|
On October 11 2009 09:57 Saddened Izzy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2009 09:01 CharlieMurphy wrote:On October 11 2009 08:48 FragKrag wrote:
yea that was a long ass time ago cm :p jan 2009 That's one of the virtues of AMD's design is that it doesn't have a tendency of failure in sub zero temperatures there is no problems. But it doesn't make it a better consumer level oc as most OC is done on air or water. Show nested quote +On October 11 2009 09:13 Kazius wrote:On October 11 2009 08:13 CharlieMurphy wrote:On October 10 2009 14:38 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
I'm going to have to agree with Bryce and Anna. Intel is quite possibly the Gandhi of modern times. Giving us such wondrous products while being so kind and supportive.
Thanks Intel.
I love you. wasn't intel just recently fined a shit load of money for trying to do some illegal monopoly shit in europe? They were fined for abusing their relationships with major PC manufacturers in order to force them not to sell AMD based systems (threatening cutting relations with them if they introduced AMD PCs/laptops), therefor not allowing AMD to capitalize on a (then) crushing performance advantage in their CPU offerings. That aside: Intel have the superior products. Their performance/watt ratio is amazing, their overclocking and undervolting potentials are amazing, and they will further push their lead up to (maybe) the Bulldozer core, which will compete with Sandy/Ivy Bridge (Intel's next steps after westmere, and supposedly as big/bigger a jump as i7 was from core2). At the moment it makes no sense for Intel to introduce a 32nm quad-core - AMD cannot compete with current Intel offerings in that segment. They could probably lower the costs and put AMD out of business, but then they'd risk being treated as a monopoly - so they're just keeping profits high instead. The dual-core clarkdales should outperform the venerable Q8200 in nearly every non-synthetic benchmark, putting the hurt on AMDs lower end quad core, all triple core and all dual core offerings. The integrated graphics is a boon for non-gamers - an entire fully functional system could be pushed into a mini-ITX form-factor, use under 120W at full load for all components, and run fast enough for most needs - under $500. Of course, SC2 would probably suck on such a machine. They were fined by the idiot EU the same people harassing Microsoft about unfair for them to put their own browser on their own OS which they developed from the ground up. The same people are forcing Microsoft to bundle win 7 for the EU with other browsers on the install. The same people bitching how it is unfair the way the ballot system is working. The same people who don't see browser market trends and IE dropping off in use. The same people who said it's not good enough to have the ability to remove IE competently from your windows install. The same people who first filed the lawsuit because you couldn't remove IE completely from the computer. Oh yeah and it took them nearly 10 years to do this lawsuit too, that's right it was filled 10 years ago see how good the EU is at judgments considering the EU had a N? edition of XP with no browsers on it at all that didn't sell well. The people running the tribunals for the EU are tech idiots. Also the fine is they are could be hurting the EU citizens buying from those manufactures. They had no definite proof that they are hurting anyone besides AMD. And they did not fine the manufactures for agreeing with Intel's unsung exclusivity contracts with them. And they collect the money not AMD frankly a large portion of tech forms claimed the EU was pulling money grabs against the tech industry as most of it is Asia and US based. let me rage some more!fjasdl;kga
I think that MS did do wrong - Netscape was back then a far superior product to explorer, and lost it's market share and became irrelevant, allowing MS's massive development funds to close the gap in a couple of years instead of what should have been closer to five (if they had retained their 70%+ market share instead of quickly dropping to under 40%, it is likely they'd have more cash for R&D, what would have created a stronger option than IE for a longer time). That would have also forced IE instead of being intentionally buggy and not working with standard pages well in order to screw over the competition who'd want to develop according to non-MS standards much sooner (prior to IE8, which ironically causes Microsoft's site to be buggy on it, as it was built around the broken standards of earlier versions). It took nearly 7 years for the competition to be serious again, and suddenly MS is furiously working at improving their rather crappy software... so tell me competition isn't a good thing.
