«

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...ssed-christmas

regards

Thing

On 2007-11-30, thingy <> wrote:
> http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...ssed-christmas
>
Good who need Christmas? ;-0

Media likes to do what it has to to sell copies. So it becomes fashionable
to "beat up" the flavour of the month.

AMD was crap cf. Intel. It then got its act together and threw the guanlent
down to Intel. Trouble is then having beating Intel it thinks that it has
won. Sorry the race goes on.

Even if you are leading, one needs to keep the eye on the ball and keep
moving forward.

Look Apple has gone all over the playing field and still has not gone
rotten.

I heard to-day that Intel and AMD are going to merge. See I am not sure if
it was a rumour or not.

Meanwhile, CPUs have become so powerful for Jane Doe's use that she and John
care not how much power it has.

Time will be the judge.

"Gordon" <> wrote in message
news:...
> I heard to-day that Intel and AMD are going to merge. See I am not sure if
> it was a rumour or not.

Can anyone say anti-trust? Where did you hear that?

> Meanwhile, CPUs have become so powerful for Jane Doe's use that she and
> John
> care not how much power it has.

Yeah, my AMD X2 6000 is plenty fast. Yes, a Core 2 Duo would be faster, but
it's still plenty fast... and I do reasonably high end stuff.

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:16:31 +1300, thingy <>
wrote:

>http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...ssed-christmas
>
>regards
>
>Thing

scroll down:

With all of the crap floating around about a company 1/10th the size
of Intel, it seems like everyone liked the 90s and the way Intel put
choke chains on all of the OEMs - and customers.

I don't think AMD had overly high prices. Their single core chips were
low-priced and the dual cores were costly, but they were 80% faster
than the single cores.

At the same time Intel was sabotaging AMD launches, threatening to
pull chipsets or charge the other arm and leg for them if OEMs sold
more than three AMD chips.

I think this will be a good XMas for AMD as they had record revenue
last quarter and are on the verge of $2B per quarter.

We should all be down on our knees thanking AMD for fighting the good
fight - with a "convicted" monopolist no less.

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:16:31 +1300, thingy <>
wrote:

>http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...ssed-christmas
>
>regards
>
>Thing

Something I don't understand: In an online forum where, like in this
group, people were gleefully dancing on AMD's grave, someone asked
"What did AMD do to you? Did AMD murder your entire family?" Why are
people seemingly so delighted at AMD's 'imminent demise'? Are you all
large shareholders in Intel?

Nighthawk <> wrote in
news::

> We should all be down on our knees thanking AMD for fighting the good
> fight - with a "convicted" monopolist no less.

I am thankful. I bought an AMD 486 or 586 IIRC. I haven't purchased
anything by them since, but I would if it was an appropriate choice.

--
Ciao, Dave

"Nighthawk" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:16:31 +1300, thingy <>
> wrote:
>
>>http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...ssed-christmas
>>
>>regards
>>
>>Thing
>
> scroll down:
>
> With all of the crap floating around about a company 1/10th the size
> of Intel, it seems like everyone liked the 90s and the way Intel put
> choke chains on all of the OEMs - and customers.
>
> I don't think AMD had overly high prices. Their single core chips were
> low-priced and the dual cores were costly, but they were 80% faster
> than the single cores.
>
> At the same time Intel was sabotaging AMD launches, threatening to
> pull chipsets or charge the other arm and leg for them if OEMs sold
> more than three AMD chips.
>
> I think this will be a good XMas for AMD as they had record revenue
> last quarter and are on the verge of $2B per quarter.
>
> We should all be down on our knees thanking AMD for fighting the good
> fight - with a "convicted" monopolist no less.
>
>

Oh, please! I'm as perplexed as you by the anti-AMD bandwagon around here.
But while the company is a long ways from broke, your giddy portrayal of
their health right now is based on wishful thinking. I scoured AMD's site
for a report on their "record revenue" in the last quarter -- perhaps you
could post a link. Whatever the revenue figures may be, losses are clearly
piling up: US$396 million in 3Q 2007, US$457 million in 2Q 2007 (I guess you
can call that progress).

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/071018/20071018006156.html?.v=1

No matter how you spin things, it's been a **very bad** year for AMD. It's
credit rating is down to B-, it's share price is hovering around US$10 (down
from US$20 at the start of the year and a high of US$40 in 2006).

http://www.investorguide.com/stock-a...gi?date=083107

Blaming this predicament on Intel's hardball business practices just won't
cut it. AMD, you'll recall, made it's first big splash in the cpu market by
reverse engineering Intel's designs -- clever, but cut-throat in its own
way. I waste no tears for either of these players -- they've been more than
amply compensated for their respectives troubles.

"Nighthawk" <> wrote in message
news:...

> With all of the crap floating around about a company 1/10th the size
> of Intel, it seems like everyone liked the 90s and the way Intel put
> choke chains on all of the OEMs - and customers.
>
> I don't think AMD had overly high prices. Their single core chips were
> low-priced and the dual cores were costly, but they were 80% faster
> than the single cores.
>
> I think this will be a good XMas for AMD as they had record revenue
> last quarter and are on the verge of $2B per quarter.

It would appear I'm not the only one who thinks AMD has dropped the ball,
and it would appear that ATI is suffering under their stewardship, with huge
cash bleeds, serious issues with production yields on new chipsets, along
with numerous staff departures.

The last system I built a few years back was based on AMD and ATI, at a time
when they hit a sweet spot during Intels realisation that the increasingly
dizzying TDP's on the P4 line required a change of direction - ironically
the TDP crown would now appear to be held by AMD. I don't currently
consider them to be a credible or realistic option for anything other than a
cheap, entry level setup - hence my new system build is based on Core 2 Duo
and nVidia.

"Mickey Mouse" <> wrote in message
news:fioet5$pcr$...
> "Nighthawk" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>
>> With all of the crap floating around about a company 1/10th the size
>> of Intel, it seems like everyone liked the 90s and the way Intel put
>> choke chains on all of the OEMs - and customers.
>>
>> I don't think AMD had overly high prices. Their single core chips were
>> low-priced and the dual cores were costly, but they were 80% faster
>> than the single cores.
>>
>> I think this will be a good XMas for AMD as they had record revenue
>> last quarter and are on the verge of $2B per quarter.
>
> It would appear I'm not the only one who thinks AMD has dropped the ball,
> and it would appear that ATI is suffering under their stewardship, with
> huge cash bleeds, serious issues with production yields on new chipsets,
> along with numerous staff departures.
>
> The last system I built a few years back was based on AMD and ATI, at a
> time when they hit a sweet spot during Intels realisation that the
> increasingly dizzying TDP's on the P4 line required a change of
> direction - ironically the TDP crown would now appear to be held by AMD.
> I don't currently consider them to be a credible or realistic option for
> anything other than a cheap, entry level setup - hence my new system build
> is based on Core 2 Duo and nVidia.

If you look at the TomsHardware cpu charts, you'll find that AMD competes
very, very well with Intel in terms of dual cores. For the money, I'd take
AMD any day -- the 6000-and-up X2 range will just about match the
performance of Intel's first-generation quad cores. Where Intel has left AMD
behind is with its second-generation quad cores, and that's a gap that will
be hard for AMD to close in the near future.

"impossible" <> wrote in message
news:3CP3j.223537$Fc.208762@attbi_s21...

> If you look at the TomsHardware cpu charts, you'll find that AMD competes
> very, very well with Intel in terms of dual cores. For the money, I'd take
> AMD any day -- the 6000-and-up X2 range will just about match the
> performance of Intel's first-generation quad cores. Where Intel has left
> AMD behind is with its second-generation quad cores, and that's a gap that
> will be hard for AMD to close in the near future.

It realistically takes a 6400+ to equate an E6750, while costing more,
having a TDP almost double the C2D, and doesn't even come with a cooler as
standard.

Then there's the question of how viable are they to overclock on stock
cooling, particularly with the heat it generates. Core 2 Duo's are well
regarded in this area.