"i want to kill INTEL and make them eat their own feces"

[Random Variable]

Blah, blah, blah...

What is with all this "radical computer fundamentalism?" Death to Intel! Death to AMD! Death to nVidia! Death to ATi! Death to Microsoft!

 

[Bignate603]

Nerd liberals...

 

[jemcam]

Damn, this thread is going to die fast.

 

[Electrode]

Did anyone actually read the article?

 

[masterxfob]

Originally posted by: Vespasian
Blah, blah, blah...

What is with all this "radical computer fundamentalism?" Death to Intel! Death to AMD! Death to nVidia! Death to ATi! Death to Microsoft!

ok bro, why don't you bust out your abacus while you're at it?

 

[Zim Hosein]

Originally posted by: Electrode
Did anyone actually read the article?

I did and I found it an interesting opinion. The author brings up a good point w/o AMD, we'd be paying a lot more for our chips as Intel would have a lock on the market, that's not something I want to see.

 

[Vic]

Hey, let him have his opinion... I'm shorting AMD right now

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Zim Hosein

Originally posted by: Electrode
Did anyone actually read the article?

I did and I found it an interesting opinion. The author brings up a good point w/o AMD, we'd be paying a lot more for our chips as Intel would have a lock on the market, that's not something I want to see.

in which case the gov't would be breathing down their necks

 

[spanky]

I built a box with Athlon Xp 1700+ last year and I know first hand that AMD has put out a sh*tty bunch of processors in the last 2 years. My family bought a dell with a Pentium 4 1.7 Ghz at about the same time and It is far faster and overall better performing. Thats not all, though the whole reason I got an Athlon Xp is for its price and performance in games My computer with far greater specs, in all areas, runs UT 2003 like crap compared to a Dell piece of sh!t with only a Gforce 3 Ti 200, Pentium 4 1.7 Ghz and 256mb of DDR sdram. I would rather not say ther rest my comps specs because of the shame it would cause to fellow AMD users. I like AMDs products but the last few years offerings have been mediocre at best.

umm... i feel bad for this guy.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: Zim Hosein
The author brings up a good point w/o AMD, we'd be paying a lot more for our chips as Intel would have a lock on the market, that's not something I want to see.

You guys do remember when AMD was charging $1299ea (in quantities of 1000) for their 1ghz Athlon, right? Competition was never more heated and yet both corporations were charging well over $1000 for their flagship CPU.

My point? Competition is good... Very good. However, market conditions have a more significant impact on pricing than competition does.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: Zim Hosein
The author brings up a good point w/o AMD, we'd be paying a lot more for our chips as Intel would have a lock on the market, that's not something I want to see.

You guys do remember when AMD was charging $1299ea (in quantities of 1000) for their 1ghz Athlon, right? Competition was never more heated and yet both corporations were charging well over $1000 for their flagship CPU.

My point? Competition is good... Very good. However, market conditions have a more significant impact on pricing than competition does.

did they ever actually sell any or was that simply day 1 if you're dumb enough to preorder pricing?

 

[Zim Hosein]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Zim Hosein

Originally posted by: Electrode
Did anyone actually read the article?

I did and I found it an interesting opinion. The author brings up a good point w/o AMD, we'd be paying a lot more for our chips as Intel would have a lock on the market, that's not something I want to see.

in which case the gov't would be breathing down their necks

True, but most likely they [intel] would get off as easy as MS did.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Zim Hosein

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Zim Hosein

Originally posted by: Electrode
Did anyone actually read the article?

I did and I found it an interesting opinion. The author brings up a good point w/o AMD, we'd be paying a lot more for our chips as Intel would have a lock on the market, that's not something I want to see.

in which case the gov't would be breathing down their necks

True, but most likely they [intel] would get off as easy as MS did.

well the gov't has punished intel previously over intergraph.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: spankyOO7
I built a box with Athlon Xp 1700+ last year and I know first hand that AMD has put out a sh*tty bunch of processors in the last 2 years. My family bought a dell with a Pentium 4 1.7 Ghz at about the same time and It is far faster and overall better performing. Thats not all, though the whole reason I got an Athlon Xp is for its price and performance in games My computer with far greater specs, in all areas, runs UT 2003 like crap compared to a Dell piece of sh!t with only a Gforce 3 Ti 200, Pentium 4 1.7 Ghz and 256mb of DDR sdram. I would rather not say ther rest my comps specs because of the shame it would cause to fellow AMD users. I like AMDs products but the last few years offerings have been mediocre at best.

umm... i feel bad for this guy.

I have a hunch I know where this guy's problem is.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: Zim Hosein
The author brings up a good point w/o AMD, we'd be paying a lot more for our chips as Intel would have a lock on the market, that's not something I want to see.

You guys do remember when AMD was charging $1299ea (in quantities of 1000) for their 1ghz Athlon, right? Competition was never more heated and yet both corporations were charging well over $1000 for their flagship CPU.

My point? Competition is good... Very good. However, market conditions have a more significant impact on pricing than competition does.

did they ever actually sell any or was that simply day 1 if you're dumb enough to preorder pricing?

Well of course they did. They (and Intel) sold boatloads of cpu's back then. Both companies were making tons of money.

 

[Dufman]

Originally posted by: jemcam
Damn, this thread is going to die fast.

toast

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: Zim Hosein
The author brings up a good point w/o AMD, we'd be paying a lot more for our chips as Intel would have a lock on the market, that's not something I want to see.

You guys do remember when AMD was charging $1299ea (in quantities of 1000) for their 1ghz Athlon, right? Competition was never more heated and yet both corporations were charging well over $1000 for their flagship CPU.

My point? Competition is good... Very good. However, market conditions have a more significant impact on pricing than competition does.

did they ever actually sell any or was that simply day 1 if you're dumb enough to preorder pricing?

Well of course they did. They (and Intel) sold boatloads of cpu's back then. Both companies were making tons of money.

that is true... amd shares were at 45 or so

still... $1300 for a performance level that, had AMD not been around, wouldn't have been seen for another year is pretty good.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: Zim Hosein
The author brings up a good point w/o AMD, we'd be paying a lot more for our chips as Intel would have a lock on the market, that's not something I want to see.

You guys do remember when AMD was charging $1299ea (in quantities of 1000) for their 1ghz Athlon, right? Competition was never more heated and yet both corporations were charging well over $1000 for their flagship CPU.

My point? Competition is good... Very good. However, market conditions have a more significant impact on pricing than competition does.

did they ever actually sell any or was that simply day 1 if you're dumb enough to preorder pricing?

Well of course they did. They (and Intel) sold boatloads of cpu's back then. Both companies were making tons of money.

that is true... amd shares were at 45 or so

And Intel's were closer to $100.

 

[RU482]

the article lost all credibility when I hit this line...Intel was hurting 2 years ago

Yeah, they were on the brink of extinction, yeah, sure

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: spankyOO7
I built a box with Athlon Xp 1700+ last year and I know first hand that AMD has put out a sh*tty bunch of processors in the last 2 years. My family bought a dell with a Pentium 4 1.7 Ghz at about the same time and It is far faster and overall better performing. Thats not all, though the whole reason I got an Athlon Xp is for its price and performance in games My computer with far greater specs, in all areas, runs UT 2003 like crap compared to a Dell piece of sh!t with only a Gforce 3 Ti 200, Pentium 4 1.7 Ghz and 256mb of DDR sdram. I would rather not say ther rest my comps specs because of the shame it would cause to fellow AMD users. I like AMDs products but the last few years offerings have been mediocre at best.

umm... i feel bad for this guy.

PEBKAC. Total idiot probably needs directions to the bathroom in this own house.

Originally posted by: Wingznut
You guys do remember when AMD was charging $1299ea (in quantities of 1000) for their 1ghz Athlon, right? Competition was never more heated and yet both corporations were charging well over $1000 for their flagship CPU.

My point? Competition is good... Very good. However, market conditions have a more significant impact on pricing than competition does.

FUD and distortion of truth. You've used this same point many times, Wingnutz, give it up. Intel chips weren't exactly cheap back then either. Both companies were in the midst of riding the last glory of the dot-com bubble and both were riding pretty high (this was Sept. 2000, right before the NASDAQ started to slide in October). And AMD only held that price for like a week. They broke 1GHz first (hurts still don't it?) and they had their little glory with a brief high price. (edit: 4 or so months later, I bought an AXIA 1GHz Tbird that easily OC'ed above 1.4GHz for $125 bucks).
Supply and demand ONLY work when competition is in place. The major issue that consumers have with monopoly (and/or lack of competition) is that it removes that pesky issue of supply and demand for the corporation. Do not say that "market conditions have a more significant impact on pricing than competition." Without competition, market conditions are meaningless. Without AMD, Intel is a monopoly and will get split up just like MA Bell did. Think on that.

 

[RU482]

FUD...Full of DogSh!t???

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: Vic
FUD and distortion of truth. You've used this same point many times, Wingnutz, give it up. Intel chips weren't exactly cheap back then either. Both companies were in the midst of riding the last glory of the dot-com bubble and both were riding pretty high (this was Sept. 2000, right before the NASDAQ started to slide in October). And AMD only held that price for like a week. They broke 1GHz first (hurts still don't it?) and they had their little glory with a brief high price. (edit: 4 or so months later, I bought an AXIA 1GHz Tbird that easily OC'ed above 1.4GHz for $125 bucks).
Supply and demand ONLY work when competition is in place. The major issue that consumers have with monopoly (and/or lack of competition) is that it removes that pesky issue of supply and demand for the corporation. Do not say that "market conditions have a more significant impact on pricing than competition." Without competition, market conditions are meaningless. Without AMD, Intel is a monopoly and will get split up just like MA Bell did. Think on that.

What's with all the hostility???

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: redly1
the article lost all credibility when I hit this line...Intel was hurting 2 years ago

Yeah, they were on the brink of extinction, yeah, sure

Depends on your definition of "hurting." Financially, hell no. Performance-wise, yes. There was a very brief point in time 2 years where if AMD would have had their act together, they could have permanently wrested a large amount of market share and profits from Intel.
Only 2 things prevented that from happening:
- Intel has one of the world's greatest marketing engines, to the point where 99% of the people out there are completely unaware that AMD even exists. Intel's marketing engine reaches far and wide with amazing brand recognition, from TV to review sites to resellers who were afraid to carry AMD products to Microsoft not including AMD/VIA chipset drivers in Windows.
- And a very poor decision by AMD not to place their CPUs in more reliable packaging with thermal protection. When they finally did, it was too little too late.

 

[Wingznut]

"Intel chips weren't exactly cheap back then either."

Yep, I couldn't agree more.

"They broke 1GHz first (hurts still don't it?)"

Nope. It never "hurt" me. I don't take silicon so personally.

"And AMD only held that price for like a week."

Ummm, no. There was a long period of time where cpu's were priced above $1000. At least from 800mhz to 1000mhz.

"4 or so months later, I bought an AXIA 1GHz Tbird that easily OC'ed above 1.4GHz for $125 bucks)."

I doubt it was 4 months. The market didn't crash that quickly. Unless you are taking into consideration that AMD released newer products and the price point of the 1ghz was pushed down.

My point is... If market conditions were the same as 3 years ago, prices for both AMD and Intel would be above $1000. I'm surprised that you don't agree. (Although, judging by your post and your obvious disapproval of Intel, I don't think you'd agree with ANYTHING that I say.)

If AMD could sell the same amount of cpus for $2000 each, they'd do it in a heartbeat. So would Intel. No different than any other corporation.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Wingznut
What's with all the hostility???

Eh? No hostility, just truth.
Am I wrong? Here... graphs for everyone: Intel AMD
Please pay close attention to the summer of 2000, that's when AMD released the Tbird and then the 1GHz.
And then now the NASDAQ to put it all in perspective.