What was the last AMD cpu to be better than Intel's competitor?

>>46822817
AMD X2 vs Intel Pentium D.

Once Intel abandon netburst and went back to core, AMD started slipping further and further behind in performance.

>>46822817
AMD started out making intel clones and was known as that company making budget intel rip-offs.

>>46822817
>better
Define the word first. Moar cores? Clock speed? Power consumption?

>>46822817
The Athlon X2? The Phenom wasn't that impressive against the Core 2 (the cache lockup bug didn't help) and the Phenom II wasn't enough of an improvement.

>>46822817
July 27, 2006 marked the end of AMD as top dog in the CPU market.

The AMD Athlon 64 namely the SanDiego architecture was the fastest AMD per core at the time.
Once Conroe came it was over.
But it wasn't over, see Intel had a second stake to jam into AMD's heart. The Kentsfield.
The day was November 2, 2006 and Intel had already buttblasted AMD, and now they did it at twice the performance.

As a previous owner of said SanDiego 3700+, I bid the last AMD and best AMD I had farwell.
It raped hte P4 EMT64 and P4HT, but it's time is over, AMDs time is over.

>>46822977

Performance per dollar.

Fuck power consumption.

>>46822817

Athlon XP. Pentium 4 was shit but not near as shitty as socket 939 AMD.

>>46823049
~Fuck power consumption.~
-Bulldozer

>>46823079
>Bulldozer
>beating Intel
The i3, maybe.

Athlon 64 FX

>>46822817
8350 vs whatever i5

>>46823079

Well then an Intel Atom beats everything that we've got guys.

Better give up on desktops.

>>46822817
Wasn't the phenom x6 god of it's day

>>46823089
>>46823101
I don't think you know what Bulldozer did.
It's slow, it's power hungry.
It lost both performance and TDP.

I lose faith in the Intel brethren intellect.

>>46823119
No, it lost to the Bloomfield even if it had more cores.
C2D/C2Q and newer had too much IPC performance for AMD.
Even with the 4+4Module AMD (later FX series) it lost to i5's.

>>46823119
Even now like 50% of applications can't into multithreading and in cases where something is running slow or stuttering, a single thread is holding it back in almost all cases.

There were even fewer properly multithreaded applications back then; a 6-core CPU was pointless for almost everyone.

It's kinda funny because all this GTX970 hate with it's slower 0.5GB, is actually close to how the AMD modules work since it's not really 8 cores, but 2 modules in each core that share the same bandwidth and cache.

>>46823150
>I lose faith in the Intel brethren intellect.

Why?

I never claimed the bulldozer architecture to be anything it wasn't. It was, however, the most economical in terms of processing power per dollar.

File: 3824.png (45KB, 465x581px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 465x581px

Pic related looks like single thread performance.

>>46823251
It was cheap because it was low performing.
The Intel alternatives where faster and overclocked better since they had lower TDP.

>>46823049

>Performance per dollar.

By that metric they're better right now.

>>46823119
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/142?vs=203

No.

It had advantages for the price, just as the FX 8320 can beat a consumer-grade i7 in some things, but it was never top dog. i5 750 was usually better for most things, i7 860 even more.

athlon > athlon x2. when core 2 came out intel won again

How is AMD supposed to beat Intel nowadays when Intel is on 14nm and AMD is still on 28?

>>46823280
OP asked for the last time they were better than Intel. Hint: if you can't price it over your competitor, your product isn't better.

AMD had $1000 processors back in the day. Now they have nothing worth buying over $120, while Intel still has $1000 processors.

>>46822945
>>46822977
you must be new

>>46822817
Anything before the Core 2 Duo stuff.

>>46823374
meant to reply to
>>46823251

>>46823319
made a TL;DR of
>>46823021

>>46823381
Nah, AMD K6 was shit.

>>46823374
I figured since it looked detached from my post. :)

>>46823280
>mfw my 7 year old C2Q is still comparable to the APUs

>>46822945
Nigga are you srs? AMD was originally licensed to make processors for intel, but Intel broke the agreement in 1986. AMD then filed arbitration and the courts decided in AMD's favor. Saying that they started off making intel ripoffs is a bad lie and you are a blatant fanboy.

File: kek.jpg (9KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 200x200px

>>46823431
mfw, I lent my C2Q to my stepdad, and he still uses it.
mfw I got back one of the other C2Q I lent, back now and turning it into a server (Stacker STC-T01)
These C2D/C2Q still lives on stronk.

>>46822945
There were a lot of companies making intel clones, retard. AMD's 386s were faster than intel's, and their 486s were performance competitive for a cheaper.

>>46822817
whatever was before conroe

>>46823471

>bought C2Q Q6600 in 2007
>gave my friend my old Q6600 OC'd at 3GHz.
>2015
>check up his computer.
>Shit is running like a champ

kentsfield was the shit

File: lp-2.png (4KB, 500x274px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 500x274px

>>46823551
I know right :D

Bought my E6600, back in dec 2006, upgraded to a Q6660 three months later because fuck yeah.

All games was dandy, then came LP:EC.
>Dayum~

>>46822817
Better for what purpose?

>>46823653
computing? there is literally nothing AMD does better other than price

>>46823692
Heating.

>>46823692
They don't do price better, they have to place price that low to even get people to buy their stuff.

>>46823234
Better than an i7 "8-core" which is just 4 normal cores that can process instructions of one pipeline while the other is stalled

>>46823723
http://ark.intel.com/products/82930/Intel-Core-i7-5960X-Processor-Extreme-Edition-20M-Cache-up-to-3_50-GHz

>>46823374
son are you some kind a tard

File: multi-fps.gif (10KB, 480x461px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 480x461px

>>46823723
>Better than an i7 "8-core" which is just 4 normal cores that can process instructions of one pipeline while the other is stalled.
Hohohowoah, look at those "8" core AMDs getting beat by Intel 4 core + 4 threads.
Unlike AMD, Intel actually states them as 4 cores with 8 total threads instead of 8 cores with 8 threads.

While we're on the more cores race.
http://ark.intel.com/sv/products/75251/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E7-4890-v2-37_5M-Cache-2_80-GHz
Check mate, and rekt.

Oh and what >>46823723 said.

>>46823100
No one can be this retarded

>>46823837
>the Ford Focus is better than the Ferrari 458 because it's cheaper.

>>46823869
We all know that Intel beats AMD on single-threaded benchmarks (most shittily programmed games), it's been nearly 4 years FFS.

>>46822817

Intel didnt really start hurting AMD in the performance market till the Core series, up till then AMD was either extremely competitive or out performed Intel. AMDs been hurting for about 10yrs now performance wise, most of their problems have been poor management that likes to blow money and have no idea what theyre doing.

File: AMD K6-2 550AGR 01.jpg (424KB, 1000x997px) Image search: [Google]

424KB, 1000x997px

>>46823049
>Performance per dollar.

By that AMD is continuously better since based K6-2/3 CPU

>>46823723
The instructions per clock gap is becoming so huge the AMD 8-cores are about tied with Intel i5 quads though.

File: 5bcf87a4b959b61cac65f2ae99fd17c88e448135.gif (1014KB, 185x228px) Image search: [Google]

1014KB, 185x228px

>>46823869
>skyrimjob
>an example of a multithreaded application

>>46823905
AMD is too optimistic about programmers being capable of utilizing their cores. Intel realizes that most don't give a shit, so they optimize for the 1-2 thread (with tons of branch misprediction) use case, and it's worked out for them thanks to the retarded game industry.

File: 56739.png (50KB, 650x650px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 650x650px

>>46823869

Mean to quote >>46823833, and I'll add >>46823837 as well.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7757/quad-ivy-brigde-ex-60-cores-120-threads/9

>>46823901
And they beat AMD in multi threaded programs as well.
With 25-45~ % lower MHz.

>>46823930
Post more cute gifs, that way you contribute something.

>>46823913
Celery destroyed them. It wasn't until Duron that AMD could beat Celery's performance per dollar.

>>46823988
And even then Celerons was the budget versions of the MMX Pentiums.

>>46823951

agreed

Though the few programs that actually do use their cores see some competitive performance numbers vs i7, but those are few and considering Bulldozer is getting a bit long in the tooth we can hope maybe they refocus on per core performance like they should have a long time ago with Zen. Even if they dont end up current i7 levels if they manage even close to haswell on per core they will be much more competitive.

>>46824036
If they can take a chunk out of the gaymen market (where the general consensus is "AMD is shit") they'll be much better off, I think. I like how programmer-friendly they are (all that work on GCC 5, hnnng) but they need to work harder on convincing the consumer.

File: doom3-oc.gif (15KB, 433x423px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 433x423px

>>46822817
the good ol' times

>>46823988

Holy fuck Celerons are shit.

I'm never going back to them again.

>>46823988
>performance per dollar

I don't think you understand what that means

>>46824140
>He'll never have his workcenter sup ask him how his $100 Celery is beating their $450 Pentium II 400 in Seti@Home

>>46824060

yup....funny how quickly everyone forget when AMD use to be on top

>>46824207
Most never forgot, it's just the most people that are on 4chan are too young to know that such a thing happened.

>>46824060
It was a great moment when my cheap Athlon 64 beat the P4 Emergency Edition in my friend's ricer PC.

I think he finally replaced it after it blew the VRMs off two motherboards.

>>46824297
>P4 EE.
Your friend was stupid.
He should've just overclocked the P4.
I have a P4 524 that I stored away that got to 4.87GHz on air with a Noctua NHU-12P.
The P4EE was just overpriced.

File: 1425220624443.jpg (58KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 400x400px

God could you imagine if it was like 2003

And you just built an epic $3,000 rig

Pentium 4 2.4ghz
GeForce FX 5800
512mb RDRAM

Just a complete fuckup of a system that would be blown the fuck out by an Athlon XP/Radeon 9700 rig that cost HALF as much

How mad would you be

It's a shame that was the only time that the B team ever absolutely, unequivocally won. Maybe some day Intel and nVidia will fuck up that bad again?