Top AMD RDNA4 Part Could Offer RX 7900 XTX Performance at Half its Price and Lower Power

[ModEl4]

There is 0% chance for RX7900XTX performance at $400.
Although Leakers said only Low-end Navi 43 and 44 for RDNA4, the timing is perfect for a monolithic 4nm Navi 42 part (4nm is probably the last node offering adequate size reduction for cache (1.35X) , it offers the potential for 1.15X frequency jump vs 7nm and by Q4 2024 it will be a mature process offering great yields.Even if RDNA4 is a small iteration focusing only on reducing size in ISO process and extracting a small bump in performance per SE for example (like only 5%) a 4nm 256bit 4SE design with128RBE and 80CU and coupled with GDDR7 (+64MB infinity cache) it will be able to match 7900XTX.It will be 24GB also due to the new GDDR7 increased capacity.This will probably be at $599 offering around +20% raster performance and +6GB vs a RTX 5070 at the same price.The main reasons they don't go for higher-tier models is because the are left behind in features and the vast majority buying $600 and above they will always go Nvidia if AMD offers only 10% more raster performance/$, forcing AMD to these tiers to offer 15-20% more performance/$ + increased memory capacity in order to have a chance making the whole endeavor not very desirable financially for AMD.Also in 2024 we will see increased capacities in memory sizes, for example a 256bit design with 24GB GDDR7 and probably by Q4 2026 32GB, so these 4 years (especially if PS5 Pro has the same 16GB capacity and depending when Xbox next will launch) the memory advantage AMD will offer per tier will not be so important for market perception and sales anymore.Also a OC 7900XTX is at the edge to not be considered CPU limited (4090 it is) so the percentage that they can increase GPU performance with a Zen5X3D is very specific and uninspiring (if it is CPU limited at the same level as a 7900XTX was at Q4 2022). Actually I don't see AMD returning to 384bit designs before Q4 2028 at the earliest (if ever...)

 

[3valatzy]

There is 0% chance for RX7900XTX performance at $400.

Because it won't reach the RX 7900 XTX performance.

Although Leakers said only Low-end Navi 43 and 44 for RDNA4, the timing is perfect for a monolithic 4nm Navi 42 part

Leakers say that the largest Navi 4x will be called Navi 48 and will have only 4096 shaders.

I don't think AMD will be competitive unless they somehow find a way to make it on the newer N3, and not on the older 5nm+ (4N).

 

[Mine18]

The MLID video linked isn't down/removed, the url is not complete. If you go to the tweaktown article you can see that the url is complete and functional, the link on this article is missing a w at the end.

 

[ModEl4]

Because it won't reach the RX 7900 XTX performance.



Leakers say that the largest Navi 4x will be called Navi 48 and will have only 4096 shaders.

I don't think AMD will be competitive unless they somehow find a way to make it on the newer N3, and not on the older 5nm+ (4N).

I just read tweaktown's article, I don't consider RGT or MLID reliable sources, but regarding the codenames Navi 44/48 also Everest/@Olrak29_ mentioned them which is a more reliable source but with no spec or any other details (at least I didn't found them).I won't speculate based on the little specs RTG mentions, but in desktops 4nm vs 3nm is not a big problem regarding performance in these <$500 segment (although it is one more disadvantage AMD will have and they have a few) but in laptops it will be a major negative factor for oems, just look 4060 class design wins vs 7700/7600 class.Anyway I hope RDNA4 to be a good because we need competition in the GPU space (the same applies to Battlemage)

 

[phints]

It sounds like AMD will be very competitive at low/mid range, but it's a shame there will be no price competition against Nvidia at the high end. I don't really buy GPUs up that expensive anyway but oh well.

 

[3valatzy]

It sounds like AMD will be very competitive at low/mid range, but it's a shame there will be no price competition against Nvidia at the high end. I don't really buy GPUs up that expensive anyway but oh well.

It depends. If AMD risks to stay with the old 5nm process (be it 5nm+), while Nvidia moves to the new 3nm, AMD will experience very deep troubles, unless it does put the 299$ price tag for their new RX 8700 XT which would have the performance of an RTX 5060.

 

[Fizzle bomber]

If RDNA 4 could deliver a GPU that outshines NVIDIA mainstream and midrange in performance and power efficiency then we will see a shift in GPU preference towards AMD

 

[AusWolf]

If RDNA 4 could deliver a GPU that outshines NVIDIA mainstream and midrange in performance and power efficiency then we will see a shift in GPU preference towards AMD

I doubt it. Most gamers don't care about power efficiency, and AMD is already better than Nvidia in the mid-range when it comes to price-to-performance, but Nvidia is still king. The RTX mindshare is strong.

 

[3valatzy]

Most gamers don't care about power efficiency

I think the gamers actually care. Radeons have problems in certain situations:
- connected different screens and video playback resulting in elevated power consumption https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-4080-super-founders-edition/41.html
- overall lower performance per watt https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-4080-super-founders-edition/42.html
- higher power consumption which results in hotter, noisier cards - high hotspot temperatures, need for gigantic coolers which introduce all types of other PC case-related inconveniencies, etc.

 

[AusWolf]

- higher power consumption which results in hotter, noisier cards - high hotspot temperatures, need for gigantic coolers which introduce all types of other PC case-related inconveniencies, etc.

That part isn't true. I have an MSRP-level basic Sapphire Pulse 7800 XT, and my hotspot maxes out at 82-83 °C at default while the card is totally quiet. There is no inconvenience at all.

Not to mention, Nvidia cards come with the same gigantic coolers whether they need them or not.

 

[3valatzy]

Not to mention, Nvidia cards come with the same gigantic coolers whether they need them or not.

They do not need them.

That part isn't true. I have an MSRP-level basic Sapphire Pulse 7800 XT, and my hotspot maxes out at 82-83 °C at default while the card is totally quiet. There is no inconvenience at all.

I mean that the legacy graphics cards had quite low power consumption. If AMD decides to decrease the power consumption, there will be a chance for cuter, quieter and small graphics cards.
Remember Radeon X1800 XT. Around 110 W.
Radeon X1600 PRO only 40 W.

ATI Radeon X1800 XT Specs

ATI R520, 600 MHz, 16 Pixel Shaders, 8 Vertex Shaders, 16 TMUs, 16 ROPs, 512 MB GDDR3, 700 MHz, 256 bit

www.techpowerup.com

ATI Radeon X1600 PRO Specs

ATI RV530, 500 MHz, 12 Pixel Shaders, 5 Vertex Shaders, 4 TMUs, 4 ROPs, 256 MB GDDR3, 390 MHz, 128 bit

www.techpowerup.com

Even the power hog for the time Radeon HD 2900 XT was "only" 215 W.

ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT Specs

ATI R600, 743 MHz, 320 Cores, 16 TMUs, 16 ROPs, 512 MB GDDR3, 828 MHz, 512 bit

www.techpowerup.com

 

[AusWolf]

They do not need them.



I mean that the legacy graphics cards had quite low power consumption. If AMD decides to decrease the power consumption, there will be a chance for cuter, quieter and small graphics cards.
Remember Radeon X1800 XT. Around 110 W.
Radeon X1600 PRO only 40 W.

View attachment 332859
View attachment 332860

ATI Radeon X1800 XT Specs

ATI R520, 600 MHz, 16 Pixel Shaders, 8 Vertex Shaders, 16 TMUs, 16 ROPs, 512 MB GDDR3, 700 MHz, 256 bit

www.techpowerup.com

ATI Radeon X1600 PRO Specs

ATI RV530, 500 MHz, 12 Pixel Shaders, 5 Vertex Shaders, 4 TMUs, 4 ROPs, 256 MB GDDR3, 390 MHz, 128 bit

www.techpowerup.com

Even the power hog for the time Radeon HD 2900 XT was "only" 215 W.

ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT Specs

ATI R600, 743 MHz, 320 Cores, 16 TMUs, 16 ROPs, 512 MB GDDR3, 828 MHz, 512 bit

www.techpowerup.com

This is all irrelevant to the discussion at hand. My points stand:
1. Nvidia cards come with the same gigantic coolers as AMD ones do.
2. AMD hotspots are just as cool as Nvidia ones are when you don't take made-by-AMD cards into consideration.

 

[3valatzy]

1. Nvidia cards come with the same gigantic coolers as AMD ones do.

I am not questioning that..

2. AMD hotspots are just as cool as Nvidia ones are when you don't take made-by-AMD cards into consideration.

Sure.

AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT Review

The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT is based on AMD's all-new Navi 10 GPU featuring the RDNA architecture. We thoroughly test the card's gaming performance and look at power, heat, noise, overclocking, and clock frequency stability, too, sometimes with surprising results.

www.techpowerup.com

 

[Craptacular]

I don't see a reason why they would abandon the high end when the biggest margins are there! The issue with AMD this generation is the price, they've got cheaper silicon compared to Nvidia, yet their pricing has been extremely bad, especially at launch.

