© 2009 Bright side of news, All rights reserved. OPINION: Are all AMD fans

by: Anonymous on 11/20/2009

That's not the point.
Any user can edit it, doesn't mean that the info in Wikipedia is wrong.
You're attacking Wikipedia, while you SHOULD be attacking the points raised in the article. Which you can't, because both the article and Wikipedia are right, as can easily be verified by many other sources.

The whole Wikipedia thing is nothing but a strawman. Only an idiot would try that strategy.

Wikipedia? by: Greg442 on 11/20/2009

dude you're not seriously defending wikipedia that any moron with a computer can edit

by: Anonymous on 11/20/2009

To everyone attacking the Wikipedia-remark:
Firstly, I think it's supposed to mean: "It's very easy to look this info up for yourself, rather than continuing to wade in a sea of misinformation".
Secondly, you realize that if you attack Wikipedia, the burden of proof is on you.
Now, I've looked around, and couldn't find a lot of strange information in the subjects that the article refers to. The exact same information (clockspeeds, introduction times etc) can be found all over the web on various review sites etc aswell.

So really, nothing but anoter failed attempt from the AMD idiot crowd.

by: Anonymous on 11/20/2009

To everyone attacking the Wikipedia-remark:
Firstly, I think it's supposed to mean: "It's very easy to look this info up for yourself, rather than continuing to wade in a sea of misinformation".
Secondly, you realize that if you attack Wikipedia, the burden of proof is on you.
Now, I've looked around, and couldn't find a lot of strange information in the subjects that the article refers to. The exact same information (clockspeeds, introduction times etc) can be found all over the web on various review sites etc aswell.

So really, nothing but anoter failed attempt from the AMD idiot crowd.

by: Anonymous on 11/19/2009

Love the last line.

'Don’t take my word for it though, it’s all on Wikipedia.'

Must be 100% true and not possibly tainted by bias, opinion or errors.

Heloooo AMD fans? by: Anonymous on 11/19/2009

This is what I don't like about AMD fans. Immature childish behaviour, name calling, ignoring arguments and facts... and zillion hordes of answers like numbers will give you an edge? big LOL! You think that you can twist and turn the truth if 4125142561 of you post here your bullshit? Bunch of pathetic losers. With fan base like this AMD has rightly deserved to go to hell.

Who Payeth the Piper? by: Anonymous on 11/18/2009

Admit all financial links or employee affiliations to either Nvidia Corp or Intel Corp on this site.
I trust this site as far as I'd enjoy ingesting a mythical GT300.

by: Anonymous on 11/17/2009

Love something is a nature. AMD Fanboy love AMD is nature for they and AMD. I think you are very jealouse with they and write this article to this site for hide your jealouse. Love is everything from anyone to anything and nothing to talk again loser

by: Anonymous on 11/15/2009

Read some of this, Greg:
http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.aspx?i=2663&p=14
Apparently Anandtech thought Core Duo was pretty good.

You have to realize that back in the days of Athlon vs Pentium 4, the battle took place only on the desktop. Performance increased at an amazing speed, but so did power consumption.
Notebooks were left either with 'mobile' variations of these CPUs that consumed so much power that they really weren't mobile anymore, because the battery life was less than an hour (not to mention the battery was huge and the whole machine was heavy)... Or you got good power consumption, but nowhere near the same performance as a desktop system, with only one core.

Core Duo gave notebook owners a dualcore, decent performance, and very good power consumption.
And where was AMD in all this?

by: Anonymous on 11/15/2009

There was nothing 'flawed' about the Core Duo's design, Greg.
What you don't seem to understand is that the Core Duo was a mobile part, aimed not at performance, but at minimizing power consumption. It was very good at that, since the Core Duo gave you two cores with a level of power consumption that was previously only possible with a single-core.
In absolute terms, the performance wasn't that impressive, but in terms of battery life and user experience, it was great.

Core Duo remained on the market for 2 years alongside Core2, also including LV and ULV variations, which were used in small form factor and embedded units, such as the Mac Mini.

And Intel sold CPUs with a broken core? Oh no! AMD would never do that, right? Oh, except for the X3 line ofcourse.

Really Greg...

Core Duo Flawed by: Greg442 on 11/15/2009

I have one of those not so great Core Duo laptops. So you can appreciate I was kinda pissed when I learned core duo was replaced, or if you prefer, updated, within 6 month of core duo's release. If the design wasn't flawed, there wouldn't have been a need to change it so quickly. It was, and remains, a flawed design. They even sold the core duo's with a failed core as "core solo", can you freaking believe that? The fact it was widely used doesn't negate the fact it was flawed. However, industry standards are such that B-Stock always ends up in the lower price product.

by: Anonymous on 11/14/2009

Lol, I wonder how many of those guys raving about x86-64/AMD64 are still running a 32-bit OS (and as such effectively only using Intel's x86 portion of the instructionset).

At any rate... who cares? It's just an instructionset. It's not such a big deal anymore these days, as everything gets translated into custom micro-ops anyway, CPUs don't run the instructionset natively anymore.
Back in the 70s/80s it was a bigger deal, when hardware implemented the instructionset directly, and it had a larger impact on performance (and Intel's x86 wasn't among the better instructionsets in that respect, to put it mildly).

by: Anonymous on 11/14/2009

Still wrong, Greg442.
Core was a mobile chip. It was never on the desktop. While Core2 was also available in mobile versions, they were strictly high-end mobile parts, with Core being the low end. For a long time, the majority of notebooks sold were Core-based, not Core2-based.
It's much like Duron and Athlon. Duron wasn't a 'failure' just because it was slower than Athlon, and Athlon wasn't Duron's 'replacement'. Duron was just the low-end part, Athlon was the high-end part.

Chad by: Greg442 on 11/14/2009

1961 IBM release the first 64 bit CPU. Intel's first 64bit CPU was in 2001, but was an epic failure. AMD introduced its AMD64 architecture in 2003 which is the first x86 based 64 bit processor architecture, which Intel eventually "COPIED"

MS gave AMD x86-64 by: Anonymous on 11/14/2009

People should be aware that Microsoft helped out AMD in designing x86-64, just like AMD got Hypertransport from Alpha.

So the fact that you get all these AMD diehards going on with incredible nonsense about AMD being some kind of great innovator, indeed proves that AMD fans are idiots.

Kind Regards

Chad Boga

Correction by: Greg442 on 11/14/2009

Core duo is correct. I mentioned it because it was a failed effort lasting all of 6 months, before being replaced with core 2 duo's

Current... by: Anonymous on 11/13/2009

...any article about the history of AMD which doesn't mention AMD64* is seriously deficient.

*The currently ubiquitous CPU architecture, developed by Inte... erm, AMD.

by: Anonymous on 11/13/2009

Greg442, sounds like you are confusing Core Duo with Core2 Duo.
There never was a 'Core2' before Core2 Duo. There was a 'Core' however, which was a chip aimed at the notebook market (never released on the desktop, so it never competed directly with Athlon X2/FX). Core is actually the chip that got Apple on the x86 bandwagon.

Wow. by: Anonymous on 11/12/2009

Maybe as an nVidia investor you might wanna extend your RFD towards the Geforce later on then?

Pathetic.

Core 2, and Core 2 Duo by: Greg442 on 11/12/2009

Core 2 is the often forgotten first born of what became Core 2 Duo. Core 2 was epic fail

by: Anonymous on 11/12/2009

The TLB errata for Phenom are FAR different from the Core ones.
Check your facts.
Any CPU has errata. Doesn't mean that they all have the same severity. Most of them never pose a practical problem, because they cannot occur in everyday use. Phenom's TLB bug did, and caused stability problems.

by: Anonymous on 11/12/2009

Uhhh, Athlon X2 doesn't 'wipe the floor' with Core2 at all. Check your facts.
Not only does Core2 have about 20-40% advantage over Athlon X2 in terms of IPC, they were also released at higher clockspeeds. And then we don't even get into power consumption... 125W TDP vs 65W TDP.
The result was that Athlon X2/FX didn't stand a chance against Intel's Core2, and prices of AMD processors dropped at a tremendous rate. AMD's flagship 6000+ model dropped from about $1000 to about $300 in only a few weeks time, because it had to compete with the 'midrange' Core2 Duo E6600.

