Because the article clearly showed a desktop Core system being tested.
Face it, you're just an douche reapeting generic INTEL IS SO HOT, RITE? LOLZERS! crap from 2 years ago in *exactly* the wrong article, and now you are bitching like big bitch because you got called on it.
Intel is rolling out new chips a few months which will out-perform Athlon64, and AMD doesn't have much to respond with. Things look pretty bleak for AMD in the short term, so perhaps this trial really is their best chance to open up the PC market. Even if there's no decision soon, Intel and OEMs will likely be on their best behavior.
AMD has been doing just what you are saying for years. They *have* had the best CPUs for years now. If the playing field were even, AMD would already be in a position where this lawsuite would not even make sense.
"Best" is a blanket statement.
Most industry analysts believe that Intel's costs are far below AMD's, which gives Intel much more negotiating room with major OEMs. That is, Intel can sell CPUs cheaper than AMD and still make money. This makes Intel's CPUs "best" for large OEMs like Dell even when AMD is cheaper in the retail market.
Also, AMD has marketed itself as the "alternative for low-end cheap people", even when they had faster products on the market. This effectively cut them out of high-value segements of the market. It's only recently that AMD has been somewhat successful selling into the server and workstation markets.
Intel testified against Microsoft in their anti-trust trial. AMD testified in support of Microsoft's monopoly. I'm sure that Microsoft will be happy to return these favors.
So, what are the video card's products? Are they the hardware cards or the drivers?
A huge chunk of it is drivers. Frequently you will see new driver releases that massively improve performance in certain games without diminishing visual quality. That's all "proprietary" software R&D that no sane company is going to publish for their competitiors. And then you have "professional" cards where literally the only difference is drivers certification.
Anyway, there's a giant difference in video drivers and (say) ethernet drivers in terms of the importance of driver R&D.
How about inactively harming your customers traffic by not managing the network? Most customers won't appreciate their webbrowsing being slowed because of "P2P Hog".
Anyway, I've got a trick that avoids having my BT capped by my ISP, so I don't really care:()
Yeah, your comments on Prescott were correct, but also totally uninteresting because there's not exactly a lot of Prescott laptops out there. Also, you should calm down about replies that don't fit your preformed model of correctness. This is Slashdot after all.
There's a better history in the MS Book "Inside SQL Server". The Microsoft version was originally a port to 16-bit OS/2, and the co-development fell apart almost immediately. So it's really inaccurate to claim that MS/Sybase were ever exactly the same. Close, sure.
Late Model PowerBook G4 battery life was not all that great -- similar Pentium M laptops were better.
Intel is massively better than PPC for Integer ("General Purpose") tasks, you're probably right about FP and "media" (Altivec). The problem is that Apple primarily sells consumer computers, and you can't move those just on media performance. Especially when the competition is "fast enough" to play HD H.264 etc, there's little need for specialized chips like Altivec anymore.
Unfortunately, linus decided to use a different definition of the word 'derivitive' to everyone else
Linus actually has lawyers at his disposal, while the "everyone else" you speak of are IANAL jerk-offs who think they can invent law on their mailing lists.
When Linus said that people can't do anything about Nvidea, he wasn't talking out of his ass.
All Pentium 4s have the same architecture, AFAIK. Admittedly there is the "Pentium-D", and the PII/PIII thing was dubious, but for the most part Intel's naming schemes stick to the architecture.
Which makes this wierd especially because this is the biggest change in Intel's naming since the original Pentium came out, so they could have just waited 6 months.
The conspiracy theory is that Apple didn't want to ship a "Pentium", so Intel rebranded their CPUs early. When the real "Core" chips come out, they'll probably have to call them "Core II" or "Core Extreme" or something equally silly.
The only people who care about these numbers are operating system advocates, specifically Linux zealots, who have been touting their leadership in domain parking-err-"marketshare" for a decade now.
Good luck finding any "manager" who gives a rats ass.
I should note that I'm AT&T/SBC territory, where they've been "beta-testing" fibre since long before the first cable modems went in. Maybe Verizon is really going to do a real rollout. I kind of doubt it, but we'll see. At this point the applications of fibre are all highly speculative, while wireless "broadband" is a no-brainer market-wise and is already a hellava lot more available than Fibre is.
As others in this discussion have pointed out, the actual cost of a fullrate connection is hundreds of dollars a month. So good luck finding that competitior that doesn't cap somehow.
Your business logic is suprisingly poor and short-sighted.
Aren't you a polite individual. Anyone who thinks they're getting Fibre-to-the-Curb RSN is the real short-sighted person here.
The problem with your argument is that there's already a wireline infrastructure out there, so there's not a guarunteed return-on-investment for this sort of infrastructure. If there was, I suspect we would have seen these wonderful high-bandwidth lines being installed already.
The only way wireless will become a nationwide deal is through the cell carriers improvements
Exactly. When it comes down to it, AT&T/Verizon will invest their money into wireless services over wireline bandwidth. And if they won't, there's four other providers that might.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the article clearly showed a desktop Core system being tested.
Face it, you're just an douche reapeting generic INTEL IS SO HOT, RITE? LOLZERS! crap from 2 years ago in *exactly* the wrong article, and now you are bitching like big bitch because you got called on it.
Intel is rolling out new chips a few months which will out-perform Athlon64, and AMD doesn't have much to respond with. Things look pretty bleak for AMD in the short term, so perhaps this trial really is their best chance to open up the PC market. Even if there's no decision soon, Intel and OEMs will likely be on their best behavior.
