Reminder that a Zen core is at least as powerful as a Broadwell

>>58736234
Reminder that AMD is trash and always make trash CPUs

>>58736234
correct. they won't clock high enough to match though. mark my words.

>>58736234
Yes, and? It's all pointing to me to upgrade to Zen's 8 core. If it's $500-$600, I'm definitely going for it. I might think it over if it's $700+.

>>58736292
They're doing pretty fine on clockspeed if they already got a F4 stepping at 3.6/4.0 stock.
If it can pull another 400Mhz it can already OC better than most Broadwell-E's

File: 1482177860004.png (157KB, 1008x854px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1008x854px

>it's gonna great look at these numbers who even needs real world performance not me lol

>>58736264
Intel has ways more fuckups than AMD on the CPU front, AMD's only spectacular fuckup in the CPU market in 40 years is Bulldozer, the only other minor fuckup was Phenom which was not even a architecture fuckup since it was fixed in B3 stepping, the other fuckup was K5.
But these are fucking nothing compared to Presshot, Itanium, Larabee, iAPX 432, and their own fuckup with P5 FDIV that wasn't nicely fixed with a stepping, but a fucking recall.
What about their complete failure with the atom? What an abortion, mobile market? 14nm and lower lithography woes where they allowed their competitors that were lagging 4 years to close the gap to less than a year?

These magnificent failures would destroy 5 companies over, it's a good thing Intel has more money than sense to live through it all.

>>58736366
>the other fuckup was K5.
K5 wasn't even that much of fuckup. It had great performance per clock, and had a lot of advanced features such as OoE that weren't seen in AMD processors for another decade, it just clocked very poorly and didn't have the floating point performance to match.

>>58736537
It's a minor fuckup as I said.
Bulldozer was the only AMD total miss.