Amd has had better chips at a lower price point since always.
You can get a 8 year year old octocore that still destroys anything Intel has put out recently.
Intel relies on inertia. Amd consistently beats them on actual performance at a lower price. I remember my 386 dx 2 had better performance than an Intel 486. And let's not forget the p4 issues with their garbage ram. Plus they backdoor their chips with stupid insecure crap
I'm not sure where you get this impression, but Intel held the performance crown over AMD since releasing the Core architecture. In fact, things were looking pretty dire for AMD during the Phenom days when their highest-tier offering could only match mid-tier Intel chips in performance, so they had to compete solely on price. [1] AMD's stock price during this era was the lowest it's been since like 1980.
It's only with Ryzen that AMD reached performance parity with Intel once again.
The core 2 duo was crap, the celeries were mediocre, the p4s in combo with rdram were junk and a total failure with shitty performance. Amd really should have held the crown during those years, so I don't know why you think Intel was a consistent winner. Most of the chips they made from 2000-2010 were less than great. Intel outright didn't have a good chip for a very long time. Like I previously stated you can buy an octocore and that's still beats most Intel offerings for far less. If anything Intel is mid tier with a huge mark up on price.
Stock price doesn't determine CPU quality. AMD stock is a whipping boy for shorting..and an easy way to profit on when those professional investors are constantly wrong. (I've invested in AMD over the last 20 years and there is an extremely predictable cycle in stock price. though just a disclaimer, I currently do not hold any AMD stock)
> so I don't know why you think Intel was a consistent winner.
Because I read the benchmarks. Intel was winning by such a huge margin that AMD nearly bankrupted themselves trying to compete on price. Intel didn't even need to dip into their margins at all because AMD was several generations behind.
Intel beat AMD to 32nm fabrications by over a year, with the gap widening over the next five. Intel got to 14nm in 2015 while AMD just got there last year with Ryzen.
> Like I previously stated you can buy an octocore and that's still beats most Intel offerings for far less
BS. Nothing pre-Zen was competitive with contemporary Intel offerings, much less the latest offerings. As I pointed out, AMD was a generation or two behind Intel for this entire decade.
Yeah, you can still buy these six+ year old CPUs for $90, but, as that review shows, they were barely competitive with 2012 Intel processors. Much less, competitive with CPUs that are two generations newer.
> Stock price doesn't determine CPU quality.
It's a measure of how well a company is doing.
The original Phenom had a major CPU bug that hit once they finally began to gain market-share in the server market. This cost AMD pretty heavily and forced them to cut R&D budgets, which, as stated, put AMD generations behind Intel in tech. This led to a slashing of margins to compete, which put them even further behind Intel.
Oh yeah, and somewhere during all that, they they were the target class action lawsuits for over-stated performance.
This doesn't even get into the Radeon lineup, which totally missed the AI/ML craze that sent nVidia profits to the sky.
I agree with your post, but I did want to point out...
> This doesn't even get into the Radeon lineup, which totally missed the AI/ML craze that sent nVidia profits to the sky.
On the other hand, they scored well on the cryptomining craze. If it wasn't for the fact that an R9 290 was significantly faster at mining than the GeForce 980 GTX, I'm not sure if AMD would still be making GPUs.
Performance per watt/cost vs performance AMD has not been consistently beating them. There is a reason multiple companies continue to get intel after reviewing AMD's current offerings every few years (I'm in one of them to remain nameless)
I absolutely don't believe an 8 year old AMD octacore will "destroy" anything intel has. Sure I imagine a single highly specific and biased test could give AMD the advantage in that one instance, but overall performance AMD has been behind since the pentium M/core2 with only a few products that initially compete or win, only to fall behind again.
You can get a 8 year year old octocore that still destroys anything Intel has put out recently.
Intel relies on inertia. Amd consistently beats them on actual performance at a lower price. I remember my 386 dx 2 had better performance than an Intel 486. And let's not forget the p4 issues with their garbage ram. Plus they backdoor their chips with stupid insecure crap