Yup, I just read the article and I can see what the fuss is about. Basically the author gets all worked up because AMD's chips as they are currently designed cannot effectively run at 3 GHz (or even > 2.4 GHz) without getting exponentially hotter past 1.3V.
I can see his point of argument in being upset with AMD's claim that they have 'cool running' 90nm chips and that they are claiming to have done something that Intel has not, but then he goes on to prove that using IBM's technology (ie strained silicon and spending a year on tweaking the core) they will most likely be able to push the core 20% higher in clockspeed, maybe a bit more.
So, then what is the problem for him??
I would understand his position if AMD was in a perilous situation as of now, or if they were about to get trounced, but AMD is arguably the market leader right now (take out the aptly named Extreme Edition ultra-high transistor count P4's and AMD is inarguably the mainstream leader) and AMD is on course to improve their chips next year. Intel, meanwhile has cancelled the 4 GHz Prescott and essentially called for the end of the line of speed improvements for Prescott, opting instead to go for an additional 1 MB of cache to remain competitive (thereby increasing transistor count by a substantial amount; a sub-optimal solution if I ever saw one).
Basically he's proving that 90nm causes massive leakage at clockspeeds/voltages above a key threshold (right now, it's about 2.5 GHz/1.4V for AMD), but that since AMD runs their chips at a lowerclockspeed than Intel the problems aren't as pronounced. No sh!t!
As Wingznut put it - these companies did not design these chips on a whim - there has been ~5 years of planning behind both Intel and AMD's current technologies, so complaining that AMD 'lucked out' by having a lower clockspeed/higher IPC chip is a moot argument; it wasn't luck, it was design.
His conclusion pt 2 is pretty academic:
It's pretty apparent that AMD can't just crank up the clockspeed another 400 MHz right now; that's why they have only bumped the A64 chips once in the past 6 months or so with the 4000+, while Intel is at 3.8 Ghz (as of recently), and these two chips are relatively competitive (although the AMD is a big winner in games and other benchmarks).
And shifting gears to analyze this from another historical perspective, for different reasons but with a similar outcome, AMD's shift to .13um was the same - they released the Thoroughbred A, it had a lot of leakage and hit a hard wall early (the 2200+ was the highest Tbred A), they optimized the core, added another layer and came out with the Tbred B, which carried the torch a great distance.
Intel, on the other hand, was quite a bit smoother with their .13um chip, steadily marching onward from 1.6 Ghz all the way to a beefy 3.4 Ghz a couple of years later, but has had unprecedented problems with Netburst's clockspeed at 90nm. It's Intel who's in new choppy waters; AMD has hit walls early with die shrinks before.
Finally, the title of the article is grossly misleading: "A PR Blunder Or Not?"
How could AMD trumpeting they have mastered 90nm, while having the superior technology right now be a PR blunder? A lie? Perhaps. An obfuscation of the truth? Most probably. But how can essentially saying "we're smarter than Intel" and then having superior technology be a PR blunder? It's PR - propaganda! PR doesn't represent the truth, it's just a sales pitch, a way for them to say 'buy our products!'
That's like saying "Microsoft calling Windows XP the best OS in the world" a PR blunder. So what if Linux or another OS is arguably superior? It's a good PR move to say they have the best OS regardless.
I can see his point of argument in being upset with AMD's claim that they have 'cool running' 90nm chips and that they are claiming to have done something that Intel has not, but then he goes on to prove that using IBM's technology (ie strained silicon and spending a year on tweaking the core) they will most likely be able to push the core 20% higher in clockspeed, maybe a bit more.
So, then what is the problem for him??
I would understand his position if AMD was in a perilous situation as of now, or if they were about to get trounced, but AMD is arguably the market leader right now (take out the aptly named Extreme Edition ultra-high transistor count P4's and AMD is inarguably the mainstream leader) and AMD is on course to improve their chips next year. Intel, meanwhile has cancelled the 4 GHz Prescott and essentially called for the end of the line of speed improvements for Prescott, opting instead to go for an additional 1 MB of cache to remain competitive (thereby increasing transistor count by a substantial amount; a sub-optimal solution if I ever saw one).
