What I meant is that it is unlikely the accused would ask for more proof of their wrongdoings (if any). More investigation often leads to more charges pressed. Intel will likely attack the validity of proof (facts) or the connection between it and the allegation (logic), or both.
Originally posted by: Lothar
Barton was released Feb 10th, 2003
Northwood P4C was realeased Apr 14th, 2003.
Do you really consider 2 months to be significant?
Clock for clock, GHz per GHz, performance per transistor, I don't care about such useless stupid measurements.
If a chip gives me a better performance than the competitor at a reasonable temperature(no flaming Prescott's), that's all I care about.
Whether the chip achieves that by performing at 10GHz while their competitor performs at 1GHz is irrelevant.
To say that AMD held the crown during the P4 era is a little disingenuous at best.
They held the crown during the crippled Williamette chips, became on equal footing with the Northwood 533MHz chips, and lost it with the 800MHz Northwood chips.
*EDIT*
Where did I say I had a Core2? I've never had one.
Congratulations on your futile attempt to lecture me on clock speeds.
Too bad it failed.
Originally posted by: Cogman
Originally posted by: Lothar
Barton was released Feb 10th, 2003
Northwood P4C was realeased Apr 14th, 2003.
Do you really consider 2 months to be significant?
Clock for clock, GHz per GHz, performance per transistor, I don't care about such useless stupid measurements.
If a chip gives me a better performance than the competitor at a reasonable temperature(no flaming Prescott's), that's all I care about.
Whether the chip achieves that by performing at 10GHz while their competitor performs at 1GHz is irrelevant.
To say that AMD held the crown during the P4 era is a little disingenuous at best.
They held the crown during the crippled Williamette chips, became on equal footing with the Northwood 533MHz chips, and lost it with the 800MHz Northwood chips.
*EDIT*
Where did I say I had a Core2? I've never had one.
Congratulations on your futile attempt to lecture me on clock speeds.
Too bad it failed.
Why did I bring up clock speeds? Because as far as I can tell, thats the only metric that Northwoods actually beat the Athlons.
And to say they "Lost it" with Northwood chips is retarded at best. Again considering the fact that you are comparing a sub $100 CPU to a $180 CPU. In the same price range, AMD solidly beat Intel. Even at this highly diminished price they kept up fairly decently.
However, this whole discussion is besides the point. The fact of the matter is, AMD didn't sell a whole ton of chips, even when they where soundly beating intel in performance (Athlon 64 -> X2 era). The question on hand is, was intel practicing dirty tactics to stop AMD from succeeding. I tend to think yes.
Do these emails prove it? IDK, but I do think that the fact that it isn't just 1 email from one person talking about price fixing, (and not in a whistle blower "Im telling" fashion). I would think that that should stand for something in a court of law. Sure, we can't expect 1 disgruntled employees testimony to amount to a hill of beans. However, several separate unrelated people saying the same thing means something.
Originally posted by: Viditor
I think I know your posting well enough to make that assumption in advance, mate.
However, I really think you should re-read those e-mails...my impression is that you are reading them only in light of Intel's response, and IMHO that response was meant to do just that.
These people aren't twittering away about what they heard or saw, they are stating things directly...
For instance:
"PLEASE DO NOT? communicate to the regions, your team members or AMD that we are constrained to 5 percent AMD by pursuing the Intel agreement"
That is a directive from the top echelons of a 3rd party (OEM) to all employees about an illegal deal with Intel...there really isn't much wiggle room there.
Facebook
Twitter