Intel Admits To Falling Behind AMD 244
Vicegrip writes "CNN is carrying a Fortune story covering an analyst meeting held on Thursday. There, CEO Otellini admitted Intel has fallen behind AMD with lost market share, technological leadership, and recently profitability. Intel also announced cuts to 1 Billion in spending." From the article: "Intel's market share recently slipped below 80%, and Otellini strongly emphasized the need for market share gains in all his remarks. On the other hand, he also suggested that Intel's recent market share losses (to AMD, whose name was not mentioned) were in line with historical variations which tracked to Intel's product generations."
Turning Point for Intel? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's like poorer people tend to avoid being seen as poor, while wealthy people almost always say they are poor.
Re:Turning Point for Intel? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Turning Point for Intel? (Score:5, Informative)
The question is: can Intel retain the performance crown once they gain it? The last time Intel was the top dog performance-wise was back when the Pentium IV 3.2C was their flagship desktop part. That lasted until K8 hit the streets.
Re:Turning Point for Intel? (Score:4, Insightful)
This statement presumes that
a) The Conroe will launch when promised.
b) That it is a real launch with the product in stores, not just a paper launch.
c) That the performance will be as great as promised.
And all that remains to be seen, right?
Re:I thought May (Score:4, Informative)
AM2 itself offers no performance advantage unless you run DDR2-667 or DDR2-800 with tight timings. This requires expensive enthusiast RAM. If you run with value or standard DDR2-400, DDR2-533, or even DDR2-667, K8 on s939 will match or beat K8 on AM2 clock per clock.
Even with enthusiast RAM, AM2 procs will still be beaten by Conroe. Intel will own the performance crown from July forward. K8L may take it back for AMD, or it may not.
Re:Turning Point for Intel? (Score:5, Interesting)
Chipsets??? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Chipsets??? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Chipsets??? (Score:3, Interesting)
Every new chip has a chance of requiring a new chipset but usually the chipsets are backwards compatible amongst a line of processors. For instance, a 945 chipset will run a 775-pin Prescott originally destined for a 915 chipset. If you got a 945, 955 or 975 you can essentially run every 775-pin processor Intel makes. If you bought a 915 you're SOL. [e.g. myself]
If they had a standard FSB (*cough* *cough* Hypertransport *cough*) they wouldn't have to tweak the damn thing with every new CPU.
Not
Intel had it coming (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that it's coming back to bite them on the ass, I think it's wonderful.
Re:Intel had it coming (Score:5, Insightful)
With stuff like the spying serial number, tpa, etc,
Which is why AMD implemented the exact same thing, right up to virtualization "secure" computing.
intel was holding back their own 1GHz chip to squeeze more profit.
Shame on a corporation for making a profit. AMD is so pure and virginal white, they'd never do something this dastardly.
Re:Intel had it coming (Score:4, Insightful)
The OP didn't say there was anything wrong in making profit. The OP said it's wrong to use methods that are deemed illegal in our laws, and are typicaly not wise in a competitive market. Obviously Intel thought they still owned us all like M$ does... but AMD caught them with their pants down. That's the point of the OP. Intel had it coming to them for their arrogance. And they got exactly what they asked for.
No where in those facts... is the OP indicating that making a profit is a bad thing.
Re:Intel had it coming (Score:2)
The OP said no such thing. It was a rant about things Intel has done (considered evil) that AMD has mirrored (considered... I don't know. Acceptable?). Apparently you fall in the 99% of
Re:Intel had it coming (Score:2)
It is a very important distinction that Intel did it first even if AMD copied it. Every grocery store in my area has those loyalty discount cards, I'm pretty much forced to use them. I do use them without complaint, but I haven't set foot in the first store to introduce them in the 7 years or so since they did.
Re:Intel had it coming (Score:2)
First, that is incorrect. Intel lost the race to 1GHz fair and square.
Second, both AMD and Intel hold off releasing products and play all kinds of pricing games to squeeze their customers without killing them (because without a customer, you make zero dollars). Holding products in the wings to meet billing goals is not uncommon. To imply it is illegal, especially in this context, is wrong on both charges.
However, given the inten
Re:Intel had it coming (Score:2)
I never said it was illegal or wrong. However it is acting against the customer's interest, and that will make the customers less loyal. When that results in the customers jumping ship when a viable alternative shows up, all I can say is they're reaping what they sowed.