Imagine the RX 7900XT launching at $800, it would have been an instant hit, it would have been the go to card with enthusiasts, but at $900 it was overexpensive and lacked value, even the 7900XTX was better value.
Then they launched the 7600 at $270 which was a reduction from the $300 price they initially went for, imagine this card launching at $240, it would have been an entry level hit, it would have been the go-to card for people looking for value and as an entry card.

They also screwed up with the 7700XT price, it should have cost $420 at start and it would have been just as popular, if not more than the 7800XT. At $450 it was worse value than the more expensive 7800xt.

It is called upselling.

 

[k0vasz]

Which will be equivalent of the (raster) performance of an 5060(ti). So, every higher tier card from nvidia will be insanely expensive, again, as there will be no competition.

I feel like this current architecture is a huge FAIL, and they are currently working on something different, but they need time, and in the meantime, they just launch the same thing made on smaller nm.

At this point, I really hope that Battlemage manages to achieve at least the same level of performance, and at least at the lower end of dGPUs, we'll see great prices

 

[AusWolf]

Sure.

View attachment 332863

AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT Review

The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT is based on AMD's all-new Navi 10 GPU featuring the RDNA architecture. We thoroughly test the card's gaming performance and look at power, heat, noise, overclocking, and clock frequency stability, too, sometimes with surprising results.

www.techpowerup.com

Read my post please...
"AMD hotspots are just as cool as Nvidia ones are when you don't take made-by-AMD cards into consideration."

Besides, a 5700 XT review is just as relevant these days as a 2070 review would be. That is, not at all.

 

[kapone32]

And those are financial details from *checks page* today.

Either way your claim that AMD is not greedy because it is owned by Saudi Royal Family has to be up there with the most bizzare claims I've heard, even if it were true it doesn't make a lick of sense.

When you add up the percentages that American Institutions own does it make up 70%? I know that the narrative is powerful to want to make AMD no different than Nvidia. That is to forgive their desultory moves. The Govt. of Canada is the only reason Nvidia did not gobble up ATI by 2014.

 

[Bagerklestyne]

Looking at the claims of the OP

I think if they flagship chip isn't either iteratively faster and more efficient (say either 20% faster for the same power, same speed for 20% less power or say 10% faster, 10% less power) for similar money it's going to be a disappointment.

I'd struggle to be happy about 7900XTX performance for less money and power if there's not a tier above it.

I think the one thing that's up in the air until we see the silicon is are they closing the gap on RT performance. Can the chiplet design provide an avenue for something on die that can be used as raster and repurposed to provide effective RT without tanking performance.

Inquiring minds (mainly mine) want to know

 

[Dr. Dro]

When you add up the percentages that American Institutions own does it make up 70%? I know that the narrative is powerful to want to make AMD no different than Nvidia. That is to forgive their desultory moves. The Govt. of Canada is the only reason Nvidia did not gobble up ATI by 2014.

Even if by a miracle antitrust agencies didn't block the transaction because we still very much have a duopoly in high performance graphics all this time later (although Nvidia's market share completely eclipses everything else combined), AMD wouldn't have sold RTG regardless, it'd have spelt certain doom for the company. It was the Radeon business and their semicustom graphics contracts that kept AMD afloat during the years that every single other business venture they had at the time went belly up.

After years upon years of repeatedly releasing awful products at the consumer segment (the Heavy Equipment line, especially Bulldozer, was so laughably bad that people who defended it at the time were simply defending the indefensible out of pure devotion to AMD - I still remember the lengthy discussions of folks trying to justify it and they all had to go nuclear the second anyone showed benchmarks from a Core i5, many even stuck to their increasingly obsolete Phenom II CPUs because they were actually faster, despite being built on the K10 architecture dating from 2007 and having a worse instruction set than a 65 nm Conroe Core 2), a rapidly waning and increasingly irrelevant server business, plus a failed ARM venture nearly bankrupted AMD. By July 2015, the situation was dire because other than maybe Radeon GPUs, all of their products were worthless garbage and the company had about as much prospect as a dry mine to show investors, shares of $AMD reached an all time low of $1.61. If I only knew that things would turn the way they did at the time, I would have never have to work a day in my life and I would definitely drive a Ferrari.

