Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 13th Nov 2012 22:24 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 542783
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
When Intel did really bad, in the P4 days, they decided to change the architecture, not to try to improve Netburst which was doomed.
That's not really how it was. When Intel did really bad with Netburst, it hardly hurt them thanks to the "influence" they had on OEMs (conversely, AMD was rewarded for its tech lead less than they should).
Intel was pumping out Netburst CPUs for over half a decade, including a major redesign, Prescott (basically deserving a Pentium 5 branding), which was "more Netburst than Willamette & Northwood" - and which performed quite poorly considering the amount of changes, how it required ~2x transistors.
Generally, IPC of AMD CPUs doesn't "suck" ...it's worse, but they are often quite decent (especially when looking at the whole, including GPU; plus http://www.osnews.com/permalink?542521 )




Member since:
2008-09-11
IPC sucks for AMD. AMD actually managed to release worse quad core processors than their old Phenom II line.
When Intel did really bad, in the P4 days, they decided to change the architecture, not to try to improve Netburst which was doomed.
AMD are trying to make small incremental improvements to the failed Bulldozer architecture. To what end will they succeed, we shall see in a few years. Either they recover fast, either they can fill for bankruptcy.
They recently hired back Jim Keller, the guy who lead the design for their Athlon 64 cpus. Let's hope Jim Keller helps them make good architectural choices.
Aside for bad IPC, AMD is a whole process node behind Intel. They are on a 32 nm process, while Intel is on 22.
They have to coerce Global Foundries in changing the process much faster or try to negotiate with other fabs, maybe TSMC. Intel will switch to 14 nm in 2013, Global Foundries might stay on 32.