"Remember, too, though, that while AMD may have superior products in certain, specific areas, since it shares manufacturing/fabrication capability with IBM, it has run into many of the same manufacturing and supply problems as IBM. Superior products are fine - if you can actually ship them. Intel, while you can cherry-pick instances of supply problems, has proven itself to be a stable and consistent supplier."
Are you for f'cking real? Please, see product releases over the last few years and see who has had more delayed product releases? 1GHz, what 1GHz Pentium 3 (Vapor ware), Merced (Vapor Ware), Xean X64 (vapor ware),... dude... get a clue, AMD has kicked Intel's a$$ on launches. AMD does not share manufacturing FAB capacity with IBM, AMD uses IBM Fab technology i.e. SOI (Silicon on insulator) and IBM's copper interconnect technology.
AMD has it's own FABS, in fact, AMD has one of the largest FABS in the world in Fab 30 at Dresdan, Germany. This whole inability to provide chips is #1 a fallacy and FUD Intel has been using for sometime, the only chip delay of significance that AMD has had in the last decade was the AMD K5, back in 1995, by the way it performed better than the pentium too bad AMD at that point didn't have Fabs 30 and Fab 25, or atleast Fab 25 finished in time. As for stability, I believe AMD has never introduced a chip that can not divide properly, but Intel has done it twice in the last Decade.
All that said, apple is the #12 PC manufacturer, AMD would easily meet Apple demand and have room to spare considering it supplies chips volumes much larger than Apple can demand.
I think that's what fustrates people so much with the Intel / AMD saga is how off many are with their facts. If anything I hope this lawsuit brings to light how erroneous some people are in their fact finding, as know one in their right mind would make a statement that Intel has been more consistent to delivery and produced better quality products in comparison to AMD within the last decade, and especially not in the last 5 years.
Prefering Intel is fine, but to say AMD needs to make better products in reference to some superiority on Intels part is a fallacy. Intel has not held any type of performance lead or advantage in the processor arena in comparison to AMD for going on 7 years now. The FUD will tell you one thing, but the reality and benchmarks are an entirely different case.
Example, I had a co-worker exclaim he heard AMD processors over heat and Intel was better at cooling and power consumption. I f*cking laughed my a$$ off, and I showed him the power consumption and cpu temperature charts, and AMD simply embarassed Intel. Also, architectually speaking Intel hasn't been innovative since the x86 processor was introduced, why, they haven't had to be, that's what happens when you get to be the biggest fish on the block you get lazy. Take for example FireFox or I.E., FireFox blows I.E. away in terms of features, MS finally decided to respond, in fact, MS had not updated I.E. for 3 years and had officially announced there would be no more I.E. development. But, I digress.
Architectually, AMD has kicked Intel's proverbial rear end. That's why you see products like Pentium M, AMD proved the "Smart CPU" design was the way to go, actually design a more efficient processor. Simply making deeper pipe lined processors allowing for increased MHz was great way to cheaply get more performance, but produced problems like heat and power. In comes along the Pentium M, a smart CPU design, AMD has been doing it that way for some time, beginning with the K-5, the Athlon was the in your face for Intel. The irony is AMD for longest has said MHz is not end all to be all for processor performance. You see Intel got rid of their MHz rankings, because, they've adopted a more AMD'ish design philosophy. Furthermore, the Net burst architecture is going a way, and being replaced by a technology similar to AMD's on-die memory controller.
I suggest you do some real research on your preference, and you'd realize that your preference for Intel is based on only a preference, and not any substantiative facts.
I would disagree, the difference between Microsoft and the AMD case, is who brought the case and did they have a viable alternative?
In the former the DOJ brought the case against Microsoft and the DOJ did not offer a viable alternative, after all the DOJ doesn't write operating systems. And to be honest there is no realistic alternative to the average consumer.i.e. grandmother other than Windows. On the other hand in the latter case, AMD is a direct competitor to Intel.
AMD not only offers a viable alternative but in many cases a better alternative. This is not the DOJ bringing suit it's a competitor, AMD, therefore the competitor, AMD, can collect heavy fines and concessions from Intel. It's brilliant and you got to love it right on the heals of the Apple deal, as clearly, AMD's architecture was a better fit for Apples initiatives, or stated initiatives. I.E. performance and power consumption an arena where AMD leads Intel.
