AMD sides with Microsoft in antitrust case(s)

[psyjax]

quote:Originally posted by psyjax:


I agree with this entirely. I think Intel was the first to really start doing this crap and it has become standard practice in the industry.

It really is a pain to cut thrugh all the hype and really get down to the specs. In any case tho, most unbiased tests put the AMD's well above most other processors for certain tasks. And for a PC, it seems to be the best all around CPU.

For the record, I was refering to the whole Mhz Myth fiasco and in no way was endorsing Zombie67876541894564 lamer comment's, but rather assumed that his statement on misleading benchmarks rfered to Mhz.

Which BTW is a very real problem. I don't think it's fair for companies like Intel, AMD, or even Apple to try and woo costomers by posting high Mhz and not indicating the actuall mesure of their products performance.

Calum,

Your last post says 256Mhz not megabytes which I think is what you meant.

[ April 18, 2002: Message edited by: psyjax ]

[Calum]

thanks! yes i did mean that, i knew what you meant btw, and that you were cleverly turning zombie3467463274's words around andd using them as SENSE.  

thanks for letting me know about that little slipup, i have changed it now, whew! that was a close one! you've got to be careful around here! one little slip like that and you're asking for tons of posts from people saying "what a load of horseplops this guy speaks! he doesn't even know the difference betwee Mhz and Mb!" (not mentioning any zombie42356542136, eh i mean names).

[badkarma]

Maybe I'll just start replying to zombie's posts in german.....

(which, for the record, also isn't my first language)

 :rolleyes:

[Kintaro]

quote:Originally posted by Zombie9920:


Did I fell off of the stupid tree? That kind of grammar makes me believe that you climbed up the stupid tree and never came down.         I bet your 1.4ghz CPU doesn't beat a Pentium 4 1.6a(The 1.6ghz Northwood).

I don't know how you can make a statement like " we don't measure a cars' performance by RPM's do we" because any car can be redlined(in the 5,000+ RPM area). I think you are trying to say we don't measure car performance by the size of the motor(like 3.8, 350, 383, etc.).

[ April 18, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]

Zombie, none of us care!

[Zombie9920]

quote:Originally posted by X11:

Zombie, none of us care!

Obviously you must care because if you didn't care you wouldn't take your time to reply to it. ;P

[Kintaro]

Really how interesting

[kinky]

AMD didnt use model numbers to mislead customers... they did it to help customers understand performance, so that they would NOT get mislead by Intel.

AMD keeps marketing to marketing.  Intel actually take their marketing all the way to their chip designs.  they actually design things just for how good they will sell, instead of how good they will perform.  Intel purposefully decreased the performance of their core on the P4 processor, just so they could get it to a higher frequency.  higher frequency means that it has bigger numbers, and bigger numbers sell!

Intel is just more clever how they pull the wool over your eyes.

I for one will side with a company who designs a chip to perform good, over one that designs one that will sell good.


also... my Athlon XP running at 1575MHz noticibly outperforms my P4 1800 ... its not even close...

and yes a 1.4 ghz AXP (1600+) will outperform a P4 1600 northwood in most things.  seen it with my own eyes

[ April 28, 2002: Message edited by: kinky ]

[iancom]

I can see both sides of the argument here...

A few months ago, I bought an Athlon XP 1400, and did believe that meant it was a 1.4GHz processor - many of my purchases are done on impulse when I haven't really checked out the specs properly!

I was a little surprised when it turned out not to be running at 1.4GHz, but have absolutely not been disappointed with its performance. Sadly I don't have a 1.4GHz Intel to compare it with, but at the end of the day I got a very fast processor at very good value, and that's why I usually buy AMD.

As I said, it can be a little misleading but I don't think the majority of people will have any reason to complain about the performance of their AMD chip - unless they get a dodgy heat sink with it - apparently they really fry when overheated!

[ April 29, 2002: Message edited by: IanC ]

[Ctrl Alt Del 123]

It's called business, there is no good logic to it, only to gain money and customers. All business succomb to it.

[iancom]

I don't know... there is a certain logic to business practises (particularly with a certain software monop^H^H^H^H^Hcompany...) :-

Whether it's ethical/legal is immaterial, if it will make you more money that you will lose defending/settling in legal cases, then it is worth doing.

Sadly, companies who make an effort not to engage in illegal/unethical practises will almost invariably lose out to the who will. This is why open source is the only real way forward (as I see it) for the future of the software market in particular. You can't be put out of business or undercut by an unethical competitor if you're neither running a business nor charging for your product.

[kinky]

quote:Originally posted by IanC:
A few months ago, I bought an Athlon XP 1400,

do you mean you bought a 1600+.. that really runs at 1400?  or did you buy one that said 1400 on it?  AMD never sold a Athlon XP 1400+ model number chip.. the only one i know of they ever sold that was called 1400, was the Tbird 1400, which really runs at 1400

[sporkme]

man you guys are pissed!

for a minute i thought i had accidentally popped into http://www.fuckintel.com/

there is no fuckamd or anyhting like it, but in searching for such a site, i stumbled across the possible explanation:

http://www4.tomshardware.com/column/02q2/020401/index.html   --this link seems worthy of it's own thread if it holds water!!!  i will even use punctuation and CaPiTaL LeTtErS!!!
---it says that nividia bought amd

in other news
======
check this out

intel was the leader in the field.  they shared everything they designed with motorola, amd, cyrix, and ibm.

essentially, open source.

in 1985, with the advent of the 80386, intel decided that it was through playing nice... it stopped sharing.

essentially, closed source.

now 1985... 1985... 1985... why does that sound familiar?  OOOHHH now i know... 1985 was the first release of windows.

edit: now... what is going on here?

now, all amd could do was cooperate with cyrix to make the amd 386sx, running at 32 bits internally but only with a 16 bit external data path that could not compete with the monster 32 external that intel had puilled off.

now, in an even greater tribute in parallel to microsoft, intel re-released their 32 bit chip, making the intel 386-dx the 32x32 but also manufactuiring a 32x16 intel 386-sx to drive out amd.

from there we got clock doubling and the rest is history

amd has basically just been on a survival trip since, but though they are a step behind i have found them to be a lot more stable.

q: hey, what do you call a failed intel chip, passed off as what it's mass-manufactured second-rate circuitry can handle?

a: celeron

=====
now in my opinion, amd jumped on just to keep from being trampled underfoot, but i fear they have made a big mistake.  being once again excluded from intel's privvy would kill them.  need that xp support.

well, those bastards.

=====
btw, my amd 800 has been overclocked to better than 1200 stable  http://www.overclockers.com/  but then again there is such a slight difference, who can tell?


lots of edits
[ May 07, 2002: Message edited by: sporkme ]

[ May 07, 2002: Message edited by: sporkme ]

[ May 07, 2002: Message edited by: sporkme ]