Basically he's proving that 90nm causes massive leakage at clockspeeds/voltages above a key threshold (right now, it's about 2.5 GHz/1.4V for AMD), but that since AMD runs their chips at a lowerclockspeed than Intel the problems aren't as pronounced. No sh!t!
As Wingznut put it - these companies did not design these chips on a whim - there has been ~5 years of planning behind both Intel and AMD's current technologies, so complaining that AMD 'lucked out' by having a lower clockspeed/higher IPC chip is a moot argument; it wasn't luck, it was design.
His conclusion pt 2 is pretty academic:
It's pretty apparent that AMD can't just crank up the clockspeed another 400 MHz right now; that's why they have only bumped the A64 chips once in the past 6 months or so with the 4000+, while Intel is at 3.8 Ghz (as of recently), and these two chips are relatively competitive (although the AMD is a big winner in games and other benchmarks).
And shifting gears to analyze this from another historical perspective, for different reasons but with a similar outcome, AMD's shift to .13um was the same - they released the Thoroughbred A, it had a lot of leakage and hit a hard wall early (the 2200+ was the highest Tbred A), they optimized the core, added another layer and came out with the Tbred B, which carried the torch a great distance.
Intel, on the other hand, was quite a bit smoother with their .13um chip, steadily marching onward from 1.6 Ghz all the way to a beefy 3.4 Ghz a couple of years later, but has had unprecedented problems with Netburst's clockspeed at 90nm. It's Intel who's in new choppy waters; AMD has hit walls early with die shrinks before.
Finally, the title of the article is grossly misleading: "A PR Blunder Or Not?"
How could AMD trumpeting they have mastered 90nm, while having the superior technology right now be a PR blunder? A lie? Perhaps. An obfuscation of the truth? Most probably. But how can essentially saying "we're smarter than Intel" and then having superior technology be a PR blunder? It's PR - propaganda! PR doesn't represent the truth, it's just a sales pitch, a way for them to say 'buy our products!'
That's like saying "Microsoft calling Windows XP the best OS in the world" a PR blunder. So what if Linux or another OS is arguably superior? It's a good PR move to say they have the best OS regardless.
Originally posted by: Wingznut
Intel never stated that they "invented" x86-64. And this is why I say you are a fanboy... You'll take one (rather poor, even by their standards) article from theinquirer and run with it, without even questioning the headline. (Not to mention the content doesn't even support the headline.)
Second, it takes anywhere from 4-6 years to develop and manufacture a processor. So, it's not like Intel just started planning dual core this spring. (Same goes for AMD.)
As for my sig, I'll explain it for the hundredth time... It's the truth. Although Intel pays my salary, every single thing I post is of my own opinion. (Take note how that guy spoke a few sentences to the Inquirer and now they are proclaiming "INTEL SAID".)
But I wouldn't call myself a fanboy, as I don't go around bashing any companies, or those who speak poorly of my favorite, or pick and choose what articles to champion on the 'net, etc. (And if you don't believe me, I dare you to find one quote from me where I knock AMD, or suggest to anyone not to buy AMD, etc...)
Btw, you never pointed out what article you are referring to.
As much as you may think just pointing out the article he referred to will aid any support of intel. What about all the FACTS he listed. How about forgetting this instant fan boy label, when there is something called the simple truth. If you are a gamer, any athlon 64 chip operating at or above 2.2ghz is faster than the very best intel has to offer. period. If you are interested in the fastest chip for pc usage period, once again the fx-55 is the best. So what exactly is the mystery here ? AMD has a better product than intel right now. and thats it, thats all. What is going to happen with dual core remains to be seen, irregardless of that, as of right now, amd is better. So if someone owns one and says this, they are not a fanboy, they are an intelligent and informed consumer. Get over it, its no biggie. I live in Canada, up here we have a fast-food chain called Harveys. Harveys cooks their burgers on a real grill with fire and use real meat patties. McDonald's microwaves their mystery meat garbage and there food is sh*t. McDonald's holds a lions share of the market, why ? They have been around a lot longer and spend a fugging fortune on marketing. AMD=Harvey's Intel=McDonald's.