Of course, netscape has become irrelevant (seriously, how many people remember that company?), but AMD could, and should, have reached a much higher market share, which would have given it a LOT more money to develop next-gen stuff, and if that were the case, we'd be seeing 32nm quad-cores by Intel by the end of this year. As it is today, AMD needs five years to work on a drastically new core, and we will be seeing Bulldozer in 2011 (manufacturing will optimistically start mid-2010), and up to that point they will not be competitive at the high end... and Intel are busy maximizing their profits instead of pushing the tech advantage faster. AMD has been forced to spin off it's foundries in the meantime, giving it short term relief instead of long term integration between development and manufacturing. And I'm not even talking about how MS abused it's relationship with manufacturers to gain a massive market share for MS Office, and then jacked up the price by 5-10 times once it was the standard (which is now making more money than OS sales for them, and has given us near stagnation in that field of computing).
If anything, MS should have been fined much more, much earlier, and Intel should have paid that money directly to AMD around 2005... and that would have been much better for the consumers by now. Better yet, all the manufacturers should have said no to Intel. Or best yet, Intel shouldn't have went against free-market principles. Strong competition gave us the Core2 lineup, the nVidia 200 series, the ATI 4xxx series, etc. At the moment, Intel have no incentive to give us all their tech can offer (hence only dual core w/IGP or hexa-core for 1366 sockets in 32nm). They can focus on profit margins instead. Great for them, sucks for us.
|
On October 11 2009 12:04 Kazius wrote:
Of course, netscape has become irrelevant (seriously, how many people remember that company?), but AMD could, and should, have reached a much higher market share, which would have given it a LOT more money to develop next-gen stuff, and if that were the case, we'd be seeing 32nm quad-cores by Intel by the end of this year. As it is today, AMD needs five years to work on a drastically new core, and we will be seeing Bulldozer in 2011 (manufacturing will optimistically start mid-2010), and up to that point they will not be competitive at the high end... and Intel are busy maximizing their profits instead of pushing the tech advantage faster
We will be seeing 32nm Intel hexacores Q1 or Q2 of next year and Intel already has plans to move to 22nm and 15nm after that. Intel has been pushing innovation for quite a while, it's AMD that can't catch up.
|
random fact... AMD stocks did pretty badly last month. one of the worst performing stocks in the S&P500 last month i think..
|
On October 11 2009 12:39 madnessman wrote:
random fact... AMD stocks did pretty badly last month. one of the worst performing stocks in the S&P500 last month i think..
The stocks do badly because the company is bleeding money out of its ass. Decreasing gross revenue plus negative net income for the past 2 years. On a slightly unrelated side note, Electronic Arts is also losing money, even though they've posted record high net revenue in for 2008.
|
I had both AMD and Intel computers. I usually go with the CPU that produce the least heat for similar performance. Since I leave my computer always running, I don't need a mini-heater in the room nor a power sucking rig.
Had an earlier AMD, it was OK. Later had a Intel P4 HT which was horridly hot and noisy. Now I have a Intel Core Duo which is perfect.
|
On October 11 2009 12:35 zeroimagination wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2009 12:04 Kazius wrote:
Of course, netscape has become irrelevant (seriously, how many people remember that company?), but AMD could, and should, have reached a much higher market share, which would have given it a LOT more money to develop next-gen stuff, and if that were the case, we'd be seeing 32nm quad-cores by Intel by the end of this year. As it is today, AMD needs five years to work on a drastically new core, and we will be seeing Bulldozer in 2011 (manufacturing will optimistically start mid-2010), and up to that point they will not be competitive at the high end... and Intel are busy maximizing their profits instead of pushing the tech advantage faster We will be seeing 32nm Intel hexacores Q1 or Q2 of next year and Intel already has plans to move to 22nm and 15nm after that. Intel has been pushing innovation for quite a while, it's AMD that can't catch up.
