TetsuoShima Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 AMD is going to try and tackle the big guy, Intel. I really wonder whether they will succeed? Official AMD news release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorunNova Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 *crosses fingers* Succeed, succeed, succeed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quosego Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 If they don't win, the world will truly go to hell.... Look at the things Intel did, that can't be legal.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beawulf Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 good luck to them, I am an AMD user and have found they outperform intel chips. surely if intel is producing a quality product they dont need to resort to illegal acts to continue to thrive tsk tsk we are probably lucky that intel isnt owned by microsoft......that being said who knows how many shares does microsoft own! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorunNova Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 Heh... their current 'advancements' are stealing AMD's 64-bit architecture and extended instruction set -_-'... mind you, those portable chips Intel has are immensely easy on laptop battery power... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NiteShdw Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 This shouldn't really be news to anyone. Intel has been using illegal tactics for 20 years. The AMD-Intel debate is just as strong now as it was 10 years ago. Nothing has changed, which is good evidence that Intel is indeed a monopoly (just compare their CPU prices to AMD!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foil Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 I haven't seen any news on this, what illegal activities has Intel committed? I get the feeling its another bring down the big guy thing. I always felt that the two companies made machines that performed better under different circumstance. For an office machine I would choose Pentium for the higher clock speeds. For a gaming and video machine, AMD. AMD has also had some trouble getting rid of that old stigma (which is supposed to be no longer true) that their machines are less stable. It took pentium some time to get over that stigma of the 486 performing bad math calculations as well. I also like Microsoft. They may not have the most processor efficient software out there but for the common end user, I thought XP was a very good product. But lets not make this a microsoft thread, I was only driving a parallel between two big companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorunNova Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 Did you read the article? It gave a couple of examples, I believe... Edit: Scratch that... seven or eight notable examples, all sounding very similar to stunts Microsoft has also pulled and got crucified over... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted June 30, 2005 Author Share Posted June 30, 2005 I get the feeling its another bring down the big guy thing. I always felt that the two companies made machines that performed better under different circumstance. For an office machine I would choose Pentium for the higher clock speeds. For a gaming and video machine' date=' AMD.[/quote'] Actually, for an office machine it doesn't really matter what you put into it, even a 'high end' VIA processor would do here. As for gaming, AMD has been indeed clearly better for some time now and Intel used to be the best at video, but since the release of AMD's dual core, they also hold the best performing processor here. Currently Intel has extreemly little to offer performance-wise and that is exactly why AMD has decided that this was the moment to sue Intel, since they can absolutely no longer claim that their market position is due to better performance of their processors. Intel has also finally accepted that the P4-strategy was a faulty one and in about 1 to 2 years the P4 will have completely dissapeared from the market and replaced by a Pentium-M based desktop processor. They still have a lot of work to do in this area, since this processor has been optimised for laptops and is absolutely NO match for AMD's offering where server-applications are concerned, for the rest this P-M is pretty much and equal to AMD's Athlon64-series. It is funny though that they are reverting to the P-M, since that one was originally based on the P-III, which they abandoned to persue the P4-architecture. Ironic really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonstalker Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 I think that one of the good things is that it's more or less a global look at Intel's practices. A single look may miss something but with all those countries looking, a pretty complete picture will come out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tisjusme Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 Intel had no 64 bit technology pre buying the majority of the CPU manufacturing plants from AMD. After making the deal with AMD, Microsoft then convieniently came out with a 64 of there own after just a few months. This makes me wonder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorunNova Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 Heh... and the 'beta' worked better than any other MS operating system I've owned before or since ;p... they could have easily marketed that as the 64-bit windows... but instead they chose to wait on Intel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now