Why AMD is doing poorly - after Intel leapfrogged them with Core 2 Duo, they responded with Phenom, which was unimpressive, then Phenom II, which basically matched Core 2 Duo. Then Intel leapfrogged them again with Nehalem (Core i7), and 3 years later, AMD responds with Bulldozer (FX 8100 series), an architecture that performed worse than the existing Phenom II chips clock for clock, but had more cores and had higher clockspeeds (sounds like P4).
AMD has made some enhancements to the original Bulldozer architecture, but it basically has raised itself to a 2nd gen i7, in terms of IPC. Meanwhile Intel has made more strides and has had die shrinks to fall back on- the original i7 was 45nm and today it's 14nm, while the original Bulldozer was 32nm, and until very recently was stuck at that node (now it's 28, which is basically the same). Intel has its own fabs, so they don't need to rely on other companies for manufacturing, while AMD is stuck if Globalfoundries or TSMC is stuck.
This translates to Intel always having the better-speed processors, and usually they have a large power savings advantage over AMD chips as well (Carrizo might change this). The only advantage to AMD chips right now is that they're inexpensive, especially if you want to do stuff that involves multi-core, and Intel chips haven't really fallen enough in price to make them viable if you're poor.
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
