Thursday, September 21, 2006

SUN, HP, IBM, DELL rally for AMD64

Torrenza will be a huge wave of innovation.

Hector Ruiz says Apple will use AMD64 chips. Who wants to be stuck with obsolete Intel crap? He reckons.

Intel is trying to sell its vague ideas of CSI to others. CSI is expected in 2008, when DCA2.0 will be out.

Intel will be washed away.

59 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sun Microsystems, Cray, Fujitsu Siemens Computers, HP, Dell and IBM Endorse Open Collaboration through AMD Torrenza Initiative to Enable Socket-Compatibility

Hello Socket 7!

Where was that dude that yammered about some IP involved in designing the socket?

Guess what? AMD has brought things back again. Only this time, AMD is letting OTHERS play in its socket unlike Intel who backstabs its partners and tries to lock out the competition.

1:32 AM, September 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

seems amd has made some good frends..cool

6:50 AM, September 21, 2006  
Anonymous Dr. Yield, PhD,MBA said...

Uh, that would be me who "yammered" about IP involved in designing the socket. It would seem that AMD thinks they can get a better return on their investment giving away that IP and enabling demand for their processors than they can keep it closed. They may be right, they may not- only time will tell. That doesn't invalidate my argument- in fact it supports it. I said that there was an ROI decision in how to use one's IP. If AMD thought that this was going to help Intel out in anyway, I guarantee that you wouldn't be hearing about this open source intiative- they aren't a charity folks, they are a business.

8:21 AM, September 21, 2006  
Blogger enumae said...

Sharikou said...

"Hector Ruiz says Apple will use AMD64 chips. Who wants to be stuck with obsolete Intel crap? He reckons."

Wow you have a nack for twisting words.

Aside from 4P and up, where/how is apple stuck with obsolete Intel crap?

All they use is Yonah, Merom, Conroe, and Woodcrest.

All of which, are better than AMD equivalents in there respective markets/segments.

8:28 AM, September 21, 2006  
Anonymous Odyssey67 said...

Re: Apple developing an AMD based machine (or two) - one can only hope.

However, as per my post here
https://beta.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=18375538&postID=1346767011424215324
Jobs didn't go to Intel for performance in the first place, so he certainly won't make that a priority if/when he breaks their exclusivity agreement. That will only happen when he becomes convinced that he no longer needs Intel's DRM technology - which two years ago Hollywood demanded he adopt before they'd allow any of their content to be distributed by Apple - in order to rule the video space.

Amazon's dismal, DRM laden UnBox gives hope. It can't be lost on any thinking person how Bezos being strong-armed into dancing to Hollywoods' paranoid tune on that project pretty much killed it before it ever saw the light of day. But Apple has invested huge sums in The Switch precisely so those nasty little TPMs would be in everthing they make, so Jobs won't bail until he's absolutely sure the movie/TV studios can no longer freeze him out, in an attempt to stop him from doing to them what he did to the record companies (which is to say, make them dance to HIS tune).

If the video offerings on iTS really take off, then all the studios will come running to Jobs. And once that happens, he MAY get brave enough to forgo being an all Intel shop ... eventually. Of course, Intel's financial problems could help convince him too, but as long as they can still supply Apple CPUs & mobos I think he'd be willing to stick with them.

U;timately though, it was his lack of clout with video content providers that got him into bed with Intel, so it will be a strengthened position overthem that will get him out.

8:59 AM, September 21, 2006  
Anonymous Edward said...

"Where was that dude that yammered about some IP involved in designing the socket?"

Intel fanboys don't (want to) understand how Intel's monopoly strategies has materially hurt the market, and how AMD's open approach is a lot more attractive to the companies and end users alike.

If this common-socket thing becomes a real movement, Intel's monopoly is fundamentally undermined, and as Dr Ruiz said, Intel's business model since the i386 days will be broken.

9:13 AM, September 21, 2006  
Blogger enumae said...

Could this be true... no, can't be, not from AMD.

Is AMD Using Viral Marketing/Shills?

10:45 AM, September 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Could this be true... no, can't be, not from AMD.

Is AMD Using Viral Marketing/Shills?


yeah might not be amd..amd wasnt the only company participate in the their own virtual tradeshow. might be other company participated in that tradeshow did this..who knows

11:38 AM, September 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Apple doesn't like being told what to do.

12:39 PM, September 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"A shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services who pretends no association to the seller and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer."

I can see them running around on AMDZone misinforming all the poor AMD fools:D

12:44 PM, September 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Its always sad when one out of 2 companies is so badly managed that it has to call others for help in order not to drop out of competition.... sad, sad

12:46 PM, September 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

His words were more along the line of "Don't get stuck with 1 vendor."

1:26 PM, September 21, 2006  
Anonymous Edward said...

"yeah might not be amd..amd wasnt the only company participate in the their own virtual tradeshow. might be other company participated in that tradeshow did this..who knows"

FUD again? This "viral marketing" has nothing to do with AMD virtual tradeshow. This "viral" thing has no effect on average user what-so-ever. It just registers accounts and flame discussion forums with marketing articles.

In other words, AMD has employed a company who knows how to spam discussion forums. Big deal. Call it "viral" is just misleading & FUD. Most articles by real humans on those discussion forums aren't intelligent anyway.

2:09 PM, September 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

AMD saying Apple should use their chips if they want to be competitive means nothing unless Apple said so themselves. They did not.

After announcing that for the first time in many years they won't be at IDF, it just looks like AMD is willing to say anything to get some media attention. The lack of party crashing at IDF just means that K8L isn't ready to be demoed yet and 4x4 and 65nm aren't impressive enough to show.

2:47 PM, September 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It doesnt make sense for AMD to need shilling. There are enough AMD fans without having to pay for fake ones.

Did the alleged shillers actually lie about anything? It would be one thing to post on newegg that "OMG MY X2 4800 overclocks to 3.5GHZ on AIR and is stable at 35C on 1.25 VOLTZ!" and entirely different to say "Hey this is a really cool site AMD made, come check it out."

3:00 PM, September 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"and how AMD's open approach is a lot more attractive to the companies and end users alike."

And the reason for acquiring ATI as opposed to doing an open ollaboration with them was...

3:42 PM, September 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And the reason for acquiring ATI as opposed to doing an open ollaboration with them was... "
To create a processor not unlike the IBM cell chip. A 64 bit AMD chip with say, 8 cpu cores and 2-4 GPU cores all with hypertransport to the DDR3 RAM that can be well over 4gb natively controlled with true 64-bit computing?

That would be a neat reason to buy ATI.

4:53 PM, September 21, 2006  
Blogger 180 Sharikou said...

It's a laugh that Apple who is completely proprietary would care about offering choice.

Obviously, Sharikou called Hector and asked him to read my post:
http://sharikou180.blogspot.com/2006/09/apple-effect.html

After reading it, Hector got nervous and decided he should create FUD (Fear Uncertainty Doubt) while he can.

Apple is with Intel because Intel not only had the roadmap they wanted, they also could throw thousands of engineering resources to customize their products for Apple and do whatever Apple wants. Steve can call Paul and say - "hey, have you thought about building this or doing that" and Paul has the resources to make it real. Look at the Micron JV. For Intel, Apple is going to force them to drive innovation people want on the consumer side of the business.

The microprocessor is only a part of this - the dude above who mentioned DRM throws another persepctive. Start to put it together to see the big picture if you can. Apple ain't going AMD any time soon. Unfortunately for Hector, he has to decide whether he wants to spend his time in Canada or Cupertino and right now I can betcha it's Canada.

http://sharikou180.blogspot.com
(A more balanced point of view)

7:45 PM, September 21, 2006  
Blogger 180 Sharikou said...

This entire discussion on "shilling" would be hilarious if we were to find out that this blog itself is nothing but an AMD marketing exercise and all of us got shilled big time.

7:49 PM, September 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think AMD has another good year 2007 to wreck Intel some more as Intel's CSI is late for 2008.

Intel's Supercomputer segment is pretty much bye-bye as well as the 4-cpu and up server.

Perhaps Dell knew about this already when they switched to AMD right after Woodcrest was released.

