|
Forum: Internet Links Topic: AMD doesn't suck? started by: TheCatt Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 27 2010,11:22
< Six core chips very price competitive with Intel >For once. Posted by Cakedaddy on Apr. 27 2010,11:23
They've always been price competative. . . they were just behind in performance!
Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 27 2010,11:24
Almost performance competitive, but from the price-performance perspective, this is the best I've seen from them in a long time.
Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 27 2010,11:38
(Cakedaddy @ Apr. 27 2010,13:23) QUOTE They've always been price competative. . . they were just behind in performance! Not always, but recently, yeah. Still kind of annoyed I had to buy an Intel chip in the new machine. Posted by GORDON on Apr. 27 2010,11:55
A few years ago they had about 18 months where they were beating Intel on the price/performance curve. Then Intel dropped prices on their Core 2 chips, and AMD has been playing catch up... until now?
Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 27 2010,12:07
(GORDON @ Apr. 27 2010,13:55) QUOTE A few years ago they had about 18 months where they were beating Intel on the price/performance curve. Then Intel dropped prices on their Core 2 chips, and AMD has been playing catch up... until now? Far as I can tell. EDIT : My Intel hyper-threaded quad core is doing just fine. Posted by GORDON on Apr. 27 2010,12:16
The current machine I am on is a Core 2 Quad, and works great. Was the price/performance leader for a good 6 months. Still just fine, almost 2 years later. Of course I still haven't tried to play Crysis on it.Chip is the Q6600, if memory serves, which it probably doesn't. Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 27 2010,13:53
I still wouldn't buy an AMD laptop chip, but it looks like I would consider them for a desktop/home server now.
|