On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 19:20:01 -0000, "Synapse Syndrome"
<synapse@NOSPAMgomez404.elitemail.org> wrote:

>"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:517jr3hhdpqaivlp9es5dl8189augktuku@4ax.com.. .
>>
>> Currently Intel has a lead in the upper end, before that AMD
>> did, then Intel. Lather, rinse, repeat.
>
>Remind me when AMD had a clear lead, apart from when the Athlon64 was faster
>and more efficient than the P4? Not saying that you are wrong, but I do not
>know of any other times. Maybe you are talking from price/performance
>perspective on K6 vs PIII? Surely the Coppermine and Tualatin PIIIs were
>better CPUs though..
>
>ss.
>

K6-III was faster excluding floating point, as was early
Athlon when considering price (always relevant since barely
anybody buys the high end. I also preferred Coppermine and
Tualatin Celeron & P3 but not for the obvious reasons,
rather than they had more overclocking margin and on
average, superior chipsets for their motherboards. Seems
most of the industry outside of server integrators ignored
Tualatins though, they were all caught up in the
underwhelming P4 when it first came out.