interesting comment on amd from the Inquirer...AMD RIP I wonder?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by thingy, Nov 30, 2007.

  1. thingy

    thingy Guest

    1. Advertising

  2. thingy

    Gordon Guest

    On 2007-11-30, thingy <> wrote:
    > http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/11/29/amd-messed-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, Nov 30, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. thingy

    Nik Coughlin Guest

    "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.
     
    Nik Coughlin, Nov 30, 2007
    #3
  4. thingy

    Nighthawk Guest

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

    >http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/11/29/amd-messed-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.
     
    Nighthawk, Nov 30, 2007
    #4
  5. thingy

    Nighthawk Guest

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

    >http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/11/29/amd-messed-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, Nov 30, 2007
    #5
  6. thingy

    Dave Taylor Guest

    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
     
    Dave Taylor, Nov 30, 2007
    #6
  7. thingy

    impossible Guest

    "Nighthawk" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:16:31 +1300, thingy <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/11/29/amd-messed-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-archives.cgi?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.
     
    impossible, Nov 30, 2007
    #7
  8. thingy

    Mickey Mouse Guest

    "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, Nov 30, 2007
    #8
  9. thingy

    impossible Guest

    "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, Nov 30, 2007
    #9
  10. thingy

    Mickey Mouse Guest

    "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.
     
    Mickey Mouse, Nov 30, 2007
    #10
  11. thingy

    sam Guest

    Nighthawk wrote:
    > On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:16:31 +1300, thingy <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/11/29/amd-messed-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?
    >
    >

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude
     
    sam, Nov 30, 2007
    #11
  12. thingy

    impossible Guest

    "Mickey Mouse" <> wrote in message
    news:fiohb2$d8$...
    > "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.
    >


    Ok, let's look at what "equate" actually equates to. I'll use the X2 6000+
    as AMD's option here instead of the X2 6400+, and compare that with the
    E6750:

    http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=921&model2=876&chart=435

    The test I'm looking at is Photoshop CS 3 filtering a 69MB tif image. There
    are other tests to choose from, some more flattering to intel, others more
    flattering to amd. But in this case the E6750 completes the job in 112
    seconds while the 6000+ does it in 126 seconds. A significant difference,
    but just 14 seconds -- the 6000 + is about 11% slower.

    Pricewise, I'm looking at Paradigm's site (not a promotion and I won't post
    the link for that reason, just an example of relativities):

    E6750 = $309
    6000+ = $269

    The 6000+ is about 13% cheaper.

    So **if** you think you'll actually be able to feel that 11& performance
    improvement with the E6750, you'll pay about 13% more for the privilege.


    > 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.


    if that's your thing, then yes -- the Core 2 duos are good. But since these
    are all being rapidly eclipsed now by intel's new quad cores, bragging
    rights are going to be harder for overclockers to come by in the near
    future.
     
    impossible, Nov 30, 2007
    #12
  13. thingy

    Mickey Mouse Guest

    "impossible" <> wrote in message
    news:tnX3j.225042$Fc.155660@attbi_s21...
    >
    > "Mickey Mouse" <> wrote in message
    > news:fiohb2$d8$...
    >> "impossible" <> wrote in message
    >> news:3CP3j.223537$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.

    >
    > Ok, let's look at what "equate" actually equates to. I'll use the X2 6000+
    > as AMD's option here instead of the X2 6400+, and compare that with the
    > E6750:
    >
    > http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=921&model2=876&chart=435


    I'm using these figures as a base
    (http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html) and C1 for prices.

    Starting with an equivalent comparison;
    6400+ - $298.75 (plus in the vicinity of $100 for a sufficiently capable
    cooling solution, putting it right into Q6600 price territory)
    E6750 - $287.95

    It's clear that AMD isn't even in the race with the 6400+.

    Perhaps for the 6000+ an E6550 is more likely to be a closer comparison, and
    at $257.25 is about the same price as a 6000+, and is a 65W piece instead of
    125W so it runs cooler and has more overclocking potential. With the small
    price differential, I would recommend anyone considering a 6000+ or E6550 to
    step up to a E6750.

    Once again, this just further supports why I consider the AMD chips a
    non-starter, except on cheap, entry-level systems. Maybe that's why chips
    like the X2 4000+ still tick over at a reasonable rate, but those looking
    for more, currently tend to go C2D unless they're the ignoring the realities
    AMD fanboy types.
     
    Mickey Mouse, Nov 30, 2007
    #13
  14. thingy

    impossible Guest

    "Mickey Mouse" <> wrote in message
    news:fipo69$qjk$...
    > "impossible" <> wrote in message
    > news:tnX3j.225042$Fc.155660@attbi_s21...
    >>
    >> "Mickey Mouse" <> wrote in message
    >> news:fiohb2$d8$...
    >>> "impossible" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:3CP3j.223537$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.

    >>
    >> Ok, let's look at what "equate" actually equates to. I'll use the X2
    >> 6000+ as AMD's option here instead of the X2 6400+, and compare that with
    >> the E6750:
    >>
    >> http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=921&model2=876&chart=435

    >
    > I'm using these figures as a base
    > (http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html) and C1 for prices.
    >


    Synethetic benchhmarks that meaure raw speed are useless. P4s used to always
    beat Athlons in those silly competiotions, even when real-world results were
    vastly different. Look at The TomsHardware tests I referenced, and then tell
    me there's a clear-cut, hands-down winner. Either get yourself a second-gen
    Intel quad core or stop your senseless bragging.
     
    impossible, Nov 30, 2007
    #14
  15. thingy

    Mickey Mouse Guest

    "impossible" <> wrote in message
    news:%TZ3j.225246$Fc.20837@attbi_s21...
    >
    > "Mickey Mouse" <> wrote in message
    > news:fipo69$qjk$...
    >> "impossible" <> wrote in message
    >> news:tnX3j.225042$Fc.155660@attbi_s21...
    >>>
    >>> "Mickey Mouse" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:fiohb2$d8$...
    >>>> "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.
    >>>
    >>> Ok, let's look at what "equate" actually equates to. I'll use the X2
    >>> 6000+ as AMD's option here instead of the X2 6400+, and compare that
    >>> with the E6750:
    >>>
    >>> http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=921&model2=876&chart=435

    >>
    >> I'm using these figures as a base
    >> (http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html) and C1 for prices.
    >>

    >
    > Synethetic benchhmarks that meaure raw speed are useless. P4s used to
    > always beat Athlons in those silly competiotions, even when real-world
    > results were vastly different. Look at The TomsHardware tests I
    > referenced, and then tell me there's a clear-cut, hands-down winner.
    > Either get yourself a second-gen Intel quad core or stop your senseless
    > bragging.


    I've seen plenty of "real world" examples, particularly in the games
    department, and they tend to average out in order with the raw CPU scores.
    What is apparent, is that since my last system build AMD have dropped the
    ball, lost the momentum, and that Intel have got their act together. Whereas
    AMD was the best choice then, Intel is now.
     
    Mickey Mouse, Nov 30, 2007
    #15
  16. thingy

    impossible Guest

    "Mickey Mouse" <> wrote in message
    news:fipr5n$4d8$...
    > "impossible" <> wrote in message
    > news:%TZ3j.225246$Fc.20837@attbi_s21...
    >>
    >> "Mickey Mouse" <> wrote in message
    >> news:fipo69$qjk$...
    >>> "impossible" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:tnX3j.225042$Fc.155660@attbi_s21...
    >>>>
    >>>> "Mickey Mouse" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:fiohb2$d8$...
    >>>>> "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.
    >>>>
    >>>> Ok, let's look at what "equate" actually equates to. I'll use the X2
    >>>> 6000+ as AMD's option here instead of the X2 6400+, and compare that
    >>>> with the E6750:
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=921&model2=876&chart=435
    >>>
    >>> I'm using these figures as a base
    >>> (http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html) and C1 for prices.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Synethetic benchhmarks that meaure raw speed are useless. P4s used to
    >> always beat Athlons in those silly competiotions, even when real-world
    >> results were vastly different. Look at The TomsHardware tests I
    >> referenced, and then tell me there's a clear-cut, hands-down winner.
    >> Either get yourself a second-gen Intel quad core or stop your senseless
    >> bragging.

    >
    > I've seen plenty of "real world" examples, particularly in the games
    > department, and they tend to average out in order with the raw CPU scores.


    That's not even close to being an accurate summary. Instead of the wild
    differentials you get from synthetic benchmarks, real-world testing tends to
    narrow the gap to a few percentage points.