And then obviously Intel introduced a quadcore in the Core2 series, which AMD didn't have an answer for AT ALL, for a long time.

And while AMD is now trying to catch up to Core2 with Phenom II, Intel has already released Core i7, which again is well out of AMD's reach.
Call Core i7 a ripoff all you want, because that's what it is. However, it doesn't chance the fact that Intel did it a hell of a lot better than AMD did.

It seems that AMD fanboys keep having to come back to how great AMD was back in the Pentium 4 era. Just idiots living in the past.

Check your facts? by: Anonymous on 11/11/2009

At what point since like 2004 has AMD ever been behind a generation of intel? AMD completely wiped the floor with intel with their athlon x2 dual cores (true native dual cores) while all intel had was a ducktape solution of two pentium 4 extremes taped together. When core 2 was released AMD X2 cpus were still wiping the floor with them with the top models still to this day the high end athlon x2 AM2 version and the fx-60 still compete head to head with core 2 duos, also core i7 like all you intel fan boys love to love and call it innovative and a generation ahead is nothing but a complete rip off of All of amd's hard work, integrated memory controller = amd first, hypertransport link (qpi) = amd first, native quad core = amd first, im sorry but my phenom 2 still wipes the floor with the core i7 920 and the other mid model, the only one that best it is the top model.. Athlon chips still destroy most of intels chip from the same generations, I have a single core athlon socket 939 as a server that destroys any pentium 4 - pentium D i have come across. When intel makes something innovative instead of rebranding a pentium 4 with netburst 2 and throwing all of amds hardwork into it and calling all the hardwork that amd has had for years their own INNOVATIONS then i will buy another intel chip but untill then I will enjoy my underpriced amazing native quad core chips with l3 cache that also amd came up with first... oh and just one last note, the so called amazing i7 you speak of has the same TLB errata that the original phenom chips where bashed for having by all the intel fan boys... but i dont see any intel boys bashing the company they love for hhaving the same error.

by: Anonymous on 11/9/2009

1% better performance for 50% higher price... pfft.
Guess you haven't been around reality for a while.
Try reading some buyers guides:
http://www.anandtech.com/guides/showdoc.aspx?i=3563
Both price and performance between the various AMD and Intel systems they've put together are pretty well-matched.

Amazing by: Anonymous on 11/9/2009

If some one puts me to gun point, I might consider confessing that Intel chips deliver about 1% better performance at 50% more price.
So within a end consumers capped budget, I will always be buying AMD!

by: Anonymous on 11/7/2009

I have to be fan only of the best ones?????
Didn't know about that rule...

Amazing by: Greg442 on 11/6/2009

AMD fan boys, like me, acknowledge that at the moment Intel has the fastest CPU lineup. However, that fact alone isn’t enough to convince me to buy Intel. As for the article, who’s exactly bragging about 486? In my opinion the article was written by an Intel fan boy and was specifically designed to insult AMD users. Personally I found it offensive. I think Intel is an unscrupulous company, and for me to buy Intel, they’ll need to be twice as fast as an AMD chip and half the price. Instead of insulting AMD users, maybe you should try an convince Intel to clean up their thuggish mannerism, then, just maybe, people wouldn’t hate them, in a Microsoft kind of way.

Communist method by: Anonymous on 11/6/2009

Scali have i say psychology problem ,less problem with hardware ,but i am suprise why BSN permit them to wrote this .This is typical communist attack ,upset one social group (who like Intel ,with other social group who prefer AMD)result is that Scali rule or who knows...

by: Anonymous on 11/6/2009

The article doesn't say anything about buying AMD (or Intel for that matter).
I didn't see anything that said that you shouldn't buy AMD hardware.

It's about how AMD fans are twisting the facts.
I think the article pretty much says this: "I don't care if you buy AMD products, but I'm tired of listening to garbage about how AMD had the fastest 486 ages ago".
There must be a point to it, considering the influx of AMD people on this site, insulting the author, the site, and various other things. They're still living in the past.

LOL @ this "article" by: Anonymous on 11/5/2009

"Greetings,

When commenting, refrain from personal attacks and sticks to the discussion at hand. Two comments that personally attacked a member of our staff were just deleted for violating our ToS policy.

Keep it civil.

Ed."

This entire article was a personal attack on people who purchase AMD products. If this is what passes for "discussion" on this site, you can be sure I won't be back to give you hits.

Scali is an Intel shill that does such things as brag on the Beyond3D forums that the x3100 graphics chip now has DX11 drivers. As though it mattered, since it can barely run DX8 applications with any speed, never mind, 9, 10 or 11.

This is an "expert opinion"?

by: Anonymous on 11/5/2009

Banned at hardforum?
But Community Guru at asmcommunity.net.
I think I know which of those sites consists mostly of idiots :)

Scali is the idiot by: Anonymous on 11/5/2009

Lol, this guy Scali is a big AMD hater and troll, he was permanently banned from Hardforum, just search for his posts under the name Scali2 on Hardforum. He also predicted that AMD would be doomed since Intel "put" a 60 days ultimatum on AMD after the AMD split up to create Globalfoundries. Well the 60 days has long gone and AMD is still there to stay.

by: Anonymous on 11/5/2009

roflmao. So 7 years of offering technology that's equal or greater to Intel's top of the line tech is all of a sudden an anomaly? Hell, if you want to go back to the K6-III offering superior performance to the pre-coppermine PIII's we could stretch it to 8 years. 1998 to 2006.

It's funny how this intel fanboy offers up SSE2 and Hyperthreading as important technologies that everyone will use for decades to come, but doesn't mention x86-64, because that would actually give credit to AMD for innovating for once.

You can try and call netburst an anomaly, but if it wasn't for AMD's innovation we'd still have shitty IPC, high TDP furnaces in our towers. I mean wasn't Tejas supposed to scale to 5GHz and beyond? Intel didn't keep P6 based things around with banias and other P-M based cores, they HAD to resurrect a short pipelined CPU to be able to compete on the mobile front. Intel's Core based offerings are a direct result of AMD kicking their ass on the performance/watt front and the IPC front for a good 5 years.

Yes and No by: Sean Kalinich on 11/5/2009

Intel's failure at that time was to AMD's benefit. However, the problem goes deeper than just going back to business as usual. The failure of AMD to move to 65nm from 90nm put them way behind Intel at a time when they could have made major leaps. Then the ATI purchase sucked more money and resources from them. This was due to extremely poor management rather than any technical failing on AMD's part. They had the engineers and the ability to product products but upper management tied their hands. At the same time their PR and legal machine when into overdrive and started all of the lawsuits again taking more money and resources from their engineering teams.

The article says that AMD is technologically and architecturally behind Intel. But that was not the case with the P4 years and the A64. At that time AMD actually had a technological lead in terms of architecture and design. They failed to keep that due to abysmal management and a failure to innovate. Now they are playing catchup with products (CPUs and Chipsets) that are almost a full two generations old.

It is sad really, they have to chose to stop running to mom and get back in the innovation game or things will continue to look bleak for them in the CPU and chipset world.

by: Anonymous on 11/5/2009

Intel's failure is AMD's success, right?
After all, Intel still had the advantage in manufacturing process technology, and they still had a larger team of engineers, and a larger budget.
Given those advantages it could be considered a failure to even be competing directly with AMD anyway, let alone losing the competition.
It's something that never happened before, and hasn't happened since.

Anomaly by: Sean Kalinich on 11/5/2009

The way I read the article is that Intel's failure with netburst was the anomaly.
My comment was meant to say that AMD (with A64 x86-64 and X2) actually came up with something new and did jump ahead in terms of performance. They took an entirely different direction from where they were heading. However, that having been said there are patterns in AMD's behavior that are being repeated. When the Athlon (Slot A) first came out AMD did not include Cache on the CPU they sat on extremely slow (for the time) cache chips on the card. It took them quite a while to get the cache onto the CPU. then once they did it was still slower than what Intel was using. To their credit the next generation of Athlons (thunderbird) used a more advanced caching architecture than Intel did. (4-way exclusive cache Vs Inclusive) Still if you look at AMD and the way they deal with cache on the CPU they are still trying very hard to remove it. I am not sure what their deal with on-die CPU cache is but, you can see that pattern repeated since the introduction of the First Athlon (which we were told could have up to 12MB of Cache)

by: Anonymous on 11/5/2009

"I am not sure that it was an anomaly. I think for once AMD did have the upper hand."

AMD having the upper hand for once *is* the anomaly the article speaks of, right?

I was happy with my Athlon 64. by: Anonymous on 11/4/2009

I had two P.C.s with AMD processors. The first had a 1.33Ghz AMD 'Thunderbird' processor, which rivalled the Intel equivalent processors (Pentium III's?) and beat them in many benchmarks. I think I got that machine in June 2001.

My second P.C. with an AMD processor had the 2.6 Ghz Athlon 64 'Clawhammer' processor, which served me well. I did some of that CPND\BBC Climate Modelling project for a while. At the time, it was the fastest single-core desktop processor for number crunching on that project. Each climate model was single threaded and it was only when the Core 2 Duo’s arrived, that we saw faster number crunching than that produced by a high speed Athlon 64.

Eventually I could see advantage of a multi-core processor and so I finally upgraded to a P.C. with an Intel 'Penryn' 45nm quad-core processor.

I had no complaints with my AMD processor P.C.s, they gave very impressive performance at comparatively low power consumptions. From the Athlon ‘Thunderbird’ until the launch of the Core 2 Duo processor, AMD had very competitive products. But I wouldn't call myself a die-hard fan of AMD products.

Intel hit with another antitrust suit by: Anonymous on 11/4/2009

http://www.techspot.com/news/36825-intel-hit-with-another-antitrust-suit-for-competing-unfairly.html#comments

Intel hit with another antitrust suit for competing unfairly .

Intel is back in the hot seat after being nailed with a record $1.45 billion antitrust fine in the EU earlier this year. The chipmaker has been sued by New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo in an antitrust case with similar grounds.

Anomaly by: Sean Kalinich on 11/4/2009

I am not sure that it was an anomaly. I think for once AMD did have the upper hand. They it seems they felt that Intel could not answer that product. Intel did try several times to fix netburst. It was just a very bad move. In my opinion they got complacent, they wasted money on things like the ATi merger, and all of their lawsuits instead of spending that money developing to keep the lead or at least keep pace.

by: Anonymous on 11/4/2009

X2 running circles around the Pentium D wasn't the point.
It's rather obvious that if a single K8 core runs circles around a single Netburst core, that two K8 cores run circles around two Netburst cores.
Hence, X2 outperforming Pentium D is part of the anomaly that the K8 architecture outperformed the Netburst architecture, rather than a second anomaly. After all, both X2 and Pentium D are dualcore variations of the K8 and Netburst architecture.

Interesting by: Sean Kalinich on 11/4/2009

The A64 X2 ran rings around the Pentium D. It was a simple fact. At the time Intel's design and implementation was not as good. You can vilify the X2 all you want and it wont change that.

At the time AMD had the better product.

Now the opposite is true, Intel has the better design and product hands down. The Lynnfield and Nehalem are without question better products per clock cycle than the Phenom II or Athlon II.

This trend started with Conroe and the performance gap has only widened since. As it stands AMD's current products are only competing, in terms of performance, with Intel's older Socket 775 CPUs.

by: Anonymous on 11/4/2009

The Pentium D Smithfield (8xx) was also single-die.
Aside from that, as already said... the difference between crossbar and FSB comes from the fact that AMD had an on-die memory controller. Apart from the memory controller and the HT vs FSB difference, both Athlon X2 and Pentium D simply used two independent execution cores that were identical to the ones found in the Athlon64 and Pentium 4 respectively.
Neither developed a new architecture, they just fit two cores from their existing architecture on a single die.
You can try to glorify Athlon X2 all you want, with vague terms like 'native' dualcore (yea, 'native' quadcore worked great for Barcelona aswell, right?), but in the end, the latency with core communications speaks volumes. Athlon X2 had pretty high latency with core to core communication. It was virtually no better than two single-core Opterons. It can't be compared to a 'true' native design like Core Duo or Core2 Duo, where the shared L2 cache drastically improves core to core communication.

If there's no improvement, it's still a Frankenstein CPU to me. It doesn't actually exploit the fact that both cores are on the same die, since it's little more than some copy-paste work of two singlecores.

A64 X2 by: Sean Kalinich on 11/4/2009

The X2 was still a single Die Vs two separate cores like the original Pentium D.
The cores were also able to talk directly to each other through the crossbar.

Either way the original X2 design was superior to the one that Intel used. Yohan and Conroe, were superior to the X2. But again, AMD has a thing about large amounts of L2 (and shared) cache. They have always liked to remove it. Look at the performance differences between the X2s with 1MB Vs 512KB.

Even now they are having issues with the large monolithic shared L3 on the PII and Magny Coures.

by: Anonymous on 11/4/2009

X2 is about as Frankenstein as Pentium D is.
Intel connected the two Pentium 4 cores at the FSB, since the FSB protocol already supported bus snooping and all that (multicore Xeon systems based on Netburst used the same technology).

Since AMD's topology is slightly different, they couldn't literally paste two singlecores together, but they removed the memory controller from one of them, and used a crossbar to join the HyperTransport links internally.

Aside from that, it's the same idea: Both use two completely independent cores, each with their own dedicated caches, and they communicated with eachother in the same way that a multi-CPU system would.

The Core Duo was the first 'real' native dualcore x86, where the cache was shared between the two cores, and they could not be 'separated'. It was also the first time that the 'native' aspect was actually being used as an advantage, by sharing data in L2 cache. Both X2 and P-D couldn't really do anything that a dual-CPU system with two single-core Opterons or Xeons couldn't do. They were little more than a single-socket version of a dual-CPU system.

To top it off, the original Pentium D 8xx series was also a single-die solution. It wasn't until the 9xx series that Intel started implementing the MCM strategy.

Althon X2 by: Sean Kalinich on 11/4/2009

This was not two K8 cores on a single socket. It was a native dual core.

The Pentium D was two Pentum CPUs on the same packaging they were bolted together the were still using netburst (networst)

The Athlon X2 was a native Dual core with the cores connected directly to each other on one die. They were used interconnects to talk to each other and shared the IMC.

The two are very different, AMD's implementation was significantly better than the "Frankenstein" version that Intel used.

by: Anonymous on 11/4/2009

Yep. It's true, AMD fans are nubs.

Pentium D by: Sean Kalinich on 11/4/2009

I personally do not agree with the comment that AMD has always been a generation behind (except in process technology).

What I think happened is that after the success of Opteron, A64, x86-64, X2 etc AMD sat back and did not think they needed to innovate. It seems they sat back and did nothing more than small updates (adding DDR2).

Then they bought ATi which used up a ton of their operating and R&D money that should have been put to better use improving their products.

Understand the Opteron and A64 were amazing CPUs. It is what AMD did (or more to the point did not do) after Conroe that is what has disappointed me most. I think if they did not hype up Barcelona so much it would have been different.

On the GPU side AMD is doing quite well since the 38xx series they have been making steady gains in performance without sacrificing image quality (where AMD/ATi has always shined) The 5xxx series is great and looks to be an excellent competitor. The problem there is supply. This is due to an issue with TSMC though and not completely AMD's fault.

I would like to see AMD stop dumping money down lawyers throats and return to innovating again. The millions of dollars they have spent on their countless complaints and lawsuits do not help make their products run faster. In the end no matter how much Intel is finned the consumer is the one hurt because AMD cannot spend that money on making a better product, it is wasted and R&D potential lost.

by: Anonymous on 11/4/2009

AMD x2 beat Pentium D, like K8 beat P4?
Gee, what a surprise, since Athlon X2 is two K8 cores on a single socket, and Pentium D is two P4 cores on a single socket.
Just a continuation of the same anomaly.

And the Pentium D vs AMD X2? by: Anonymous on 11/4/2009

AMD x2 beat Pentium D, like K8 beat P4.
x2 outperforming P4 was so painful for intel, that made intel show Core2 arquitecture in a few months, not years as intel wanted to do.
Two anomalies?
Amd makes intel innovate, without AMD we will have P4 at 4Ghz now with 500W. This is the painful truth.