-Longan-

8:27 PM, September 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If AMD thought that this was going to help Intel out in anyway, I guarantee that you wouldn't be hearing about this open source intiative- they aren't a charity folks, they are a business.

I don't know if anybody said anything about AMD helping Intel out. However it would be really sweet to see an announcement to the tune of Intel licensing AMD technology.

8:29 PM, September 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Intel fanboys don't (want to) understand how Intel's monopoly strategies has materially hurt the market, and how AMD's open approach is a lot more attractive to the companies and end users alike.

If this common-socket thing becomes a real movement, Intel's monopoly is fundamentally undermined, and as Dr Ruiz said, Intel's business model since the i386 days will be broken.


It was a common thing in the 90's. I don't see why things cannot return to the way things used to be.

8:32 PM, September 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If I were developing the next generation of computers be it photonic or quantum-dot or massively parrallel cell then torrenza pluggable option would be the most logical choice to base my development.

12:15 AM, September 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"In other words, AMD has employed a company who knows how to spam discussion forums. Big deal."

And your response would be the same if Intel had done this?

12:21 AM, September 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mankind will have arrived at the Mars before that will become possible

4:24 AM, September 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.macnn.com/articles/06/09/21/apple.to.use.amd.chips/

6:13 AM, September 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34547

google might move to SUn opteron boxes thanks to open solaris.
that would mean the end of Linux systems using intel computers.

9:15 AM, September 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@ enumae said...

Could this be true... no, can't be, not from AMD.

Is AMD Using Viral Marketing/Shills?

10:45 AM, September 21, 2006 @

coming from the man who supports the paid plumbers of anandtech...

hypocrecy and convenient are the Keywords here...

9:18 AM, September 22, 2006  
Blogger core2dude said...

Hey Sharikou, looks like AMD is serving a crow. Check this out:

http://of-chips-n-salsa.blogspot.com/2006/09/4x4-revisited-i-told-you-so.html

9:47 AM, September 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Sharikou, looks like AMD is serving a crow. Check this out:

I see no where that it says that those are the only processors that will work with 4X4. It says they will be brought out in pairs for 4X4, but it doesn't say current processors bought in singles can't be used.

I love Intel fanboy ignorance...

10:44 AM, September 22, 2006  
Anonymous Edward said...

"And your response would be the same if Intel had done this?"

What are you talking about? AMD employeed a company who knows how to spam, not AMD itself spamming.

It's just advertisement. We see this from Intel everyday on TV, magazines, everywhere. Do you believe those Intel advertising craps? You do, don't you?

10:55 AM, September 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Could we get a new topic on this article?
http://www.worlds-fastest.com/

It turns out that a dual Opteron box running SUSE Linux-32 and SUSE Linux-64 had up to 37% better transaction serving in... drumroll please... 32 bit mode. Thoughts?

11:06 AM, September 22, 2006  
Blogger enumae said...

Anonymous said...

"coming from the man who supports the paid plumbers of anandtech..."

I do, news to me.

Benchmarks are benchmarks, were the AMD systems crippled in some way in the reviews against Conroe?

Did other site not come to the same conclusion?

"hypocrecy and convenient are the Keywords here..."

Hypocrecy... how do you figure?

11:18 AM, September 22, 2006  
Anonymous Edward said...

"It was a common thing in the 90's. I don't see why things cannot return to the way things used to be."

You don't see or you can't see?

The computing market/eco-system now and in the early 90's (before Pentium was released when Intel deliberably forbid common socket) is very different. Back then websites and webservers were new cool things; today they are necessity for almost any business. Back then we had a long headway to improve the computing power, today everyone except utterly ignorant knows we're running against a wall (thermal, complexity, or whatever).

Back then those big money servers, for all their miscalculations, did not care that much about the PC market - they used Alpha and various MIPS; today everyone is/has been shifting toward x86 (first Xeon then Opteron).

Unless Intel can come up with something that,

1) has much better price-power-performance ratio to Opteron or K8L (i.e., it's not Woodcrest),
2) has a good amount of grass-root marketshare, and
3) incompatible with current x86-64, where the main market is (i.e., it can't be Core 2)

there's simply no hope for thing to go back to the way when Pentium was released.