There is a reason the commercial name of the Zen processors is "Ryzen", it symbolizes the rebirth and rise of AMD (like a phoenix) in the literal sense of the word.

 

[R0H1T]

especially Bulldozer, was so laughably bad that people who defended it at the time were simply defending the indefensible out of pure devotion to AMD

Not true, some of their products like APU were still fine &/or better than equivalent Intel parts when you took the IGP into account. I had a Richland based laptop for ~5 years or so & while it was pretty bad I bought it for the same reason which gave them an edge over Intel. Their Puma & then Puma+ cores were actually great but then Intel flooded the market with crap Atom chips using "contra revenue", they were more efficient being a full node ahead but not to the extent that they were probably outselling AMD 1000x over! This is where the consoles saved AMD from bankruptcy ~ they could use Puma & Radeon till Zen was released & the rest as they say is history

This is where the history is complicated ~ Intel if they chose to bury AMD could've done it post 2010, although I'm not sure if that monopoly(?) law in the US would kick in. AMD if they would've done faster node transitions post 2004 would be much more competitive with Phenom or Phenom II or if Intel didn't bribe the OEM's two decades back they may have had a lot more money for R&D post K10 or so. It's worked out in the end for AMD but it's no short of a miracle they're still here today!

Even if I prefer AMD I wouldn't want Intel, or Nvidia, to go anywhere because we know what they'd do in the absence of competition! The days of continued growth in this sector will continue for a bit more probably till we hit a pm or Apple/QC give up trying

 

[Dr. Dro]

Not true, some of their products like APU were still fine &/or better than equivalent Intel parts when you took the IGP into account. I had a Richland based laptop for ~5 years or so & while it was pretty bad I bought it for the same reason which gave them an edge over Intel. Their Puma & then Puma+ cores were actually great but then Intel flooded the market with crap Atom chips using "contra revenue", they were more efficient being a full node ahead but not to the extent that they were probably outselling AMD 1000x over! This is where the consoles saved AMD from bankruptcy ~ they could use Puma & Radeon till Zen was released & the rest as they say is history

This is where the history is complicated ~ Intel if they chose to bury AMD could've done it post 2010, although I'm not sure if that monopoly(?) law in the US would kick in. AMD if they would've done faster node transitions post 2004 would be much more competitive with Phenom or Phenom II or if Intel didn't bribe the OEM's two decades back they may have had a lot more money for R&D post K10 or so. It's worked out in the end for AMD but it's no short of a miracle they're still here today!

Even if I prefer AMD I wouldn't want Intel, or Nvidia, to go anywhere because we know what they'd do in the absence of competition! The days of continued growth in this sector will continue for a bit more probably till we hit a pm or Apple/QC give up trying

Early APUs like Zacate, Bobcat and Llano did lay the foundation for modern APU products, but they also performed VERY poorly overall. They just happened to be able to fill a niche in a few segments due to their better GPU, at the cost of basically getting destroyed when anything CPU was even remotely brought up. It's just so ridiculously bad. To worsen their situation, AMD's innovative proposals like hUMA never actually materialized. The small "salvation" in some segments is that Intel's integrated graphics were horrible up until Sandy Bridge, but with Ivy Bridge's HD 4000 it began to develop (and at this point, you'd much rather have a laptop equipped with a CPU like a quad core i7 that had the HD 4000 or one of NVIDIA's super budget GPUs like the GT 650M - it's even a MacBook Pro configuration, iirc mine was this with the i7-3632QM - over anything APU) and by Skylake, it was essentially a weak but fully functional basic GPU. Meanwhile, all AMD had to do was downscale TeraScale, and then GCN to meet the form factor.

On the desktop CPU front, there's no need to even argue. The i5-2500K humiliated any AMD chip for gaming for practically 7 years after it was released (it was better than anything AMD has had until Ryzen came out), and for workstations, 1st gen Gulftown i7's would run loops on any Piledriver FX, including the FX-9590. By the time we had Broadwell-E, the differential between the fastest CPU that AMD had on offer (9590) and the i7-6950X was so high that you'd be looking anywhere from 3 to 10x+ the performance depending on how many cores and instruction set utilized. I recall having benchmarks twice as high as a FX-8350 with my i7-990X as it was.

