• brucethemoose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    AMD almost always had the better price/performance

    Except anything Bulldozer-derived, heh. Those were more expensive and less performant than the Phenom II CPUs and Llano APUs.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      23 hours ago

      To be fair, I upgraded my main desktop directly from a Phenom II X4 840(?) to a Ryzen 1700x without owning any Bulldozer stuff in between.

      (I did later buy a couple of used Opteron 6272s, but that’s different for multiple reasons.)

    • Octagon9561@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      I’ve got an FX 8350, sure AMD fell behind during that time but it was by no means a bad CPU imo. Main PC’s got a 7800X3D now but my FX system is still working just fine to this day, especially since upgrading to an SSD and 16GB RAM some years ago. It can technically even run Cyberpunk 2077 with console like frame rates on high settings.

      • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        I mean… It functioned as a CPU.

        But a Phenom II X6 outperformed it sometimes, single thread and multithreaded. That’s crazy given Pildriver’s two generation jump and huge process/transistor count advantage. Power consumption was awful in any form factor.

        Look. I am an AMD simp. I will praise my 7800X3D all day. But there were a whole bunch of internet apologist for Bulldozer back then, so I don’t want to mince words:

        It was bad.

        Objectively bad, a few software niches aside. Between cheaper Phenoms and the reasonably priced 2500K/4670K, it made zero financial sense 99% of the time.