By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
disolitude on 12 September 2013
Edit Thread
CGI-Quality said:
disolitude said:

 

I appreciate the comment above, but I do want to state that I enjoy debating. So yeah if the topic is repetitive, its most likely cause of that... :)

One final statement I want to make is that Intel only pulled ahead of AMD in terms of gaming performance with Sandy Bridge. With the old i7s, they were trading blows with cheaper Phenoms II X4s and getting beaten by the similarly priced Phenom X6 cpus. Sure they had their 1000 dollar i7 980X, but for gaming the price is a non starter. But after Sandy Bridge it was obviously better to go with Intel for high end...

I personally believe that if intel weren't such stingy fucks they could wipe the floor with AMD. They just don't want to set the bar too high but would rather milk every dollar they can out of incremental performance products.

I remember your thread about "Intel toying with AMD". This reminds me of that, but one has to wonder what are they waiting for. I feel the same about nVIDIA. If they have this beastly tech to run all over AMD, what's the hold up?


Competition drives innovation and if Nvidia and Intel arent challenged, they really have no reason to push the bar any higher than expected.

I think that GPU race can swing either way as AMD (ATI) has beaten Nvidia several times in the last 5 years or so. HD5000 series vs GTX 400 and even HD 7900 vs GTX 600 can be considered as a close battle. But on the CPU side AMD really can't compete with intel and Intel smartly recognized that ARM is their biggest competitorr hence why Haswell is all about power consumption.

With that said, if Steamroller does come out on an FX platform and offers a 15-20% improvement per clock over Piledrive FX CPUs, Intel may be persuaded to kick it up a notch.