I'd already switched from Intel to AMD based largely on heat and power issues
Then you are an ignormaous, because Intel Core soundly beats AMD on these factors. I suggest reading the article.
AMD has been doing just what you are saying for years. They *have* had the best CPUs for years now. If the playing field were even, AMD would already be in a position where this lawsuite would not even make sense.
"Best" is a blanket statement.
Most industry analysts believe that Intel's costs are far below AMD's, which gives Intel much more negotiating room with major OEMs. That is, Intel can sell CPUs cheaper than AMD and still make money. This makes Intel's CPUs "best" for large OEMs like Dell even when AMD is cheaper in the retail market.
Also, AMD has marketed itself as the "alternative for low-end cheap people", even when they had faster products on the market. This effectively cut them out of high-value segements of the market. It's only recently that AMD has been somewhat successful selling into the server and workstation markets.
I have no doubt it helps in many specific situations. However, for most non-server users, it's a non-factor.
Intel testified against Microsoft in their anti-trust trial. AMD testified in support of Microsoft's monopoly. I'm sure that Microsoft will be happy to return these favors.
Intel started a mobile CPU revolution with the Pentium M, so it's a little disappointing to hear that its latest successor doesn't improve further.
But they have. The Core Solo uses less power than the Pentium M and is faster.
So, what are the video card's products? Are they the hardware cards or the drivers?
A huge chunk of it is drivers. Frequently you will see new driver releases that massively improve performance in certain games without diminishing visual quality. That's all "proprietary" software R&D that no sane company is going to publish for their competitiors. And then you have "professional" cards where literally the only difference is drivers certification.
Anyway, there's a giant difference in video drivers and (say) ethernet drivers in terms of the importance of driver R&D.
How about inactively harming your customers traffic by not managing the network? Most customers won't appreciate their webbrowsing being slowed because of "P2P Hog".
:()
Anyway, I've got a trick that avoids having my BT capped by my ISP, so I don't really care
The "more registers" with x86-64 has been massively overhyped. There's very little real world benefit.
For example: AMD's claims about UT2004 being 20% faster in 64-bit mode turned out to be bogus (more like 2%).
Yeah, your comments on Prescott were correct, but also totally uninteresting because there's not exactly a lot of Prescott laptops out there. Also, you should calm down about replies that don't fit your preformed model of correctness. This is Slashdot after all.
There's a better history in the MS Book "Inside SQL Server". The Microsoft version was originally a port to 16-bit OS/2, and the co-development fell apart almost immediately. So it's really inaccurate to claim that MS/Sybase were ever exactly the same. Close, sure.
Late Model PowerBook G4 battery life was not all that great -- similar Pentium M laptops were better.
Intel is massively better than PPC for Integer ("General Purpose") tasks, you're probably right about FP and "media" (Altivec). The problem is that Apple primarily sells consumer computers, and you can't move those just on media performance. Especially when the competition is "fast enough" to play HD H.264 etc, there's little need for specialized chips like Altivec anymore.
I was responding to your comments on the Pentium M. Go back and read your own comment.
Unfortunately, linus decided to use a different definition of the word 'derivitive' to everyone else
Linus actually has lawyers at his disposal, while the "everyone else" you speak of are IANAL jerk-offs who think they can invent law on their mailing lists.
When Linus said that people can't do anything about Nvidea, he wasn't talking out of his ass.
All Pentium 4s have the same architecture, AFAIK. Admittedly there is the "Pentium-D", and the PII/PIII thing was dubious, but for the most part Intel's naming schemes stick to the architecture.
Which makes this wierd especially because this is the biggest change in Intel's naming since the original Pentium came out, so they could have just waited 6 months.
There's not a huge difference between Pentium-M and Core Duo due to the dieshrink.
Pentium-M 2.26GHz 90nm 27W
Core Duo 2.16GHz 65mn 31W
Of course, there's low-watt versions of all of these.
The conspiracy theory is that Apple didn't want to ship a "Pentium", so Intel rebranded their CPUs early. When the real "Core" chips come out, they'll probably have to call them "Core II" or "Core Extreme" or something equally silly.
The only people who care about these numbers are operating system advocates, specifically Linux zealots, who have been touting their leadership in domain parking-err-"marketshare" for a decade now.
Good luck finding any "manager" who gives a rats ass.
I should note that I'm AT&T/SBC territory, where they've been "beta-testing" fibre since long before the first cable modems went in. Maybe Verizon is really going to do a real rollout. I kind of doubt it, but we'll see. At this point the applications of fibre are all highly speculative, while wireless "broadband" is a no-brainer market-wise and is already a hellava lot more available than Fibre is.
As others in this discussion have pointed out, the actual cost of a fullrate connection is hundreds of dollars a month. So good luck finding that competitior that doesn't cap somehow.
Microsoft and Sybase forked from each other long before 6.5 -- it was back in the 1980s.
I get that you imagined that they made that promise.
Your business logic is suprisingly poor and short-sighted.
Aren't you a polite individual. Anyone who thinks they're getting Fibre-to-the-Curb RSN is the real short-sighted person here.
The problem with your argument is that there's already a wireline infrastructure out there, so there's not a guarunteed return-on-investment for this sort of infrastructure. If there was, I suspect we would have seen these wonderful high-bandwidth lines being installed already.
The only way wireless will become a nationwide deal is through the cell carriers improvements
Exactly. When it comes down to it, AT&T/Verizon will invest their money into wireless services over wireline bandwidth. And if they won't, there's four other providers that might.
I looked up the Star Wars Kid article, and I notice that it basically contains a justification for itself (ie, mainstream cultural references).