- Aug 11, 2008
Yea, it was a great success. Look at how it helped them gain market share and take over the server market, oh, wait, I must be confused, that wasnt bulldozer was it? You also forgot to mention high power consumption and the fact that the cherry picked benchmark you managed to dig out doesnt include intel's latest architecture, and in any case appears to be gpu limited, since the top six cpus show identical performance. In any case, this is off topic in a Zen thread.Even if you were to, it wouldn't rebut my statement unless it can be proved that the games that show that my statement seems true were designed in a manner that sabotages performance on Intel. And, even if that were the case it would also have to be proven that your citations aren't examples where performance was sabotaged on AMD.
The bottom line here appears to be that, in contrast with the hyperbole, Piledriver is able to keep up with Sandy in games when they are developed in a manner that utilizes its strengths. That is not a "major disaster" in terms of the architectural design. It just means Piledriver hasn't improved since 2012 which isn't surprising since it's a 2012 architecture. Yes, Sandy is more efficient overall but that doesn't make Piledriver a "major disaster" considering that AMD hardly had the development resources Intel enjoyed.