-
You heard it here first: Black Friday 2024 has arrived!
- Status
@ Jane
No, I'm grateful you posted their response... but maybe it would have been better if Kevin had done it, and added a little of his boarder-line inappropriate zing to it to spice it up. Or you could have simply inserted a 'vagina' somewhere in there to add more to the discussion :3
No, I'm grateful you posted their response... but maybe it would have been better if Kevin had done it, and added a little of his boarder-line inappropriate zing to it to spice it up. Or you could have simply inserted a 'vagina' somewhere in there to add more to the discussion :3
CPU+,
I disagree, AMD used to make some nice processors when they were cloning, and the K6-III was pretty good too. The K7 and later sucked, but luckily for them, Intel had a lousy design at the time too.
Really, if you look at what they did under Jerry Sanders, they had a lot of interesting processors. They were generally one generation behind Intel when they were cloning, and after the 386, but their 286s were better than Intel's, their 386s were better than Intel's, and their 486s were better than Intel's (mainly because Intel wasn't working on them anymore). So, for someone needing previous generation hardware, AMD really made some decent processors at a good price.
The K6 was a very nice processor, especially the K6-III. It wasn't as fast as the Pentium II or Pentium III, but it was a lot smaller and used a lot less power. For the size and power of the processor, it was a really strong design. The problem was with the Super 7 chipsets
.
The K7 was a poor design, but was big enough it didn't matter so much. Despite coming out four years after the Pentium III, and being much larger and using much more power, it struggled with it. Luckily, the Pentium 4 sucked, and AMD was able to keep the K7 alive to this day. That's the problem, it wasn't very good to begin with, and it's now almost 10 years later and AMD is still making K7s, although they have made minor modifications to it. Maybe the Bulldozer will be good, though, they've had enough time to work on a new design, after all. It better be a new design. It's not like the P6 design which was good from the beginning, and thus was a good basis for the processors we see today. The K7 is fundamentally flawed, and they need the new processor to be fundamentally different. But, I'm hopeful they can do it.
I disagree, AMD used to make some nice processors when they were cloning, and the K6-III was pretty good too. The K7 and later sucked, but luckily for them, Intel had a lousy design at the time too.
Really, if you look at what they did under Jerry Sanders, they had a lot of interesting processors. They were generally one generation behind Intel when they were cloning, and after the 386, but their 286s were better than Intel's, their 386s were better than Intel's, and their 486s were better than Intel's (mainly because Intel wasn't working on them anymore). So, for someone needing previous generation hardware, AMD really made some decent processors at a good price.
The K6 was a very nice processor, especially the K6-III. It wasn't as fast as the Pentium II or Pentium III, but it was a lot smaller and used a lot less power. For the size and power of the processor, it was a really strong design. The problem was with the Super 7 chipsets
.The K7 was a poor design, but was big enough it didn't matter so much. Despite coming out four years after the Pentium III, and being much larger and using much more power, it struggled with it. Luckily, the Pentium 4 sucked, and AMD was able to keep the K7 alive to this day. That's the problem, it wasn't very good to begin with, and it's now almost 10 years later and AMD is still making K7s, although they have made minor modifications to it. Maybe the Bulldozer will be good, though, they've had enough time to work on a new design, after all. It better be a new design. It's not like the P6 design which was good from the beginning, and thus was a good basis for the processors we see today. The K7 is fundamentally flawed, and they need the new processor to be fundamentally different. But, I'm hopeful they can do it.
- Aug 25, 2007
- 8,445
- 0
- 30,780
[citation][nom]gto127[/nom]Does AMD receive any of this fine money? They are the ones that were hurt because of Intel's action.[/citation]
As far as I'm aware, the money from Intel goes to the EU's central budget, which, according to the Commission, reduces the contributions that Member States pay to the EU.
As far as I'm aware, the money from Intel goes to the EU's central budget, which, according to the Commission, reduces the contributions that Member States pay to the EU.
[citation][nom]article - Jane McEntegart[/nom]Varney said the Department of Justice will be "aggressively pursuing cases where monopolists try to use their dominance in the marketplace to stifle competition and harm consumers”[/citation]
...ummm? what about that town in North Carolina - Wilson? and their company Greenlight? isn't Time Warner and Embarq doing exactly the same things that the Varney/DOJ are claiming they will pursue? Or does this example not count because it is two company's teaming up together to stifle competition and paying off govt. officials to try to make competition illegal?
...ummm? what about that town in North Carolina - Wilson? and their company Greenlight? isn't Time Warner and Embarq doing exactly the same things that the Varney/DOJ are claiming they will pursue? Or does this example not count because it is two company's teaming up together to stifle competition and paying off govt. officials to try to make competition illegal?
puddleglum
Distinguished
- Dec 3, 2008
- 124
- 0
- 18,680
If AMD is really as bad as all that, Intel would have no reason to pay it's costomers to avoid them.
theGhOst
I don't know about Wilson NC, but almost all of rural counties in NC has or had instances where Co-Ops were started in the county to provide a utility service. These Co-Ops (owned publicly by the community)ran as monopolies until larger/national companies started to move into the area. Local governments allowed each company to operate in certain areas without interference or competition. One to protect the Co-Ops and two it entices companies to come to the area if there is guaranteed no competition bringing jobs and the illusion of competition for the local government.
