"AMD Cheaper than Intel" a mytth?
"AMD Cheaper than Intel" a mytth?
Moore's Law wasn't actually a law, and it doesn't relate to transistor density or quantity. It was just an observation he made about how performance changed in a comparable pattern.
The idea has been around for a while, but it's no longer accurate anymore. People still believe things are progressing as before, even though the reality is different. Chip manufacturers are facing challenges and growth has slowed significantly. This isn't too bad since we're already at a high level of computing power. It bothers me when those companies claim they're not innovating but actually work hard to develop something better that can overcome current limits... (They understand that traditional shrinking tech is reaching its end.)
Considerations must be made carefully. A general claim needs reflection before applying it. The cost comparison between AMD and Intel isn't fixed; it changes over time. In previous generations, AMD was more affordable while still offering strong performance. Now Intel has adjusted its strategy. We might need to rephrase the statement to reflect that Intel is more economical in certain areas. Also, pricing depends on local market conditions and availability. Price differences between low-end and high-performance chips vary widely—such as the disparity seen in a single Hungarian store. AMD continues to outperform Intel in many cases.
We discussed how we must locate an alternative to silicon soon, since we're nearing the limits of semiconductor miniaturization—around 2nm by 2023.
640 kB should suffice for anyone. Your claim about needing "very high computational power" is questionable; a solution will emerge—whether through AI innovations or enhanced processors. While I personally find ray tracing lacking (it doesn’t impress much), others might still be content. The big reveal could be seeing programs optimized as they used to.