Deletion of comments by: Theo Valich on 11/4/2009

Greetings,

When commenting, refrain from personal attacks and sticks to the discussion at hand. Two comments that personally attacked a member of our staff were just deleted for violating our ToS policy.

Keep it civil.

Ed.

@Greg442 by: Sean Kalinich on 11/4/2009

DDR3 is realized in dual channel as well.
The problems with DDR3 has always been latency

CPUs with an IMC are more affected by latency than they are with the RAM speed. This was even seen with DDR2. Now that DDR3 is coming with a more reasonable latency you can get the speed you should with it.

On older socket 775 systems (like the P45) DDR3 was not quick due to issues with the way the northbridge was setup. However systems with the X48 chipset did give you good realized speeds with DDR3. Most memory manufacturers knew this but had a hard time tightening up the latency. This was also a big issue with the move to DDR2 and the AM2 CPUs.Intel is now in the same boat with their IMC. Where they have a slight advantage with DDR3 is with triple channel and their large amounts of L3 cache. While AMD is busy removing cache from the CPU Intel has been adding it to counter the issues with DDR3 latency and the IMC.

It was also one of the ways they overcame the issues with the outdated FSB design on the socket 775 Duals and Quads. More cache means more information kept on the CPU and not transferred back and forth from memory to the CPU.

Nope, AMD indeed surprised the real idiots by: Anonymous on 11/4/2009

I can't recall AMD's SIMD-FP, cooper interconnects, x86-64, point-to-point links and integrated memory controllers being "one generation behind" Intel. Is this a deep throat or the mother of all FUD?

DD3 in Dual Channel? by: Greg442 on 11/3/2009

I could be wrong, but aren't the benefits of DD3 realized in triple channel? I believe the 1156 Motherboards are dual channel.

by: Anonymous on 11/3/2009

Do they really? I had a Penryn quad-core system and I was still using DDR2 RAM. It made no sense for me to buy an intel motherboard that had DDR3 RAM support when it didn't make a difference in performance from DDR2 on a Penryn quad-core system.

Only with Nehalem did it really become worthwhile to upgrade to DDR3, so your price comparison has some serious problems.

@ A Few Things by: Sean Kalinich on 11/3/2009

TO get DDR3 you have to bump up to AM3. With Intel most users would have DDR3 already and lower their upgrade cost. The Phenom II X4 955 and 965 would perform even worse with DDR2 behind it.

As for those prices they were as of today

PII X4 955 $175.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103674

Core i5 750 $199.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115215

AM3 FX790 Board $109.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=40000022%201070947010&Description=AMD%20FX%20790&name=AM3%2fAM2%2b%2fAM2

DDR3 1066 $82.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=40000022%201070947010&Description=AMD%20FX%20790&name=AM3%2fAM2%2b%2fAM2

AM3 with DDR3 Upgrade adds $192.98

P55 Mainboard GIGABYTE GA-P55-UD4P $169.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128400

This makes the Core i5 750 upgrade less than an AM3 with DDR3 upgrade.

AMD Upgrade (955) $386.97

Core i5 750 Upgrade $369.98

Can't Register by: Greg442 on 11/3/2009

Okay, the verification box below the send button was confusing.. had to go back up to press send, rather than just hitting enter from the verification box.

Can't Register by: Anonymous on 11/3/2009

Not the poster that called you a liar, but I've tried to register on this site, and it didn't work. Not sure whats going on there

A Few Things You Forgot by: Anonymous on 11/3/2009

Yes recently newegg did offer the AMD 955 for $175, and assuming you're correct the the core I5 750 can be had for $25 bucks more, you forgot a few very important facts. Since this article is about AMD fanboys, an upgrade to the 955 would be a cpu drop-in and maybe a bios update in a lot of cases, since this chip is backward compatible with AM2/AM2+ socket. I'm sure AMD fanboys wouldn't be running Intel, if they we're, then they're not AMD fanboys. On the other hand Intel and AMD users converting to a core i5/i7 will include buying a 1156 motherboard which up's the price another $100-200+ bucks, assuming they have all the other needed hardware, if not, add another 2-3 hundred to the price of that build. So for the AMD fanboy would the small performance boost of i5/i7 be worth rather the large price tag of going to the enemy? I think not. FYI with all the money I saved on my AMD build I can add an AMD/ATI 5870, which is designed to run with AMD hardware. Dragon Platform FTW.
Where's the Intel answer to the 5870?(the fastest single GPU in the world). Oh never mind Intel doesn't make graphics cards, they rely on third party solutions like Nvidia,(who's suing them) and AMD. So all you Intel fanboys its okay to secretly buy AMD graphics. I won't tell anyone. lol

Credibility Part III by: Sean Kalinich on 11/3/2009

You have also made a false and baseless accusation.

you say
"I seem to recall that same guy at Lost Circuits found out that in gaming comparisons you did with AMD 940 vs intel I7-965 that the intel rigs were using 3 graphics cards and the AMD rigs using only 1."

I have never done anything like this with any review I have ever performed. This is a blatant lie on your part and I am calling you out on it.

I am commenting and replying under my name yet you hide behind anonymity. If your are certain of your facts please register and come out of hiding. Links to validate your claims would also be in order as would naming the magazine you are talking about.

@ Credibility Part II by: Sean Kalinich on 11/3/2009

Hmmmm seems like you missed the rendering bench

http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=63&Itemid=42&limit=1&limitstart=12

They show the 955 and 965 performing worse than the i7 750

They use True Space which is a multi-threaded rendering test.

The i7 750 beats out the 965 by full 8 seconds and the 955 by 10. that is quite a bit in terms of frame rendering.

@ Credibility by: Sean Kalinich on 11/3/2009

Right from the article

Test Systems and Comments

Our test systems are shown below:

Core i7 1366
Intel Core i7 920, 965 and 975
ASRock X58 Extreme (P130 BIOS)
6GB Kingston KHX12800D3T1K3/6GX
Zotac GeForce GTX 285 1GB
Kingston SSD Now M (Intel X25 SSD)
Cooler Master UCP 1100
Cooler Master Hyper 212 CPU cooler with extra fan
Windows 7 Ultimate x64 (RTM)

Lynnfield (LGA 1156) Core i5 and Core i7
Intel Core i7 870, Intel Core i5 750
ASRock P55 Deluxe (P130 BIOS)
4GB Kingston KHX12800D3T1K3/6GX
Zotac GeForce GTX 285 1GB
Kingston SSD Now M (Intel X25 SSD)
Cooler Master UCP 1100
Intel Supplied Cooler
Windows 7 Ultimate x64 (RTM)

AMD Phenom II X4 955
Asus M4A79T Deluxe
4GB Kingston KHX12800D3T1K3/6GX
Zotac GeForce GTX 285 1GB
Kingston SSD Now M (Intel X25 SSD)
Cooler Master UCP 1100
Cooler Master Hyper 212 CPU cooler with extra fan
Windows 7 Ultimate x64 (RTM)

Other than the obvious Motherboard and CPU differences we used identical hardware between the systems.

The methodology is sound and has been proven over and over to be so.

by: Anonymous on 11/3/2009

Sean.
Where do you get your results because they don't tally with anyone else except x-bit labs? (That's a surprise)
A guy at the Lost Circuits forum has done a graph showing 50 something reviews and the two outliers are yours and xbit.
I was reading a renowned PC magazine yesterday and their benchmarks show that the 965 keeps up with the I7-860 with intel winning the singlethreaded apps portion of their benchmark not surprising with turbo mode then the 965 winning the multi threaded portion. That's in line with my personal experiences. Maybe you need to check your benchmarking methodology.
I seem to recall that same guy at Lost Circuits found out that in gaming comparisons you did with AMD 940 vs intel I7-965 that the intel rigs were using 3 graphics cards and the AMD rigs using only 1.
If you run your benchmarks like that then I'm sorry but there's nothing to dissuade me that you are simply a shill.
You have lost any credibility in your field.

by: Anonymous on 11/3/2009

hey scali i think you logged into the wrong account for that comment

vvv

@ Real World by: Sean Kalinich on 11/3/2009

And you have the tests to prove this?
I tested them side by side using the same software including real world tests and the 955 we had could not keep up.