I'll definitely give you that... Although AMD would never release such a statistic, I'm fairly certain that AMD sells every cpu they can manufacture, and it looks like their ASP (Average Selling Price) is rising. That doesn't sound like a blunder at all.
But I think the writer's point is that, looking at it from strictly a design/manufacturing process alone, AMD's 90nm isn't such a success since it doesn't ramp up any better than Intel's process. And of course it's going to be a lower power consumer, since it runs at a significanly slower speed. (I'm talking about transistor switching speed, not benchmark performance.) Of course if you are talking about power consumption vs performance, then that's a whole different ballgame.
But then he does speak of a lot of positive things AMD is doing, and the optimistic near future of their 90nm process.
I don't know, I've seen so much worse bias on the 'net. This one doesn't even phase me at all.
I think we've lost the context of this thread and my observations... As I said earlier, I'm not debating AMD vs Intel, or who's got the better cpu. The reason I chose to use the term "fanboy" was because he brought it up and not because of what's better. But I'll give you an excllent example that is laid out perfectly in this thread...
clarkey's problem with this Ed guy is that he may have some sort of bias for Intel and posts articles on the 'net. Yet in his argument, he references an article entitled "Intel claims it invented 64-32 technology" from theinquier... Hardly a reliable source. Not only that, but it's apparent that he didn't actually read the article, because nowhere did "Intel" say that at all. That headline is much more heinous than Ed's.
He calls out the overclockers.com article, but then chooses to champion theinquirer article. :roll:
Btw... McDonalds is disgusting.
I have read Ed's articles for many years, long before overclockers was as popular as it is now.
I must say that while ED says things that piss people off, for the most part he makes decently valid points. Ceratinly when, as Wingznut points out compared to places like the inquirer.
I must say that while ED says things that piss people off, for the most part he makes decently valid points. Ceratinly when, as Wingznut points out compared to places like the inquirer.
Yeah, but come on... The Inquirer should not be used as a comparison for legitimate articles.
It's like when Jon Stewart appeared on Crossfire and when he said they should be doing more in-depth debates, they chastised him because his show didn't do real debate-style interviews. That's not the purpose of his show, and accurate news isn't the Inq's MO.
The Inq is like a rumour site; some rumours are true, some are total BS (sorry for the Canadian spelling btw
).First Wingznut?
How can I be a fanboy when I own and have chosen Intel chips over AMD ?
I had the sense to buy a 2.8c (great overclocker) over a 2800+ barton. I do not swear my blind allegiance to AMD. Do I think the barton was over rated and PR inflated ? Yes very much so, would I take a 3200+ barton over a 3 Ghz northwood ? Never.
When I read Ed?s articles , he try?s his best to downplay and turn any minor success that AMD have into a ? Yeah, but look at what Intel has? or ?Before you fanboys get over excited?. He complains that 90 nm K8?s wont reach 3 Ghz :
A: Do they need to ? Seems at 2.6 Ghz they quite competitive
B: Why doesn?t he kick up a fuss about netburst lack of scaling ? Nehalem (follow up after Tejas was supposed to hit 10 Ghz in 05). So don?t forgive AMD for falling 200 Mhz short of 3 Ghz ( 2.8ghz is probably the highest it will go), but Intel gets a pack on the back for falling 5800 Mhz short. Ah now I see the logic.
AMD do have cool running 90 nm chips at the moment, and yes they will get hotter but nothing as hot as Prescott, but we will point the finger and say ? Ahh couldn?t pull it off?. For those that complain AMD have become more expensive, first off they don?t have the capacity (yet) to go after large segments of the market, so the next aim is to raise the ASP and if you look what Hector?s done he?s turned around the company, and anyway, your paying for a better all around chip (apart from heavy multitasking).
? ?AMD can't make fast 90nm Hammers now.
Seems to me there already quite competitive at the speeds there at now
? AMD thinks it can make fast 90nm Hammers around six months from now. Then they'll get loud about it.
No really AMD?s style
? IBM's plans are the first semi-solid indication that these plans aren't based on a hope and a prayer.
?
? There ought to be a sizable jump in maximum performance from AMD chips when this next generation gets introduced.
Em, well done.
? If all goes well, it ought to be enough to get the Hammer bandwagon rolling.