Re:Intel had it coming (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not even sure how your Matrix example applies, the only thing the Matrix franchise has a monopoly on is the Matrix series. There are plenty of movies out there, and nobody HAS to go see them. Try making your po
Re:Intel had it coming (Score:2)
Re:Intel had it coming (Score:5, Insightful)
Shame on a corporation for making a profit. AMD is so pure and virginal white, they'd never do something this dastardly.
Any corporation causes damage to the market when they try to leverage their monopoly to maintain the monopoly. If AMD ever crushes all their competition (no that I'm worried) they will also slow innovation. Far better to have multiple competing companies, where you can buy whatever you want. Perhaps we could call it a "free market," since you can shop around.
Re:Intel had it coming (Score:2)
Not the way I remember it (Score:5, Informative)
AMD beat Intel in that race any way you look at it.
Re:Intel had it coming (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate reading this kind of generic accusation on Slashdot. For whatever reason, most
While I like AMD's desktop chips more, one must be fully aware of the fact that AMD is no less of a corporation than Intel is, and want your money just as badly as everyone else. As others have mentioned and will mention, AMD's hardware tactics are no less questionable than Intel's, and thus, it becomes a moot point.
Re:Intel had it coming (Score:2)
And artifically doubling the prices of their CPUs isn't?
Re:Intel had it coming (Score:2)
Remember the pentium bug? Intel was not going to replace the defective chips, they claimed incorrect division results a tiny fraction of a percent off would not affect most users so there's no need to replace them.
They only replaced the chips after a huge public outcry and threats of class action lawsuits.
Those chips were not up t
Re:Intel had it coming (Score:2)
Re:Intel had it coming (Score:2)
AMD beat them to the 1 GHz punch because intel was holding back their own 1GHz chip to squeeze more profit.
Yeah, I remember those oh-so-stable 1Ghz Intel chips.
Poor interpretation (Score:5, Insightful)
80% market share != Falling Behind
50% market share == Falling Behind
Another craptastic headline (Score:2)
-Rick
It's the *standard* interpretation, alas (Score:4, Informative)
That's why they broke up Knight-Ridder, an extremely successful newspaper chain with 20% annual profits. Huge profits or not, other newspaper chains were doing even better. Sorry folks we need to see 30% profits or you're not doing your jobs.
Re:It's the *standard* interpretation, alas (Score:2)
Re:Poor interpretation (Score:2)
Re:Poor interpretation (Score:2)
What? (Score:4, Interesting)
Around eighty % is still incredible, not least when you have a competitor like AMD. But I guess companies like Intel do what they can to instill fear in their employees to get them to work harder.
Re:What? (Score:2)
It's not the number that's most significant, it's the trend. Intel once had nearly 100% of this market, but now they are (or seem to be) on a slide down without a strategy to stop it.
Does anyone have a chart/graph/pretty picture showing the marketshare decreasing for Intel and increasing for AMD?
Re:What? (Score:2)
Re:What? (Score:2)
2) yes
3) yes
But let's not let facts interfere with the debate!
Re:What? (Score:2)
Since I was looking for knowledge and not a debate, does anyone have any substantive information? Are marketshare figures often something of an inconsistent guess that wouldn't be very useful if graphed (particularly because they tend to be skewed by self-interested parties)? Or are they consistent enough (like the market price of a barrel of oil) that it would be informative if graphed?
Re: computer store floorspace for AMD vs. Intel (Score:2)
If you go to a large computer parts mega-store like Fry's, you'll find almost equal motherboard / cpu / system floorspace for AMD and Intel systems.
Think about that... if display space in Fry's is a measure of interest and systems moved, then Intel's c
Re:What? (Score:2)
Before the Opteron Intel was the only processor supplier for x86 server applications in most companies eyes. The market belonged exclusively to
Further diversification of markets (Score:2, Interesting)
In other news... (Score:3, Interesting)
Intel's marketshare is deceiving because it is propped up on a number of "exclusive" contracts. Once those go away, and they will as AMD pulls away technologically and pricewise, Intel is going to see the market flipped in a very short amount of time.
Intel Outside, not just a good idea anymore.
Re:In other news... (Score:4, Informative)
Not likely. AMD slipped ONE YEAR on AM2, and has nothing on the horizion for 2 more years.
Intel has three fabs ramping to 65 then 45 nm, and two years worth of products that handily defeat anything from AMD.
