How to analyse the Intel vs AMD competitive situation
Many Intelers assumed because Intel has a Core 2 design now, AMD would lose overnite. Of course, this didn't happen. The exact opposite happened. AMD actually became even stronger. As I correctly predicted, Conroe was the last straw that pushed DELL to AMD. Now, even Gateway started doing Opteron servers.
Conroe pushed DELL to AMD, not because Conroe is not good, but because it's good. This seems counter intuitive to most Intelers. And I found it hard to explain the complex dynamics to the Intelers, as we have routinely recgonized that Intelers possess lower IQ.
To help Intelers to understand the situation, it's thus useful to construct an easy to understand model of the computing landscape. The following is my attempt to analyse the situation in a reduced construction:
Instead of Intel and AMD, we should consider three companies:
1) Intel Israel ("II"), this is a small company with limited capacity, only able to supply 15% of the market. Their chips are based on Pentium 3 and offers good integer performance and good power consumption. They also did a good implementation of AMD64 instruction set. They have weak spots though. Their chips lack floating point performance, and only good for low end 2P systems.
2) Intel America ("IA"), this is a large company with many FABs, they can supply 110% of the world CPU market. But their engineers are dumb, and they stuck with the Netburst architecture. Their chips are hot and slow. They have a SMP product, but it's slower than II's 2P product. Overall, this company has no future, most of its technology and workforce are obsolete.
3) AMD+ATI ("AI"), this is a standard setting company with all the next generation stuff. Its capacity is quickly ramping, being able to supply 30% of the market and more. It sets the standards, and its native quad core CPUs are aimed at the stars. Currently, AI's products are vastly superior to IA's by any standard. Its next generation in six month will leave both II and IA biting dust. This is because AI's technologies are revolutionary and scalable, it has stuff from cellphone to super computers.
Now, consider a computer OEM, which faces three choices, II, IA and AI, which ones will they choose?
It's obvious that they will choose II and AI. Both are very competive. Furthermore, AI has the future, anyone who misses the AI boat will suffer. But both II and AI are capacity constrained at this point.
People will choose IA as the last resort, only after both II and IA supplies are exhausted. IA's products are pretty much destined to the landfill. IA's fate is sealed and will be dead soon.
Both II and AI are growing fast, but AI has an inherent advantage due to its advanced architecture and forward thinking. By the time AI releases its next gen, II will also be out of fashion.
In the end, both II and IA BK, leaving only AI as the sole supplier of our computing needs.
I hope this helps.
posted by Sharikou, Ph. D. @ 11/15/2006 02:15:00 PM
93 Comments:
"In the end, both II and IA BK, leaving only AI as the sole supplier of our computing needs.
Shouldn' that be "In the end, both II and IA BK, leaving only AI to hugely inflate their prices, slow the pace of innovation and otherwise ass-rape the customer?" Or are you claiming that AMD/ATI would be a benevolent monopoly? Because, trust me, no such thing is ever going to exist.
You are retarded.
Many Intelers assumed because Intel has a Core 2 design now, AMD would lose overnite.
Actually this would be Sharikouesque logic. We have tons of your BS recorded. Show some "Intelers" saying AMD will lose overnight.
You didn't explain why Conroe pushed AMD to dell though I won't even entertain you by going back and forth on it.
You are retarded.
Sharikou said...
"As I correctly predicted, Conroe was the last straw that pushed DELL to AMD."
This is your theory, but is there any proof that Dell went AMD because of Core 2?
Wouldn't it be fair to say that Dell went AMD for servers due to demand from its customers?
And since Dell is already using AMD, and broke the Intel only model, why not use them for Desktop and Laptop?
Also you keep saying that AMD's processors are cheaper to make than Intel's, wouldn't this have an effect on Dells choice, and allow them to pay less for a processor and make more profits?
-------------------------------
Here is another question, you claim Intel only has a 10% advantage over K8, well isn't that in gaming and isn't it more like 30% in most desktop and mobile applications?
I understand that memory intensive tasks such as those found in the server area are beneficial to K8, but outside of the server area, or away from memory intensive tasks, how does K8 have a chance against Core 2 on the desktop or mobile front?
I am in no way trying to bash AMD, but the reviews are out there.
-------------------------------
Another point to factor into your Intel bankruptcy is that AMD can not supply the worlds demand in Q2 08, and there market share gains were mainly in 4P and up (I read they are at about 50% of that segment) leaving mobile and desktop to Intel until K8L (Rev H) and Bulldozer arrive.
So in 1 years time they will be able to gain enough market share with K8L (Rev H) and Bulldozer in desktop and mobile to bankrupt Intel?
I just can not understand your logic.
In the end, both II and IA BK, leaving only AI as the sole supplier of our computing needs.
Assuming everything you predict is correct... is this a desirable outcome? Monopoly = bad... just look at Microsoft.
The Opteron under the guidance of Sun’s grey matter is setting records daily. What was once the impossible dream is on the cover of Dell’s November business catalog, AMD Server, notebook & desktop. Judging by the virtualization partners list I would say AMD is on a technology role.
Even if some don’t care for the brand, it seems to be trending up.
This does not help. Nothing here helps anyone. But it's fun to read, so please keep writing.
"Intel Israel ("II"), this is a small company with limited capacity.."
It's hilarous how you actually believe that Intel's design centers are also its manufacturing site.
What's even more hilarous is how much time you tried to conjour such nonsense and spend time typing it thinking that it actually made sense and that someone will really buy it.
Once again you prove yourself to be an idiot. "II" and "IA" as you call them are not independently run entities. Furthermore, not a single Core 2 Duo/Quadro has been manufactured in Israel. They have all come from OR, AZ, and Ireland. You have no clue, yet you continue to spew garbage in an attempt to recover from all of that AMD stock you bought on margin at $36/share.
"As I correctly predicted, Conroe was the last straw that pushed DELL to AMD."
This is your theory, but is there any proof that Dell went AMD because of Core 2?
The causal link between two events "can be inferred from timing alone when there is a close proximity between the two”. Thomas v. City of Beaverton, 379 F.3d 802 (9th Cir. 2004).
The causal link between two events "can be inferred from timing alone when there is a close proximity between the two”. Thomas v. City of Beaverton, 379 F.3d 802 (9th Cir. 2004).
You mean the more logical argument that Dell will continue to eat into AMD's margins?
Doctor:
I had such high expectations when I started to read this post that you were indeed going to create some kind of model for analysis but it's turned out more like a fairy tale.
http://sharikou180.blogspot.com
(A more balanced POV)
Sharikou, JD strikes again. First you took that quote out of context, and I quote: "The causal link between a protected activity and the alleged retaliatory action “can be inferred from timing alone” when there is a close proximity between the two."
You are not a lawyer. Stop trying to be one. Quoting one line out of a case does not make legal argument.
The way a real legal argument is made is first, state the rule, second apply the facts from the case you are citing to the case at hand. Do not cite a generic line and then say that it applies without an analogous factual application to the facts at hand.
I'm sure you will make some lame comment about how it is obvious I have a low IQ and if I am a real lawyer, I am proving your point. I'm sure you are "fragging" highly paid lawyers as we speak. Seriously, as one who has tried many jury trials, you sir would be laughed out of court with your logic.
Sharikou quoted...
The causal link between two events "can be inferred from timing alone when there is a close proximity between the two”
This is your proof, a lawsuit in Oregon?
When you track down the quote it goes back before the case you quoted, I traced it back to 1989, and stopped there 'Miller v. Fairchild Industries ', here is the quote...
We have recognized previously that, in some cases, causation can be inferred from timing alone where an adverse employment action follows on the heels of protected activity.
And it continues...
But timing alone will not show causation in all cases; rather, "in order to support an inference of retaliatory motive, the termination must have occurred `fairly soon after the employee's protected expression.'"
So in these cases they are talking about employement termination and liability in negligence.
So I have to ask did Dell fire Intel, and if not how does this apply?
-------------------------------------
Anyways what about my other questions concerning Intels bankruptcy and Core 2's performance outside memory intensive tasks and the server area?
Yo PhD pretender this post started interesting but in the end you exceed yourself. Congrats are in order. YOu have outdone your stupidity in your battery fire analysis with this one.
Intel Isreal designed the Core2. Did you know that the Core2 is manufactured in all of INTEL's 300mm 65nm factories. The ones in Az, Oregon, Ireland. The other 90nm and 130nm do a host of communications, Flash, chipset and some very low volume of CPUs.
So sorry again you try to sway some impressionalble idiot with your retarded arguments but you are again incorrect.
AMD is competing against INTEL the one with 4 300mm 65nm factories and building 2 hughe 45nm factories for a 45nm process in development in Oregon. Where the design is done is completely irrelevant.
If Mike and Ken are listneing to you then its no wonder why Dell has lost its Mojo to HP. It has NOTHING to do with AMD.. HPs success has NOTHIGN to do with AMD.
Now go back to school you retard!
Cray XT4 Supercomputer Debuts With Petascale Capability and Significant Backlog of Large Orders:
...each AMD Opteron processor in the Cray XT4 system is coupled with its own interconnect chip. Providing six links in three dimensions, the unique Cray SeaStar2 chip uses its embedded routing capability to take advantage of HyperTransport™ technology and significantly accelerate communications among the processors
Now try that with SuperPI champion FSB.
Assuming everything you predict is correct... is this a desirable outcome? Monopoly = bad... just look at Microsoft.
Would an AMD monopoly be better than an Intel monopoly?
The answer is YES!
Intel = closed architecture/specs
AMD = open architecture/specs
Intel = no inovation in a decade
AMD = a list-full of inovations
Intel = NO choice! Platforms like Centrion only force OEM's and builders to be different on a price and services level rather than on product.
AMD = Choice! OEM's and builders can choose between chipsets, lan and wireless chips and optionally video.
Intel = life of a platform (products/sockets/etc) is VERY short.
AMD = life of a platform is long lived giving clients long product support on same sockets etc.
Intel = When threatend, try to force a new architecture (Itanium) down your clients throat all the while passing on the $200+ billlion migration cost to them.
AMD = When threatend, they build better EXTENDED products in order to REDUCE overall client's costs!!
I could go on and on...
Jeach!
Causal timing seems to be youtr answer to also why Conroe causes laptops to explode, ie laptops started to explode and Conroe was just released so they must be connected.
Not very scientific thougg and that is why there is a word in the English language called coincidence.
There's still no sign of Intel going bankrupt either, I would suggest their next quarter figures will be better and suggest an upward trend ..time is running out for your 2Q08 demise of Intel....
The causal link between two events "can be inferred from timing alone when there is a close proximity between the two”. Thomas v. City of Beaverton, 379 F.3d 802 (9th Cir. 2004).
Of course!
You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.
Read more here:
http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
Sharikou, you probably underestimated the ramping speed of Core 2, which officially should be 30-40% during Q1 2007, and something like 80% by the end of 2007. Compare to Q4 2006, this is almost 400% increase, which is much, much more than AMD can ramp its production.
Core 2 is probably (officially) the most aggressive ramp in Intel's history. Intel knows that its survival depends on how fast it can replace the inefficient Netburst architecture with Core 2. If Intel maintains its roadmap, starting 2007 Core 2 production volume will surpass that of AMD's K8. If that is the case, the "necessary condition" for your "Intel BK prediction" will be gone.
Sharikou, JD strikes again. First you took that quote out of context, and I quote: "The causal link between a protected activity and the alleged retaliatory action “can be inferred from timing alone” when there is a close proximity between the two."
Such a retard. JDs are mostly retards. When you work with a precedent, you may generalize. When an event happens right after another event, the possibilty of causal relationship may exist. Based on the level of proof, a mere possibility coupled with a good argument may be sufficient to convince a reasonable jury. Nothing is absolute, that's why sometimes the wrong guy was convicted for murder, and sometimes the obvious murderer walk away free. If you are a lawyer, you need to understand that. For instance, look at the Peterson murder case, there is no physical evidence, no witnesses, everything is inferred from timing, the guy got convicted for murder...I am trying to teach you something here. What I have done in law is beyond the dream of most lawyers.
In our case, I predicted that Conroe time is Dell's AMD time. I told you why. and my reasoning is unbeatable-- it's based on DELL's need to survive the Conroe disaster. As I have simplified for you retards here, the reason is very simple to understand. So my prediction was actually the only rational choice for Michael Dell to make, unless he wants his company to BK in 3 quarters.
Sharikou, you probably underestimated the ramping speed of Core 2, which officially should be 30-40% during Q1 2007, and something like 80% by the end of 2007. Compare to Q4 2006, this is almost 400% increase, which is much, much more than AMD can ramp its production.
