happening in the market back then because Intel also had a huge climb within 3 months.