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Interesting)
Intel has always had a process technology advantage over AMD. That never stopped AMD from shipping competitive products. Also, note that AMD's fab situation has gotten a lot better in the last year - with Fab 36 (and soon Chartered), AMD has the capacity to take on Intel in the market - something that they just couldn't do in the early Athlon days.
AMD has always been conservative in launching new processes, and it has benifited them in the past. Intel's 90nm process turned out to be the nail in the Prescott coffin, but AMD's 90nm launch resulted in CPUs that clocked much higher, used less power, and cost less money.
nothing on the horizion for 2 more years
K8L, for one. Dual-core Turions. 65nm in 1Q 2007. Quad-core in 2007.
two years worth of products that handily defeat anything from AMD
Ah, another Intel Conroe fanboy. While I'd agree that Conroe is looking quite good, note that Athlon 64 is not sitting still. Even a simple die shrink may allow AMD to put out 3.4-3.6GHz parts, which would be quite competitive with what we're currently seeing from Conroe.
I would certainly hope that Conroe has a performance advantage over AMD64, though. No desktop or server part that Intel has put out in the last two years has been competitive from a performance standpoint with Athlon 64. The dual-core Xeon parts are a joke (and everyone in the industry knows it), the Pentium D gobbles down power and can't match Athlon 64's performance at half the wattage, and even Intel's low-end Celeron D is killed by the cheaper Sempron.
It's only rarely about performance anymore. Most PCs sold do absolutely nothing 95% of the time. It's about power usage, availability, the strength of the chipsets and the price of the chipset and CPU.
AMD chipsets are cheaper than Intel chipsets. Semprons are cheaper than Celeron Ds. Unless that changes, AMD is going to continue to destroy Intel's marketshare in the low-end and mid-range PC business. Only Dell is keeping Intel alive in the low-end market now.
Take a look in any retail store. You see more AMD than Intel. That has never been the case before - AMD has never had this kind of shelf space. They've never had this much fab capacity. They've never had this much acceptance in the corporate world.
That alone should have Intel very, very worried.
Re:In other news... (Score:2)
Intel has the power... (Score:3, Insightful)
AMD on the other hand is showing steady and strong growth. It has solidified its place in the market and has shown that it not only can compete, but will continue to innovate and compete with Intel.
In the end, something like this is only good for the consumers. Intel admitting losses to AMD will raise the bar of both companies so they can continue to compete, bring us better technology, faster.
12 step program following? (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, but... (Score:3, Funny)
New Blood (Score:2)
It's no wonder why there was some market loss when all the could produce out of the US Labs were overclocked P3/P4 chips that produced too much heat to be useful in mobile applications.
Re:New Blood (Score:2)
Intel Internal Memo (Score:5, Informative)
April 26, 2006
IT's first steps in 'relentless pursuit of efficiency'
Understand IT's response to Otellini direction
As Paul Otellini outlined in his April 25 Exec Connect Webcast, Intel faces significant challenges in Q2 and beyond as we adjust to meet our new business climate. With 2006 revenue now projected to be approximately 3 percent below 2005 and spending reduced by approximately $1 billion, Paul has given clear direction that Intel must "re-structure, re-size, and re-purpose" in a "relentless pursuit of efficiency." As a result, all organizations, including Intel Information Technology (IT), have been given new spending and headcount targets and a corporate effort has been launched to determine how to streamline Intel to make our company more agile and more competitive long term.
IT's response
IT's response is clear. We must rapidly adjust our programs and headcount to meet our new Plan of Record (POR) spending and headcount targets. And we must streamline our organization to maximize the services and programs we can deliver to the company while executing on our commitments to keep Intel running and to deliver on new capabilities.
Our immediate first steps are to stop selected programs completely, scale back other programs, and remove unnecessary overhead across the organization. The identification of these programs will be completed in roughly 30 days.
To create a more efficient IT, we must develop a more compact, less hierarchical organizational structure, reduce process and operational overhead, and selectively reduce jobs in some skill areas. Identifying specific actions in this area will take 60 to 90 days to complete.
Redeployment will be necessary
Taking these steps will require the redeployment of some IT personnel. Redeployment, or the effort to move employees to areas of greater return when there is a change in business conditions, is a standard practice that allows Intel to remain competitive and increases opportunities for employees. We anticipate some redeployment will begin before the end of this quarter and all redeployment will be started by the end of Q3.