I don't think Intel's misdeeds during the Otellini era justify K10's woes either. Remember, the original Phenom launched with a severe bug (remember the TLB bug?), and unlike the Core 2's 45 nm makeover, Phenom II is basically just K10 as it should have been from the start. Even after Thuban (worst money I ever spent on a CPU, that X6 1090T), it seemed obvious that they'd never be able to even dream of comparing to the Core i7, the architecture was just too dated and the absence of SSSE3 and SSE4.1 support hurt these CPUs super badly. Many years later, the poor souls that were still using a Phenom finally got hit with the software compatibility issues as their chips stopped running many games at all.

Servers? Well, at the time it was common knowledge that the enterprise world had clearly chosen Xeon. It wouldn't be until Epyc that AMD would finally earn relevance in this market. Xeons were ridiculously expensive, but scalable and performant, with Intel taking even requests from their biggest customers for tailored SKUs. Decommissioned Opterons made for fun and relatively affordable quad processor builds (I'd actually build one myself nowadays if I could get all parts including motherboard for cheap), but that's about where the "positives" ended. Opteron A series ARM CPUs essentially flopped and were discontinued with no further development, they never saw a successor.

Funny to bring up HEDT though, AMD just released a current generation Zen 4 consumer-grade "non-Pro" HEDT... with prices that makes the Core i7 Extreme look cheap back when Intel was considered insane to ask $1700 on a CPU. The cheapest Zen 4 Threadripper is $1499, and the most expensive one tops out at $4999, with a similar outlook if you compare that chip to say, a "pedestrian" Raptor Lake i9 or 7950X/X3D. Haven't heard a word about AMD being greedy scammers trying to ripoff people with their overpriced wares, but oh well.

 

[kapone32]

Even if by a miracle antitrust agencies didn't block the transaction because we still very much have a duopoly in high performance graphics all this time later (although Nvidia's market share completely eclipses everything else combined), AMD wouldn't have sold RTG regardless, it'd have spelt certain doom for the company. It was the Radeon business and their semicustom graphics contracts that kept AMD afloat during the years that every single other business venture they had at the time went belly up.

After years upon years of repeatedly releasing awful products at the consumer segment (the Heavy Equipment line, especially Bulldozer, was so laughably bad that people who defended it at the time were simply defending the indefensible out of pure devotion to AMD - I still remember the lengthy discussions of folks trying to justify it and they all had to go nuclear the second anyone showed benchmarks from a Core i5, many even stuck to their increasingly obsolete Phenom II CPUs because they were actually faster, despite being built on the K10 architecture dating from 2007 and having a worse instruction set than a 65 nm Conroe Core 2), a rapidly waning and increasingly irrelevant server business, plus a failed ARM venture nearly bankrupted AMD. By July 2015, the situation was dire because other than maybe Radeon GPUs, all of their products were worthless garbage and the company had about as much prospect as a dry mine to show investors, shares of $AMD reached an all time low of $1.61. If I only knew that things would turn the way they did at the time, I would have never have to work a day in my life and I would definitely drive a Ferrari.

There is a reason the commercial name of the Zen processors is "Ryzen", it symbolizes the rebirth and rise of AMD (like a phoenix) in the literal sense of the word.

AMD stock was publicly available to anyone to buy. How do you know what the SEC can do to a King? What anti trust is there in a Country that has more F-15s than Israel buying stock in an American Company that seem,ed to be dying? It does not matter if you believe me or not at the end of the day. I can tell you they also own (FIA)F1 and DAZN as well. How about the LIV and the PGA merging? Yes they also own Newcastle FC.

Your comments about how "bad" AMD products were shows how influenced you were by propaganda. You see, even in the days of AMD's bad leadership their CPUs were fine. If you were building you own PC a $99 Phenom 2 965BE was a CPU that you could put a user in front of and they would not tell the difference vs an Intel CPU.

We don't need a History lesson through your lens. The fact is that none of what you say matters as it cannot be changed. Today AMD parts are in the leadership position.

You act like Intel is not asking a king's ransom for it's HEDT part and by the way those CPUs you mention had value added to them because people love shows like the Witcher and Content creation has ballooned with the rise of the streaming services. Not like Intel that sold you 2 more cores for $1000. At that tasks more cores and I/O matter and people are willing to pay for it. That means there is a premium but if I was buying the 24 core I would aprreciate that it is less than the MSRP of the previous 24 core part.

If you want an example of unabashed greed just look at top end boards like Godlike or Ace from MSI for Z790 or X670E and then look at those boards for HEDT. Who is hosing who?

 

[80-watt Hamster]

AMD stock was publicly available to anyone to buy. How do you know what the SEC can do to a King? What anti trust is there in a Country that has more F-15s than Israel buying stock in an American Company that seem,ed to be dying? It does not matter if you believe me or not at the end of the day. I can tell you they also own (FIA)F1 and DAZN as well. How about the LIV and the PGA merging? Yes they also own Newcastle FC.

Your comments about how "bad" AMD products were shows how influenced you were by propaganda. You see, even in the days of AMD's bad leadership their CPUs were fine. If you were building you own PC a $99 Phenom 2 965BE was a CPU that you could put a user in front of and they would not tell the difference vs an Intel CPU.

We don't need a History lesson through your lens. The fact is that none of what you say matters as it cannot be changed. Today AMD parts are in the leadership position.

You act like Intel is not asking a king's ransom for it's HEDT part and by the way those CPUs you mention had value added to them because people love shows like the Witcher and Content creation has ballooned with the rise of the streaming services. Not like Intel that sold you 2 more cores for $1000. At that tasks more cores and I/O matter and people are willing to pay for it. That means there is a premium but if I was buying the 24 core I would aprreciate that it is less than the MSRP of the previous 24 core part.

If you want an example of unabashed greed just look at top end boards like Godlike or Ace from MSI for Z790 or X670E and then look at those boards for HEDT. Who is hosing who?

Bulldozer family wasn't good. It just plain was not. One can make do with a (non-gaming) Nehalem 2C4T-based system even now. Trying the same with, say, the four-years-newer Kaveri is an exercise in masochism. Source: personal experience.

 

[Dr. Dro]

AMD stock was publicly available to anyone to buy. How do you know what the SEC can do to a King? What anti trust is there in a Country that has more F-15s than Israel buying stock in an American Company that seem,ed to be dying? It does not matter if you believe me or not at the end of the day. I can tell you they also own (FIA)F1 and DAZN as well. How about the LIV and the PGA merging? Yes they also own Newcastle FC.

Your comments about how "bad" AMD products were shows how influenced you were by propaganda. You see, even in the days of AMD's bad leadership their CPUs were fine. If you were building you own PC a $99 Phenom 2 965BE was a CPU that you could put a user in front of and they would not tell the difference vs an Intel CPU.

We don't need a History lesson through your lens. The fact is that none of what you say matters as it cannot be changed. Today AMD parts are in the leadership position.

You act like Intel is not asking a king's ransom for it's HEDT part and by the way those CPUs you mention had value added to them because people love shows like the Witcher and Content creation has ballooned with the rise of the streaming services. Not like Intel that sold you 2 more cores for $1000. At that tasks more cores and I/O matter and people are willing to pay for it. That means there is a premium but if I was buying the 24 core I would aprreciate that it is less than the MSRP of the previous 24 core part.

If you want an example of unabashed greed just look at top end boards like Godlike or Ace from MSI for Z790 or X670E and then look at those boards for HEDT. Who is hosing who?

This isn't propaganda, it's straight facts, provable and demonstrable. Even my claim about AMD's shares hitting rock bottom at $1.61 by 2015 can be verified with literally "$AMD all-time low" on your favorite search engine. And who are you trying to fool with that claim about the Phenom II? Maybe someone who grew up in the Ryzen era would believe that... or I don't know, if your head was still stuck in the "SSDs have write endurance problems so I still boot off an HDD" thought, maybe that CPU would "feel" the same. Otherwise not really.

Intel also does not currently offer an HEDT lineup at all, just like AMD didn't back in the day. Historical revisionism is farcical and doesn't excuse them from mistakes, past or present.

Bulldozer family wasn't good. It just plain was not. One can make do with a (non-gaming) Nehalem 2C4T-based system even now. Trying the same with, say, the four-years-newer Kaveri is an exercise in masochism. Source: personal experience.

I agree. My father still uses his 15 year old i5-520M laptop, he only uses it for light word processing and internet banking. It does the job, although, the machine has begun to break down and parts for it aren't easy to find anymore. Still, a great run, and props to Sony for building such a quality, long-lasting laptop.

 

[3valatzy]

I don't think Intel's misdeeds during the Otellini era justify K10's woes either.

A fact is that intel didn't allow AMD to sell, either at all, or in the needed quantities, even when AMD's CPUs were either at least on par, or even superior to the Pentium line.
That's why intel got the fines, because of all its illegal activities, some of which continue to this day.