so long as they are not faked they will only get better.Eh, in my view, any performance numbers coming in from ESs (engineering samples) are pretty useless since they don't represent the final retail product.
Stupify wrote:After re-looking at those numbers, it seems that BD may not be the savior that AMD needed. It is a little here and there faster than 2600K and will only be 4-6Months earlier than Ivy Bridge.
Stupify wrote:read the actual posts and they have the numbers in there.
I agree with this, when AMD grows 100X larger and almost gets to be as big as Intel then I'll expect them to compete with Intel directly but the fact that their new cpu can beat todays parts is quite an achievement for them, given Intel's superiority on all things manufacturing it'll be no surprise that Intel will squeeze AMD again but at least things are getting better for consumers because of AMD's work.You must be Joking....That is big Achievement from AMD's point of View. At one point they were lagging behind INTEL now if they take the Crown for even 6 months is Big for AMD.
don't get me wrong I'm not dogging you but that period happened to be an exciting time in PC evolution that I happened to have been present for and I'm just enjoying the memory ....... by mentioning the period where AMD had an extended lead you have to consider all aspects that affected it.If you look at the history - AMD had massive performance lead over P4 back in the early days of A64s yet they couldn't capitalize as much because Intel just squeezed them on the price perspective and their "rebates" (for exclusivity). Intel's behavior has left joe blow still thinking AMD is an inferior product regardless of the reality
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest