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."
Thread beginning with comment 99893
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
modmans2ndcoming
Member since:
2005-11-09

Apparently you missed the K6-2, K5, and on down. I remember when Cyrex was better than they were.

Reply Parent Score: 1

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I had a k6-2 500, and while not the fastest at math functions, that little darling did everything I needed it to, for 5 years, though the k5 was crap, I agree

Reply Parent Score: 1

Chreo Member since:
2005-07-06

The K6-3 was actually faster then intels processors at the same hz (on int calcs). K5 was a mised opportunity, it started out looking very good but development delays put it almost a generation behind in the end. Luckily the already had a parallell team doing the K6 design. And then we enter into a classic area with the Athlon. From hte Athlon and onwards there simply is no way one can deny that AMD has been very successful in their execution. Very good performance at a very good price.

Reply Parent Score: 1