Intel No-Show At Spring Processor Forum

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jason711 said:
lmfao.. he is the definition of bias. not worth arguing with him, he will tell you intel is better no matter what you have to say.
Click to expand...

That's BS. I will agree fully that AMD has had a better product for the past couple years, basically since Prescott came around. Now... Intel was still better in some uses, multitasking being a BIG one, in games AMD was better... that is until AMD went to dual core. At that point they took the crown across the board. My problem comes with the fact that while they were better, it wasn't as big of a deal as people made it out to be. They benchmarked higher, yet in real world the differences were negligible. This discussion was about Intel taking some risks... some worked and others didn't... but what risks has AMD taken? Have they tried to push a new technology? No.. they let Intel do it first and once it's mainstream they hop on the coattails. FBDIMMs is a GREAT example of this. They've said they will run FBDIMMs.... who did all the R&D on that? Oh... that's right... Intel. :rolleyes:
 
x86-64
AMD had that frist
and dont go saying any thing about the Itanic thats a sinking ship lol and intel knows it

also having a on die mem contorler was BIG leap no other retail CPU had ever done that
 
Elios said:
actuly thay are lol intel has much more det to cash on had then AMD iirc intel is losing money over all that inclueds there other branchs wile AMD is actuly in the black for a change
with some 2 Billion in cash on hand
Click to expand...

So why was AMD looking for cash to finish fab 36

Intel as a business neted more than AMD grossed.

When you going to point out the NB on K8L to us I provided link to a blow up.


When you going to ans Question about what AMD has to offer when we through X86 out the window
 
$BangforThe$ said:
So why was AMD looking for cash to finish fab 36

Intel as a business neted more than AMD grossed.

When you going to point out the NB on K8L to us I provided link to a blow up.


When you going to ans Question about what AMD has to offer when we through X86 out the window
Click to expand...

check the link i posted you just posted A CORE for the full die
take a look at the whole die
http://www.vtr-hardware.com/media/images/news/1/8344.jpg



well AMD i beleave is going to be leading the way with that
as from what I hear whats after K8L will be a clean up of x86
 
Poncho said:
That's BS. I will agree fully that AMD has had a better product for the past couple years, basically since Prescott came around. Now... Intel was still better in some uses, multitasking being a BIG one, in games AMD was better... that is until AMD went to dual core. At that point they took the crown across the board. My problem comes with the fact that while they were better, it wasn't as big of a deal as people made it out to be. They benchmarked higher, yet in real world the differences were negligible. This discussion was about Intel taking some risks... some worked and others didn't... but what risks has AMD taken? Have they tried to push a new technology? No.. they let Intel do it first and once it's mainstream they hop on the coattails. FBDIMMs is a GREAT example of this. They've said they will run FBDIMMs.... who did all the R&D on that? Oh... that's right... Intel. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

sounds like you just have a vendetta then. :confused:
 
Elios said:
x86-64
AMD had that frist
and dont go saying any thing about the Itanic thats a sinking ship lol and intel knows it

also having a on die mem contorler was BIG leap no other retail CPU had ever done that
Click to expand...
Please AMD stole X86 from intel . IMC the way AMD has done it is laughable. Nehalem will show you that.

AMD 64 is not X86 it works with X86
 
Both camps are going to be hard at it. I think we'll all be quite surprised to see what comes our way from both camps by 2010. 22nm anyone?
 
Poncho,

How much of the technology does AMD license from Intel? Any idea? Just wondering, since I see that as one of the reasons AMD can be comptetive with Intel. They don't, and aren't required to develop many of the features/technologies of their CPU design. They take some from Intel, IBM, and mix in a few from their own.
 
When you going to point out the NB on K8L to us I provided link to a blow up.
Intel I doubt will ever do that . Maybe they will but . Than you have to do a revision of the die . Every time new tech arrives. I don;t know
 
Poncho said:
FBDIMMs is a GREAT example of this. They've said they will run FBDIMMs.... who did all the R&D on that? Oh... that's right... Intel. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You sound rather bitter. It appears that you are upset because -in your eyes- AMD is stealing from Intel rather than innovating. Isn't it easy to belittle a competitor when one sits at the top?
 
$BangforThe$ said:
Please AMD stole X86 from intel . IMC the way AMD has done it is laughable. Nehalem will show you that.

AMD 64 is not X86 it works with X86
Click to expand...
there was no stealing, AMD made an x86 compatible chipset and the world is much better off for it.
 
