![]() While the computing industry, CPU enthusiasts, and even AMD itself expected the road to performance leadership to be long, it was actually quite short. AMD later named this architecture Zen, and the launch of its first Zen CPUs in 2017 marked a new beginning for AMD, and although Zen couldn't quite compare to Intel's Core architecture, it wasn't far off. This architecture would be modeled after Intel's: high single-threaded performance, industry-typical cores and threads, and the kind of flexibility that made it suitable for everything from the lowest-end consumer CPUs to the highest-end server chips. For the next six years, AMD would have to subsist on this awful architecture while Intel reached the peak of its supremacy.Īlmost immediately after the Bulldozer debacle, AMD realized a simple rework wouldn't cut it and started working on a brand-new architecture. Its single-threaded performance was trash (first-generation FX chips were actually slower than the Phenom II CPUs they replaced), it consumed tons of power, and at the end of the day, its multi-threaded performance was at best mediocre. So, the company decided to develop this architecture called Bulldozer and bet that multi-threaded workloads were the future of computing.īulldozer wasn't just bad, it was objectively the worst thing AMD ever came up with. ![]() AMD's Phenom CPUs just weren't cutting it against Intel's Core architecture, and something needed to change if AMD wanted to have a shot at leadership again. Only a few years prior, its legendary Athlon desktop and Opteron server CPUs seemed poised to topple Intel, but eventually, AMD lost its grip and Intel cleaned up its act. In the late 2000s, AMD was down on its luck.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |