I hope you're kidding or else you take the prize for the biggest fanboy ever. Not just US champion, not Intercontinental champion, but World champion fanboy deluxe/extreme series version with HT and Hypertransport support plus SSE and MMX tech 64 bit enabled dual core fanboy champion (with liquid cooling of course).
I hope you're kidding or else you take the prize for the biggest fanboy ever. Not just US champion, not Intercontinental champion, but World champion fanboy deluxe/extreme series version with HT and Hypertransport support plus SSE and MMX tech 64 bit enabled dual core fanboy champion (with liquid cooling of course).
When there's a law named "antitrust regulation" there's nothing wrong with AMD suing. What are the uses of laws if they are not used to regulate injustice?
Base on your point, if AMD do the same to HP, would HP turn her table to AMD? I mean, Intel is still the bigger seller, if I am HP's boss, I would still go with intel despite AMD's offer.
neutralizer
Lifer
- Oct 4, 2001
- 11,552
- 1
- 0
486
Intel Pentium 133
Intel P3 650
AMD AthlonXP 1600+
Intel P4 2.4C (northwood owned back then, but runs hot as hell)
AMD AthlonXP 2400+ (backup)
Intel P-M 1.6 (laptop)
So I guess I have both, but did really love my AthlonXP, if it didn't I probably would have upgraded to Athlon64. But "go AMD!" for taking action.
Intel Pentium 133
Intel P3 650
AMD AthlonXP 1600+
Intel P4 2.4C (northwood owned back then, but runs hot as hell)
AMD AthlonXP 2400+ (backup)
Intel P-M 1.6 (laptop)
So I guess I have both, but did really love my AthlonXP, if it didn't I probably would have upgraded to Athlon64. But "go AMD!" for taking action.
What I'm hoping to see is Intel paying more attention to the technology. The Pentium line has been crap since the P3. In fact, I haven't bought a new Intel CPU since my Celeron 266.
The point is, AMD has not yet done it whereas Intel has. That's the issue at hand. Who cares if AMD would if they could, if they ever do, they should be sued just as well. This case is about Intel breaking the law.
HumblePie
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2000
- 14,665
- 440
- 126
Pabster and Freshprince = troll. End of story for them.
Asfornik. Yes, they were COERCED. READ the details of the complaints that AMD put out to the court. It's linked from the first page and it's a nice thick 48 page legal document. In there is pertains of witness. At one point Intel FORCED an OEM to fire an executive from his office just because he tried to enter into a contractual agreement with AMD for his company. As since, Intel has kept track of his butt like the mafia and any time he tries to get a job Intel in no uncertain terms makes the company he applies at know that hiring him will make them lose business. Then use that example of him as a THREAT to others.
Holy crap, that's frikking mafia tactics. Anyone who thinks about using AMD products in the OEM market has to worry about their being able to eat for the next few years or work at Burger King. Sure it may not exactly be a GUN to your head type coercion but it's damn near close. If given the choice between being filthy stinking rich, or living in the gutter for the rest of your life what the hell do you think most people are going to chose between?
Please read the examples pertained in that document. I'll list one here in an easier to understand terms and numbers.
Retailer has shelf space for the upcoming quarterly event, IE XMAS, to hold 200,000 units. They have a choice between Intel and AMD to stock that shelf space. The going rate is normally $15 per unit of shelf space. At the going rate, that is $3million bucks. Intel tells that retailer if they stock all 200,000 spots with Intel products then it will offer $20 per shelf space. That's $4 million. However, if they stock less then 140,000 Intel units, they'll only pay $10 per shelf space.
So why doesn't AMD sweep in and pay $15 on all shelf spots? Limited availability. Since they produce less the max then can do is 80,000 units. So to get even 60,000 units on the shelves, which is what Intel will "allow" before dropping it's price below $15, AMD needs to pay $31.6 bucks per shelf spot to compete with Intels offer of $4mill total. If AMD wants to sell all 80,000 units, it must be willing to pay almost $35 per shelf spot. Which it can not possibly do to make even on the $4 million offer by Intel. That means AMD is now stuck with 20,000 unsold units, has to pay more per unit to produce, AND has to pay more just to even sell the units they can or be stuck with ALL units not being sold.
Any ANY scenario above, Intel having all 200,000 spots, only 140,000 or 120,000 they STILL come out ahead and make tons of cash. Where as AMD loses in all scenarios. This isn't with one retailer but ALL them.
By losing so much all the time, AMD can't generate the revenue to grow bigger and produce enough units to match intels cost per unit and ability to throw kick backs and money around. If you don't make money because you can't sell your product or you are forced to sell at a LOSS, then you are screwed.
This is why AMD has to resort to the Law stepping in or they have no hope of ever getting a fair chance. If the trend continues without the law stepping in, there will be no AMD anymore at all. Which means everyone loses except Intel. Sorry, I don't like to lose so I don't want AMD to lose either.
Asfornik. Yes, they were COERCED. READ the details of the complaints that AMD put out to the court. It's linked from the first page and it's a nice thick 48 page legal document. In there is pertains of witness. At one point Intel FORCED an OEM to fire an executive from his office just because he tried to enter into a contractual agreement with AMD for his company. As since, Intel has kept track of his butt like the mafia and any time he tries to get a job Intel in no uncertain terms makes the company he applies at know that hiring him will make them lose business. Then use that example of him as a THREAT to others.
Holy crap, that's frikking mafia tactics. Anyone who thinks about using AMD products in the OEM market has to worry about their being able to eat for the next few years or work at Burger King. Sure it may not exactly be a GUN to your head type coercion but it's damn near close. If given the choice between being filthy stinking rich, or living in the gutter for the rest of your life what the hell do you think most people are going to chose between?
Please read the examples pertained in that document. I'll list one here in an easier to understand terms and numbers.
Retailer has shelf space for the upcoming quarterly event, IE XMAS, to hold 200,000 units. They have a choice between Intel and AMD to stock that shelf space. The going rate is normally $15 per unit of shelf space. At the going rate, that is $3million bucks. Intel tells that retailer if they stock all 200,000 spots with Intel products then it will offer $20 per shelf space. That's $4 million. However, if they stock less then 140,000 Intel units, they'll only pay $10 per shelf space.
So why doesn't AMD sweep in and pay $15 on all shelf spots? Limited availability. Since they produce less the max then can do is 80,000 units. So to get even 60,000 units on the shelves, which is what Intel will "allow" before dropping it's price below $15, AMD needs to pay $31.6 bucks per shelf spot to compete with Intels offer of $4mill total. If AMD wants to sell all 80,000 units, it must be willing to pay almost $35 per shelf spot. Which it can not possibly do to make even on the $4 million offer by Intel. That means AMD is now stuck with 20,000 unsold units, has to pay more per unit to produce, AND has to pay more just to even sell the units they can or be stuck with ALL units not being sold.
Any ANY scenario above, Intel having all 200,000 spots, only 140,000 or 120,000 they STILL come out ahead and make tons of cash. Where as AMD loses in all scenarios. This isn't with one retailer but ALL them.
By losing so much all the time, AMD can't generate the revenue to grow bigger and produce enough units to match intels cost per unit and ability to throw kick backs and money around. If you don't make money because you can't sell your product or you are forced to sell at a LOSS, then you are screwed.
This is why AMD has to resort to the Law stepping in or they have no hope of ever getting a fair chance. If the trend continues without the law stepping in, there will be no AMD anymore at all. Which means everyone loses except Intel. Sorry, I don't like to lose so I don't want AMD to lose either.
EMPshockwave82
Diamond Member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 3,012
- 2
- 0
Calling the kettle black are we???
Nice little editorial on fanboys Yes, this is a console based rant, but still applies to the PC wars.
POT->KETTLE->BLACK
If you can't have a discussion (even in OT!) without resorting to insults and name calling like a 5 year old...
You obviously don't get it.
If Intel is breaking the law, something needs to be done about it. You do understand that monopolistic practices are illegal, right?
Eli, just face it, FreshPrince isn't hear to discuss. He's just here to say, over and over again, that AMD is a bunch of b|tches for having the nerve to sue someone who's doing something illegal.
Obviously, when someone does something illegal that makes his life more difficult, he won't be complaining about it to anybody. He's a real man.
And Pabster, the reason you get the troll title is because of the dual core AMD vs. Intel threads and the way you posted in them. I don't know you, so I can't say with absolute certainty whether you're a fanboy or not. But if I had to guess based on your posts, the speed with which you bash AMD, combined with an extreme reluctance to say anything negative about Intel, can only lead to one possible conclusion.
Obviously, when someone does something illegal that makes his life more difficult, he won't be complaining about it to anybody. He's a real man.
And Pabster, the reason you get the troll title is because of the dual core AMD vs. Intel threads and the way you posted in them. I don't know you, so I can't say with absolute certainty whether you're a fanboy or not. But if I had to guess based on your posts, the speed with which you bash AMD, combined with an extreme reluctance to say anything negative about Intel, can only lead to one possible conclusion.
The thing is, that doesn't matter. According to Pabster and FreshPrince:
- the lawsuit itself is stupid because AMD is acting like b|tches
- AMD would do it if they could, so they shouldn't sue
How can one argue with logic like that?
Originally posted by: NFS4
i owned 2 and i wont own one ever again, the chips arent bad other then they run terrible hot but i have a problem with all the substandard motherboards everyone loves soo much. both amds that i have had i threw out as i had more problems then successes with.
<sigh>
It is quite obvious that most of you either haven't been a member of AT (or weren't paying attention) for the last 4-odd years. Back in the day, I was in the opposite boat. Accused of being an "AMD troll" when I was so very critical of the Willamette-core P4s upon release. And I'm no less critical of them now. I had more heated debates with certain forum members then than I do now!
Also (just to go WAAAAAAY back in time) my first AMD processor was a freaking 286/12.
It was in a shiny new Northgate machine I bought. Most of you probably aren't old enough to even recall that processor. And I've used nearly every AMD core since in at least one of my personal machines at one time or another.
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: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter