George Macdonald wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 11:16:29 +0000, Chris wrote:
>>AMD won the performance crown over many years because it threw out the
>>'more cpu cycles, the faster the processor' dogma of previous
>>architectures. It developed more efficient processors that did more
>>per cycle and so its cpus preformed much better and ran a lot cooler
>>than Intel's electric heaters. Its dual-cores were/are exactly the
>>same as the signle core equivalents.

>
> I believe it was AMD's intention to sell backed off dual cores - they
> said so back before C2D came along to put a wrench in the works, and
> initial product was so aligned.


Maybe, but at launch of the X2 the core speed of the top model was the
same as the single-core variant.

> C2D plus price pressure forced them to a
> different path, though I believe the top MHz AMD64 is still a single
> core CPU.


AMD did briefly have the FX 57 which was single core and ran at 2.8GHz
versus 2.6 for top X2. This was because the gamer market (which bought
the FX cpus) wouldn't benefit from dual core. THis was true at the time,
although not any more as more games are making use of SMP. However, the
top rated FX and X2 cpus are both at 2.8GHz now.

>>Now that Intel has taken this onboard and released some very efficient
>>processors which run with slower clock cycles than the previous
>>pentiums (pentium Ms excluded) it has regained the performance crown
>>after many years of playing second fiddle to AMD.

>
> But did they really?... play "second fiddle"?:-) I think only to the
> cognoscenti - amazing what FUD, Mikey & Co. and guys in blue bunny
> suits will do:-)
>


The fact that AMD now have a sizeable server market when 5 years ago
they didn't have /any/ is proof of that