$BangforThe$ said:
Please AMD stole X86 from intel . IMC the way AMD has done it is laughable. Nehalem will show you that.

AMD 64 is not X86 it works with X86
Click to expand...


Your ignorance of the legal methodology of patents and cross licensing is very enlightening.

Also, Intel has not produced an X86 chip since the 486, either. Please LEARN before you POST. God, the trolls are fun today.
 
$BangforThe$ said:
Please AMD stole X86 from intel . IMC the way AMD has done it is laughable. Nehalem will show you that.

AMD 64 is not X86 it works with X86
Click to expand...
1. Intel licenced it to AMD back in the 8086 days

2. x86-64 is to X86-32 what x86-32 was to x86-16
it doesnt just work with it IS x86 with more registers
 
drizzt81 said:
other people may say that it's progress.

Also, most people in the finance world would say that it's a smart choice -from a risk management perspective- to improve a product gradually, instead of making it 'perfect' before it is released. Positive cash flow is what keeps companies alive. It's true, apparently AMD's pockets are not as deep at Intels, but that doesn't mean that their choices are poor.
Click to expand...

A few IT folks traced the "all four slots full" bugs and etc.. to AMD. That tends to come back to bite you later. Maybe not perfect but better than some of the Intel 3 different 925s or the 4 different revision of an nForce 4 or a Intel 975. Yet, overall, Intel has been better in overall system stability and compatability tests. Poll after Poll points that out.
 
dr_dirtnap said:
Poncho,

How much of the technology does AMD license from Intel? Any idea? Just wondering, since I see that as one of the reasons AMD can be comptetive with Intel. They don't, and aren't required to develop many of the features/technologies of their CPU design. They take some from Intel, IBM, and mix in a few from their own.
Click to expand...


I've got no problem with that.... but don't sit there and criticize the companies that take the risks so AMD can use their Tech. Prescott (NOT P4) was a flop.... so was Rambus.... Ask yourself this... but really where would AMD be today without Intel? Where would Intel be without AMD? Serious question.....please answer.
 
I hope charter or someone else reverse engineers AMD processor and claims it as their own and AMD takes it to the world courts and the world courts use the Intel AMD decision to say its legal. Now that I said it maybe they will.
 
$BangforThe$ said:
When you going to point out the NB on K8L to us I provided link to a blow up.
Intel I doubt will ever do that . Maybe they will but . Than you have to do a revision of the die . Every time new tech arrives. I don;t know
Click to expand...


WTH i posted the link 3 times

http://www.vtr-hardware.com/media/images/news/1/8344.jpg

there happy see it now LORD ARE YOU BLIND your post is just ONE CORE out of 4 that make up the K8L and even then your pic is missing all the I/O parts of the CPU
 
$BangforThe$ said:
I hope charter or someone else reverse engineers AMD processor and claims it as their own and AMD takes it to the world courts and the world courts use the Intel AMD decision to say its legal. Now that I said it maybe they will.
Click to expand...

You're so delusional it's hillarious. I am actually laughing out loud at how badly you are out of touch with reality. Thanks for the laugh :) I enjoyed it :)
 
Poncho said:
I've got no problem with that.... but don't sit there and criticize the companies that take the risks so AMD can use their Tech. Prescott (NOT P4) was a flop.... so was Rambus.... Ask yourself this... but really where would AMD be today without Intel? Where would Intel be without AMD? Serious question.....please answer.
Click to expand...

my guess is some of us would be using Alphas as thay are far better then any thing Intel had at the time

Intel would not rearly moved as fast and we would still be using the slow hot netburst if not still on P3 like chips which oddly may have been better then netburst
 
mwarps said:
Is that K8L or is that K9, though? *Honest question, since I thought K8L was only a dual core chip*
Click to expand...


thats K8L for the webcast the other week if any one else even bother to watch it nothing has been shown for K9 yet other then what it MAY be and from what i hear it will be much diffrent from curent x86 chips
 
Elios said:
my guess is some of us would be using Alphas as thay are far better then any thing Intel had at the time

Intel would not rearly moved as fast and we would still be using the slow hot netburst if not still on P3 like chips which oddly may have been better then netburst
Click to expand...

You give them far more credit than they are due. I would bet we would be sitting with some barely passable excuse for a P3, and be paying $1500 a chip for it. Can't forget the vitual monopoly Intel would have on the CPU market if not for AMD.
 