The 965 used by many others was also not able to keep up.

The PII X4 955 is $175.99 at newegg and is a 3.2GHz CPU

The Core i5 750 is a 2.66GHz CPU for $25 more that runs rings around the 955.

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2009/9/7/intel-lynnfield3b-core-i5-750-and-core-i7-870-evaluation.aspx?pageid=3

Where is the better value?

@Sean Kalinich by: Anonymous on 11/3/2009

You are a retard writer. Intel is using ambint temperature to fool the consumers with Core I5 while in the real world the expected performance could not be realized.

SATA 6G and USB 3.0 by: Sean Kalinich on 11/3/2009

The issue with SATA 6G and USB 3.0 is larger than Intel putting it off.

The P55 only has Gen 1 lanes, (each capable of 250MB/s) SATA 6G and USB 3.0 really needs PCI-e Gen 2 lanes to run properly (each can handle 500MB/s)

It will take a redesign of the P55 to get enough bandwidth and/or the bridging of multiple Gen 1 lanes to the controllers.

These things take time. It is funny that AMD and NV are talking about that when they are not going to have SATA 6G and USB 3.0 in their chipsets until late 2010 or 2011 either. In fact NV will not be making any chipset for Intel (Core i5 or i7) or AMD any time soon.

I think that AMD has lost their way recently, they have (in the past) made great CPUs (A64, A64x2 etc) but when they started down the AM2 and ATi buy out path something went wrong.

They seem to have lost their edge. The GPU side if the only thing holding them up right now. As for price performance the Core i5 out performs faster and more expensive AMD Phenom IIs (i.e the Phenom II x4 965) While the Athlon II X4 might be less expensive it still cannot compete in terms of performance per clock cycle.

by: Anonymous on 11/2/2009

OPINION: Could your child be POISONED??? Tune in tonight for Action 10 News for a cure!!!

nice one bsn

by: Anonymous on 11/2/2009

Great first article for your next assignment make sure you follow the MLA style guidelines and use at least 5 sources one of which has to be a newspaper and one a personal interview

by: Anonymous on 11/2/2009

Great article dude I'd love to read more of your work what's your LiveJournal

Not red heads by: Anonymous on 11/2/2009

I don’t understand the anger speech or the need to classify a group of consumers as idiots. It is well documented the type of consumers that rely on AMD product. Yet for all of us competition is good. It benefits us all. The more AMD can compete the more the Intel folks will benefit. If AMD fell by the wayside like the rest then we would get more of the same as quoted below. Below is a quote from TG Daily from Nvidia spokesperson Brian Burke. It is a perfect example of what the PC industry would become if not for AMD and other Intel competitors didn’t exist. So bottom line, be thankful for your AMD brothers. Don’t treat them like read headed step children. They purchase on price/performance ratio’s and that is AMD’s bread and butter.

We [have also] learned that Intel is postponing USB 3 introduction until 2011. With no competition in chipsets, it seems Intel has decided that innovation is not needed for USB any time soon," said Burke. "With no one to push Intel to innovate, PC enthusiasts are left with Intel chipsets and the features and performance they deliver, or lack there of."

http://www.tgdaily.com/hardware-features/44493-nvidia-our-nforce-chipsets-are-qbetterq-than-intels

wow, what ignorance by: Anonymous on 11/2/2009

Simply, AMD has always been more bang per buck. While Intel fanboys were paying top dollar for P4s we were enjoying much faster amd64s and we were paying less money for it.

Stating that AMD is always at lest one generation behind is wrong as well.

AMD was the first to use the memory controller on the CPU die with their Opterons in 2004. Intel moved their memory controller to the die in 2008 with i7.

Intel also made the Itanium while AMD made the x86_64 extension. Which one won?

The only thing Intel has been traditionally ahead on is their fabs, they simply have more cash to throw at their fabs and they have a lot of them so generally Intel is 6 months to a year sooner to move to a smaller process then AMD.

Another reason I try to stay away from Intel CPUs is because they don't offer their VT extensions in all their CPUs. AMD-V is supported by their entire line of CPUs.

AMD is light years ahead on the GPUs though. GMA950 is pretty much the worst on board video solution.

I have used Opterons and Xeons at home by: Michael A. McKenney on 11/2/2009

I had several Tyan based AMD Opteron workstations. The memory bandwidth was better than my Xeon workstation but the choice of boards was limited. I switched to Xeons because I wanted a better selection of boards. I would go back to AMD, if they had better board selection. Who has the best product for my needs.

A well researched article by: Anonymous on 11/2/2009

"Don’t take my word for it though, it’s all on Wikipedia"

Nuff said.

Chad Boga by: Anonymous on 11/2/2009

[Quote]AMD fans identify with 2nd rate companies like AMD, because that at best, is all they are or can be.

At the end of the day, you have emotionally disturbed and retarded individuals from AMDzone going around spreading a mountain of BULLSH|T everywhere they go.

This was a great opinion piece article and I hope to see much more like this.

Regards

Chad Boga [/quote]

What's up Chad?
You a bit sore because you were banned for trolling? Some things never change huh?

It's a cruel world....

No such thing as Communism by: Anonymous on 11/1/2009

Because whats known as Communism now a days is a twisted version of what it actually is.

Just because a company is funded by Iraq or any other country does not reflect the actual company in any way.

It's called business and smart investing.

I was over in Iraq as well for a short stint. Whoever the Military guy was he must of been a Marine and not a Army grunt as I was... sounds a bit too bloodthirsty.
Seriously, you need to be medded out with that problem. Too much hate towards people who did nothing to you directly.

Honestly with me, I use whatever I can afford, AMD or Intel, doesn't matter. I guess you can call me swiss cause I don't take sides in the tech wars, I just feign ignorance and play blissfully unaware as its better than trolling and flaming on the intarwebz.

Arguing on the internet is like being in the special Olympics.
Even if you win, You're still retarded.

Long live AMD! by: Anonymous on 11/1/2009

Yes, the article is right: AMD is about bargains, bang-for-the-buck, low-end to mainstream systems. That's good enough for almost everybody, except for those who enjoy paying inflated prices for high-end gear.

And if it wasn't for AMD, how much would these mainstream Intel processors cost?

I make it a point to buy and recommend AMD to help the underdog keep on fighting.

by: Anonymous on 11/1/2009

hopefully my message will get through to some people with commen sence if not maybe you or your kids will be fighting them and not make it back home!!! dont support any company that has ties with the arab until they act like human beings!! and stop acting like animals

by: Anti-DRMintosh on 11/1/2009

Al Qaeda is a Mossad/CIA operation.

I personally will never buy anything connected to that real terrorist state of Israel and a 3 time convicted anti-consumer unrepentant monopolist.

Intel has been convicted by Japan, South Korea and the entire EU. There is also a US investigation going on. Intel is one of the worst a$$hole corporations on this planet, so much so that they make microsoft look like the good guys by comparison.

Yet so many brainwashed people defend them to the death.

I often wonder how many pro-intel posters are just shills paid to post on forums, as is the norm nowadays in business PR.

Intel cheats like hell in benchmarks, in compiler-trickery (like removing SSE/SIMD optimizations when it detects an AMD cpu), they have tons of paid-for review sites, etc.

Pure and utter scum they are.

They will never see a penny from me and other equally well-informed people.

Racism Knows No Color Barrier by: Anonymous on 11/1/2009

If you really believe all arabs are part of AL-Qaeda you Sir are a racist. Regardless of the fact that you're african-american. I appluad you're military service, but I feel you're in serious need of professional help, please report these racist feelings and hatred against all arabs to your Commanding Officer, as I feel you're a danger to yourself and fellow soliders. I believe they call this combat fatigue. Good Luck to You

im not racest by: Anonymous on 11/1/2009

First of all im black that made that comment because I was over in afgan fighting for our country and can tell you first hand what it was like and second of all maybe all you KIDS should realize what we are in store for me personally i will never support a company that has ties with Arabs/Al-Qaeda. go over there and get out from behind your computer and see the real world!!!!!!

im not racest by: Anonymous on 11/1/2009

First of all im black that made that comment because I was over in afgan fighting for our country and can tell you first hand what it was like and second of all maybe all you KIDS should realize what we are in store for me personally i will never support a company that has ties with Arabs/Al-Qaeda. go over there and get out from behind your computer and see the real world!!!!!!

really? by: Anonymous on 11/1/2009

This whole article is a joke.

