So it's June...

[x88x]

the P4 dominated all due to more and faster cache. The Pentium-Ds were unrivaled unless we include blowtorches...but that is still a close call.

That's not the way I remember it. Unless I'm seriously mistaken, the Athlon 64's thoroughly trounced the P4's and PD's in every way.

It's also generally been AMD playing catch-up with Intel for the last decade. Intel has been blazing the technology and performance path for too long now.

Again, the Athlon 64 was a very notable exception to this. With it, AMD was the first to introduce a 64-bit architecture (well, unless you count the failboat that was Itanium) and the first to integrate the memory controller into the CPU (something that it took Intel until the first-gen i-series to do).

Interesting that the last time AMD trounced Intel on the performance field was also the last time that they did a complete architecture redesign and the last time they introduced major industry innovations...and also the last major chip release before they acquired ATI (a move that I don't think they have yet fully recovered from financially). Coincidence? I think not. It does stand to reason that Intel more often pioneers major innovations though...their net income was more than 24 times AMD's last year...hell, their net income was more than twice AMD's total assets that year... o_O

[mDust]

That's not the way I remember it. Unless I'm seriously mistaken, the Athlon 64's thoroughly trounced the P4's and PD's in every way.


Again, the Athlon 64 was a very notable exception to this. With it, AMD was the first to introduce a 64-bit architecture (well, unless you count the failboat that was Itanium) and the first to integrate the memory controller into the CPU (something that it took Intel until the first-gen i-series to do).

Interesting that the last time AMD trounced Intel on the performance field was also the last time that they did a complete architecture redesign and the last time they introduced major industry innovations...and also the last major chip release before they acquired ATI (a move that I don't think they have yet fully recovered from financially). Coincidence? I think not. It does stand to reason that Intel more often pioneers major innovations though...their net income was more than 24 times AMD's last year...hell, their net income was more than twice AMD's total assets that year... o_O

I read some old reviews and it looks like I didn't give AMD enough credit. The FX chips were king for a while. I honestly don't remember that being the case...probably because they were all over $1000, which was not the section I was paying close attention to. I still wouldn't call it trouncing though. The reviews put the FX on top by a rather small margin in most benchmarks and the P4s and PDs were on top for several tests in different reviews...especially gaming which is probably what I looked at the most. I remember that the Pentium Ds were unrivaled overclockers with the right cooling...but at stock speeds they weren't as good as I thought.
I also didn't know that Intels original 64-bit chips were a failure and then when they saw AMD64 become successful, they cloned it and rebranded it Intel64...clever...
I apologize AMD.
If it helps get more high end AMD chips on the market again, I'll take one for the team and accept ATI as a gift so they can concentrate on Bulldozer and do it right.

Intel is so big because they have their fingers in other pies such as chipsets, mobos, etc. and they own much of the global enterprise market. AMD is no slouch when it comes to earning though.
AMDs bank account:Intels bank account::Michael Jordans bank account:Bill Gates bank account
...as we've all seen that comparison floating around the net. I guess the reason Intel is richer is because they are nerdier than AMD.

[AmEv]

Anyone know, how's the lesser-known competetion doing?

Transmeta?

*Dead 2009. Argh, why?????

[x88x]

Transmeta?

*Dead 2009. Argh, why?????

*cough*becausetheysucked*cough*

[AmEv]

*cough*productorcompany*cough*

[x88x]

lol, idk, tbh. (wow, that was a bad sentence)... I never actually used any of their products myself, but I remember reading lots of reviews of laptops that used their chips and the reviewers constantly talking about how slow they were...

[dr.walrus]

I had to write about the Crusoe as part of a paper last year, it was a fascinating bit of kit actually. Used an onboard emulator to accept native x86 instructions and convert them into native code. Pretty low power too..

Problem is, the power savings were never totally realised, speed requirements were definitely not met, they tried to get off the ground at the start of the Japanese recession, and, let's face it, what's the point in trying to emulate x86 with a general-purpose architecture - why not just use x86?

If there had been healthy competition in terms of different architectures out there, it would have had a chance. But we've got to face facts, there wasn't and there still isn't - heck, even Macs are rocking x86 now.

The resulting losses were big enough to bury Transmeta for good. The company actually launched the Efficeon, which fixed all the problems with the Crusoe and was a great little low power processor, but by then, the damage was done and noone considered Transmeta a serious alternative.