Page 1 of 1
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:22 pm
by TheCatt
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:23 pm
by Cakedaddy
They've always been price competative. . . they were just behind in performance!
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:24 pm
by TheCatt
Almost performance competitive, but from the price-performance perspective, this is the best I've seen from them in a long time.
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:38 pm
by Malcolm
Cakedaddy wrote:They've always been price competative. . . they were just behind in performance!
Not always, but recently, yeah. Still kind of annoyed I had to buy an Intel chip in the new machine.
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:55 pm
by GORDON
A few years ago they had about 18 months where they were beating Intel on the price/performance curve. Then Intel dropped prices on their Core 2 chips, and AMD has been playing catch up... until now?
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 3:07 pm
by Malcolm
GORDON wrote:A few years ago they had about 18 months where they were beating Intel on the price/performance curve. Then Intel dropped prices on their Core 2 chips, and AMD has been playing catch up... until now?
Far as I can tell.
EDIT : My Intel hyper-threaded quad core is doing just fine.
Edited By Malcolm on 1272395412
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 3:16 pm
by GORDON
The current machine I am on is a Core 2 Quad, and works great. Was the price/performance leader for a good 6 months. Still just fine, almost 2 years later. Of course I still haven't tried to play Crysis on it.
Chip is the Q6600, if memory serves, which it probably doesn't.
Edited By GORDON on 1272395796
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:53 pm
by TheCatt
I still wouldn't buy an AMD laptop chip, but it looks like I would consider them for a desktop/home server now.