Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 13th Nov 2012 22:24 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 542844
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 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/15/13 22:44 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
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 )