Why AMD Is Still In The Race

Steve Kerrison writes "Despite a woeful inability to provide some of its most loyal customers with stock, and a range of CPUs that, currently, loses out to Intel's Core 2 processors in both price and performance (and who would I be not to mention the diminishing AMD fanboy numbers?), AMD's still got enough tricks up its sleeve to retaliate against Intel in due course. HEXUS.net has an opinion piece on why AMD isn't up the creek. From the article: AMD has been showing off its 65nm wafers for a few months now, which means the Rev G core is on its way. Even if the DDR2 memory controller which arrived with the Rev F only had a small performance benefit, Rev G has a few more improvements than just the die shrink. The latter will enable higher clock speeds and a lower price, plus allow AMD to compete on an equal playing field to Intel, which has been manufacturing 65nm processors since the Pentium XE 955 at the end of 2005."

you mean

[gEvil (beta)]

You mean that just because they haven't been King of the Hill for a few months now that they're still in the game? Wow! Who'da thunkit?

Editor? Editor? Anyone? Hello?!

[JamesD_UK]

(and who would I be not the mention the diminishing AMD fanboy numbers?)

Perhaps the someone who be not the read the dictionary?

Re:It seems they still have enough customers

[Anonymous Coward]

To paraphrase Barabara Mandrell,

I thought that was forbidden on this site.
It should be.

Good 'ol Yogi Berra

[T-Ranger]

No one is buying AMD processors any more. There too popular to find!

Re:You can't buy processors in a vacuum

[wonkavader]

Um... Yes, you can.
http://store.irobot.com/family/index.jsp?categoryI d=2174930&cp=2174940 [irobot.com]Processors in a vacuum