AMD video cards

Dave Stevens geek at uniserve.com
Sat Jul 9 15:19:33 UTC 2016


On Sat, 9 Jul 2016 15:09:53 +0200
Liam Proven <lproven at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
> 

well, with bang for the buck I always take cost into account.

d

> 



-- 
Reporter to Mahatma Ghandi after his tour of east London
"What do you think of western civilization, Mr. Ghandi?"
Ghandi - "I think it would be an excellent idea!"




More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list