Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 27th Feb 2006 17:08 UTC, submitted by Nehru
AMD "The thing I find most interesting in [the] battle of silicon supremacy is just how unbelievably thick (or perhaps slow) AMD has been lately. For the entire life cycle of the Pentium 4 family, AMD was far ahead. The company made the best processors in terms of performance with cost efficiency in mind. However, it had a nice 1-1.5 years of time span where it could've evolved or innovated enough, but it didn't. Granted that AMD is still leading the desktop and server markets in terms of performance, it's not the point. The point is the lack of evolution and innovation from AMD."
Permalink for comment 99938
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Ford Prefect
Member since:
2006-01-16

This is not true. In times of the 386, 486 processors Intel had the problem of Noname-competitors like AMD who brought in some "compatible" processors which weren't as performant as the original ones.

This lead Intel to start a branding like "Pentium", as it wasn't only a number so others couldn't call their processors the same.
Others started to bring out "586" processors or AMD the K5. It wasn't as good as the Pentium, floating point lacked a lot in performance compared to the Pentium!

Even the K6 was still behind Intel. One have to say that it also was much cheaper. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1