• aard@kyu.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 months ago

    One thing I find very amusing about this is that AMD used to have a reputation for pulling too much power and running hot for years (before zen and bulldozer, when they had otherwise competetive CPUs). And now intel has been struggling with this for years - while AMD increases performance and power efficiency with each generation.

      • schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yeah, the Prescott P4s and the dual-core P4s were both extremely good at being space heaters while also being extremely bad at being a CPU.

        The whole P4 era was a suckfest for Intel, and they didn’t really shake the slow, hot, power hungry thing until Sandy Bridge (so basically 2000 to 2011 ish). And before anyone mentions them, Core/Core 2 were MUCH more performant and certainly better performance-per-watt than the X2/X4 Athlons, but still not particularly efficient in comparison to Sandy Bridge and later.

        I’d also argue Bulldozer wasn’t necessarily a bad uArch, but it just had a couple of poor design decisions that made sense historically but did not really work in practice, and had fucking awful timing going up against Sandy Bridge, which was fucking excellent.