Yeah and the best part is the ending:

"Don’t take my word for it though, it’s all on Wikipedia."
- HAHAHA, god I feel sorry for the poor guy.

Title - big flamer.
contents - very little connection to the title. Some irrelevant history, calling names, no reasoning.

"One often hears the fairytale that AMD sold much faster 486 derivatives than Intel, so AMD must have had a technological advantage over Intel." - I have never heard/read such thing.

I don't think this is real. This must be some fabrication to get clicks. The more absurd, personal and offending the more views/reactions you get.

I guess the other anomaly would be... by: Anonymous on 11/1/2009

"Don’t take my word for it though, it’s all on Wikipedia."

BSN, it's on Wikipedia.

Intel + Israel by: Anti-DRMintosh on 11/1/2009

http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/intel-inside/

http://www.inminds.co.uk/boycott-intel.html

Another victim of Intel propaganda by: Anonymous on 11/1/2009

So if I buy Samsung wash machine i throw a stone at people who buy Whirpool wash machine.Obvios Intel fanboy who wrote this text want one producer of wash machine.Guys find more interesting theme than this.

by: Anonymous on 11/1/2009

Fanboyz are idiots not the firms !

Al-Qaeda exist only on the paper and the news !

You can know only you had knowledge others is just belief !

I hate the racist race ! :D

People that buy Intel are Racist Idiots? by: Anonymous on 11/1/2009

Dude every arab in the world isn't member of Al-Qaeda; all black people don't eat watermelon; all asians don't know karate, all mexicans aren't named Jesus; and beleive it or not white men can jump. Stop the hate now!

Intel propaganda by: Anonymous on 11/1/2009

That Arab group also invest in Airbus ,so if u fly with Airbus u also give money to Arab.Arab buy Global foundiries not AMD.9/11 and AMD??? so u are nothing but Intel
propaganda ,shame on you.
I AM NOT BUY ANY INTEL PRODUCTS ,CLEAR ?

by: Anonymous on 11/1/2009

First of all im not a intel or amd fan but what I am is a realist AMD/ATI were given money by an arab company/person they invested in AMD and and pretty much saved them and now own a good part of that company, the arabs are a very good part of why we are fighting Al-Qaeda they find there operation and the arabs were a big part of 9/11 because of that.... we already give the arabs enough money through oil stop supporting them through AMD/ATI buy anything but there products or any arab company they invest in. Im sure this post will be taken down but hope it get to some before it is!!

Always AMD by: Anonymous on 10/31/2009

Always AMD,so Intel is not interesting for me ,because overprice their product.For same perfomance AMD is always cheaper than Intel.

by: Anonymous on 10/31/2009

CHINA DOESNT SUSPORT Al-Qaeda

by: Anonymous on 10/31/2009

AMD may not be the absolute greatest at the moment but I continue to support the for 2 main reasons
1. With the monitor I have (which I have no intentions of replacing) and the software that I use (mainly games) what is the difference between 100 fps and 200 fps? When you cannot see the difference, why bother? I still can only type so fast, and from time to time you still need to get up to eat and drink. The speed of the system is not the limitation.
2. I stick with AMD because of price, reliability, but mainly so there continues to be choice. Sure I could opt for an Intel system with similar results but I for one do not wish to see Intel become an absolute monopoly of everything. Every couple of years I want to be able to choose not only what parts I buy but also which manufacturers. I would hate to live in an Intel only world!

post below by: Anonymous on 10/31/2009

are all intel fans that ignorant?

Intel has Fabs in China by: Anonymous on 10/31/2009

Intel has fabs in Communist China, so by the previous post reasoning, Intel=Communism

amd sucks by: Anonymous on 10/31/2009

IF YOU BUY AMD/ATI YOU SUPPORT THE ARABS/Al-Qaeda WE ALREADY GIVE THEM ENOUGH MONEY FOR OIL AND THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR FUNDING A GREAT DEAL OF Al-Qaeda NETWORKS. THE ARABS INVESTED A GREAT DEAL OF MONEY TO BAIL THEM OUT AND NOW OWN THERE FAB COMPANY... AND THE ARABS WERE A BIG PART OF 9/11. WISE UP PEOPLE.

by: Anonymous on 10/31/2009

Hahaha scali old intel fanboy son of a bitch. Nice to see you are doing good.

Hey you got banned from [H] what a looser dude! seems that your fanboyism has no limits, you are on the big leagues! doing articles in shitty side of news!

Man you are going to the top congratz!!

by: Anonymous on 10/31/2009

I'm such an idiot AMD 'fanboy' that I just build a $500 computer able to COMFORTABLY run any current game at max settings on my 1080p big screen.

I feel like SUCH a loser.

Monopolies Are For Retards by: Anonymous on 10/31/2009

It's because of posts like the one below that I will do everything I can to NOT buy Intel.... Ever.

Monopolies are for retards. If you haven't figured out why yet then take some more time to figure it out. We know you are slow.

AMD Fanboys by: Anonymous on 10/31/2009

AMD fanboys are indeed idiots as the comments here do prove.

Both 1156 and 1366 sockets have clear upgrade paths to 32nm CPUs. Socket AM3 does not.

The 2.66GHz Core i7 is still more than a match for AMD's 3.4GHz Phenom II with it's 140W TDP. Core i7 keeps up despite a 25% clockspeed disadvantage. Even the little baby i5 750 is enough to crap over a 140W toaster oven Phenom 965. 95W vs 140W. Doesn't that 95W include the full northbridge Intel integrated too? AMD can't catch a break in that department either.

What does AMD have coming on the desktop next year? Six cores at 45nm with reduced clockspeeds over the quad core CPUs to keep within a 140W TDP? These CPUs will still end up slower than i7. We've all seen the benchmarks on the server side. The Xeon 5500 quads easily beat out the Opteron six core CPUs on the majority of server workloads.

Yes for enthusiasts I'm afraid that's all AMD has for you in terms of new CPUs until the second half of 2011 when the mythical Bulldozer architecture is supposed to appear. But hey, that's already been delayed from 2009 until 2011 so perhaps a few more delays are in order?

What does Intel have coming? 32nm CPUs with graphics on the CPU on package more than a full year before Fusion vaporware is set to appear. Gulftown 32nm CPUs for servers and high end desktops. Six core without sacrificing any clockspeed thanks to 32nm. They also have expanded L3 caches and updates to the core as part of the shrink.

As if all that wasn't enough to make AMD weep Intel already showed off the next generation Sandy Bridge architecture running at IDF last month.

By the time Bulldozer appears AMD will be facing off against a revised 22nm shrink of Sandy Bridge. Poor old AMD just can't catch a break.

In notebooks the situation is even more grim for AMD. 3 year old Core 2 Duos still have better performance and performance per watt than AMD's newest CPUs. How utterly embarrassing for AMD.

My old QX9650 system I built back in 2007 is still a good match for all of the fastest Phenom II CPUs that AMD has today. What a bloody embarrassment that is for AMD.

About the only interesting products AMD has are the Radeon HD 5850 and 5870. But they fucked that up too since you can't buy one anywhere. Since you can't actually buy one and my two Geforce 8800 GTX cards are still fast enough I guess AMD won't get my cash for that upgrade either.

AMD. They're just a fucking embarrasment. We heard all the grandiose nonsense from them. Native quad core, Barcelona 40% faster across a wide range of workloads. Multi core for dummies. Yadda Yadda. All bullshit. They got cocky and arrogant and now Intel is pulverizing AMD into the ground. Good riddance.

AMD by: Anonymous on 10/31/2009

AMD bankrupt ASAP. Good riddance.

AMD fans identify with 2nd raters by: Anonymous on 10/31/2009

AMD fans identify with 2nd rate companies like AMD, because that at best, is all they are or can be.

At the end of the day, you have emotionally disturbed and retarded individuals from AMDzone going around spreading a mountain of BULLSH|T everywhere they go.

This was a great opinion piece article and I hope to see much more like this.

Regards

Chad Boga

All fanboys are idiots by: Anonymous on 10/30/2009

Doesn't matter if they are a fanboy of AMD, Nvidia, or Intel.... all fanboys are idiots.

BS by: Anonymous on 10/30/2009

Are you going to trust an ignorant Intel fanboy? Hell no, except if you are one yourself.

CPU today is not like CPU before 5 or 10 years by: Anonymous on 10/30/2009

Scali forget that AMD is also company who made very successful GPU.Little by little CPU go on margin.Encoding ,render now GPU do faster than CPU.So compare old 486 etc.. who care about that.Yes today Intel have now faster CPU ,but CPU today is not like CPU before 5-10 years.Fact is that with today software u dont need more than 4-5 threads.Threads help for example in h264 encoding,but u can encode in h264 faster with Ati Avivo.

Why I became an AMD fanboi... by: Anonymous on 10/30/2009

www.reghardware.co.uk/2005/12/16/amd_wins_jftc_evidence_access/

***
In March 2005, the JFTC (Japan's Fair Trade Commission) ruled that Intel had indeed engaged in anti-competitive behaviour, and told the chip giant to change its ways or face the court.
***

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/146737/korea_fines_intel_25_million_for_antitrust_violations.html

***
The Korea Fair Trade Commission has fined Intel a reported 26 billion won (US$25.42 million) for abusing its dominant position in the microprocessor market, [...]
***
(2008)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/business/global/14compete.html

***
The European Commission fined Intel a record 1.06 billion euros Wednesday for abusing its dominance in the computer chip market
[...]
Ms. Kroes ordered Intel to stop offering rebates that were conditioned on buying less of a rival’s product, or not buying them at all, which she said had helped Intel maintain a share of at least 70 percent of chip sales market from October 2002 to December 2007.
***

A similar investigation in the US is still on its way:
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2008/06/06/intel_amd_delay/
To my knowledge Intel hasn't won a singe antitrust case yet.

AMD should design faster chips? Well, that costs money and their only competitor keeps them from getting it by means which seem to be illegal in all major economies.
Intel has the fastest x64 CPU on the planet? Intels annual R&D budget is almost 10B$, AMD had to slash it's budget to under 1B$. Great job from Intel to be 20% faster...

I don't like AMD because they are the best company ever and so on, I just want competition on the CPU market and I strongly dislike Intels way of killing competitors. Maybe that makes me an idiot...

All fanbois are idiots. by: Anonymous on 10/30/2009

Getting into religious wars over who's tech is better is just plain ignorant and shortsighted.
It's one of the reasons I never read tech forums anymore, they're full of idiots on both sides, armchair EE's and "experts" who know nothing about chip design and the theory and practice behind it.
This type of argument is on the same level as who's sports team is better and why. Just a complete waste of time.

Wow by: Anonymous on 10/30/2009

This article is about as biased as Charlie's articles. You're taking a little part of the truth without realising that AMD, for most parts, do not even compete in those areas. AMD does what is necessary for them to survive. They have recently cut their losses, they have launched new graphics cards, they are expanding into new areas, and you believe that just because they don't have a competing processor to a 975EE that comprises of about 0.1% of all PC shipments that they will be bankrupt? I understand that AMD is in a financial hardspot right now, but I have supported them before and I will continue to. For those who have supported AMD through the phenom period, myself included, the current AMD lineup are alot better and more diverse than that of 2007.

Big surprise by: Anonymous on 10/30/2009

I see a whole lot of whining and personal attacks, I don't see anyone refuting the facts or history.

Maybe he has a point.

Great by: Anonymous on 10/30/2009

Wow ... that's the greatest article I have ever read on BullShitNews. Keep going this road guys :)

author has strong bias by: Anonymous on 10/30/2009

Hmmmm Im an AMD fan and user, and I knew all of that information. What that blatant Intel fanboy, is trying to say is that AMD wasn't faster than Intel in the early 90s and therefore you shouldn't buy Phenom IIs. He probably doesn't know that Intels power comes from the fact that software isn't compiled for optimization for AMD CPUs. And as for the Phenom II not competing with i7 + i5 you only have to look at sales and performance figures to tell you the opposite, Phenom II is a great CPU and is held back limited software optimization.

Intel is not the only innovator in CPUs, for example there have been many players like DEC, Cyrix, Motorola and IBM Power PC, not to mention AMD. AMD didn't/couldn't use anti-trust practices like Intel has done in the past, and still manages to make good processors, sell them for a low price and generally compete against Intel. In my opinion, if you thought like the author of that article you could easily say that Intel fans are idiots, for exactly the same reasons he gave.

by: Anonymous on 10/30/2009

OPINION: Are all Intel fans - retards?

DISCLAIMER: The views presented in Deep Throat section represent only the personal opinions of the authors. Members of BSN*may or may not agree with the statements expressed in this article.

Deep Throat - Are all Intel fans - retards?

If Intel fans had their way we would have a total x86 monopoly with Intel as the winner. We would still be paying 4000 dollars per cpu and chipsets would be similarly priced. Floating point bugs would have to be fixed in software because there would be no other suppliers resulting in no recalled defective products. We would also be stuck on 32 bit x86 because of course 64 bit would only be necessary for business class hardware. Also memory controllers should stay on the chipset where they belong.

Most importantly, if Intel fans had their way we would only have once choice of hardware because having to pick and choose between paper and plastic at the supermarket is, you know, for suckers. Might as well keep the choice simple so our brain doesn't overload. After all it is a good thing when a corporation pays the distribution channel to effectively limit competition.

Idiots.. No, don't think so by: Anonymous on 10/30/2009

Are AMD Fans idiots…? I would say No to that question.

I learned about AMD back when I was getting a BS in Computer Engineering at the Univ. of Missouri at Columbia 87-91. At that time they just provided low cost generic x86 Intel copies. I didn’t think to much of them until they where the first in the industry to release a 64 bit architecture. That in it’s self is bold. From what I have learned Intel has followed suit on similar things although it is common knowledge that AMD can’t go blow for blow with chipzilla on all technology fronts. No big loss. Based on AMD price points they and benchmark tests they compare very respectively if not better in same price point comparisons to Intel. Which are all we as consumers really care about. I used to only go Intel since I lived on Intel MP Architecture my junior and senior years in college. Yet there is no shame in being an AMD fan boy. I find it interesting that Intel for the i7 architecture followed AMD lead on using an integrated memory controller and utilizing a similar memory interface architecture that AMD deployed in prior Opteron architectures. So from that perspective you could say there is some leap forging going on here. Yet plain and simple is AMD lacking against Intel’s best. Sure but when the rubber meets the road and I can build a rock solid gaming and entertainment PC for a fraction of what I can buy a i7 975 extreme with near performance bench marks once I have OC’d my Phenom what is there not to like about AMD.

But bottom line, isn’t it all about cost vs. performance. I would rather OC my Phenom and get an SSD then pay the same for an i7 960 with a typical SataII drive. I am confident my Phenom with an SSD will seemingly outperform the other since there is more then one IO bottle neck then just what the CPU can resolve.

by: Anonymous on 10/30/2009

THIS ARTICLE REINFORCES THE FOLLOWING SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH:

Intel Users Less Intelligent Than AMD
Thursday, 29 March 2007 21:54 Maxit

In a recent survey, a study of over 5,000 computer users concluded that people who use Intel powered computers have a lower IQ than their AMD counterparts. The study took place over a six month period and involved computer users with Intel and AMD powered computers of various specifications.

The test subjects were asked to complete a series of written and hands on tests covering basic computer skills up to more advanced tasks. The survey found that over 69% of people with Intel powered computers had greater learning difficulties and found computer related tasks more difficult compared with 31% of AMD. A whopping 78% of novice computer users with Intel processors inside their computers could not transfer and resize an image from a digital camera even with the the step by step instructions in front of them.

http://www.maxitmag.com/loose-wires/articles/intel-users-less-intelligent-than-amd.html

by: Anonymous on 10/30/2009

I dont give a shit honestly if Intel is anti-competitive, I just get AMD processors because they work fine for general processing and don't cost an arm and a leg.

Just like NVIDIA, I think Intel's own capitalist hypocrisy will be it's undoing.

by: Anonymous on 10/30/2009

Maybe people don't want to support an a$$hole monopolist PO$ like Inte£?

I've been Inte£-free for 9 years and i'm never going to give my money to an unrepentant predatory anti-consumer monopolist like Inte£

AMG Fanboy by: Anonymous on 10/30/2009

I like AMD so I guess I'm an idiot. But if you like Intel, then you’re you Sir are no rocket scientist! Intel is the Microsoft of CPU makers that also releases inferior products only a couple months later to scrap them.. Remember core 2 which became core duo? Can I say Celeron? Or is that word banned by the FCC? Then there’s the stupid socket fiasco 775, i7/1366, i7/1156, i5/1156, also an i9 and i3 hanging around somewhere and the i4137…okay that last one was a joke, but you get the point…what’s a viable upgrade plan with Intel? No one knows because at any time we could see a new socket or new chip set or both, and all that X58, P55 crap you brought at a premium price point could be worthless next year. Then there’s Intel school yard bully mentality trying to force Nvidia out of business, while using Nvidia cross licenses in every CPU it makes? If I were Nvidia I’ll do the exact same thing they’ve done, sue Intel for contract violation, and take my cross licenses and go home… where would Intel be then? Without a pot to pee in, or a window to throw it out of. I will agree however that at the moment Intel has the fastest, most expensive CPU’s, having said that AMD Phenom II’s aren’t far behind and are fast enough for silly ole me and cheaper, and lets not forget the Dragon Platform, paired with the AMD/ATI 5800, the fastest single GPU in the world and its “Badass.” What do you Intel Cheerleaders have to say about that? Oh never mind Intel doesn’t make graphic cards, well at least I don’t think Larrabee is a graphic card, but I could be wrong. (/giggle) Now lets dissect the i7 1366 for a moment A failed server chip, who’s TDP was too freaking high for server use, so with AMD nipping at Intel Core 2 duo heals with the Phenom, some half-wit Intel engineer had an epiphany to cut down the failed i7 1366 server CPU design for desktop use, TPD problem solved and it could combat the AMD Phenom’s. Brilliant! Now I know some of you are going to say that the 1366 isn’t a server chip, but why else would it have a QPI interface that was designed for servers and high end work stations? Need more evidence? Notice the 1156, QPI is gone downgraded once again to DMI. So to all you “idiots”…cough.. I mean people that brought i7 1366 I really feel sorry for you that there’s not a viable upgrade path for you guys, well maybe taking out a second mortgage to buy Gulftown which will be 1366, but maybe not X58, I bet that’s going hurt? Any who so basically i7 1366 is at EOL status 1 year of its inception, and you’re calling AMD fan boys idiots, that’s laughable, my AM3 socket looks pretty dam good right now. Now let me back up a moment to this graphics war with Nvidia and tell you why that was a really stupid move by Intel. Notwithstanding the cross licenses, from what I read about Fermi, it’s a computational GPU so is the ATI 5800, hell then dam things are superior to supercomputers from just a few years ago. Why is this revel ant? You see with GPU taking on traditional role of CPU, how long do you think it will be until the CPU is obsolete? See where this is going Intel Cheerleaders? Now why did you throw the paddle from the boat? Idiots

Wikipedia? by: Anonymous on 10/30/2009

Granted that wikipedia has tons of great info and "facts" but seriously it's getting a little silly that supposed "informed opinions" are referencing wikipedia as a source! Any middle school, high school or college kid can tell u that wikipedia cannot be used as a valid source in a paper because it's too suceptible to changes by anyone with an account. True this isn't a traditional paper but it's still a article that is making claims and stating facts that aren't being backed up by my multiple sources let alone a single solid one. I expect better of tech sites. Example of good ones in my opinion Are Techreport, Anandtech, arstechnica

by: Anonymous on 10/30/2009

All fans are idiots. We need to stop treating everything like sports teams. Just buy the better hardware for the price range you want.

you haven't got a clue by: Anonymous on 10/30/2009

just like on [H] where they banned your sorry backside, you haven't got a clue here either. Try investigating a little thing called anti trust and you might develop a slight insight into why your so called fanboys despise your beloved intel. But yes, if given any affordable dollar value, I would chose AMD over Intel any day of the week since I will get more for my money from AMD. It has always been that way and if you find it more attractive to pay more money than necessary, then I think that says all that needs to be said about your 'intel fanboy' status...

opteron by: Anonymous on 10/30/2009

of course the opterons, amd64, hypertransport, integrated memory controller, etc... have been accidentally omitted

AMD fans are not idiot by: Anonymous on 10/30/2009

But those from AMDZone are :)

Netburst by: Anonymous on 10/30/2009

Must have been netburst that was the cause of the PIII's being so far behind, oh wait, they didn't use it.
Wow, seriously?
I know this site gets ragged elsewhere but I occasionally found some interesting articles here. This was not one of them.

Oh on that note i've had more intels than amds (chipsets used to suck, and amd recently hasnt been great at the top end)

yes by: Anonymous on 10/30/2009

short answer. yes. They quote AMD's marketing guys blather as gospel.

S_Hit by: Anonymous on 10/30/2009

Is this c*rap site kissing intel and Noobidia a*ss.

AMD by: Anonymous on 10/30/2009

Idiot: mentally deficient person, or somebody who acts in a foolish, self defeating, uneducated or counterproductive way. ((no comment who would look like one))

AMD, Cyrix, ST . . . several x86 vendors were there

Was I an idiot buying AMD or Cyrix or IBM? I bought what was best insite the designated budget. Most often AMD was the way to go in the 386/486 days, same was true for K6/P2, same for Athlon/P3, same for Athlon/P4, A64/P4, C2 changed the picture, but AMD had some space. AMD is always there, it is not about fanboys it is being an alternative and having some niches you can fill.

Question to the bright: very cheap PC with integrated graphics, capable of a random game. Idiot to take AMD? Unwise not to be open minded I say.

Uroshi

((oh, this level of articles will just lead trolls to the site))

OPINION: Is Scali - an idiot? by: Anonymous on 10/30/2009

Yes.

And this article is a huge troll.
Keep your opinions to yourself in the future.

A new low for this site... by: Anonymous on 10/30/2009

... which is, in it's own right, an absolutely outstanding achievement!

Keep the excellent work, Mr Valich: technology humor sites of this level are few and far between.

Hilarious by: Radu M. Cosma on 10/30/2009

Now, do one about Apple fanboys! :D

great by: Anonymous on 10/30/2009

Very good article. Thank you :)

AMD sucks big time. Never again will buy anything from AMD. Never.

Historically accurate but still a little bias by: Anonymous on 10/30/2009

Yep, AMD only pulled ahead of Intel because Netburst sucked. That much, in my opinion, is true. But what is missing from the story above is the story of how AMD has gained on Intel. Is AMD still behind? Yes, but not as far behind as they used to be.

The other thing this guy hasn't wrapped his head around is that there are a lot of "AMD fanboys" out there that only have a problem with Intel because of the company's business practices.

AMD does need to put up or shut up though. It's 3.5 years since Core 2 debuted and AMD still has not caught up in terms of instructions per clock.

Are all Intel fans really ARM lovers? by: solidusprime on 10/30/2009

Strange article not really compelling enough to convicne anyone excpet maybe sooth the authors giant ego.

"So, basically Netburst was just an anomaly" this is the kind of quote that proves Scali is jumping to conclusions. Intel put a lot of money and hope into Netburst it was a mistake by Intel and mistakes can and are (Larabee) still happening. Intel is facing pressure from AMD with bulldozer and more an more upward pressure from ARM, being an Intel fan is not so easy anymore so they have to re-trench to not get scared. The articles existance is proof enough Intel is feeling the pressure.

by: Anonymous on 10/30/2009

I'm with AMD since k6. They are cheap and very reliable. You have to be an idiot fanboy not to use AMD.