(05-21-2013, 09:28 PM)Koji Wrote: There is a certain danger of coming off fan-boyish regardless of your side in this discussion, but the benchmarks don't like. For cost, Intel CPUs mop AMD CPUs on per-core basis. (this is what matters to PCSX2)
In heavily multithreaded tasks (video editing, encoding, etc) AMD can often match and beat slightly more expensive intel models... but it comes at a price of heat and electricity... so the short term gain of a cheaper processor with more cores quickly gets off set (within a year or two) due to higher power draw.
Yes, the danger exist. Actually AMD was the first to break the limits on the x86 architecture with the 486DX/4 120, the faster CPU of then. The K6 was a mixed bag, sometimes ahead, sometimes behind the newer release of the concurrent. The K7 broke the close dependency on the Intel and allowed for then a stunning BUS of 200MHz, the base even today.
Is possible to continue in the line AMD has been investing in "more for the clock" approach to what only with the i7 core Intel really answered, before it was happy enough to be more advanced in manufacturing process being able to provide greater clock speed to compensate.
Today the i core is undisputed leader of raw performance but don't get it was always so and don't forget also than AMD was the first to bring a working 64 bits processor after the Itanium failure (despite MS developed a OS to it specifically). Even today are the AMD specifications to drive the 64 bits world.
Anyway, this has nothing to do with the thread, so let me stop this line now.
PS: To avoid possible problems, this is not a personal answer
not to Koji nor to someone else. Just agreeing with him that fanboysm can blind and cause a lot of bias. Besides, the fight between manufacturers can only help the user and the market, the worst that could happen is the concurrency is over.