- Joined
- Nov 9, 2010
- Messages
- 5,648 (1.16/day)
System Name | Space Station |
---|---|
Processor | Intel 13700K |
Motherboard | ASRock Z790 PG Riptide |
Cooling | Arctic Liquid Freezer II 420 |
Memory | Corsair Vengeance 6400 2x16GB @ CL34 |
Video Card(s) | PNY RTX 4080 |
Storage | SSDs - Nextorage 4TB, Samsung EVO 970 500GB, Plextor M5Pro 128GB, HDDs - WD Black 6TB, 2x 1TB |
Display(s) | LG C3 OLED 42" |
Case | Corsair 7000D Airflow |
Audio Device(s) | Yamaha RX-V371 |
Power Supply | SeaSonic Vertex 1200w Gold |
Mouse | Razer Basilisk V3 |
Keyboard | Bloody B840-LK |
Software | Windows 11 Pro 23H2 |
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure you're not comparing the same performance tiers there. It's like comparing AMD's budget APU line, to their chips made for avid gamers.Core Solo VS netburst would represent a 40% IPC boost
Intel has always had their performance tiers too, like Celeron, on up to the mega expensive Extreme line.
Like I implied above, it's pretty much a moot point unless it's an apples to apples comparison. Otherwise it's about as silly as CPU speed records, which do nothing to account for actual performance.
Plus you guys are making it sound like Prescott actually hurt Intel as bad as Bulldozer did AMD. It wasn't even a scratch to them, let alone a huge impact. Lots of people were still playing on Northwoods, which held up fine well into Core 2 Duo release. Whereas AMD's Bulldozer disaster set them back quite a bit.
Plus Intel learns a lot better from their mistakes. Have you really seen them make any significant ones since those days? With AMD, the Phenom flop was followed by an even bigger one, and their marketing in general is still a mess.
Last edited by a moderator: