- Nov 9, 2010
- 5,194 (1.35/day)
|Processor||Intel i7 950 @ 3.2GHz|
|Cooling||Corsair H50 push/pull|
|Memory||Kingston HyperX 1600 8GB|
|Video Card(s)||Sapphire HD 7970 OC|
|Storage||Plextor M5P 128GB/WD Black 2x1TB,1x6TB/Seagate 1TB|
|Audio Device(s)||Yamaha RX-V371 AVR|
|Power Supply||XFX 850w Black Edition|
|Software||W10 Pro 64 bit|
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.