All you say is true, but instead of a hexacore for the high-end platform, not quad-cores for the mainstream. Do you seriously think that the hexacore CPU will be for the $150-$250 price range? They delay everything nowadays due to lack of competition, from the atom platform (pinetrail was scheduled for Q3 2009, not Q1 2010), mainstream quads (32nm "hopefully" late 2010 instead of early 2010), to the high end (32nm should enable octo-core CPUs in the same size of 45nm quads). Intel has been at the forefront, but this is just like a race - you go faster when the competition breaths down your neck. As I said: the reason AMD doesn't have the resources to catch up is because when they did have the tech advantage, Intel used questionable business practices to not allow AMD to capitalize. That lack of competition allows Intel to slow down the pace. Just so you know - the next gen quad-core CPUs are ready (and would be in the market in half a year if Intel would will it). But they don't need 32nm/new architectures because Lynnfield/Clarkfield CPUs dominate AMD offerings as is.
|
On October 11 2009 15:50 [X]Ken_D wrote:
I usually go with the CPU that produce the least heat for similar performance.
...
Later had a Intel P4 HT
wat
|
On October 11 2009 12:04 Kazius wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2009 09:57 Saddened Izzy wrote:On October 11 2009 09:01 CharlieMurphy wrote:On October 11 2009 08:48 FragKrag wrote:
yea that was a long ass time ago cm :p jan 2009 That's one of the virtues of AMD's design is that it doesn't have a tendency of failure in sub zero temperatures there is no problems. But it doesn't make it a better consumer level oc as most OC is done on air or water. On October 11 2009 09:13 Kazius wrote:On October 11 2009 08:13 CharlieMurphy wrote:On October 10 2009 14:38 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
I'm going to have to agree with Bryce and Anna. Intel is quite possibly the Gandhi of modern times. Giving us such wondrous products while being so kind and supportive.
Thanks Intel.
I love you. wasn't intel just recently fined a shit load of money for trying to do some illegal monopoly shit in europe? They were fined for abusing their relationships with major PC manufacturers in order to force them not to sell AMD based systems (threatening cutting relations with them if they introduced AMD PCs/laptops), therefor not allowing AMD to capitalize on a (then) crushing performance advantage in their CPU offerings. That aside: Intel have the superior products. Their performance/watt ratio is amazing, their overclocking and undervolting potentials are amazing, and they will further push their lead up to (maybe) the Bulldozer core, which will compete with Sandy/Ivy Bridge (Intel's next steps after westmere, and supposedly as big/bigger a jump as i7 was from core2). At the moment it makes no sense for Intel to introduce a 32nm quad-core - AMD cannot compete with current Intel offerings in that segment. They could probably lower the costs and put AMD out of business, but then they'd risk being treated as a monopoly - so they're just keeping profits high instead. The dual-core clarkdales should outperform the venerable Q8200 in nearly every non-synthetic benchmark, putting the hurt on AMDs lower end quad core, all triple core and all dual core offerings. The integrated graphics is a boon for non-gamers - an entire fully functional system could be pushed into a mini-ITX form-factor, use under 120W at full load for all components, and run fast enough for most needs - under $500. Of course, SC2 would probably suck on such a machine. They were fined by the idiot EU the same people harassing Microsoft about unfair for them to put their own browser on their own OS which they developed from the ground up. The same people are forcing Microsoft to bundle win 7 for the EU with other browsers on the install. The same people bitching how it is unfair the way the ballot system is working. The same people who don't see browser market trends and IE dropping off in use. The same people who said it's not good enough to have the ability to remove IE competently from your windows install. The same people who first filed the lawsuit because you couldn't remove IE completely from the computer. Oh yeah and it took them nearly 10 years to do this lawsuit too, that's right it was filled 10 years ago see how good the EU is at judgments considering the EU had a N? edition of XP with no browsers on it at all that didn't sell well. The people running the tribunals for the EU are tech idiots. Also the fine is they are could be hurting the EU citizens buying from those manufactures. They had no definite proof that they are hurting anyone besides AMD. And they did not fine the manufactures for agreeing with Intel's unsung exclusivity contracts with them. And they collect the money not AMD frankly a large portion of tech forms claimed the EU was pulling money grabs against the tech industry as most of it is Asia and US based. let me rage some more!fjasdl;kga I think that MS did do wrong - Netscape was back then a far superior product to explorer, and lost it's market share and became irrelevant, allowing MS's massive development funds to close the gap in a couple of years instead of what should have been closer to five (if they had retained their 70%+ market share instead of quickly dropping to under 40%, it is likely they'd have more cash for R&D, what would have created a stronger option than IE for a longer time). That would have also forced IE instead of being intentionally buggy and not working with standard pages well in order to screw over the competition who'd want to develop according to non-MS standards much sooner (prior to IE8, which ironically causes Microsoft's site to be buggy on it, as it was built around the broken standards of earlier versions). It took nearly 7 years for the competition to be serious again, and suddenly MS is furiously working at improving their rather crappy software... so tell me competition isn't a good thing. Of course, netscape has become irrelevant (seriously, how many people remember that company?), but AMD could, and should, have reached a much higher market share, which would have given it a LOT more money to develop next-gen stuff, and if that were the case, we'd be seeing 32nm quad-cores by Intel by the end of this year. As it is today, AMD needs five years to work on a drastically new core, and we will be seeing Bulldozer in 2011 (manufacturing will optimistically start mid-2010), and up to that point they will not be competitive at the high end... and Intel are busy maximizing their profits instead of pushing the tech advantage faster. AMD has been forced to spin off it's foundries in the meantime, giving it short term relief instead of long term integration between development and manufacturing. And I'm not even talking about how MS abused it's relationship with manufacturers to gain a massive market share for MS Office, and then jacked up the price by 5-10 times once it was the standard (which is now making more money than OS sales for them, and has given us near stagnation in that field of computing). If anything, MS should have been fined much more, much earlier, and Intel should have paid that money directly to AMD around 2005... and that would have been much better for the consumers by now. Better yet, all the manufacturers should have said no to Intel. Or best yet, Intel shouldn't have went against free-market principles. Strong competition gave us the Core2 lineup, the nVidia 200 series, the ATI 4xxx series, etc. At the moment, Intel have no incentive to give us all their tech can offer (hence only dual core w/IGP or hexa-core for 1366 sockets in 32nm). They can focus on profit margins instead. Great for them, sucks for us.
To add some more fun facts about MS vs EU discussion:
EU is just trying to keep the market competetive and monopoly-free. Let's look at why MS got fined many times here:
1. Windows Media Player - no one can develop and SELL their media players because only an idiot would buy something you get for free right off the bat with your system. No?
2. Internet Explorer - most browsers are free but most people won't bother downloading something they already have. No?
3. X-box - for selling it below the manufacturing price (or something like that, they sold them horrendously cheap and I don't remember the details of this case). Hard to beat that.
And some other random stuff of how MS wanted to dominate but failed:
When the government of Austria wanted to unify all government machines by installing the same system on all of them (and by teaching new personnel only 1 thing instead of 3) that would be stable, profitable (ie. cheap) and secure. The decision was between Linux and Windows. MS offered 90% discount but was rejected anyway (10% of something is still > 0).
|
I think AMD is a lot better position than they were... even if really all they have is the Phenom 2 at the top, for the moment it is pretty much the best bang for your buck. 3-4 months ago I was thinking they were pretty much down for the count, but since then I've at least considered getting a Phenom 2.
