ethomaz said:
|
fordy said:
As mentioned before, the fact that AMD outperformed Intel for that time wasn't because the Athlon architecture was entirely spectacular, rather it was Intel's stubbornness to embrace NetBurst as part of it's marketing ploy to "make clockspeed count". This became more evident when Intel eventually scrapped NetBurst and moved to Core architecture, and overnight we saw Intel CPUs once again outperforming Athlons, despite the fact that Athlon had an on-die MMC. Once Intel followed suit with an on-die MMC in Nehalem, it only pushed their performance even more strides ahead of AMD.
|
The K8 architecture was really spectacular... it did miracle in performance until Intel moved to Core 2 (the first Intel Core was still below what AMD had at that time).
Core 2 changed everything...
|
You do realise that the first Intel Core was built entirely around a mobile concept, right? Desktop performance considerations weren't added until Conroe. The BRAND "Core" (actually codenamed Yonah) had nothing to do with Intel's architectural Tick-Tock "Core" phase (Which is where the Core 2 started)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conroe_(microprocessor)