Poncho said:
That's BS. I will agree fully that AMD has had a better product for the past couple years, basically since Prescott came around. Now... Intel was still better in some uses, multitasking being a BIG one, in games AMD was better... that is until AMD went to dual core. At that point they took the crown across the board. My problem comes with the fact that while they were better, it wasn't as big of a deal as people made it out to be. They benchmarked higher, yet in real world the differences were negligible. This discussion was about Intel taking some risks... some worked and others didn't... but what risks has AMD taken? Have they tried to push a new technology? No.. they let Intel do it first and once it's mainstream they hop on the coattails. FBDIMMs is a GREAT example of this. They've said they will run FBDIMMs.... who did all the R&D on that? Oh... that's right... Intel. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

absolutly, you wanna know what the great part of that is? customers get the product, AMD doesnt pay for the research, thats not sleezyness, thats just good PR.

and in the great words of some hic somwhere: "if it ant broke dont fix it". K8 hasnt been broke for years. it was broken by a promising proceser, known as Core2 or Conroe. K8L is a revision of K8, AMD thinks that the K8 architecture still has some promise to it, so they're gonna push that as far as itl go.
 
mwarps said:
Your ignorance of the legal methodology of patents and cross licensing is very enlightening.

Also, Intel has not produced an X86 chip since the 486, either. Please LEARN before you POST. God, the trolls are fun today.
Click to expand...

The courts forced that agreement . X86 has evolved . but it still is foundamental . Please don't preach US law to me as it stands now its a joke .
 
mwarps said:
You give them far more credit than they are due. I would bet we would be sitting with some barely passable excuse for a P3, and be paying $1500 a chip for it. Can't forget the vitual monopoly Intel would have on the CPU market if not for AMD.
Click to expand...

there were alot of other great CPUs the best of which was the Alpha imo
that alone would of got us to the P3
 
$BangforThe$ said:
The courts forced that agreement . X86 has evolved . but it still is foundamental . Please don't preach US law to me as it stands now its a joke .
Click to expand...

Please provide proof (which can only come in a link to a court decision) in which the court "forced Intel to cross license with AMD". I'll be waiting.

I think you mean "Fundamental". I am guessing the only reason you think it is a joke is because Intel lost a case against AMD, right? Or because AMD's antitrust case against Intel hasn't been thrown out? Right? Don't like it when big bad AMD beats up on poor defenseless Intel in court? :rolleyes:
 
Elios said:
there were alot of other great CPUs the best of which was the Alpha imo
that alone would of got us to the P3
Click to expand...

I miss the Alpha. It was lovely. There could be an arguement made that Intel stole MMX/SSE from Digital's MVI, but I wouldn't want to start a decade's old flamewar.
 
Donnie27 said:
A few IT folks traced the "all four slots full" bugs and etc.. to AMD.
Click to expand...
got a link? If not, please elaborate what you are trying to say. What slots what bug? I simply don't know what you are talking about. A link would be helpful.

That tends to come back to bite you later. Maybe not perfect but better than some of the Intel 3 different 925s or the 4 different revision of an nForce 4 or a Intel 975. Yet, overall, Intel has been better in overall system stability and compatability tests. Poll after Poll points that out.
Click to expand...
What poll? Just give me the link to one. Actually, don't bother. I don't believe most polls, otherwise I would be considering Britney Spears an excellent singer.
 
mwarps said:
You're so delusional it's hillarious. I am actually laughing out loud at how badly you are out of touch with reality. Thanks for the laugh :) I enjoyed it :)
Click to expand...
So your saying that AMD did not reverse engineer the 386 and sell it as its own right.

Intel only licensed X86 after the reverse enginnering lawsuite . prior to that Intel used AMD only as a secondary FAB because IBM insisted on it.
 
drizzt81 said:
got a link? If not, please elaborate what you are trying to say. What slots what bug? I simply don't know what you are talking about. A link would be helpful.
Click to expand...

It's actually a lie and shows how completely ignorant the poster is of computer/chipset design. [unless it was in reference to a cpu with an embedded mem controller, I'll concede there, some of the mem controllers in the a64s sucked]
 
Poncho said:
I've got no problem with that.... but don't sit there and criticize the companies that take the risks so AMD can use their Tech. Prescott (NOT P4) was a flop.... so was Rambus.... Ask yourself this... but really where would AMD be today without Intel? Where would Intel be without AMD? Serious question.....please answer.
Click to expand...
If Intel did not get a payoff from 'taking the risk' they would not. Trust me, neither Intel nor AMD is run by engineers. Companies make money. By taking a risk you have a chance to make more money, but take the chance to lose more as well.