I know this is a difficult time and redeployments are not always easy. And I know these actions are absolutely necessary to improve our competitiveness and effectiveness as an organization. You will hear more at the coming business update meetings (BUMs). I urge everyone to attend.
If you were unable to watch Paul's live Webcast, replays are available at the Webcast Exec Connect Events Site.
Thank you,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Re:Intel Internal Memo (Score:3, Funny)
A lot of words to say they are LAYING YOU OFF. (Score:2)
"We anticipate some redeployment will begin before the end of this quarter and all redeployment will be started by the end of Q3."
Why not just say it like a man?
"We will be redeploying many of you from your Aeron to your SOFA just in time for you to file for unemployment insurance before taking back the Christmas presents you were hoping to buy for your parents, so that your car is not repo'd as you struggle like mad to pay your rent or mortgage in the wonderful Bay Area."
Re:Intel Internal Memo (Score:2)
Translation: Paul has no idea how to fix the problem but he needs to make the board think that he's actually doin
Okay.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Your lips keep moving, but I can't hear what you say. [anandtech.com]
Intel has such a long way to go at the highest end. They need to move away from their silly, old fashioned CPU <-> Northbridge <-> RAM architecture. I think it's telling that Otellini blamed "chipset" shortages for some of their market share loss, whatever the hell that really means. Intel is going to eventually have to sacrifice its chipset business to stay competitive. Nothing will change that. The memory controller has to be moved on-die. HyperTransport is here to stay and it will wipe the floor at the high end.
It's not just getting rid of NetBurst-- high IPC is great --but the more you have cores and sockets contending for memory access, the worse it will get for a shared FSB. Get your head out your butt Intel and fix the design.
This admittance can only be a good thing (Score:2)
Antitrust Strategy? (Score:2, Insightful)
Speaking of Apple (Score:2)
And how does this admission make Apple feel? They've hung their star on Intel being the best out there. Just a wild guess, but Steve Jobs is probably not commenting on this revelation right now.
Re:Speaking of Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
* I have no idea what their pricing agreement with Intel is, so this may or may not be the case.
Re:Speaking of Apple (Score:2)
Both Intel and AMD May Fall (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Both Intel and AMD May Fall (Score:2)
However, there are several key obstacles to making this happen.
a) fab capacity and validation infrastructure
b) component suppliers
c) chipset support
d) software support
If you make it x86 compatible and it can slap into an AMD or Intel socket, you can drop c and d. If you don't do anything to extreme with die size or requirements, you can drop b.
The hard part is the billions of dollars in fab capacity required to be profitable. ASPs are very thin, and cost to build a fab is very bi
Re:Both Intel and AMD May Fall (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Both Intel and AMD May Fall (Score:5, Insightful)
You, Sir, are a crackpot. From your site
What the human brain is good at, however, is to use its crazy, complex and seamingly contradicting functions to get a "good enough" response in a crazy, complex and seamingly contradicting world. In other words : to operate in uncertain situations with uncomplete data. This includes that it (most of the time) doesnt crash when something unexpected happens. Sometimes, however, it does crash and people get things like post-traumatic stress disorders.
So, if something similar to the brain (your "silver bullet") is "good enough" in uncertain situations, why dont we use such an architecture? Well, we do, its called AI (artificial intelligence), you might have heard of it.
Your silver bullet is simply an agent-based system [wikipedia.org]. And I'm currently doing my master in artificial intelligence on such a system, VERY close to your silver bullet. And I can tell you that this system is NOT the solution. It can handle uncertainity. It probably wont crash.
But the problem is that it is impossible to debug.
With an algorithmic system, I know what it supposed to happen. I can test on the way. In an agent-based system, while I can test every agent, this isnt the problem. The working of the system emerges from the interaction of these agents. And this is something very magical. Every agent doubles the complexity, so nobody understands any more how they work exactly. A developper has to make guesses, put the entire system together and then hit run. If it works : cool, but nobody knows how. If it doesnt work : crap, because nobody knows what to change.
Also, these systems have to same problem as people : they make errors, they never work 100%. And a computer is supposed to work free from critical errors. A human might tell you : Oh, I forgot to send this letter. If your computer tells you : Oh, I forgot to send your email, most people will be shocked (or not, as they accept bugs far too easily nowaday).
