Is it true that Intel is 5 years ahead of AMD?

>>56157200
>not knowing this answer already

>>56157238

Just look how far back in history you must go to find an Intel CPU that performs the same as a new AMD.

>>56157470
7 years?

>>56157200
i had a 920 and x4 965be at around the same time in 2009-2013 and they where lightyears apart

the amd card/boards could not oc for shit and barely beat the older e8xxx and q9xxx series at the time in games

Also the heat and power was fucking abysmal so yeah its true i reckon with 2012 aaymd cpus being rekt by 2009 i7's still

>>56157200
No.


It's 10 years.

>>56157200
Actually it's more the thing is they will keep on slacking until they have serious competition which is pretty sad.

Nvidia has been doing this shit for years too.
Basically jewing hard because all they have to do is release something a tiny bit better than the competition and call it a day instead of putting their state of the art tech in the frontline.

I wish AMD went back to how it was 10 years ago, at least they could fight.

>>56158074
c2d/q also had sse4.1 Something AMD added in bulldozer. In fact q9xxx aged better than phenom 2 despite not being "true" quad cores.

>>56158112
What the fuck are you talking about?
Nvidia has been making great progress lately. 970 trades blows with 780 ti, 1070 beats 980 ti,titan x capable of 4k single gpu gaming.

Let's not forget shit like the 970 using half as much power as the 390, or the 960 using half as much power as the 380.

There haven't been any real advancements in the cpu market in the past 5 years, so intel is more like 10 years ahead by now.

>>56158163
Are you ignoring the fact that the dual core skylake i3 is edging out the quad core i5 2500 while consuming almost half as much power?

Are you intentionally ignoring laptop processors or just being dim witted?

>>56158162
>Nvidia has been making great progress lately

They could do much more anon, that's the issue.
Half the things you listed there are Nvidia competing with their own products because there's nothing else to do.

They have state of the art tech that will never see the light of day for a decade because there's no real competition.

>>56158139
no, they both aged like milk. if you're doing anything cpu intensive you will not have a c2q in 2016, you wouldn't have one in 2012 either.

>>56158420
My q9550 begs to differ.

>>56158443
i went from a q6600 to an i5 4690k, it was a night and day difference. core 2 quads are garbo my man.

>>56157200
5 years in tech is eternity

>>56158206
You don't really believe all that bullshit, do you?

>>56157470
4 years

>>56157200
Z E N

>>56158456
I went from a Q6600 to an i7-6700 and I have yet to use all of this beast's power. But if I had to use my C2Q again, I wouldn't mind.

>>56157200
Make it 10.

File: 1412451173962.jpg (58KB, 807x810px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 807x810px

>>56158095
This.
Intel isn't even releasing their good stuff anymore (or just reluctantly). They are already in monopoly territory and another serious step ahead of AMD would kick them out of business and Intel maybe broken up by the government.

>>56161011
So its Intel interest to avoid AMD bankruptcy
like what happened to Microsoft and Apple in the 90s

Intel stopped progessing with Sandy Bridge, which yes, is 5 years ahead of AMDs current offerings
Zen is just barely going to scratch Broadwell and Kaby Lake will annihilate it

>>56157200
not for long, zen is supposed to be on the same level ipc as broadwell-e

>>56162578
>Kaby lake
literally a .2 ghz overclock rebrand that wont do shit if zen is on par with the IPC of broadwell-e

>>56158074
I remember burning my old athlon x2 good times :^)

>>56157200
schalom goyim!

>>56160873
P O O

File: Screenshot_2016-08-20-10-02-40_com.android.chrome_1471651377436.jpg (67KB, 720x656px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 720x656px

>>56158456
Went from a q6600 to an x5460.

Still not seeing any major reason to upgrade, faster than a sandy bridge i3 but a little behind a Sandy bridge i5.

It's plenty for me

File: katze 2.jpg (4KB, 164x250px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 164x250px

>>56157200
>implying AMD isn't 5 years behind

>>56167981
After zen it would probably be 1 year at best, 2 years expected. Just as long as it has better offering than my e8400 and I'll switch

File: hyper threatening.png (217KB, 550x550px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 550x550px

>>56163040
Well according to latest leaks on wccftech intel is still sticking with 4 core max on mainstream
http://wccftech.com/intel-kaby-lake-desktop-lineup-leak/
So if zen actually can deliver Broadwell level performance (like they promised just a while back) and can compete in price with i7 with their 8c/16t processors we will undoubtedly have a good year for amd.

>>56158456
Core 2 processors are still pretty good for most applications, only problem with them and any other old tech is that the platform does not support modern features.

>>56157200
no, AMD is behind which is different

>>56157200
Yes. Maybe even more. AMD's tech is just god awful compared to Intel.