Alot of myths are going to be dispelled in this court case and we will find out how Intel has kept it's lead despite inferior products, product instability, and an inability to meet deadlines and demand. The irony is these were all claims Intel made of AMD as to why they, Intel were #1 and a better choice. If I were Intel I'd higher my marketing team to try the case on their behalf.
Finally, I might actually get better options as a consumer as far as getting a CPU in a machine I want. It's about d*mn time. I would look over at AMD and go yeah right, if Intel weren't so blatently monopolistic, especially in the light how inferior Intel's offerings were until late. No, PC manufacturer worth his salt would say Intel produced the better product but they sure is hell knew how to throw around their weight. I hope Intel loses big on this one. AMD has to do it's part to prove the case and keep coming with the stellar products.
Man, someone has really go to do something about d*mn patents. Come on, common since would say hey if I have computer it would be cool if I could play music connected to music database. Duh, radio stations have been doing this $tuff for ever.
Software patents are really f'king retarded.
I today claim that I want to patent video tunes, if I have a video database, I have an interface to play that video database from my computer.
Cough, cough,... everyone pay me, now. Put the pr0n down, and pay me, damn't. The irony is Apple probably has just as many stupid patents, so, they deserve whatever they have to pay.
Well, then by that ideology then 9/11 was justified. After all Osama Bin Laden declared war on the U.S. back in 1993. Conversely, the U.S. was fighting "terrorism and Osama". i've never understood this word, terrorism. It's actually a really silly word when you think of it, as all wars are fought through the terrorizing or use of fear of complete destruction of the enemy.
So, if there are no innocents in war, then every person who died in the WTC were simply casualties of war. As everyone of those WTC casualties were aiding the American governments cause by living in the U.S. and paying taxes to help fund the Governments war actions, and therefore, target for destruction.
So, I'm just making sure I understand your statement when you say, there are no innocents in war.
Slashdot Mirror
"Remember, too, though, that while AMD may have superior products in certain, specific areas, since it shares manufacturing/fabrication capability with IBM, it has run into many of the same manufacturing and supply problems as IBM. Superior products are fine - if you can actually ship them. Intel, while you can cherry-pick instances of supply problems, has proven itself to be a stable and consistent supplier." Are you for f'cking real? Please, see product releases over the last few years and see who has had more delayed product releases? 1GHz, what 1GHz Pentium 3 (Vapor ware), Merced (Vapor Ware), Xean X64 (vapor ware), ... dude ... get a clue, AMD has kicked Intel's a$$ on launches. AMD does not share manufacturing FAB capacity with IBM, AMD uses IBM Fab technology i.e. SOI (Silicon on insulator) and IBM's copper interconnect technology.
AMD has it's own FABS, in fact, AMD has one of the largest FABS in the world in Fab 30 at Dresdan, Germany. This whole inability to provide chips is #1 a fallacy and FUD Intel has been using for sometime, the only chip delay of significance that AMD has had in the last decade was the AMD K5, back in 1995, by the way it performed better than the pentium too bad AMD at that point didn't have Fabs 30 and Fab 25, or atleast Fab 25 finished in time. As for stability, I believe AMD has never introduced a chip that can not divide properly, but Intel has done it twice in the last Decade.
All that said, apple is the #12 PC manufacturer, AMD would easily meet Apple demand and have room to spare considering it supplies chips volumes much larger than Apple can demand.
I think that's what fustrates people so much with the Intel / AMD saga is how off many are with their facts. If anything I hope this lawsuit brings to light how erroneous some people are in their fact finding, as know one in their right mind would make a statement that Intel has been more consistent to delivery and produced better quality products in comparison to AMD within the last decade, and especially not in the last 5 years.
Prefering Intel is fine, but to say AMD needs to make better products in reference to some superiority on Intels part is a fallacy. Intel has not held any type of performance lead or advantage in the processor arena in comparison to AMD for going on 7 years now. The FUD will tell you one thing, but the reality and benchmarks are an entirely different case. Example, I had a co-worker exclaim he heard AMD processors over heat and Intel was better at cooling and power consumption. I f*cking laughed my a$$ off, and I showed him the power consumption and cpu temperature charts, and AMD simply embarassed Intel. Also, architectually speaking Intel hasn't been innovative since the x86 processor was introduced, why, they haven't had to be, that's what happens when you get to be the biggest fish on the block you get lazy. Take for example FireFox or I.E., FireFox blows I.E. away in terms of features, MS finally decided to respond, in fact, MS had not updated I.E. for 3 years and had officially announced there would be no more I.E. development. But, I digress. Architectually, AMD has kicked Intel's proverbial rear end. That's why you see products like Pentium M, AMD proved the "Smart CPU" design was the way to go, actually design a more efficient processor. Simply making deeper pipe lined processors allowing for increased MHz was great way to cheaply get more performance, but produced problems like heat and power. In comes along the Pentium M, a smart CPU design, AMD has been doing it that way for some time, beginning with the K-5, the Athlon was the in your face for Intel. The irony is AMD for longest has said MHz is not end all to be all for processor performance. You see Intel got rid of their MHz rankings, because, they've adopted a more AMD'ish design philosophy. Furthermore, the Net burst architecture is going a way, and being replaced by a technology similar to AMD's on-die memory controller. I suggest you do some real research on your preference, and you'd realize that your preference for Intel is based on only a preference, and not any substantiative facts.
I would disagree, the difference between Microsoft and the AMD case, is who brought the case and did they have a viable alternative? In the former the DOJ brought the case against Microsoft and the DOJ did not offer a viable alternative, after all the DOJ doesn't write operating systems. And to be honest there is no realistic alternative to the average consumer .i.e. grandmother other than Windows. On the other hand in the latter case, AMD is a direct competitor to Intel.
AMD not only offers a viable alternative but in many cases a better alternative. This is not the DOJ bringing suit it's a competitor, AMD, therefore the competitor, AMD, can collect heavy fines and concessions from Intel. It's brilliant and you got to love it right on the heals of the Apple deal, as clearly, AMD's architecture was a better fit for Apples initiatives, or stated initiatives. I.E. performance and power consumption an arena where AMD leads Intel.
Alot of myths are going to be dispelled in this court case and we will find out how Intel has kept it's lead despite inferior products, product instability, and an inability to meet deadlines and demand. The irony is these were all claims Intel made of AMD as to why they, Intel were #1 and a better choice. If I were Intel I'd higher my marketing team to try the case on their behalf.
Finally, I might actually get better options as a consumer as far as getting a CPU in a machine I want. It's about d*mn time. I would look over at AMD and go yeah right, if Intel weren't so blatently monopolistic, especially in the light how inferior Intel's offerings were until late. No, PC manufacturer worth his salt would say Intel produced the better product but they sure is hell knew how to throw around their weight. I hope Intel loses big on this one. AMD has to do it's part to prove the case and keep coming with the stellar products.
Man, someone has really go to do something about d*mn patents. Come on, common since would say hey if I have computer it would be cool if I could play music connected to music database. Duh, radio stations have been doing this $tuff for ever. Software patents are really f'king retarded. I today claim that I want to patent video tunes, if I have a video database, I have an interface to play that video database from my computer. Cough, cough, ... everyone pay me, now. Put the pr0n down, and pay me, damn't. The irony is Apple probably has just as many stupid patents, so, they deserve whatever they have to pay.
Well, then by that ideology then 9/11 was justified. After all Osama Bin Laden declared war on the U.S. back in 1993. Conversely, the U.S. was fighting "terrorism and Osama". i've never understood this word, terrorism. It's actually a really silly word when you think of it, as all wars are fought through the terrorizing or use of fear of complete destruction of the enemy. So, if there are no innocents in war, then every person who died in the WTC were simply casualties of war. As everyone of those WTC casualties were aiding the American governments cause by living in the U.S. and paying taxes to help fund the Governments war actions, and therefore, target for destruction. So, I'm just making sure I understand your statement when you say, there are no innocents in war.
Ummm ... not to mention the most likely man to reach $1 billion in earnings strictly from playing a sport.
I always thought Microsoft was the Sith Master, all along, it's been Intel! Cunning.