By the end of 2007, 90% of AMD's production will be Rev H on 65nm (fab36 and chartered), and in 3Q08, 100% of AMD will be 45nm, FAB38 should starts as a 45nm fab.
First, for those pointing that Conroes are not manufactured in Israel... well, I think this is quite obvious, and Sharikou never meant that. I guess you didn't understand at all what he was trying to say (despite agreeing with him or not).
About Sharikous statement of "Conroe killed Intel because it is too good", I would rather said, Intel was too late with Conroe. I believe Intel spent too much time without an answer to K8. Plus I believe Conroe is designed to win this round, but not to keep Intel on top for long. It rather seems a desperate solution (we cannot design a good and scalable system, so throw as much cache as you can in it).
I believe AMD is much better positioned, with their imminent new processors coming.
Too many Intel fans just like to analyze the current state of the industry, ignoring forecast and momentum, but that is a way too simplistic vision.
Rock A being higher than rock B doesn't mean rock B will hit the ground first...
No, its you that must underestimate Intel. Just look at their road map.
Last time I checked Intel IS GOING TO RELEASE NEW LOW END PRODUCTS based in CORE 2, in no where I see new clock speeds or new products.
The Intel fastest products are E6600, E6700 and X6800. Stopped there, unless they release a new FSB (1333) or 6900 if AMD bring a new fast product (expect 6000+).
You should expect Intel decreasing clock speed and castrate their products even more (1MB and 512KB cache versions). Intel 65nm has yield problems so even damaged and broken products will have to go to sell.
It will very easy for AMD to compete with low end Core 2, it will be a walk in the park even with outdated top of the lime 90nm manufacturing.
Sharikou said...
"FAB38 should starts as a 45nm fab."
Come on now, you have to link this claim, yes have to.
No where in any documents that I have read while debating with you, do I recall a single instance of AMD stating Fab 38 will be 45nm initially.
Source... Please :)
I agree with SOME of your points. However, the average consumer doesn't know the difference between a Pentium and a Core Duo \ Core 2 Duo. Most consumers will recognize the Pentium brand OVER the Core brand. So to say Intel will have to throw away its stock, in my eyes, isn't correct.
You seem to really want Intel to BK, but I sure hope you realize that AMD isn't driven by do-gooders, the force doesn't compel AMD to make good processors, INTEL does. The inverse is true as well. If it wasn't for AMD we'd all be using Pentium III's right now.
And a market with only AMD left would help you with what?
I can understand acting superior, inflated, and egomaniacal to draw in the people to view your blog, and hence make enough money off advertising so that you can feed yourself (you certainly don't WORK for a living).
But to create an illusional 'rift' between Intel Isreal and Intel America and treat the two as different entitites while in reality they're connected by far more than just in name is just ludicrous and desperate.
Have you never worked in a corporation before? Do you not think that Intel engineers are able to get on a plane and either go to Isreal or America and share design ideas? Or conference call?
You're grabbing at straws, and your lack of journalistic ability to create controversial topics is bewildering. I'm not saying I'm any better, but I AM saying that you're looking pretty pathetic when it comes to new ideas.
Please don't cry over this Intelbois!!!!
I just can't believe that AMD is actually going to allow a full year to go buy before they produce something significant to compete against Intel C2D
It actually makes sense from a bsuiness standpoint...
1. Holding the speed crown doesn't always manifest as sales
2. Only 20% of Intel's desktop chips are C2D, the rest are Netburst. This will increase to 40% by the end of Q1 07, but this still means that the majority of the chips that AMD actually competes against in the sales arena (I'm talking about the overall arena, not just those of us looking for the cutting edge) are Netburst.
3. Even with an obviously superior C2D, AMD has continued to gain marketshare.
4. Since it's never a good idea to make all of your changes at the same time (it leads to poor yields and a very low supply), AMD is completing the transition to 65nm and 300mm (they are still less than 50% 300mm) before the new cores come on-line.
5. The biggest income for AMD is their high-end server chips (8xx Opteron). Intel still has no competing chip for these platforms (Tigerton due in Q3 07), and when they do, the new K8L core will be in place.
I do think that while AMD will most likely lose a small amount of marketshare over the next 3 quarters, they will continue to gain revenue share (or at worst they will maintain it).
If you think about it, AMD is in a much better strategic position right now...
It's true that C2D is an excellent design, but the only thing Intel has left to enhance performance with is a node shrink between now and 2009 (when CSI is due).
AMD not only has their own core change mid-year (which should remove C2D's advantage), but they also have Torrenza (and that is as big as any advance I've seen in a long while) as well as whatever it is they have cooking with ATI. I will say that all of the AMD engineers seem positely radiant about whatever the ATI project is...
By the end of 2007, 90% of AMD's production will be Rev H on 65nm (fab36 and chartered), and in 3Q08, 100% of AMD will be 45nm, FAB38 should starts as a 45nm fab.
If your right then I see absolutly no reason to even go 65nm.
If you take the upgrade cost and divide it by the number of processors produced under that manufacturing technology (MT), you come up with a MT production cost (call it MTPC).
1. So for example, if it cost Intel 1 billion per FAB to convert to 65nm.
2. If it has produced 5 million processors thus far and will have produced say 80 million processors by the end of 2008 when it EOL 65nm production.
Then 65nm MTPC will be:
3 billion / 80 million = $37.50 per processor.
The longer you keep a process going, the more profitable it becomes. Intel's 65nm process will probably have been the companies costliest transition ever since it wants to move to 45nm so quickly.
So long as AMD keeps selling everything it produces I'm all for it to delay going 65nm. But if it's just for 1 year, then I don't think its worth it. It will bring costs way up!!
So for Intel to push the industry this fast it will have an advantage if AMD wants to keep up because it can produce much higher processor volumes than AMD (70% more), giving it a smaller MTPC.
Jeach!
Would an AMD monopoly be better than an Intel monopoly?
The answer is YES!
That wasn't the question. The question was, is an AMD monopoly a DESIRABLE situation. It's quite possible for an AMD monopoly to be a nightmare for the industry and consumers while still being better than an Intel monopoly, you know.
"By the end of 2007, 90% of AMD's production will be Rev H on 65nm (fab36 and chartered), and in 3Q08, 100% of AMD will be 45nm, FAB38 should starts as a 45nm fab."
First I think it's highly improbably that AMD starts 45nm before Intel.
Second, none of what you said above matters. Even if AMD could, by the end of 2007, have 90% volume making rev.H (K8L), its 90% is still much smaller than Intel's 80% (improved) Core 2, which will still be competitive to K8L.
This essentially eliminates the necessary condition of your "Intel BK prediction," which expects Intel to make few "good" (Core 2) chips to compete with K8L. In fact, before mid 2007, Inte's Core 2 volume will have exceeded AMD's total capacity.
Also, any belief that K8L will outperform Core 2 by a large margin (e.g., 15% or more) is as rediculous as claiming Core 2's great superiority to current K8. It might happen for few hand-picked programs, but in general, in average, it's simply not going to happen.
Personally I expect K8L to slightly outperform Core 2 in terms of average performance; the difference however will be small. K8 has better scalability to multi-core due to IMC and HyperTransport, but Core 2 is good enough at dual and quad cores, which will be dominant until 2008.
I don't know who the biggest idiot is - you or the people who side with you. Where do you get this drivel from? Must be your imagination.
I had my 15 year old son read it and he walked away shaking his head.
You're fraudently claiming yourself a PH.d and you can't even string a sentence together that makes sense or have a thought that isn't one IQ point short of retardation.
Intel fired you for a reason. Now I hope they take it one step further and prosecute you for this drivel.
"Intel fired you for a reason. Now I hope they take it one step further and prosecute you for this drivel."
I do not think you can prosecute the village idiot.. It does not hold in court.. Now, that is a real legal argument!
I have an experiment idea that will prove if Intel processors cause explosion: Lets get those sony batteries and shove them up Sharikous A$$. If he explodes, we can conclude that it was not Intel's fault after all
"I don't know who the biggest idiot is - you or the people who side with you. Where do you get this drivel from? Must be your imagination.
I had my 15 year old son read it and he walked away shaking his head.
You're fraudently claiming yourself a PH.d and you can't even string a sentence together that makes sense or have a thought that isn't one IQ point short of retardation.
Intel fired you for a reason. Now I hope they take it one step further and prosecute you for this drivel."
That opened wide for intepretion. Your son could have walked away, shaking his head, "Dad did not know, he had to ask me to read it. But I won't tell him."
If you are to upset, just leave this blog, no need to flame. And you sound kind of mean too. What the bitterness here? You work for Intel? If yes, are you afraid and bittered losing your Intel job if his prediction comes true?
I am too tired with the flame here and stopped contribute any meaninful technical discussing.
-Longan- too witty for you.
Conroe was the last draw for Dell. With soon to be released Vista which was written to accommodate multi-core 64-bit processing. Intel was late to the x86 64-bit game and time was running out. Dell isn’t stupid.
Don’t forget Intel had been taking a blood bath in the power to watt server market at that time and it wouldn’t have taken much to push Dell off the cliff anyway. Dell also notices a lot of the big players doing well with the Operton even thou the numbers were small but ever increasing.
When the notebooks started blowing up he had already made the decision. By this time Intel had fixed most of the em64 problems and 65nm helped the power to watt issue, but it was already too late.
This is my best recollection, I could be wrong.
Anonymous said...
Conroe was the last draw for Dell. With soon to be released Vista which was written to accommodate multi-core 64-bit processing. Intel was late to the x86 64-bit game and time was running out. Dell isn’t stupid.
Don’t forget Intel had been taking a blood bath in the power to watt server market at that time and it wouldn’t have taken much to push Dell off the cliff anyway. Dell also notices a lot of the big players doing well with the Operton even thou the numbers were small but ever increasing.
When the notebooks started blowing up he had already made the decision. By this time Intel had fixed most of the em64 problems and 65nm helped the power to watt issue, but it was already too late.
This is my best recollection, I could be wrong.
5:38 PM, November 16, 2006
Sharikou, please stop making fake aliases.
Yeah, I can see how a high-performance desktop and laptop processor that wallops AMD clock for clock and pulls less power to boot is a bad thing for Intel. Oh, and is less expensive chip for chip to produce.
This blogsite makes it so obvious.
LOL...
Any dad who lets his son read this garbage is a sad dad for sure.
But I agree with him that Sharikou is an idiot.
I find it funny that somehow Dell keeps coming up as some signficant milestone for AMD. I laugh at this as how is it significant to AMD. Here is a company that is not even treading water in the PC business its getting its clock cleaned. It is under investigation by the US goverment. Michael and Ken have lost their way. Everythign they have done strategically has been WRONG. Right up with their belief that adding AMD line would save their bacon.
Thats the last laugh of the AMD fanboys who point at Dell as some sign things are right. Its actually the sign of all that is wrong... They are just too stupid to see or understand.
Keep believing that its the CPU that causes batter fires, and that INTEL is going BK...
You fanboys are truely stupid
"That opened wide for intepretion. Your son could have walked away, shaking his head, "Dad did not know, he had to ask me to read it. But I won't tell him."
If you are to upset, just leave this blog, no need to flame. And you sound kind of mean too. What the bitterness here? You work for Intel? If yes, are you afraid and bittered losing your Intel job if his prediction comes true?
I am too tired with the flame here and stopped contribute any meaninful technical discussing."
My son walked away because the journalism integrity of this site is so low as to be on par with the Enquirer. He walked away because he was afraid his IQ would be lowered a knotch.
I see every reason to flame. The man claims he's a Ph.d and it's already been proven he is not, and is indeed a disgruntled ex-intel employee.
He continually states the battery issue was caused by Intel processors AFTER sony layed claim to the issue, and wiht *NO* scientific or factual proof to back it up.
I don't work for intel I wouldn't work for Intel, AMD, or MSFT if they payed me twice my current salary. I like my life to be mine. I have 10 PC's in my house a mix of AMD and Intel. I use what I deem to be best for price performance.
There is -0- technical, factual, or documented proof behind anything this poser claims.
Even if Sharikou was a doctor I wouldn't listen to him.
Remember that guy your partied with in high school that got so excited when he felt up a girl for the first time? Remember how he passed out on the couch and pissed himself and everyone wrote on him with markers?
Yeah? Well that punk grew up and became a doctor too. Remember that the next time you get a physical.
Being a doctor only means you studied something enough to pass a set of tests and that you're eloquent/knowledgable about that subject to talk about it. If you were an idiot before you were a dotcor, well, you're still an idiot after you become a doctor.
Whether or not you believe Sharikou is a doctor, whether or not you agree with Sharikou's opinions, he is a human and prone to make mistakes/be a drip.
anonymous idiot said...
He continually states the battery issue was caused by Intel processors AFTER sony layed claim to the issue, and wiht *NO* scientific or factual proof to back it up.
It has been stated that the battery issue can be brought on by excessive heat and/or high power draw, both of which Intel processors are notorious for. It baffles me how you can be so thick headed. That's like saying there is no correlation between smoking and lung cancer.
Looks like AMD stole somebody else's ideas and integrated them in Opterons!
http://news.com.com/Chip+IP+company+sues+AMD+over+patents/2100-1014_3-6136585.html
Exploding notebooks !
I’ve read all the posts and I know your going to call me an idiot next, but I don’t believe the problem was totally Sony’s fault.
Thermal protection, battery load safety measures are a no-brainer for the tech industry. Who wrote the specs for those notebooks and batteries? How come only Intel powered notebooks blow-up? Typically a battery needs a short under load to blow. The design should have current limiters built-in. How come the photos show a burn hole on the processor? How come the research tech info wasn’t published in detail to stop this stupid debate? Sony’s anemic report stated metal fibers caused the problem. I would like to see some metal fiber photos because I fly a lot and I still don’t feel good about it.
You’re most likely right because explosions have stopped, but I didn’t read anything that seemed conclusive between Dell, Intel & Sony
It has been stated that the battery issue can be brought on by excessive heat and/or high power draw, both of which Intel processors are notorious for. It baffles me how you can be so thick headed. That's like saying there is no correlation between smoking and lung cancer.
Excessive heat and high power draw - both of which have never been generated by any CPU enough to cause a normal functioning battery to 'explode'.
Think about this clearly. Intel CPUs work with millions of other batteries under all sorts of different loads in different environments. Nothing explodes. But these specific batteries melt down.
Why? Because the batteries are defective. What did they do to remedy the problem? Change the batteries. These systems now function fine. They didn't change the CPUs did they? Hmmmmm?
I can't believe what a bunch of idiots some people are about this. Batteries were the problem, batteries have been replaced, and now there is no problem. It's as simple as that. Had there been an AMD processor in these systems they would have also melted down.
Anyone with half a brain should be able to understand this.
Once again Sharikou making stuff up, here's just one item:
"AMD is capacity limited, selling every chip it makes"
"Its capacity is quickly ramping, being able to supply 30% of the market and more"
Why is AMD not at 30% market share RIGHT NOW if it has this capacity? (Hint - they don't yet have this amount of capacity!). And in past blogs you were calculating 40-50% capacity by year end and 100% by end of 2007. How come the market share #'s don't track EXACTLY with these, if they are selling every chip they make?
"Their chips lack floating point performance, and only good for low end 2P systems."
So considering 4P+ systems are what, 20% of the SERVER marjet? And the server market is what ~33% (guestimate) of the overall market? That means this 1A architecture is "only" good for >90% of all x86 sales...sounds like BK is inevitable.
Hmmm....Thomas v. City of Beaverton, 379 F.3d 802 (9th Cir. 2004).
OR--> Beaverton --> major Intel development site --> Sharikou disgruntled ex-Intel employee?!?
ALB:
"It rather seems a desperate solution (we cannot design a good and scalable system, so throw as much cache as you can in it)."
Interesting thought - now you might want to compare a 2MB cache Conroe (6300/6400) and compare it against a 2MB Pentium D and see if your argument holds any water...
Back to the ol' all Intel has is cache AMD -fanboy argument....
"It has been stated that the battery issue can be brought on by excessive heat and/or high power draw, both of which Intel processors are notorious for."
First there's a difference between correlation and causation. I heard all of the laptops that exploded were black in color - does that mean the color black increases the chance of explosions too?!?
Second - just how are the Intel pentium M's notorious for high temp and current draw? Have you even looked at TDP for Pentium M before making such a comment?
It baffles me how you can be so thick headed.
it baffles me too. sharikou (and you) claim that battery explosions were caused by intel processors, while AMD Turions are immune to it.
never mind the fact that intel's mobile processors have far less power draw than AMD's.
it's like saying smoking cigarettes cause lung cancer... everyone should smoke cigars instead.
The causal link between two events "can be inferred from timing alone when there is a close proximity between the two”.
HAHAHA. sharikou fails basic logic. sunrises are caused by alarm clocks ringing. cold weather causes daylight savings time to end. rush hour traffic causes the work day to begin.
AMD's Live outselling Intel's Viiv, analyst says
Advanced Micro Devices has eked out a slight lead over Intel in the battle over entertainment PCs, but it's still very early in the game. Think of it as AMD winning the Iowa caucus.
http://news.com.com/2061-10792_3-6136873.html
INTERESTING
“Sun and AMD (AMD: Research, Estimates) will also adapt Sun's Solaris operating systems to take advantage of Opteron features that are unavailable on competitor Intel's most popular chips, the report said”
“Network computer maker Sun Microsystems Inc. (SUNW: Research, Estimates) is expected to announce Monday an alliance with Advanced Micro Devices Inc. aimed at helping the companies fight larger rivals, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal on Monday.”
This about somes up what a great design will do for you.
What if the AMD/Sun news Monday is an announced tweak for the Opteron and Solaris 10? Can you imagine the worlds most efficient OS optimized for a supper off the shelve server in a class of its own. Can you say; Intel the game is over?
I really like the blog here:
http://sharikou180.blogspot.com/
This guy (or gal) talks sense. Sharikou on the other hand, invents companies that don't exist (II and IA? WTF?) just to make his arguments sound though through. To the casual, low-IQ AMD fan boy I can see how this might sound like intelligent analysis. However, to anyone with a brain that doesn't pretend to have a PhD, his drivel is plainly just propaganda. I am surprised that there are no AMD ads on Sharikou's site since it really seems that AMD have bought his soul. I guess it came for free.
Such a retard. JDs are mostly retards. When you work with a precedent, you may generalize. When an event happens right after another event, the possibilty of causal relationship may exist. Based on the level of proof, a mere possibility coupled with a good argument may be sufficient to convince a reasonable jury. Nothing is absolute, that's why sometimes the wrong guy was convicted for murder, and sometimes the obvious murderer walk away free. If you are a lawyer, you need to understand that. For instance, look at the Peterson murder case, there is no physical evidence, no witnesses, everything is inferred from timing, the guy got convicted for murder...I am trying to teach you something here. What I have done in law is beyond the dream of most lawyers.
Sharikou, you are clearly in need of a good beating about the head and shoulders. When faced with numerous facts that directly contradict your illogical arguments, you simply dig yourself a deeper hole. It is clear that no amount of reasoning or valid argument will clear your head of your faulty logic. So I have concluded that your only cure will have to come in the form of a severe and unforgettable beating.
penis,
any data showing intel is notorious in laptop heat/power draw? what is your baseline? an amd turion laptop? show the data.
"Interesting thought - now you might want to compare a 2MB cache Conroe (6300/6400) and compare it against a 2MB Pentium D and see if your argument holds any water..."
Except 2M Pentium Ds are 2x1MB (not shared)
Did you die or something Sharikou?
Five days with nothing new. Even this article is a reprint from the past.
Intel chips and platforms are just to darn expenive to build a low priced good computer with, thats why Dell went to AMD.
Dell also had major problems with intel/sony portable fires caused by intel heavy power usage, so now Dell sells high performance, low priced, safe AMD turions.
Intels quad conroe is just twice the platform problems as there core2 conroe(reworked pentium 3s) with even worse bandwidth and fsb problems.
Intel has not produced a reasonable chip or platform for about 7 years now.
AMD sure has a great line up with great graphics, great chips and great motherboards and super low prices.
When better chips are built, AMD will build them.
All the fastest super computers are powered by AMD not Intel.
"AMD's Live outselling Intel's Viiv, analyst says"
Understandable.
AMD CPU line FRAGS Intel systems in performance/watts/specs/gpu.
No one wants to play videos with 100% CPU utilization and low quality.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/09/25/green_machine/
“The Core 2 Duo platform drew significantly more power than the similarly-performing Athlon 64 X2 4600+ Energy Efficient system at both idle and maximum CPU load. The 14 W difference at full load seems trivial to performance enthusiasts, but more significant was the 45% greater consumption when idle. AMD's superior efficiency is quite obvious in this sample set.”
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35843
Not good, AMD- has ticked off partners again. 4x4 looking worse and worse from both a performance and a strategic perspective. Is there any positive spin for this development?
AMD needs to get capacity up, and K8L out the door now.
anonymous idiot said...
Excessive heat and high power draw - both of which have never been generated by any CPU enough to cause a normal functioning battery to 'explode'.
I did not say that Sony is not at all to blame. Normal batteries do not explode; I do not disagree with this. Maybe the flawed Intel Centrino platform is the main culprit, not Intel CPUs. The exact reasons on why the batteries are exploding are not known.
Now consider what we do know:
- Intel laptops are exploding
- Intel CPUs have high draw & heat
- Intel's Centrino is buggy
Notice the correlation? We don't know the exact reasons, but we do know that INTEL LAPTOPS ARE EXPLODING. Buying or using an Intel based laptop is like playing Russian roulette.
What if your child was using the laptop when it exploded? What if your laptop exploded while on a plane? Are you really willing to risk your own life, and the lives of innocent others?
Buying Intel is not only stupid, it's also irresponsible.
anonymous idiot said...
So considering 4P+ systems are what, 20% of the SERVER marjet? And the server market is what ~33% (guestimate) of the overall market? That means this 1A architecture is "only" good for >90% of all x86 sales...sounds like BK is inevitable.
You fail to see where the industry is heading. Multi-core is the future. Most current applications are not designed to take advantage of multi-core. Now that multi-core is standard, they will all support it.
The problem is not where the industry is today, it's where it's going tomorrow. The industry is transitioning to multi-core, and Intel will not be able to keep up because they failed to properly engineer their architecture to scale.
The problem isn't the CPU, it's the platform it's attached to. As the core count increases, AMD's performance will has a linear increase, but Intel's performance will quickly level off and flat line. Even if Intel CPUs where 100x as fast as AMD CPUs, they would still lose because the platform can't scale.
If your product can't scale, it can't compete in the market. If it can't compete in the market, you can't sell product. If you can't sell product, you go bankrupt.
Anonymous cocksucker said...
penis,
any data showing intel is notorious in laptop heat/power draw? what is your baseline? an amd turion laptop? show the data.
Here is a quote directly from Intel that indirectly links the CPU to battery explosion:
"With the higher performance laptops, the demand on the battery is very high." - Intel.com
Here is a benchmark that compares the power consumption of a Turion compared to a Pentium M. The Turion clearly has a lower idle power utilization. techreport.com
Here is a quote from the same article:
"From a performance perspective, it's clear that the Turion 64 is the winner." - techreport.com
There is your fucking data. The Turion performs better and uses less power than the Pentium M. Happy?
You could have done a search on Google and found these same results in a matter of seconds. Instead you chose to anonymously slander others. You are ignorant, and a coward.
penis,
This graph shows that the Turion uses more power under load. Therefore the Turion would be more likely to cause a battery explosion than the Pentium M. It would not only be stupid to buy a Turion laptop, it would be irresponsible. Imagine if a child was using it.
http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35843
An un-named product manager company accused AMD of, "acting like Intel". "We won't help them in future", he said.
He claimed that AMD knows its 4x4 "QuadFather" won't beat Kentsfield on performance, and this opinion was also voiced by other people we talked with.
Ouch! Talk about fragging two birds with one stone eh Doc? ;)
As if accused of 'doing an Intel' was not insult enough, to also claim AMD knows 4x4 will get fragged by Kentsfield, that's priceless! :D
I think sharikou is using penix as his sock puppet. He has to be on the defensive for the next several months since Amd is looking worse by the minute and what better way of doing this then to use as an alias like penix to attack people. I really hope he just gets a life and moves on to something else like women.
Penix said...
"Maybe the flawed Intel Centrino platform is the main culprit, not Intel CPUs."
You do realize that some of the battery problems occured on IBM Power PC chips, so to blame the platform is or would be inaccurate.
"The exact reasons on why the batteries are exploding are not known."
Actually it is, Sharikou, and I guess you, do not believe that Sony is to blame.
Here is there Press Release.
-----------------------------------
"The industry is transitioning to multi-core, and Intel will not be able to keep up because they failed to properly engineer their architecture to scale."
The problem is that this will not happen overnite, multicore is not the standard yet, that is still about 6 - 12 months away.
And to say that Intel platform cannot scale is not true. It maynot scale as well as AMD but as anonymous said the 4P and up is only about 20% of about a quarter of the whole processor market, anything below that would seem to be Intels right now (less Netburst and AMD's equivelent), until K8L(Rev H) and Bulldozer are released.
Intel is not going bankrupt, that is just absurd.
1. 79% of the Desktop segment.
2. 84% of the Mobile segment.
3. 70% of the Server segment, and of the 20% of 4P and up they still hold about 50%, granted they are loosing ground but that could change middle of 2008, early 2009.
*Numbers are from memory and may not be exact*
Also AMD leaving 2007 will only be able to produce 30% of the worlds demand, still leaving 70% for Intel.
Bankrupt Q2 '08 is ridiculous.
-----------------------------------
"Here is a benchmark that compares the power consumption of a Turion compared to a Pentium M. The Turion clearly has a lower idle power utilization."
Are we more worried about idle or load?
Looking at your link, the difference under load was in Intels favor.
"Here is a quote from the same article:
'"From a performance perspective, it's clear that the Turion 64 is the winner."' - techreport.com"
Wouldn't you hope that a 2.4GHz AMD chip beats a 2.0GHz Intel chip?
------------------------------------
Just to point out Pentium M is not Core Duo or Merom, and Turion 64 is not Turion 64 X2, your previous post were about multiple cores and that being the future, look at the reviews of the dual cores and then say who has the advantages in power and performance.
Intel gets some help clearing its inventory, single `purchase' of $12.9M of intel chips:
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2006/11/21/nation/16083799&sec=nation
Ahh... sharikou has finally crossed the denial stage and is now in the angry stage of grief. Too bad he can't bring himself to use his sharikou character and instead is using penix, which oddly enough rhymes with penis. Next is bargaining followed by depression and if he can bring himself to this, then finally acceptance. God speed sharikou in your quest to becoming a man.
Here is a quote that compares AMD to Intel
“Tekbunker has the AMD64X2 4400+ @2.67GHz Vs E6600 @2.4GHz.
We can conclude that the Setup with AMD X2 4400+ yielded better Graphics Tests score than the Intel E6600 setup with identical clocks. The overall difference in score came out to the AMD setup leading the pack by 92 points, whereas the E6600 setup closed the gap by producing a superior cpu score. Again showing that in a real world setting, there is literally no difference in gaming performance between an Intel Core2Duo processor and an AMD X2 processor at identical clocks”
AMD 4x4 Motherboard Details Unveiled
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4963
I think the coolest feature is the dual Gigabit Ethernet ports you can see from the image (Dualnet). How about two FX74’s.
"He has to be on the defensive for the next several months since Amd is looking worse by the minute and what better way of doing this then to use as an alias like penix to attack people."
Worst?!
Better day by day do you mean.
Better platforms, better IGP systems from Ati and Nvidia.
An 3 year old CPU that keep up with almost all the NEW Intel CPU line.
Even worst is going Intel that is going to release "new" castrated Core 2 Duo CPUs that performs worst than the current Intel offerings.
Intel E2xxx and E4xxx are worst products not better ones, and AMD is doing the exact opposite, new faster products.
I love the way people are making out that every Intel processor ever made has had massive, severe heat problems. When in fact, the only ones with severe heat problems were Prescott and a couple of early Pentium 1 models.
"Here is a quote that compares AMD to Intel "
Quote from where?
Also, wasn't e6400 running at 2.4GHz, not 2.67 as that OC'd x2 was? Also, when OC'ing memory latency decreases giving AMD further boost in performance. If I understood correctly, that C2D was not OC'd.
"I think the coolest feature is the dual Gigabit Ethernet ports"
Didn't almost every enthusiast s775 board had those? I know my p5w dx does and it also has built-in WiFi
“Tekbunker has the AMD64X2 4400+ @2.67GHz Vs E6600 @2.4GHz.
We can conclude that the Setup with AMD X2 4400+ yielded better Graphics Tests score than the Intel E6600 setup with identical clocks. The overall difference in score came out to the AMD setup leading the pack by 92 points, whereas the E6600 setup closed the gap by producing a superior cpu score. Again showing that in a real world setting, there is literally no difference in gaming performance between an Intel Core2Duo processor and an AMD X2 processor at identical clocks”
This test is invalid.
How does an x2 4400@2.67 = a C2D E6600@2.4? This is not an equal clock comparison, the are not "identical clocks".
The *VALID* comparison for the OC'd x2 would have been against an E6700 (stock clock at 2.6Ghz).
It amazes me how so called "intelligent" people can look at something like that and acknowledge the validity of the test.
"You fail to see where the industry is heading. Multi-core is the future. Most current applications are not designed to take advantage of multi-core. Now that multi-core is standard, they will all support it.
The problem is not where the industry is today, it's where it's going tomorrow. The industry is transitioning to multi-core, and Intel will not be able to keep up because they failed to properly engineer their architecture to scale."
MULTICORE or MULTI-SOCKET? I for one see 2P, 4P, 8P easily penetrating the notebook environment, no? Desktop? Do you even know the difference between mutlicore and multisocket?
Perhaps (and this is a big perhaps) server may migrate to higher concentration of 4P+ systems but with increased computing power and MULTICORE it may not...
Of course this quote is from the same idiot who compared Turion and Pentium M under idle and considered a 6% difference significant and completely IGNORED the 30% increased power consumption under load of the TurionX2 (same link from which you got your data):
http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q1/pentiumm-vs-turion64/index.x?pg=12
Hmmm - battery problems, if due to excessive power consumption and heat as you hypothesize, would most likely occur when? Under idle or full load? Why not look at full load power draw where Turion X2 is much worse off? (Perhaps because it doesn't fit you pre-determined, non-data based conclusions?)
“The *VALID* comparison for the OC'd x2 would have been against an E6700 (stock clock at 2.6Ghz).”
Read and comprehend “AMD X2 processor at identical clocks”
Anonymous said...
I love the way people are making out that every Intel processor ever made has had massive, severe heat problems. When in fact, the only ones with severe heat problems were Prescott and a couple of early Pentium 1 models.
Intel processors are still considered space heaters. When most comparisons between the two chips are made they always conveniently forget to include the massive watt overhead required for the FSB which Intel’s processor needs and AMD doesn’t. Intel’s monster size cache also has watt penalties.
AMD’s superior architecture was designed to be energy efficient. Intel has made some improvements due to 65nm but the trade offs for clock speed, FSB and large cache has its downsides. When AMD reaches 65nm Intel will become very undesirable for enterprise applications. Intel also requires a power hungry graphics card for even moderate graphics. I’m confident Intel will eventually get it right, but not today.
"When most comparisons between the two chips are made they always conveniently forget to include the massive watt overhead required for the FSB which Intel’s processor needs and AMD doesn’t"
FSB adds around 20W. AMD needs northbridge too, only since it doesn't have a memory controller inside it is a bit cooler.
"Intel also requires a power hungry graphics card for even moderate graphics"
Doesn't every other CPU need it also?
As for heat, I remember K7 and early K8 were rather hot. My brother still has its 2500+ and it is almost as hot as my old Northwood was.
Also did you knew that machine with FX62 uses about the same amount of power as similarly configured one with 65nm Netburst based dualchip CPU? Of cource that FX is an exception, lower-clocked models use considerably less power.
80 posts and counting..
Looks like Sharikou can't think of anymore Turkey's to post as Turkey day approaches..
Its funny that INTEL is universally hated by geeks. Funny they are all jealous blokes who weren't smart enough to get hired and be able to design the greatest CPU's used by the masses or work in any of their factories turning out CPU's that 80% of the world uses. All sour grapes from intel wannabees.
Funny that space heater and those crappy INTEL products have earned INTEL more profits then any technology company beside MS. Consider the fact that INTEL has to plow billions back into capital and they still makes billions. Them space heaters are a great business.
Too bad PhD can't do anythign but throw stones... poor Sharikou
I wonder how much AMD makes off all those new NINTENDO’s
"As for heat, I remember K7 and early K8 were rather hot."
Nop, K8 was never hot, at least compared to p4, all K8's were much cooler.
The very early K7 had some heat issues, so were the first Thoroughbred cores that run around 1.8GHz. K7 Barton cores are quite cool and generally have very good overclockability.
"When in fact, the only ones with severe heat problems were Prescott and a couple of early Pentium 1 models."
That depends on what you would call as "problem." According to silentpcreview, most Netburst-based CPUs take more than 100W under full load, whereas K8-based (non-FX) ones take less than 90W. Keep in mind that out of K8's 90W around 15-20W is the memory controller.
P-D consumes more power in idle than K8's memory controller under full load.
Intel "wannabees".
For the moron who thinks that people are jealous of Intel and its employees all I can say is that you must have just crawled out from under a rock. You don't seem to comprehend the fact that "Intel" is dirty word and the only reason they make money is because of their gangster tactics.
Enron has seen senior executives jailed and it may be just a matter of time before we see Intel executives enjoy the same fate.In short, only a crook would wish to work for Intel.Intel stinks, and many people refuse to buy their products because of it.
Inquirer headline: "Four AMD sockets arrive in two years"
Plus with desktop/server variants, expected to be 8 scokets minimum. How is this going to build goodwill with system builders? AMD (successfully and rightfully) slammed Intel for this a few years back. So why repeat your competitor's mistakes? What is driving this foolishness? Why must AMD act more like the flavor of Intel they used to criticize (screwing the channel for OEMs, multiple sockets, etc.)? It's not required to be successful, so why do it?
BTW that INQ article was written by Charlie who tends to be a bit technology challenged. He really doesn't seem to understand the differences and similarities among AM2, AM2+, and AM3. For example, he states that HT 3.0 will arrive with AM3 which is false. In reality HT 3.0 arrives with AM2+. The real difference is support for DDR3 which Charlie never mentions.
Sometimes with Charlie you know less after reading one of his articles than you did before you read it. Take the article for what its worth, a poor attempt to create drama when none exists.
Oh, I forgot to mention that your analogy, Sharikou, makes no sense whatsoever and adds nothing to any understanding of Dell.
One of the actual reasons why Dell moved to AMD was that earlier this year AMD moved up substantially in servers. The companies who offered AMD systems like Sun benefitted while those who only had token support like IBM and HP did less well. This caused IBM and HP to become more serious about AMD as well; it wasn't just Dell. Because of this, Sun moved up higher and offered an even larger system. The latest server stats for the last quarter again show gains for AMD in servers.
Once Dell decided to offer AMD servers they lost their Intel-only status and benefits. Without the benefits there is no reason not to offer both AMD and Intel. Gateway, had already dropped its Intel-only status after getting thrashed by Dell. Gateway was only saved from bankruptcy by buying eMachines which uses both Intel and AMD. Gateway then decided to offer AMD based notebooks but has been slower to offer servers. In other words, Gateway's and Dell's approach to AMD have been opposite rather than similar.
I don't see why this would be difficult to understand.
"The companies who offered AMD systems like Sun benefitted while those who only had token support like IBM and HP did less well. This caused IBM and HP to become more serious about AMD as well; it wasn't just Dell. Because of this, Sun moved up higher and offered an even larger system."
Good point.
I think, this is a nice way of splitting the current market...
1. ii - ie, C2D: 15%
2. p4 - 60%
3. amd - 25%
in CY2007, 60% of the market is up for grabs. If they split (2) evenly between 1 and 3, amd share can be expected at 55%!!!!!.
Anonymous said...
"amd share can be expected at 55%!!!!!."
Leaving 2007 they will be able to produce 30% of the worlds processors, 2008 they are aiming for 40%, so for them to have a 55% market share is impossible, unless the overall market collapses.
Anonymous moron said...
penis,
This graph shows that the Turion uses more power under load. Therefore the Turion would be more likely to cause a battery explosion than the Pentium M. It would not only be stupid to buy a Turion laptop, it would be irresponsible. Imagine if a child was using it.
Typical twisted Intel fanboy logic. The vast majority of time spent on a laptop is not under high load, but at idle. Therefore, you should be paying attention to the idle power utilization, which Turion beats the Pentium M on. For a load based analysis you must look at the performance per watt, which again the Turion beats the Pentium M on.
You also failed to recognize these 2 statements I made:
- Maybe the flawed Intel Centrino platform is the main culprit, not Intel CPUs.
- We don't know the exact reasons, but we do know that INTEL LAPTOPS ARE EXPLODING.
If the problem is the buggy Centrino platform, looking at the CPU has no bearing at all. All the arguing and charts don't mean a single thing, because we already know what has been happening. This information is freely available, and the conclusion is undeniable.
Intel laptops explode, AMD laptops do not.
Check out the new 4x4 vs intel quad shari.
http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2006/1129/tawada92.htm
Now tell me how the *** intel would go BK by q2.08 ?
I have a 64 and a duo side by side, in my room. AMDs are better processors. and RE: monopoly has come and gone!
Post a Comment
<< Home