Bottom line : tradional computers aim to be predictable : if they crash, they crash hard, and they need complet data to be able to work, but most of the time, they do exactly as expected.
AI (including your "silver bullet") no longer aims to be predictable. It can work under uncertainity, it might crash less often, but it results are unpredictable and instead of being as expected, they are only close to the expectation, most of the time.
And I cant believe that I spend 30 minutes on an offtopic post, just to debunk your "silver bullet".
Re:Both Intel and AMD May Fall (Score:2)
Re:Both Intel and AMD May Fall (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, that's likely to happen. Two words: Chicken, egg.
Re:Both Intel and AMD May Fall (Score:3, Insightful)
If you keep this up, you'll just get marked as a troll, and it'll be harder for you to get your message out.
How about writing a demo app instead?
Doh! The Itanic sank! (Score:2)
So it didn't, and this was actually somewhat predictable. Intel has tried these flyers about every 10 years: first, IAPX432. next i860/960. Now IA64. This was the most costly by far. I'm a little surprised they admit it, but possibly that's b
Google is the 3rd or 4th largest server maker (Score:3, Interesting)
Wow, just wow ! Did you guys see that in the article:
<<According to some industry experts, Google is now assembling so many of its own servers that it may be the third or fourth-largest server maker in the world.
>>
I think that a lot of companies could reduce their expenses by doing the same thing than Google: instead of buying expensive hardware, warranties and support from IBM/HP/Dell/Sun, they could hire people to design, build and maintain their own IT infrastructure. I think it makes sense for any shop with 1000+ machines. Think about it again:
To any non-believer: Google does exactly this, and it works very well for them. So why not starting to do it at your company ?
Re:Google is the 3rd or 4th largest server maker (Score:2)
Where I work, they barely have one pc technician to 500 people. And we support the entire infrastructure; not just the PC sitting on the desk.
Plus, corporate America likes to be able to place blame. As long as it's not within the company. Aw hell, who am I kidding, most of the fingerpointing that goes on happens behind closed doors....
I need to start my own company. So I can fingerpoint!!!
someone mentioned power (Score:5, Informative)
AMD Athlon64
Freq: 2.0 GHz
Tcase: 70 degC
TDP: 89 W
http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/whit
Intel Core Duo Destkop (Yonah)
Freq: 2.16 GHz
Tcase: 100 degC
TDP: 31 W (scale to 70deC like AMD puts you at about 20W).
http://download.intel.com/design/mobile/datashts/
Re:someone mentioned power (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:someone mentioned power (Score:3, Informative)
Antitrust defense? (Score:2)
translation (Score:2)
corporate-speak translation- "Yeah we always lose money when we make shitty product and bad decisions, this ain't new."
I'm a qualified tech professional (Score:3, Insightful)
I manage servers, with tens of thousands of users, all over California.
ALL of the servers I've deployed in the last 2 years have been AMD, with a heavy bias towards Opterons. For me, one of the key advantages AMD has over Intel is the "last resort" advantage.
If I deploy Xeon servers, and something goes terribly wrong, I can't go to a local retail outlet and buy any hardware that would work - Xeons are not binary compatible with X86. Local tech shops here in my hometown (Chico, CA) don't have Xeon anything. But they DO have Athlon/64s in droves!
So, if I deploy an Opteron server, I *know* that I can get an Athlon/64 that's binary compatible with my system images from the local l337 Gam3rz computer store with aliens and funky lights, but that's binary compatible with my rackmounted servers. No matter what, I have something I can count on in less than a single working day. I've had to fall back to this in the past, so I'm ready to in the future.
This gives me a worst-case recovery time of about 4 hours during business hours. (the only ones that really, really count)
Xeon is compatible with... Xeon. At best, in a worst-case scenario, I wait 48 hours to get some kind of support in small town, CA. Ouch!!!! No way this is acceptable.
4 hours vs 48 hours. Not a hard decision... So Opteron/Athlon/64 it is, then...
And I don't mind that it's both faster and thousands $$$$ cheaper!
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
Did he really need to call AMD out like some kind of pissed off gangsta rapper?
Don't you ever f---ing forget who invented x86
Those other manufactures are underwater wearing shoes made of bricks
And if you ever release another processor you better lie low
AMD I'll come around and bust a cap in your skull
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
GO INTEL!
Nope, I feel dirty. Going to shower now.
Re:Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:2, Funny)
And who modded me down as "overrated" when I wasn't even "rated" yet. Are you modding me down because amd is overrated?
