Comment Re:Benchmarks for that AMD chip look bad... (Score -1, Troll) 180
I wonder, though, if the benchmarks were made using code compiled with an Intel compiler.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/05/07/12/1320202/amd-alleges-intel-compilers-create-slower-amd-code
Oh, but surely by now they have stopped doing it? Nope:
https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/optimization-notice
(Isn't it cute how the legal notice is embedded in an image file, so it's hard for search engines to find it?)
It really is true that Intel chips are better than AMD chips now. Intel has fixed the problems in their chips (the Pentium 4 had serious issues) and Intel is two generations ahead on semiconductor process technology.
Intel could be beating AMD fair and square, yet they still engage in the sleazy underhanded practice of making their compiler sabotage the competition.
Intel's remaining chip problems are self-inflicted: they want to maximize the dollars they extract from the customers, so they make a bunch of different chip versions, and different versions have features enabled or not. AMD is #2 and trying harder, so AMD chips always have all features enabled.
So I would be willing to buy one of these AMD-based mini PCs. It will be slower and/or consume more energy than an Intel version; but I just plain don't approve of Intel, and its performance will be adequate. I'm not going to be computing digits of pi on this thing.
P.S. The best thing I can say about Intel: they have cooperated well with the Linux kernel team, and Linux support is great for Intel chipsets including graphics accelerators.
But AMD is doing a pretty good job of cooperating with the Linux kernel guys, and I'd rather give AMD my money.