Quote Originally Posted by -Boris- View Post
No, not at all. I say that this architecture have a hard time competing even in hand picked tests made by AMD themselves against mid-end processors of an older architecture not pushed at all. You can clearly see that Intel isn't pushing SB, it's capable of much higher stock clocks than it's running on, Intel has hardly pushed the launch of versions with more cores either. The three year old Nehalem architecture (wich launch was hardly hurried) is still superior to this latest "monster" from AMD. And that's on an older manufacturing process! And in this business 3 years is alot.

It's three years between the release date of Coppermine 733Mhz and Pentium 4 3.06GHz with HT. Not being able to beat a 3 year old architecture is a failure. It doesn't seem to be any IPC improvements to talk of either, something AMD promised us, an eightcore being beaten by a quad isn't success either.
Are we looking at the same slides? take the one where there is several apps comparing fx with 2500/2600k. It slots right in the middle. I don't really see how is that a hard time to compete????
And do you buy a cpu for its IPC? What happens if that IPC is coupled with much higher clock?
But of course, maybe you are one of those strange people who will take FX cpu and clock it down to some other (competing or AMDs) cpus levels and make a whole article about how FX sucks.
I don't even know why I keep responding to such a trolling :/