Auto Underdog Syndrome (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it's largely a visceral dislike of a single entity having so much power. I'd prefer to have dozens of chipmakers all competing bitterly. Maybe 5 big standard architectures.
Anyway, when one powerhouse controls 90%+ of the market I get nervous. Especially when there are allegations of abuse, innovation slows, prices are high, or the situation lasts for a long time.
It seems in many industries we are headed to 1-3 (whatever the situation an
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Are they falling behind thanks to Otellini (Score:5, Insightful)
The results are just what I would have though - they lose their technical edge, but retain their strong position in the market.
My guess is that Intel's business model quickly changes from designing and building chips to buying other company's designs ---- just like the large drug companies mostly get drugs by investing in and eventually buying small drug research companies.
I think that was the plan when the put a MBA in charge, and I think this is the expected result.
Re:Are they falling behind thanks to Otellini (Score:4, Insightful)
Considering that he has been the CEO for just about a year, I would guess that Otellini is far from the only reason for Intel's current position.
Re:Are they falling behind thanks to Otellini (Score:2, Funny)
For instance, the fact they think the name V//V (or Viiv, or whatever) is a good one (regardless of the merits—or lack thereof—of the platform) should hint at some sort of pervasive mental illness...
--JoeRe:Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
I love it when you "giants" be talking, saying my name,
Seems like your mouth is not connected to your brain,
X Sixty Four and HT, it ain't the same,
Better have a strap, Intel, simple and plain,
Put your FSB on the table, let's play the game,
Heard you so long, you be up to take the pain,
I don't wanna hear what you meant, do not explain,
As you lose your market share, say my name.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Funny)
Don't be making no threat
While Dell's kids copy your rhymes
You copy our instruction set
Our photomicrolithographic process is superior
So you better beware
Our chips are getting even smaller
Than your market share
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Informative)
A few years ago, when the P4s were just moving to the socket 478(? I think it was 478, the one they went to after the horrible 423) and the 2Ghz P4s were coming out, I went to one of those road shows Intel put on. They were talking up their new P4 2Ghz chip and did this whole presentation comparing its performance. Here's the funny part, they didn't compare it to an AMD chip. They didn't even MENTION AMD. They showed compariso
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
At a time when AMD was delivering a thrashing with their Athlon XP chips that had a slower clock speed, slower FSB, and were STILL outperforming Intel, they still woundn't even mention AMD. It's no surprise to me that the CEO of Intel would talk about losing market share without mentioning AMD.
That's the Market Leader's Rule #1 : neve
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Funny)
It's simple really
Re:Why did Steve Jobs pick AMD? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why did Steve Jobs pick AMD? (Score:3, Interesting)
Until the Turion X2 ships, which won't be much longer. Going with the current single core Turions instead of the Core Duo would have made more sense since then OSX could have been 64-bit from the get-go. Now Apple will have to support both 32-bit and 64-bit codebases. Were Intel's cut-rate chips and other support worth it? Time will tell, but given that things like codecs ge
I Care (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I Care (Score:2)
If so, I suspect you'll be buying a Conroe from Intel later this year.
Right?
You aren't just blindly loyal to a brand, are you? Gosh, I hope you're smarter than that.
Re:I Care (Score:2)
Really? Your P4 overheated?
What's that, you never owned a P4? Just read about how bad Intel was on
Q: Why was AMD forced to install a thermal throttle?
A: Because Athlon overheated and FROZE, where intel worked just fine.
Tom's Hardware did a great demo where he took the heatsink off of a P4 and an Opteron while running Doom 3: the opteron froze and the P4 kept running fine, just a little slower.
No doubt intel has released some of th
Re:I Care (Score:2)
hahahaha...oi, that cracked me up.
How many AMD's running at full throttle stay under 40 C?
Re:I Care (Score:2)
Re:Wow (Score:2)
Wouldn't this be like Epimenides saying "All Cretans are liars"? Perhaps we can have a few politicians vanish in a puff of logic.
Re:Wow (Score:2)
Has no brains
The two-o looser
Is unrestrained
And I will bet
A stumbling boozer
There isn't any
Three-o loooser.
Insightful (Score:2)
"What, us a monopoly? No way, Your Honor! We're slipping behind even as we speak! Massive layoffs! Unemployement! Economy crippled! Wolves at the door!"