Would AMD have been better off just shitcanning bulldozer and

>>60308073

lel, glabics carbz.

Well they did shitcan bulldozer.

But to answer your question, probably not. Piledriver was okay, just 3 years behind the game.

File: moar cores.png (164KB, 1261x709px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 1261x709px

>>60308152
I bought my 8350 last year for a reason.
Mind you, not expecting to be able to upgrade for a while, and would want to re-purpose what I got.

>>60308073
Budget, Intel no doubt have more then one team

Piledriver was decent
Beats ivy bridge i5 in gaming and i7 in productivity

>>60308073
yeah definitely. we would have decent cpus with decent prices 3 years ago.

>>60310729
Exept it cant even beat sandy i5 in gaming you mouthbreathing retard

>niggers defending piledriver and bulldozer

Just admit amd fucked up with those cpus. Fucking shills

>>60308073
Probably, but Ryzen is a really good start. They just need to up clocks and IPC a bit and they will be very competitive.

>>60311524
>implying it's not competitive as-is

>>60308073
They could have just released an 8 core K10 CPU on 32nm, with the north-bridge running at the core clock speed and it would have been faster than Bulldozer in just about every way. An 1090T beat the 8150 in most benchmarks apart from highly multi threaded integer workloads.

>>60308073

Probably. Even excavator was still massively behind and that was after years of engineering.

>>60312976
>>implying it's not competitive as-is

It's competitive with haswell, a 4 year old uarch. It would not be competitive in any sense of the word (except maybe price) if Intel was not complacent and actually released their HEDT lineup at reasonable times instead of 2 years late.

>>60311524
It's faster than anything Intel IPC wise, the only reason Intel pulls ahead in benchmarks are higher clocks or compiler shenanigans
>>60313762
It would had been quite a bigger die too, and thus somewhat more expensive to produce