![]() ![]() Intel's Nehalem design is similar, except even more heavily threaded programs. AMD's design is for smaller programs, heavily threaded. Made me realize that AMD's K8/10 cache design is the main reason for its poor performance in desktop apps vs Core2. 0g1 - Thursday, link Interesting article.But with reasonnably comparable performance/price ratio, it's AMD for me. ![]() If they produced only crap, then I would be the fool sinking with the ship. If they go down, you can kiss competition good bye (customer morals)ĭon't flame me as a fanboy, it's like buying bio-food guys, it comes down to choice. But I will still buy AMD CPUs for 2 (maybe questionable) reasonsġ) I have had them for 5 years, they still work fine, never had any problems (customer loyalty)Ģ) AMD is the underdog. Yes I know the Core Duos 2/4 cores are overall better products on the Desktop. I just need a relatively performing CPU, like most people do. For day to day work/gaming, it does not matter if I get 5 FPS more or less. I don't have time to read every site and every benchmark to identify which Intel/AMD is superior in every given situation. I am suprised nobody has mentioned the obvious (or may have, some comments are really long). magagne - Friday, link This is all very interesting, a lot of insightful comments, as usual a great job by Johan,love it.POST A COMMENT 74 Comments View All Comments ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |