Come on, AMD (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2015-10-11 00:02 (#Q3P8) Get your act together. Re: Come on, AMD (Score: 1) by bryan@pipedot.org on 2015-10-12 17:23 (#Q8K8) For many years, AMD kept Intel honest and largely pushed the performance to what it is today. With AMD, you would typically get faster clocks, more cores, larger dies, and a cheaper cost. Intel was forced to compete.Remember Intel Itanium? AMD responded with a more sane alternative that even Intel eventually adopted a few years later. SATA 6GB? USB3? AMD's chipsets had them almost immediately, while Intel dragged their feet for years afterwards.Although Moore's Law is still technically alive, they've essentially been "cheating" for the past 5+ years. All those new transistors are being added to the graphics and memory caches; performance of the cores have been relatively stagnant for some time now. For example, compare a 5 year old sandy bridge (i5-2500K) with a brand new skylake (i5-6600K) CPU. See how 5 years has added hardly any additional performance? Granted, the new chips are far more efficient energy wise, and you can now play some low end games on the integrated graphics, but still... Re: Come on, AMD (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2015-10-13 22:43 (#QD0T) At the highest levels, AMD appear to have stopped trying to compete and started looking for "efficiencies" within their business. Looking back to the 1980s, they're going to make themselves so efficient they can't actually build anything.My last AMD CPU was an AMD166, unfortunately. Every time I upgrade they've made another cock-up. I'd love to buy an 8-core AMD CPU with a few gigs of RAM - top performance isn't my goal, it's basically efficient use of my money. They used to be the place to go.
Re: Come on, AMD (Score: 1) by bryan@pipedot.org on 2015-10-12 17:23 (#Q8K8) For many years, AMD kept Intel honest and largely pushed the performance to what it is today. With AMD, you would typically get faster clocks, more cores, larger dies, and a cheaper cost. Intel was forced to compete.Remember Intel Itanium? AMD responded with a more sane alternative that even Intel eventually adopted a few years later. SATA 6GB? USB3? AMD's chipsets had them almost immediately, while Intel dragged their feet for years afterwards.Although Moore's Law is still technically alive, they've essentially been "cheating" for the past 5+ years. All those new transistors are being added to the graphics and memory caches; performance of the cores have been relatively stagnant for some time now. For example, compare a 5 year old sandy bridge (i5-2500K) with a brand new skylake (i5-6600K) CPU. See how 5 years has added hardly any additional performance? Granted, the new chips are far more efficient energy wise, and you can now play some low end games on the integrated graphics, but still... Re: Come on, AMD (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2015-10-13 22:43 (#QD0T) At the highest levels, AMD appear to have stopped trying to compete and started looking for "efficiencies" within their business. Looking back to the 1980s, they're going to make themselves so efficient they can't actually build anything.My last AMD CPU was an AMD166, unfortunately. Every time I upgrade they've made another cock-up. I'd love to buy an 8-core AMD CPU with a few gigs of RAM - top performance isn't my goal, it's basically efficient use of my money. They used to be the place to go.
Re: Come on, AMD (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2015-10-13 22:43 (#QD0T) At the highest levels, AMD appear to have stopped trying to compete and started looking for "efficiencies" within their business. Looking back to the 1980s, they're going to make themselves so efficient they can't actually build anything.My last AMD CPU was an AMD166, unfortunately. Every time I upgrade they've made another cock-up. I'd love to buy an 8-core AMD CPU with a few gigs of RAM - top performance isn't my goal, it's basically efficient use of my money. They used to be the place to go.