I think they're in pretty good shape in the graphics card market too... their cards tend to be a bit cheaper than the equivalent Nvidia cards are. I got my first ATI graphics card about two months ago, and I'm a big fan of it.
|
On October 12 2009 23:12 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2009 12:04 Kazius wrote:On October 11 2009 09:57 Saddened Izzy wrote:On October 11 2009 09:01 CharlieMurphy wrote:On October 11 2009 08:48 FragKrag wrote:
yea that was a long ass time ago cm :p jan 2009 That's one of the virtues of AMD's design is that it doesn't have a tendency of failure in sub zero temperatures there is no problems. But it doesn't make it a better consumer level oc as most OC is done on air or water. On October 11 2009 09:13 Kazius wrote:On October 11 2009 08:13 CharlieMurphy wrote:On October 10 2009 14:38 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
I'm going to have to agree with Bryce and Anna. Intel is quite possibly the Gandhi of modern times. Giving us such wondrous products while being so kind and supportive.
Thanks Intel.
I love you. wasn't intel just recently fined a shit load of money for trying to do some illegal monopoly shit in europe? They were fined for abusing their relationships with major PC manufacturers in order to force them not to sell AMD based systems (threatening cutting relations with them if they introduced AMD PCs/laptops), therefor not allowing AMD to capitalize on a (then) crushing performance advantage in their CPU offerings. That aside: Intel have the superior products. Their performance/watt ratio is amazing, their overclocking and undervolting potentials are amazing, and they will further push their lead up to (maybe) the Bulldozer core, which will compete with Sandy/Ivy Bridge (Intel's next steps after westmere, and supposedly as big/bigger a jump as i7 was from core2). At the moment it makes no sense for Intel to introduce a 32nm quad-core - AMD cannot compete with current Intel offerings in that segment. They could probably lower the costs and put AMD out of business, but then they'd risk being treated as a monopoly - so they're just keeping profits high instead. The dual-core clarkdales should outperform the venerable Q8200 in nearly every non-synthetic benchmark, putting the hurt on AMDs lower end quad core, all triple core and all dual core offerings. The integrated graphics is a boon for non-gamers - an entire fully functional system could be pushed into a mini-ITX form-factor, use under 120W at full load for all components, and run fast enough for most needs - under $500. Of course, SC2 would probably suck on such a machine. They were fined by the idiot EU the same people harassing Microsoft about unfair for them to put their own browser on their own OS which they developed from the ground up. The same people are forcing Microsoft to bundle win 7 for the EU with other browsers on the install. The same people bitching how it is unfair the way the ballot system is working. The same people who don't see browser market trends and IE dropping off in use. The same people who said it's not good enough to have the ability to remove IE competently from your windows install. The same people who first filed the lawsuit because you couldn't remove IE completely from the computer. Oh yeah and it took them nearly 10 years to do this lawsuit too, that's right it was filled 10 years ago see how good the EU is at judgments considering the EU had a N? edition of XP with no browsers on it at all that didn't sell well. The people running the tribunals for the EU are tech idiots. Also the fine is they are could be hurting the EU citizens buying from those manufactures. They had no definite proof that they are hurting anyone besides AMD. And they did not fine the manufactures for agreeing with Intel's unsung exclusivity contracts with them. And they collect the money not AMD frankly a large portion of tech forms claimed the EU was pulling money grabs against the tech industry as most of it is Asia and US based. let me rage some more!fjasdl;kga I think that MS did do wrong - Netscape was back then a far superior product to explorer, and lost it's market share and became irrelevant, allowing MS's massive development funds to close the gap in a couple of years instead of what should have been closer to five (if they had retained their 70%+ market share instead of quickly dropping to under 40%, it is likely they'd have more cash for R&D, what would have created a stronger option than IE for a longer time). That would have also forced IE instead of being intentionally buggy and not working with standard pages well in order to screw over the competition who'd want to develop according to non-MS standards much sooner (prior to IE8, which ironically causes Microsoft's site to be buggy on it, as it was built around the broken standards of earlier versions). It took nearly 7 years for the competition to be serious again, and suddenly MS is furiously working at improving their rather