No because he already conceded in past articles that opteron/hammers are better chips to P4?s but that still wont throw Intel of its horse
? No guarantees, but if you haven't bought a Hammer because of lack of extra bang for your buck, this ought to change your mind.
True
? For you cheapskates out there, if all goes well, even Semprons ought to be relative powerhouses compared to almost anything out there today.
Aslong as they are based on the K8
? At that point, the big shift starts and the bandwagon begins.
maybe
How can I be a fanboy when I own and have chosen Intel chips over AMD ?
I had the sense to buy a 2.8c (great overclocker) over a 2800+ barton. I do not swear my blind allegiance to AMD. Do I think the barton was over rated and PR inflated ? Yes very much so, would I take a 3200+ barton over a 3 Ghz northwood ? Never.
When I read Ed?s articles , he try?s his best to downplay and turn any minor success that AMD have into a ? Yeah, but look at what Intel has? or ?Before you fanboys get over excited?. He complains that 90 nm K8?s wont reach 3 Ghz :
A: Do they need to ? Seems at 2.6 Ghz they quite competitive
B: Why doesn?t he kick up a fuss about netburst lack of scaling ? Nehalem (follow up after Tejas was supposed to hit 10 Ghz in 05). So don?t forgive AMD for falling 200 Mhz short of 3 Ghz ( 2.8ghz is probably the highest it will go), but Intel gets a pack on the back for falling 5800 Mhz short. Ah now I see the logic.
AMD do have cool running 90 nm chips at the moment, and yes they will get hotter but nothing as hot as Prescott, but we will point the finger and say ? Ahh couldn?t pull it off?. For those that complain AMD have become more expensive, first off they don?t have the capacity (yet) to go after large segments of the market, so the next aim is to raise the ASP and if you look what Hector?s done he?s turned around the company, and anyway, your paying for a better all around chip (apart from heavy multitasking).
? ?AMD can't make fast 90nm Hammers now.
Seems to me there already quite competitive at the speeds there at now
? AMD thinks it can make fast 90nm Hammers around six months from now. Then they'll get loud about it.
No really AMD?s style
? IBM's plans are the first semi-solid indication that these plans aren't based on a hope and a prayer.
?
? There ought to be a sizable jump in maximum performance from AMD chips when this next generation gets introduced.
Em, well done.
? If all goes well, it ought to be enough to get the Hammer bandwagon rolling.
No because he already conceded in past articles that opteron/hammers are better chips to P4?s but that still wont throw Intel of its horse
? No guarantees, but if you haven't bought a Hammer because of lack of extra bang for your buck, this ought to change your mind.
True
? For you cheapskates out there, if all goes well, even Semprons ought to be relative powerhouses compared to almost anything out there today.
Aslong as they are based on the K8
? At that point, the big shift starts and the bandwagon begins.
maybe
Alright, I'll answer your points one at a time, although I generally hate when people do this...
This isn't the first thread of yours I've seen, y'know. As a matter of fact, the tone you took in many of your posts, lead me to believe you actually worked for AMD.
Again, sorry for replying to each point. Usually, that tactic is used to tear another's post down. But I just felt it was the best way to answer each point.
In addition to the point above how you pick and choose what articles/sources to rely on/question, it's because of statements that you've posted such as "... I will forever more buy there products over Intel, unless Intel start selling P4EE'S @ £10 each , or Itanium clusters for £12."
This isn't the first thread of yours I've seen, y'know. As a matter of fact, the tone you took in many of your posts, lead me to believe you actually worked for AMD.
His point was that it wasn't too long ago that there was a sample allegedly running at 3.0ghz. Even you posted about it, proclaiming that 3.2ghz would happen.
Maybe I'm not paying attention... But I haven't seen him giving Intel a "pat on the back" for pulling back Tejas and that future. Can you point me to the link?
Actually, the goal is to raise ASP no matter what your capacity or sellthrough is.
He's not talking about performance... He's strictly talking about transistor speed. Yes, AMD has very good performance from their parts, which is very impressive and I don't think anyone denies that. But when talking about the power consumption (and heat output) of their 90nm parts, this is the first article I've seen that points out the speed of those parts.
I can't imagine anyone would agree that being very quiet about a very successful part is a good business strategy.
The rest is all positive. You'd think you'd be happy with most of the article.
Again, sorry for replying to each point. Usually, that tactic is used to tear another's post down. But I just felt it was the best way to answer each point.
?In addition to the point above how you pick and choose what articles/sources to rely on/question, it's because of statements that you've posted such as "... I will forever more buy there products over Intel, unless Intel start selling P4EE'S @ £10 each , or Itanium clusters for £12."
This isn't the first thread of yours I've seen, y'know. As a matter of fact, the tone you took in many of your posts, lead me to believe you actually worked for AMD.?
My point was that I would only buy the best bang for buck according to my situation, however if say the EE was considerably cheaper then an FX 55 and offered better performance then yes, I would ?Jump ship?. As for working for AMD ? LOL, I am 18. I suppose I really wanted the new 90 nm parts to hit 3Ghz + the net was buzzing with hopes of that, from geek.com to Overclockers were excited.
As for my sources ? how do you mean ? I must check about 4/5 sites each day, see whats what when I have time. I have an online buddy who works in an Ireland Intel fab and we have lengthy talks. IBM not anti Intel, it?s just I despise all this negativity towards AMD. Sure there not best semi Conductor Company ever, but there competing bravely and have outperformed Intel in quite a few area?s, but you and Ed still feel the need to hammer them.
As for the athlon 64 not making it to 3 Ghz , most likely it will hit 2.8 Ghz, however Nehalem ( Hope you know your Intel project names Wingznut) was supposed to hit 10 Ghz + next year. So, ed?s moaning about the ?miss? of 3 Ghz ( by 200 mhz by Q3 05) but turns a blind eye to Intel missing 10 Ghz by 5200 Mhz.
I know you think I am being selective about my memory so feel free to counter anything I have said from the above. Its nice not to flame and get points across, hey if I am wrong I?ll learn something. I wont be bitter like felix.
This isn't the first thread of yours I've seen, y'know. As a matter of fact, the tone you took in many of your posts, lead me to believe you actually worked for AMD.?
My point was that I would only buy the best bang for buck according to my situation, however if say the EE was considerably cheaper then an FX 55 and offered better performance then yes, I would ?Jump ship?. As for working for AMD ? LOL, I am 18. I suppose I really wanted the new 90 nm parts to hit 3Ghz + the net was buzzing with hopes of that, from geek.com to Overclockers were excited.
As for my sources ? how do you mean ? I must check about 4/5 sites each day, see whats what when I have time. I have an online buddy who works in an Ireland Intel fab and we have lengthy talks. IBM not anti Intel, it?s just I despise all this negativity towards AMD. Sure there not best semi Conductor Company ever, but there competing bravely and have outperformed Intel in quite a few area?s, but you and Ed still feel the need to hammer them.
As for the athlon 64 not making it to 3 Ghz , most likely it will hit 2.8 Ghz, however Nehalem ( Hope you know your Intel project names Wingznut) was supposed to hit 10 Ghz + next year. So, ed?s moaning about the ?miss? of 3 Ghz ( by 200 mhz by Q3 05) but turns a blind eye to Intel missing 10 Ghz by 5200 Mhz.
I know you think I am being selective about my memory so feel free to counter anything I have said from the above. Its nice not to flame and get points across, hey if I am wrong I?ll learn something. I wont be bitter like felix.
why the hate?
they both make good chips. the choice of cpu all depends on what you are going to use them for.
what are you guys arguing about? you don't even seem to be talking about the same thing.
they both make good chips. the choice of cpu all depends on what you are going to use them for.
what are you guys arguing about? you don't even seem to be talking about the same thing.
- Aug 22, 2001
- 32,043
- 32,536
- 146
The thing is, Intc can afford missteps, AMD cannot. That places the onus on AMD to exceute near perfectly or watch the company go right back in the red. That's why ED takes the position he does, Intel can fall in the proverbial pile of shat and come out smelling like a rose, conversely, AMD must have the midas touch all the time or everything they touch turns into that pile of shat financially speaking
Of course, as always, my position is AMD must start sinking substantial bank into advertising on TV or they will continue to languish in obscurity despite any tech leadership they might have at any given time. I was bludgeoned with no less than 6 Centrino commercials during the football game last week, and Intel was a primary sponsor. The U.S. audience for that football game was doubtless larger than the one that watches the ferrari team AMD sponsors
Of course, as always, my position is AMD must start sinking substantial bank into advertising on TV or they will continue to languish in obscurity despite any tech leadership they might have at any given time. I was bludgeoned with no less than 6 Centrino commercials during the football game last week, and Intel was a primary sponsor. The U.S. audience for that football game was doubtless larger than the one that watches the ferrari team AMD sponsors
good point DAPUNISHER, but I think AMD are waiting for the capcaity before they advertise, I dont know how close they are to being Fab limited with FAB 30 and IBM's east fishk kill fab, but I suspect they will want the means to supply before opening there doors to others.
- Aug 22, 2001
- 32,043
- 32,536
- 146
I see your position, but when has it ever been bad to create demand for a product before it is available for purchase, Or having a higher demand for a product than supply?
Lol you hear ppl on here moan about the prices of athlons 64 going up and up then down then up becaues of supply and demand, that might hinder thier impression and may make them reconsider getting another chip, from another company.
- Aug 22, 2001
- 32,043
- 32,536
- 146
I doubt it, they piss&moan regardless, and most 'round here realize they should be buying the lowend model and overclocking
I see no shortage of lowend A64 parts on the e-tailers I visit and the prices rock compared to the $240 tag my retail C0 3000+ had back when the year started. Besides these guys comprise a very small percentile, it is the OEMs who want the product that AMD must keep happy.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Where does price fit in your matrix?
Does'nt sound like too much sense to me when ones half the price
Sure, I knew and just about everyone who bought a AXP knew, the northwoods were superior. But when they cost twice as much for marginal gains it's a poor value. Otherwise, using your definition of sense, you should have gotten an EE instead of lousy 2.8c.I miss the days sub $100 chips
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
As I said Clarkey, Ed is just a realist IMO with plenty of substanced backed opinion. Anti-AMD nah
Here is plenty of Intel bashing too, no one is safe from ED.
Intel's Strained Silicon 2 Is this a fix? We explain why it looks more like a bandaid for one more generation of Intel CPUs.
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://overclockers.com/articles1123/">
"No 4.0 From Intel"
An honest explanation would have been, "We're going to stop killing ourselves trying to make this POS go any faster." </a>
COOLING SOCKET 478 PRESCOTTS Some practical advice on taming the "Preshott" HERE.
LGA 775: A Joke And A Threat Intel says you can't stick your CPU into your mobo more than twenty times. Imagine your girlfriend telling you that.
Intels BTX Gets Shakier
......
Here is plenty of Intel bashing too, no one is safe from ED.
Intel's Strained Silicon 2 Is this a fix? We explain why it looks more like a bandaid for one more generation of Intel CPUs.
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://overclockers.com/articles1123/">
"No 4.0 From Intel"
An honest explanation would have been, "We're going to stop killing ourselves trying to make this POS go any faster." </a>
COOLING SOCKET 478 PRESCOTTS Some practical advice on taming the "Preshott" HERE.
LGA 775: A Joke And A Threat Intel says you can't stick your CPU into your mobo more than twenty times. Imagine your girlfriend telling you that.
Intels BTX Gets Shakier
......
ponyo
Lifer
- Feb 14, 2002
- 19,688
- 2,811
- 126
Originally posted by: Zebo
Where does price fit in your matrix?
Does'nt sound like too much sense to me when ones half the price
I miss the days sub $100 chips
Sub $100 chip days? What about sub $50 chip days? Yup, I really wanted P4 2.4 or 2.8C chips. Everyone except diehard AMD fanboys knew Northwood chips kicked XP butt. But how could I do that when Newegg was selling Tbred B 1700+ for $40 shipped which overclocked to 2.1 - 2.4 ghz. Later I had hard time buying Barton 2500+ for $80 because of this. Those were the days! That $40 Tbred B 1700+ is still happily running in my sister's rig at 2.2ghz with $5 SVC heatsink.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
-
Facebook
Twitter