    > What is apparent, is that since my last system build AMD have dropped the
    > ball, lost the momentum, and that Intel have got their act together.
    > Whereas AMD was the best choice then, Intel is now.


    Intel's second-gen quad cores are best by far. That's all anyone can really
    say right now. Instead of cheering for one or another brand, you really
    should look at the data.
     
    impossible, Nov 30, 2007
    #16
  17. thingy

    thingy Guest

    I am not anti-AMD. In fact if anything I am anti-Intel....however I am
    not prepared to cut my nose off to spite my face....

    I saying that, this year I have bought a 4000x2EE and a 6000x2 as at the
    moment these are powerful enough at the price I can afford to be a
    decent deal....

    What I can see though is strategically IMHO AMD and ATI are in grave
    difficulty...in order to be and stay competitive their newest model(s)
    should IMHO be leap frogging Intel/Nvidia at the top end and fighting a
    good fight at the middle, guess what they are not....Intel and Nvidia
    have a huge leading edge....both ATI and AMD do not look to even match
    what their competitors are fielding today let alone when the next
    leapfrog happens for Intel/Nvidia....at the moment that looks to be the
    8 core CPUs due out this time next year....for Nvidia the 8800GT and the
    forthcoming 8800GTSv2 are as good as or better mid-range cards....the
    Ultra looks due for an update and will also jump well clear of ATI....

    regards

    Thing

    impossible wrote:
    > "Nighthawk" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:16:31 +1300, thingy <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/11/29/amd-messed-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-archives.cgi?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.
    >
    >
    >
     
    thingy, Dec 1, 2007
    #17
  18. thingy

    thingy Guest

    Nighthawk wrote:
    > On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:16:31 +1300, thingy <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/11/29/amd-messed-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?
    >
    >


    I dont want AMD to "die"...........however from what I can see their
    product range is in-adequate on both performance and energy
    savings....so unless they get thier act together they are going to be
    toast....and I honestly dont want to see that!

    regards

    Thing
     
    thingy, Dec 1, 2007
    #18
  19. thingy

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh interweb impossible typed:
    > "Mickey Mouse" <> wrote in message
    > news:fiohb2$d8$...
    >> 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.

    >
    > if that's your thing, then yes -- the Core 2 duos are good. But since
    > these are all being rapidly eclipsed now by intel's new quad cores,
    > bragging rights are going to be harder for overclockers to come by in
    > the near future.


    My cheapie C2D E4500 overclocked to 3.3GHz, 1650 FSB, on air, at case temp
    +20°C at full load, does just about everything way faster than Intels only
    sub-$1K quad core, the Q6600. Even when the Q6600 is OCed on air.

    As the (current) Intel quads consist of two duos in one package it also
    follows that they dissapate around twice the heat of a dual core. Therefore
    getting any real speed out of them requires liquid cooling. Until the 45nm
    quads are available at affordable prices and/or more software is optimised
    for more than two cores the Core 2 Duo will continue to be the "fastest" CPU
    for the majority of tasks.

    I don't see any "rapid eclipsing" going on anywhere.
    --
    TTFN,

    Shaun.
     
    ~misfit~, Dec 1, 2007
    #19
  20. thingy

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh interweb impossible typed:

    > Intel's second-gen quad cores are best by far. That's all anyone can
    > really say right now. Instead of cheering for one or another brand,
    > you really should look at the data.


    Can you point out where I could purchase one of these elusive CPUs please?
    They're rarer than 8800GTs and a hell of a lot dearer. Certainly not
    mainstream CPUs.
    --
    TTFN,

    Shaun.
     
    ~misfit~, Dec 1, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Wendell

    converting accuset 1200 HW rip to software rip

    Wendell, Jun 5, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,098
    Wendell
    Jun 5, 2004
  2. Big Mama Bear

    AMD desktops with "all in wonder"?

    Big Mama Bear, Jul 21, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    652
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=
    Jul 21, 2007
  3. Tim
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    411
    Dave - Dave.net.nz
    Sep 20, 2004
  4. Nighthawk
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    1,066
  5. Smoking Causes Lung Cancer (SCLC)

    Interesting comment on Slashdot...

    Smoking Causes Lung Cancer (SCLC), Jan 10, 2008, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    990
    impossible
    Jan 16, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page