qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2007
- Messages
- 17,866 (3.00/day)
- Location
- Quantum Well UK
System Name | Quantumville™ |
---|---|
Processor | Intel Core i7-2700K @ 4GHz |
Motherboard | Asus P8Z68-V PRO/GEN3 |
Cooling | Noctua NH-D14 |
Memory | 16GB (2 x 8GB Corsair Vengeance Black DDR3 PC3-12800 C9 1600MHz) |
Video Card(s) | MSI RTX 2080 SUPER Gaming X Trio |
Storage | Samsung 850 Pro 256GB | WD Black 4TB | WD Blue 6TB |
Display(s) | ASUS ROG Strix XG27UQR (4K, 144Hz, G-SYNC compatible) | Asus MG28UQ (4K, 60Hz, FreeSync compatible) |
Case | Cooler Master HAF 922 |
Audio Device(s) | Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Fatal1ty PCIe |
Power Supply | Corsair AX1600i |
Mouse | Microsoft Intellimouse Pro - Black Shadow |
Keyboard | Yes |
Software | Windows 10 Pro 64-bit |
AMD's siamesed cores module architecture has been used for its CPUs since Bulldozer was released over two years ago in October 2011 to disappointing reviews.
It's lead to AMD humiliatingly losing the performance war* against Intel with this design, so I've been wondering why they persist in using it to this day? They've tweaked it a bit here and there, but since it's been over two years now, surely they could design a better architecture instead and take a leaf out of Intel's book to make performance competitive again while being careful not to step on their patents?
For all the usual and obvious reasons, I'd much rather see a strong AMD competing head to head with Intel every generation, rather than this performance monopoly that Intel enjoys.
EDIT: To clarify, what I meant was that AMD lost the performance war when Intel released Conroe way back in 2006, but remained reasonably competitive, with aspirations of matching Intel's performance someday. However, the Bulldozer release cemented just how hopelessly far behind AMD were, completely humiliating them, with the gap only growing wider as time moves on.
It's lead to AMD humiliatingly losing the performance war* against Intel with this design, so I've been wondering why they persist in using it to this day? They've tweaked it a bit here and there, but since it's been over two years now, surely they could design a better architecture instead and take a leaf out of Intel's book to make performance competitive again while being careful not to step on their patents?
For all the usual and obvious reasons, I'd much rather see a strong AMD competing head to head with Intel every generation, rather than this performance monopoly that Intel enjoys.
EDIT: To clarify, what I meant was that AMD lost the performance war when Intel released Conroe way back in 2006, but remained reasonably competitive, with aspirations of matching Intel's performance someday. However, the Bulldozer release cemented just how hopelessly far behind AMD were, completely humiliating them, with the gap only growing wider as time moves on.
Last edited: