Quote Originally Posted by rk7p5 View Post
AMD may be slightly behind in performance, but how can you say they are leaps behind in technology? 1st with imc, true dual cores, native quads...
Unfortunately none of these technical benefits gave any significant boost in performance over contemporary Intel CPU's. It was AMD's CPU archithecture that made them superiour to Intel's netburst.
Actuallly, Intel technically "inferiour" products blew AMD out of the competition. Likewise it was the *architecture" (PIII/Dothan based) that was the critical success factor.
Only the "green team" can be blind for these facts.
BTW.
Intel's first imc CPU's (Nehamlem) do not benefit that much of this technology either.
On desktop ecpecially.
PII "goodness" depends on better power consumtion compared to Agena, *AND* excellent OC-ability compared to its predecessor (for the enthusiasts).
EOS.