Well, unless you were hoping to Itanium to success in all the PC markets, that is.

11:24 AM, September 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The article translates to "AMD 4x4-platform based on Socket 1207" Is there anymore anyone has to say?

1:26 PM, September 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The article translates to "AMD 4x4-platform based on Socket 1207" Is there anymore anyone has to say?
Yes. Assuming the article is accurate. We all know that foreign articles that are swiftly linked to on the Inquirer are always accurate. But even so, I would bet the bottom end Socket F procs will be able to be used as well. And you can bet 2 sockets with 2 cores in each on 4X4 will scale better than Kentsfield thanks to superior arc. Good luck Intel fanboys, you're going to need it.

2:04 PM, September 22, 2006  
Anonymous enumae said...

Edward said...

"What are you talking about? AMD employeed a company who knows how to spam, not AMD itself spamming."

You are a good spinner.

I linked to it for argument sake, but if it turns out to be true, then AMD is spamming, and yes AMD is accountable for the simple fact of hiring the marketing firm.

Do you think that the marketing company is doing this out of kindness?

They are paid for it, spamming, advertising, though close to being the same, they are not, advertising has the brand in the ad and is backed by the company advertising (publicly).

Marketing being paid for by AMD (if it is true) and not connecting AMD to it is not advertising it is spaming.

I am not saying Intel does not do this, hell a good example is releasing a engineering sample of Kentsfield and having benches shown on ExtremeForums, I would constitute that as spaming as well.

The point of the link, for me anyways, is to show that AMD is not above Intel on pulling a fast one over on its loyal users/fans.

2:12 PM, September 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://tweakers.net/nieuws/44504/AMD-4x4-platform-gebaseerd-op-Socket-1207.html

4x4 using Socket F. And people say it wasn't a slapped together platform. If it uses registered DIMMs the platform is basicaly a dud. And people say Kentsfield 120W TDP is high. Try 4x4's 2x125W TDP.

And who were those geniouses who said that they can just put in their 35W X2 3800+ EEs into 4x4. Ridiculous.

2:23 PM, September 22, 2006  
Anonymous netrama said...

Edward said...

"It was a common thing in the 90's. I don't see why things cannot return to the way things used to be."

You don't see or you can't see?

The computing market/eco-system now and in the early 90's (before Pentium was released when Intel deliberably forbid common socket)

-------------------------------
Yes the point is the whole eco-system has changed ....Intel management has failed to see that ..(P4 at 10GHz...lol) ..they are still stuck with the same old tricks

3:05 PM, September 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

" enumae said...

Anonymous said...

"coming from the man who supports the paid plumbers of anandtech..."

I do, news to me.

Benchmarks are benchmarks, were the AMD systems crippled in some way in the reviews against Conroe?

Did other site not come to the same conclusion?

"hypocrecy and convenient are the Keywords here..."

Hypocrecy... how do you figure?

11:18 AM, September 22, 2006 "

I swear we still the insane 40% performance increae that anandtech claimed!
also handicapping systems or use very rare OS to prevent duplication? .. get a clue plz..
the real conroe performance wasnt that "insane" as they boosted.

7:04 PM, September 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Look at this list

IBM; inventory of everything, but in the end dominated none of them; PC, RISC, hardisk, DRAM, you name it they invented it but could make any signficant profit nor come to dominate the market..

SUN: Once they had the line they were the internet. Today their stock languishes, they laid of thousands, they have had losses for how many quarters. They have no viable high confidence growth path.

HP: Make all of their profits from INK ( can I repeat it again ) Make all of their money from INK.

Dell: The days of lean manufacturing winning over inovation is over. DELL has no R&D or innovation... Another company on the long slow hill to decline in PCs. They are going like ACER, Gateway, e-machines. Rollins will ruin this company. Look at the continued denial by Mikey and Ronnie that nothing is broken.

Oh.. all these winners are on board with AMD... My confidence is complete...


Looks like a bunch of losers getting togather and hopeing that their combined misry and incompetence when pooled will result in something grand...

When have you ever seen that?

7:35 PM, September 22, 2006  
Anonymous enumae said...

Please take the time and read, it took a little while to write :)

Keep in mind these numbers are from Toms Hardware review of the 2.6GHz Kentsfield on a 1066 FSB. They are just a base for the example of future performance of K8L at 2.6GHz. I understnad there are alot of other factors and if you know what they are please explain, especially you Sharikou.

Remember these numbers are just a base, hence not real.

Sharikou has claimed...

"On performance of the cores, we already know, 60% increase in integer speed, and 200% increase on floating point."

X6800 at 2.93GHz SiSoft 2007 CPU test Multimedia floating point.

87,615/2 = 43,808 FP per core ---- 2.8*100/2.93=0.95*43,808=41,618 for a 2.8GHz Conroe Core

41,618*4 = 2.8GHz Kentsfield Quad core 166,472 vs 2.6GHz Kentsfield Quad core 158,733 as per benchmark.

FX62 at 2.8GHz SiSoft 2007 CPU test Multimedia floating point.

57,526/2 = 28,763 fp per core * 2 (for the 200% increase in FP) = K8L per core 57,526*4 = K8L Quad core 230,104

The AMD K8L at 2.8GHz has a 28% performance lead in Multimedia Floating Point.

X6800 at 2.93GHz SiSoft 2007 cpu test Multimedia Integer.

162,469/2 = 81,235 integer per core --- 2.8*100/2.93=0.95*81,235=77,173 for a 2.8GHz Conroe core

77,173*4 = Kentsfield Quad core 308,691 vs 2.6GHz Kentsfield Quad core 294,383 as per benchmark.

FX62 at 2.8GHz SiSoft 2007 cpu test Multimedia Integer

52,869/2 = 26,434 integer per core * 1.6 (for the 60% increase in Integer performance) = K8L per core 42,295*4 = K8L Quad core 169,180

The Intel Kentsfield Quad core at 2.8GHz has a 45% performance lead in Multimedia Integer.


Now for the clock speeds, some have said 4GHz for K8L, please bare with me...

Assuming an AMD 3.6GHz CPU is at about 150W TDP (2.8*100/3.6=1.23% increase so 2.8*1.23= 150W +/-), so at 4.0GHz its about a TDP of 160W at 90nm (straight scale).

I am keeping this really simple, so the numbers may be off but they give a decent idea...

65nm*100/90nm = 0.72

160W*0.72 = 115W 4.0GHz at 65nm.

While it may be possible for a K8L dual core, it is not likely for K8L Quad core.

For K8L to run at 4.0GHZ would have a TDP of roughly 115w*1.75 (assuming it would not just double) = 200W.

125w*100/200w=0.62

4.0GHz*0.62=2.5GHz

Theoretcally a 2.5 - 2.6GHz K8L is possible in the 125 - 130W envelope that is currently used by AMD.

Keep in mind we have not even factored in the 4MB of L2 and L3 cache or the improved manufacturing process AMD plans to use so yes the numbers could get better or worse.

Now what kind of performance advantage does K8L have at 2.6GHz...

2.6*100/2.8=0.93

Multimedia floating point.

2.6GHz Kentsfield Quad core 158,733 vs 2.6GHz K8L Quad core 230,104*0.93 = 213,997

The 2.6GHz K8L Quad core has a 26% advantage over the 2.6GHz Kentsfield Quad core.

Multimedia Integer

2.6GHz Kentsfield Quad core 294,383 vs 2.6GHz K8L Quad core 169,180*0.93 = 157,337

The 2.6GHz Kentsfield has a 46% advantage over the 2.6GHz K8L Quad core.

The battle does not seem to be over, but just beginning.

Next year should be an amazing time for any of us who enjoy technology not just AMD or Intel.

8:17 PM, September 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Using Opteron sockets for high end FX systems isn't exactly new either.

FX51 (or was it 53) still used the Opteron Socket940s.

8:25 PM, September 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you need performance and 4x4, might as well go with the socket F. Now it explains why we have not seen the 4x4 system yet, socket F was only released recently.

I only lament that AMD 65nm is not out now. High performance 65nm FX with socket F and 4x4 configuration would crush Intel quad-core junk.

Anyway, raw speed is not the only way to beat Intel. AMD has been doing a series of great move. Not too long ago, the green power alliance (Intel did not join and had their own later but Dell did not join!).

Now open socket alliance. Imagine Intel try to join and AMD will refuse, "you will BK in 5 quarters, can't join". Intel "Huh, what the #$%!? Who made you think so". AMD, "Sharikou said so".

Hahaha...

-Longan-

P.S. Intel fanbois should be ashame of the power-monger Pentium netbust and the closed socket mentality. Now watch Intel to pay the price for their arrogances.

1:41 AM, September 23, 2006  
Anonymous Edward said...

"You are a good spinner.

I linked to it for argument sake, but if it turns out to be true, then AMD is spamming, and yes AMD is accountable for the simple fact of hiring the marketing firm."


Spinning or not, or spamming or not, the "marketing tactics" is not viral, and it's not unethical. Any marketing is basically some form of spamming. Just because one is paid on TV and the other is free on a Internet forum, doesn't make them ethically any different.

And you link the article for what argument's sake? To show that AMD is unethical by employ marketing on forums? You don't even know what are written in those articles posted by the marketing firm, and you're willing to call the poster unethical just because someone said similar articles exist on a handful of other forums?

Can you say that you are not biased?

2:57 AM, September 23, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It was a common thing in the 90's. I don't see why things cannot return to the way things used to be."

You don't see or you can't see?


Yo Edward, I meant return to the days of a common socket...read the post I was answering. Also, Pentium was on socket 7, a common socket. It was with Pentium Pro/II that Intel started the Slot 1 and what not incompatible socket game.

6:32 AM, September 23, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Apple & AMD ?

Possible, if Apple starts a melt-down like Dell. If Apples cash cow (IPOD) starts to loose its luster to formidable competition. If AMD’s HT becomes the rage. If Intel falls on financial hard times. If AMD market share really gets to 60% someday and price becomes a factor. If Steve J. has a fall-out with Intel over tactics and the brand is threatened. Next generation AMD kills Intel’s offerings by a large margin. If future Intel’s power to watt ratio’s become uncompetitive.

100 other reasons could cause the move. Steve J. doesn’t even need a reason to change.

7:26 AM, September 23, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>>100 other reasons could cause the move. Steve J. doesn’t even need a reason to change.

I heard Intel had an large group of xyz number of engineers working on helping Apple designing their boards.

If Intel lay off these folks as part of the 10,500-cut, would that is a good reason to give Steve J. a need to change to AMD???

Should the open-socket is a good reason for Apple to switch to AMD? My next computer will have 2 sockets. I personally don't believe in dual-core, dual-socket, but the thought of having an extra socket to plug-in a co-processor is a big win!

-Longan-

2:00 PM, September 23, 2006  
Anonymous enumae said...

Edward said...

"Spinning or not, or spamming or not, the "marketing tactics" is not viral, and it's not unethical."

I did not say unethical.

"Any marketing is basically some form of spamming."

Wow Edward, did you even read my post, not all marketing is spamming, nor is it some form...

Here is what I said "spamming, advertising, though close to being the same, they are not, advertising has the brand in the ad and is backed by the company advertising (publicly)."

Edward said...

"Just because one is paid on TV and the other is free on a Internet forum, doesn't make them ethically any different."

I am not talking about ethics, but yes there is a difference between the two, and neither are free, unless AMD is doing it themselves.

"And you link the article for what argument's sake?"

Yes I did, it was very stale here the last few days :)

"To show that AMD is unethical by employ marketing on forums?"

Get over the ethics part.

"You don't even know what are written in those articles posted by the marketing firm, and you're willing to call the poster unethical just because someone said similar articles exist on a handful of other forums?"

Did you look at the link, man you really should have, it shows an image of what they said, again I am not saying they did it (AMD), but thought the article would provoke debate especially here, and look at where you have taken this...lol

"Can you say that you are not biased?"

What am I biassed about, man, really grow up, and read what I said, I thought the article would provoke debate especially here, and it has.

If it had said Intel was doing it, well even Sharikou would have had some fun with it, thats the point.

2:45 PM, September 23, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Next generation AMD kills Intel’s offerings by a large margin."

Based on what, slides? ;)

2:49 PM, September 23, 2006  
Anonymous Edward said...

"What am I biassed about, man, really grow up, and read what I said, I thought the article would provoke debate especially here, and it has."

No, this article does not provoke debate, you did. In fact, your foolish action/thinking did. Any fool can see that I was arguing against the fact that you bringing it up and make a fuss about it.

The marketing is not wrong (it seems you completely omit the fact that posting similar articles on multiple forums is a valid/legal way of marketing), the article has no false information (oh so you did read the article? Shouldn't you have known better that there's nothing wrong with it?), so why are you raising this to provoke argument?

Intel is doing this kind of stuff everyday, only that it pays to shut people's mouths up, and make invalid claims. Haven't you had the capability to read my previous comments at all?

Now please grow up and get a better habit than shouting pointless accusation (on AMD).

3:13 AM, September 24, 2006  
Anonymous enumae said...

Edward said...

"No, this article does not provoke debate, you did."

By posting a link to the article and you getting very defensive of AMD.

"In fact, your foolish action/thinking did. Any fool can see that I was arguing against the fact that you bringing it up and make a fuss about it."

Actually when I posted it, I did not make a fuss, you on the other hand seem to be very upset and are making this a big deal, let it go.

"The marketing is not wrong (it seems you completely omit the fact that posting similar articles on multiple forums is a valid/legal way of marketing), the article has no false information (oh so you did read the article? Shouldn't you have known better that there's nothing wrong with it?), so why are you raising this to provoke argument?"

I did not say it was illegal.

I did not say it had false information, but it is not marketing.

Again if in fact AMD is behind this, but not publically it is in my mind spamming, just as I said about Kentsfield engineering samples from Intel on Xtreme Forums.

I am not condoning the action, but people here have constanly said that AMD and Intel are nothing alike, fact is the both want money and will do petty things to get attention from enthusiast.

I should not have said argument, but debate. Again if this were Intel in the article the reaction here would have been very different.

"Intel is doing this kind of stuff everyday, only that it pays to shut people's mouths up, and make invalid claims."

Edward it sounds like you have a conspiracy theory... Here is an idea, make a website and make claims against Intel stating these things and see what happens, they may even pay you not to tell the world.

"Haven't you had the capability to read my previous comments at all?"

Yes and your previous comments were mainly about ethics.

"Now please grow up and get a better habit than shouting pointless accusation (on AMD)."

Did you mean hobby?

Ok Edward, let me make my point clear enough that even you can understand it...

I am not speculating anything, I have linked to an article that did, I do not work or own the website that has the article.

I posted a link here for debate, and it has provoked you and primarily only you into a ridiculous posting of me being an accuser of AMD, when in fact, I have stated several times that I do not know, nor do any of us, that AMD is behind the alleged spamming on those forums.

Edward it is you who have turned this into something more.

9:25 AM, September 24, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

enumae, mind not comparing the 90nmhigh powered AMD vs the AMD 65nm counterparts ( k8l will be 65nm not 90nm retard.. )
nice way of comparing TDP...
chezz, you only get worse everyday...

7:07 PM, September 24, 2006  
Anonymous Edward said...

"By posting a link to the article and you getting very defensive of AMD."

That is because there are some idiotic comments on the very blog thought your link proved AMD unethical. And it is people like you who "provoked" such thinking.

Maybe you are not dense, but just ignorant. Okay, YOU didn't say anything but offer a link to a FUD. Fine, but know that by linking to a FUD which you hope would provoke debate, you are worse than the one blamed in the FUD article.

The rest of your comments is worthless. Do no assume that I care to read them. The case is simple, and it is over.

9:06 PM, September 24, 2006  
Anonymous enumae said...

Anonymous said...

"enumae, mind not comparing the 90nmhigh powered AMD vs the AMD 65nm counterparts ( k8l will be 65nm not 90nm retard.. )
nice way of comparing TDP...
chezz, you only get worse everyday..."

Take a closer look dumbass, there is an equation which takes that into account...

Something like "65*100/90=0.72" that is what I used for the conversion of TDP, try Ctrl+F and search the page.

But thanks for coming out and posting something negative as anonymous.

Edward, you are an incapable of a logical debate, I have been very patient with you yet either you are trying very hard to prove your point, or we can not come to a common ground, in which case this is useless, but read if your able, or just close your eyes...

"And it is people like you who "provoked" such thinking."

I linked to an article, you may interpret it any way you like, but that is all I did, you came to your own conclusions without my help.

As for your comment... "Fine, but know that by linking to a FUD which you hope would provoke debate, you are worse than the one blamed in the FUD article."

LOL!!! First off, you have nare a clue, what do you call what Sharikou does on a daily basis, what do you say about Intel going BK in 5-6 quarters, its all fud, its a blog, by definition : Blogs often provide commentary or news on a particular subject... check Wiki.

This link just happens to go against AMD (supposedly) and you don't like it, again you came to your own provoking conclusions, I am sorry for having put you through the pain of having to think that AMD could possibly be doing something such as spamming.

Next time I will censor the evil people out there who would dare make the connection, ok?

"The rest of your comments is worthless."

As was all of yours, but hey I am having fun :)

11:04 PM, September 24, 2006  
Anonymous Edward said...

"you are an incapable of a logical debate"

Base on the track records, if there is anyone who is incapable of logical debate on this blog, it is you, enumae.

You wasn't even capable of logical thinking, or you should've realized that I wasn't debating with you at all. I told you facts, whether you like them or not.

BTW, I quote and read your sentence above only because my name was bolded. I don't want to waste time on your pointless chanting further. The marketing was not viral as the viral we knew of (spreading autonomously), it was not unethical as the ethic-less we knew of (misleading customers), it was not even spamming as the spamming we knew of (in number of thousands at least). It was free ads, nothing more or less.

Now you may keep crying like a baby. Nobody cares. Pretty much every logical person following the comments know by now you were just spinning the fact that you were spreading FUD.

4:39 PM, September 26, 2006  
Anonymous enumae said...

Edward Edward Edward, what are we going to do with you?

Remember how you were so positive that AMD would make current AM2 socket based processors compatible with 4x4?

You have proven to me, and me to you, that we can not debate.

"Pretty much every logical person following the comments know by now you were just spinning the fact that you were spreading FUD."

How ever you want to look at this, but please read.

You have come to your own conclusion that AMD is not shilling spamming or using Virall marketing, that I completely understand.

How am I spreading FUD?

All I have done is post a link, just like many others have done in the past, and you drew your own conclusion.

I am looking at it in the sense that, if it is true, they are spamming, nothing more or less.

Again... I have not stated that AMD has done it, it is only speculation by the website who confirmed that the company offers that service, and that company is the one who did the website for AMD.

I do not want to argue with you.

8:55 PM, September 26, 2006  
Anonymous Edward said...

"Edward Edward Edward, what are we going to do with you?"

Simple. Get the facts from me (rather than the FUD from enumae). That facts:

AMD's marketing was not viral as the viral we knew of (spreading autonomously), it was not unethical as the ethic-less we knew of (misleading customers), it was not even spamming as the spamming we knew of (in number of thousands at least). It was free ads, nothing more or less.

"Remember how you were so positive that AMD would make current AM2 socket based processors compatible with 4x4?"

I do not spread FUD, I claim what I read (read the first sentence). If you have problem with information there, go edit it and show your proof.

Now you may go on to make other meaningless and pointless arguments.

11:31 AM, September 27, 2006  
Anonymous enumae said...

Edwards said...

"it was not even spamming as the spamming we knew of (in number of thousands at least). It was free ads, nothing more or less."

Since you like Wiki, look at Blog, wiki, and guestbook spam

It is a form of spamming, like you have said, maybe not in the numbers sense, but spamming none the less.

"If you have problem with information there, go edit it and show your proof."

Have a look, and if you believe it, you can modify Wiki.

Patience only goes so far, but you would like to spin my words so they may look like FUD you are only showing your lack of intelligence.

I have not said AMD is spamming, it is all speculation, what part do you not understand.

2:59 PM, September 27, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home