Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 13th Nov 2012 22:24 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 542521
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 14:35 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/11/13 17:07 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/10/13 23:13 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/08/13 14:57 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/07/13 11:40 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/04/13 12:45 UTC
Linked by nfeske on 05/31/13 10:12 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/29/13 16:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
It could be a perception problem. AMD makes good silicon, but in comment threads on the net you find a lot of vitriol against AMD. If you read some threads, you'd believe Intel made something near sentient with the Core architecture and AMD went back to 486 with Bulldozer.
AMD makes good performers with very reasonable pricing, but since they don't take the performance crown (Intel does with a much higher price tag), you have a lot of people proclaiming that AMD sucks and they are getting an Intel part.
I wonder though if they really go for the part that squarely beats AMD in performance and pay the premium for it, or they go for a cheaper part that could have been equally filled performance wise by an Intel or and AMD and then bask in the idea that they got a chip from the company that makes the fastest chips (just not the particular chip they actually bought).