1) Hyper-Threading and HyperTransport.
They both needed hyper words to hype their CPUs
2) Advanced Dynamic Execution and QuantiSpeed
Both the companies need mysterious tekky-sounding copy for their ads.
Here's another irony:
Athlon for AMD. Pentium for Intel. Pretty ironic, huh?
3) Why AMD using SSE and SSE2?
They both have the same move instructions too.
AMD
mov eax, edx
Intel
mov eax, edx
Pretty ironic!
4) With its 586, AMD went to a CPU that translates x86 into RISC ops on the fly, multiple years before Intel adopted the idea in the Pentium Pro/PII. Is that ironic or what!
>I don't know about anandtech, but from my own experience with both AMD and
>Intel, Intel is always better.
The last time I saw anything better at near the same price was Intel's PII-based Celeron if you OCed it 50%. I loved my BX board with OCed Celerons. There was nothing like it before, and nothing like it since. During this last recession, Intel's P4s started to get reasonable, but AMD got even more reasonable. I'd like to have one Intel system around -I'm an equal opportunity kind of guy- but I can't find one that makes sense. I don't have anything against Intel except the price. OTOH I don't have anything at all against AMD.