AMD video cards

Liam Proven lproven at gmail.com
Sat Jul 9 13:09:53 UTC 2016


On 8 July 2016 at 21:03, Dave Stevens <geek at uniserve.com> wrote:
> and in my experience AMD is always better bang for the buck, even
> before APUs. YMMV


No. It's not YMMV or anything.

The Sledgehammer line (Athlon 64/Opteron) were much faster than the
Intel Netburst Pentium 4 chips -- they had considerably higher
instructions-per-clock (IPC).

But Intel Israel's Core processor series came back strongly and since
it was adopted and the Netburst line killed, the Core 2 series have
higher IPC than AMD, and since then, it's only improved.

It's not mileage. It's benchmark figures, actual real-world tests.
Core i5 was faster than Core 2, and since then, successive process
generations have improved Intel's IPC.

On low-end systems, where there isn't the budget for a separate
graphics card, the Fusion APU's on-board GPU is considerably quicker
than Intel's onboard graphics, especially for gaming.

But as soon as there is a budget for a discrete GPU, Intel wins
because it has better CPU performance.


-- 
Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Cell/Mobiles: +44 7939-087884 (UK) • +420 702 829 053 (ČR)



More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list