amd .vs intel....

Christofer C. Bell christofer.c.bell at
Thu Dec 15 10:23:15 UTC 2005

On 12/14/05, Tony Nelson <tonynelson at> wrote:
> It took extra PR (Public Relations) after AMD spent a few years convincing
> people that clock speed was king.

AMD has never tried to convince anyone that clock speed is king.  In
fact, they've spent years and a lot of "extra PR" to convince everyone
otherwise.  AMDs have had lower clock speeds than their equivalent
Intel CPUs for as long as I can remember and took some heat at one
point for "misleading" people by giving the "Intel equivalent"
clockspeed for their CPUs rather than the real speed. (The argument
being that people thought they were buying, say, a 100MHz CPU when
they were really getting one that only ran at 84MHz).

Even now, my AMD64 3200+ (equivalent to a 3.2GHz Intel processor) only
runs at 2.25GHz.  The more efficient use of clock cycles by AMD
processors has been both their blessing and their curse since they
entered the marketplace.


"I trust the Democrats to take away my money, which I can afford.  I
trust the Republicans to take away my freedom, which I cannot."

More information about the fedora-list mailing list