| BlueFalcon said: If you are saying you need 2 more cores and faster per core performance, that means you won't switch unless AMD is at least 33% faster at the same price? (8 faster cores vs. 6 slower cores?) |
Of course. Because anything else would be a side-grade/down-grade.
I am MORE than happy to spend $1,000 on a processor if it means I'll get tangible improvements, AMD doesn't release such a chip, they don't get my cash.
(And mark my words, I have had plenty of AMD processors since the K6-2 when they hit the right price/performance.)
It would be utterly stupid of me to downgrade to an AMD FX when I'm pretty much at the top of the performance stack CPU-wise anyway.
Heck, I probably won't upgrade to Ivy-Bridge-E unless Intel throws a couple more cores at it, I don't see the point spending another $600 - $1,000 on a processor for a 2-10% performance increase when I could drop in another GPU for less and overclock my CPU harder.
| Soleron said: AMD's problem isn't performance-per-$. It's performance-per-watt (on servers and laptops), and overall a huge die size disadvantage (315mm^2 vs 160mm^2) that makes it difficult to profit. And there is no foreseeable way for AMD to catch up on these metrics. By all means if it's tested faster than the same priced Intel CPU in the game you want to play then buy it, just don't expect them to be solvent for much longer. |
In the mobile sector, AMD's performance per watt is actually rather competitive because of the resonent clock mesh found in AMD trinity which allows it to scale in clockspeed rather well whilst keeping the power consumption down, with Llano you may have been right.
As for servers, AMD is answering that segment with ARM based chips, but they could also use Kabini or Brazos for that too. (There is a reason why AMD bought Seamicro after all!)
Besides, AMD would rather sell you a "good enough" processor and a really really awesome IGP that can actually play games and has far superior graphics drivers to that of Intel.
You also forget that in general a GPU is far far far better at floating point calculations than a CPU is, so if/when HSA kicks off and the GPU unloads some of the CPU functions those "crap" AMD processors will suddenly start to fly, we are probably a fair way off from that future though, but it is getting closer as GPU's get more and more programmable and get closer to the CPU cores on-die.
Don't let the blind faith in Intel fool you, both of these companies only give a crap about one thing. - That is to get your money via the means of selling you products for as much money as possible, they won't send you flowers and cake as a "thank you".
If you the BEST possible single-threaded performance regardless of how cheap or expensive the processor is, go Intel.
If you want the BEST IGP or you want it cheap and provides "good enough" performance then AMD is the answer.
www.youtube.com/@Pemalite