crappy software... so tell me competition isn't a good thing. Of course, netscape has become irrelevant (seriously, how many people remember that company?), but AMD could, and should, have reached a much higher market share, which would have given it a LOT more money to develop next-gen stuff, and if that were the case, we'd be seeing 32nm quad-cores by Intel by the end of this year. As it is today, AMD needs five years to work on a drastically new core, and we will be seeing Bulldozer in 2011 (manufacturing will optimistically start mid-2010), and up to that point they will not be competitive at the high end... and Intel are busy maximizing their profits instead of pushing the tech advantage faster. AMD has been forced to spin off it's foundries in the meantime, giving it short term relief instead of long term integration between development and manufacturing. And I'm not even talking about how MS abused it's relationship with manufacturers to gain a massive market share for MS Office, and then jacked up the price by 5-10 times once it was the standard (which is now making more money than OS sales for them, and has given us near stagnation in that field of computing). If anything, MS should have been fined much more, much earlier, and Intel should have paid that money directly to AMD around 2005... and that would have been much better for the consumers by now. Better yet, all the manufacturers should have said no to Intel. Or best yet, Intel shouldn't have went against free-market principles. Strong competition gave us the Core2 lineup, the nVidia 200 series, the ATI 4xxx series, etc. At the moment, Intel have no incentive to give us all their tech can offer (hence only dual core w/IGP or hexa-core for 1366 sockets in 32nm). They can focus on profit margins instead. Great for them, sucks for us. To add some more fun facts about MS vs EU discussion: EU is just trying to keep the market competetive and monopoly-free. Let's look at why MS got fined many times here: 1. Windows Media Player - no one can develop and SELL their media players because only an idiot would buy something you get for free right off the bat with your system. No? 2. Internet Explorer - most browsers are free but most people won't bother downloading something they already have. No? 3. X-box - for selling it below the manufacturing price (or something like that, they sold them horrendously cheap and I don't remember the details of this case). Hard to beat that. And some other random stuff of how MS wanted to dominate but failed: When the government of Austria wanted to unify all government machines by installing the same system on all of them (and by teaching new personnel only 1 thing instead of 3) that would be stable, profitable (ie. cheap) and secure. The decision was between Linux and Windows. MS offered 90% discount but was rejected anyway (10% of something is still > 0).
Selling Hardware below it's production cost is a common practice 360 used to be the ps3 is still sold only the wii is sold above manufacture price, it's common practice sell the hardware make the money back on perhiperals and games some where around 8 i believe.
The EU decision is not a decision it's a punishment they already have deiced that IE is unfair 3 times! They just keep fucking up on tiring to "even the field"
But i mean there are a ton of shit that is considered a must for an OS that windows has which is not consistent with the EU decision. Infact if they studied any kind of market trends IE has constantly lost market territory when they first filed the lawsuit 11 years ago.
It's a free program that microsoft develops and keeps updated all on their own.
1 issue with the stupid ass EU decision is that Microsoft will be blamed for bug/security holes etc and updates for a product they do not control.
There are a ton of products that are inconsistent with the EU decision which again people make money off of but generally are free.
1. MS Paint
2. WordPad
3. Notepad (both ms products)
4. Windows media player
5. Windows zipper
6. Windows live messenger MSN
7. Defragger(which is acutlly not really devleoped by them)
8. Windows movie maker
9. Photo/imange viewer
10. ETC
The list goes on there are a ton of alternatives quite a few of these products cannot be removed from windows fully. They operate just like what IE has been dogged on about yet only IE is the only one to be flagged. This is just a bullshit protectionist failure because the orignal lawsuit is filled out by Opera a EU headquartered business. Which does shitty in the normal browser market but takes more then 60% of the mobile browser for which there are no alternatives for mobile browers on alot of phones.
Just saying the EU is inconsistent and has been filed for counter lawsuits because the person making the judgments have been liked to cooperation of the competitions for microsoft and apparently it's considered fair and unbais judgments.
i call shenanigans!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
