That isn't entirely true and smacks of a very blinkered memory. AMD's ClawHammer/SledgeHammer Athlon 64 was generally the equal or better (depending upon SKUs being compared) of Intel's Pentium 4, and the Athlon 64 X2 traded blows with Pentium D - often besting the Intel product while generally being much cheaper....[ ].....
This is true. Unfortunately many AMD fanbois are still reveling in the glory of that era.
AMD had their own hype when numbering those old dual cores, where they numbered their CPUs to comparison match what they felt equaled, (or bettered), the much higher clocked P-4 single core..Plus, Intel's first foray into dual core territory, resulted in some very primitive space heaters....., ( er, also).
Now, this is where history is a metaphor of itself. Hollywood, (and historical rumor), alleges that after the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, Japanese Admiral Yamamoto said, "I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant... (and some other stuff).
So, this is pretty much an analog of what has happened to AMD after its brief run of CPU glory. They "awakened a sleeping giant", in Intel.
That being said, and for God knows what reason, I do read the gaming benchmarks in reviews. AMD acquits itself pretty admirably, but the highest overall everything scores do rest with Intel. But, AMD certainly appears well before 31st place.
OTOH, Intel's i3 series will do as much or more than many AMD quads, on about half the power. I award Intel a big chunk of points on the subtlety factor of this alone .
For example, the i3 sitting next to me is idling, but using its IGP, is only registering 28/30 C (82/85F for each core. The air cooler is an Arctic 7 Pro (or something). It's not the stocker, but it was less than 20 bucks. The thermometer on the wall behind me is claiming 69F. Hey, even at idle, I'll take 13 degrees F over ambient any day of the week. It's an Ivy Bridge i3-3225 and TDP is claimed as 54 watts.(y)