Where would Intel be without AMD? - P4's would be ruling the world and you'd be paying $4k for each of them. Please, economics 101 dictates that competition is good for the business, so does common sense.
 
drizzt81 said:
What poll? Just give me the link to one. Actually, don't bother. I don't believe most polls, otherwise I would be considering Britney Spears an excellent singer.
Click to expand...

siged
 
mwarps said:
I miss the Alpha. It was lovely. There could be an arguement made that Intel stole MMX/SSE from Digital's MVI, but I wouldn't want to start a decade's old flamewar.
Click to expand...
I mis DEC one minute they were bigger than IBM the next minute they were gone and I was out $23,000 lol
 
drizzt81 said:
If Intel did not get a payoff from 'taking the risk' they would not. Trust me, neither Intel nor AMD is run by engineers. Companies make money. By taking a risk you have a chance to make more money, but take the chance to lose more as well.

Where would Intel be without AMD? - P4's would be ruling the world and you'd be paying $4k for each of them. Please, economics 101 dictates that competition is good for the business, so does common sense.
Click to expand...

exactly, we need both, without, there would be a monopoly, and in an area as vast--and dirty-- as the IT industry, there cannot be a monopoly, since no starting company stands a chance.

onto the software field, Linux and mac are the only thing holding Bill Gates back from charging $300 for a simple OEM copy of Windows XP home.
 
$BangforThe$ said:
I mis DEC one minute they were bigger than IBM the next minute they were gone and I was out $23,000 lol
Click to expand...
DEC was awesome back in the day. If only they made clicky keyboards. (yes, OT, but this thread is a CESSPOOL)
 
$BangforThe$ said:
So your saying that AMD did not reverse engineer the 386 and sell it as its own right.

Intel only licensed X86 after the reverse enginnering lawsuite . prior to that Intel used AMD only as a secondary FAB because IBM insisted on it.
Click to expand...

what was the to reverse enginre Intel wiling gave AMD the tools and info needed to make 286 and 386 CPUs as well as the investment to to start making them
 
MrWizard6600 said:
exactly, we need both, without, there would be a monopoly, and in an area as vast--and dirty-- as the IT industry, there cannot be a monopoly, since no starting company stands a chance.

onto the software field, Linux and mac are the only thing holding Bill Gates back from charging $300 for a simple OEM copy of Windows XP home.
Click to expand...

heh it already cost 200 for a full copy and there are rumors Vista could be more
 
$BangforThe$ said:
So your saying that AMD did not reverse engineer the 386 and sell it as its own right.

Intel only licensed X86 after the reverse enginnering lawsuite . prior to that Intel used AMD only as a secondary FAB because IBM insisted on it.
Click to expand...

Are you like the Karl Rove of computer history? Because This Smells Like Bullshit.
 
I'm also at kind of a loss about somthing: First, AMD is criticised for not having the financial wherewithal of Intel and Intel is praised because they are this giant behemoth and have all these funds available for R&D, etc, etc. Then, AMD is criticised for not being innovative. Well, pardon me, but doesn't innovation require a lot of funding? On the one hand we have criticism that AMD doesn't have any real financial muscle and on the other hand they are being criticised for not being innovative. That doesn't make sense to me. If AMD doesn't have the financial resources of Intel how can we then expect them to be a innovative as Intel? I see a great deal of snobbery here.
It is true that Inte has been very innovative over the years. I'll not argue that point. But they too can be criticized for sticking with a somewhat complicated design as compared to the A64 (huge pipelines requiring high memory bandwidth). Intel has done some cool things and they have laid a lot of eggs, too. It seems to me the only reason Intel has pushed for better memory specs is because of the real inneffficiency of their memory subsystem architecture. A64 proved you didn't need high bandwidth to get good memory performance. Low latency seems to work best for them. So which is really more innovative and efficient? True, AMD didn't invent the IMC, but they did innovate in placing an IMC on die and making their memory subsystem far more efficient, thereby allowing their slower rated cpu's to compete with Intel's cpu's, calculating more instructions per clock cycle than Intel cpu's. How is this not "innovative"? No one else had been doing it. Innovation comes in many guises. Intel stuck with their old "tried and true" method (up until Conroe) and look what it got them. Their stock tumbled and they lost a lot of market share to their "un-innovative" rival. As I said, innovation comes in many guises. It isn't always Revolutionary, sometimes its Evolutionary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top