For example in my home town of West Jefferson you can only purchase internet or phone service from the local Co-Op, if you live in Jefferson (less then a mile away) you can only purchase internet and phone service from Embarq. There is a local cable company that works within city limits of both towns, but to my knowledge they don't offer internet. To put the area into perspective the county has a population of 25,000 and the "cities" have less then 1,500 people (sadly that's the largest population in the county) each, so the DoJ doesn't really care as far as I can tell.
I don't know about Wilson NC, but almost all of rural counties in NC has or had instances where Co-Ops were started in the county to provide a utility service. These Co-Ops (owned publicly by the community)ran as monopolies until larger/national companies started to move into the area. Local governments allowed each company to operate in certain areas without interference or competition. One to protect the Co-Ops and two it entices companies to come to the area if there is guaranteed no competition bringing jobs and the illusion of competition for the local government.
For example in my home town of West Jefferson you can only purchase internet or phone service from the local Co-Op, if you live in Jefferson (less then a mile away) you can only purchase internet and phone service from Embarq. There is a local cable company that works within city limits of both towns, but to my knowledge they don't offer internet. To put the area into perspective the county has a population of 25,000 and the "cities" have less then 1,500 people (sadly that's the largest population in the county) each, so the DoJ doesn't really care as far as I can tell.
chrisatamd
Distinguished
- May 14, 2009
- 3
- 0
- 18,510
Great discussion guys! I agree that there wasn't much said in the article above about how we (AMD) have reacted to it or where we stand on the ruling itself. If you are interested, have a look at some our official statements, blogs and mainstream press that does a good job of explaining our perspective.
Official response and quote from AMD CEO Dirk Meyer:
http://budurl.com/EUAFP
Blog posts from our CMO, Nigel Dessau and VP Pat Moorhead:
Nigel: http://links.amd.com/EURuling
Pat talks about the impacts on innovation: http://links.amd.com/EUInnovation
Some quotes from various news sites and sources on FriendFeed: http://budurl.com/IntelvEUArt
We also like what was written the San Jose Mercury News and CNN:
SJMN: http://budurl.com/SJEXEC
CNN and Fortune: http://budurl.com/credloss
Keep commenting & discussing. Understanding how this ruling impacts YOU, the consumer, is critical to making sure Intel and AMD both are delivering the products and technology you demand - at the price that makes sense to your budget.
AMD welcomes your reactions and responses to these announcements. You can contact me directly via Twitter (@tweetoe) or chime in on our blogs: http://blogs.amd.com/. Cheers!
Official response and quote from AMD CEO Dirk Meyer:
http://budurl.com/EUAFP
Blog posts from our CMO, Nigel Dessau and VP Pat Moorhead:
Nigel: http://links.amd.com/EURuling
Pat talks about the impacts on innovation: http://links.amd.com/EUInnovation
Some quotes from various news sites and sources on FriendFeed: http://budurl.com/IntelvEUArt
We also like what was written the San Jose Mercury News and CNN:
SJMN: http://budurl.com/SJEXEC
CNN and Fortune: http://budurl.com/credloss
Keep commenting & discussing. Understanding how this ruling impacts YOU, the consumer, is critical to making sure Intel and AMD both are delivering the products and technology you demand - at the price that makes sense to your budget.
AMD welcomes your reactions and responses to these announcements. You can contact me directly via Twitter (@tweetoe) or chime in on our blogs: http://blogs.amd.com/. Cheers!
the DOJ's top antitrust official. In a speech to the Center for American Progress, Varney said the Department of Justice will be "aggressively pursuing cases where monopolists try to use their dominance in the marketplace to stifle competition and harm consumers.”
Why arent they going after all the cable companies in the US then?
Why arent they going after all the cable companies in the US then?
razzb3d
Distinguished
- Apr 2, 2009
- 163
- 0
- 18,690
[citation][nom]ta152h[/nom]CPU+,I disagree, AMD used to make some nice processors when they were cloning, and the K6-III was pretty good too. The K7 and later sucked, but luckily for them, Intel had a lousy design at the time too. Really, if you look at what they did under Jerry Sanders, they had a lot of interesting processors. They were generally one generation behind Intel when they were cloning, and after the 386, but their 286s were better than Intel's, their 386s were better than Intel's, and their 486s were better than Intel's (mainly because Intel wasn't working on them anymore). So, for someone needing previous generation hardware, AMD really made some decent processors at a good price.The K6 was a very nice processor, especially the K6-III. It wasn't as fast as the Pentium II or Pentium III, but it was a lot smaller and used a lot less power. For the size and power of the processor, it was a really strong design. The problem was with the Super 7 chipsets .The K7 was a poor design, but was big enough it didn't matter so much. Despite coming out four years after the Pentium III, and being much larger and using much more power, it struggled with it. Luckily, the Pentium 4 sucked, and AMD was able to keep the K7 alive to this day. That's the problem, it wasn't very good to begin with, and it's now almost 10 years later and AMD is still making K7s, although they have made minor modifications to it. Maybe the Bulldozer will be good, though, they've had enough time to work on a new design, after all. It better be a new design. It's not like the P6 design which was good from the beginning, and thus was a good basis for the processors we see today. The K7 is fundamentally flawed, and they need the new processor to be fundamentally different. But, I'm hopeful they can do it.[/citation]
You should SERIOUSLLY STOP TALKING.
1 AMD's K6III procesor wasn't as good as the PII.
- The K6III CPU MOPPED THE FLOOR WITH THE PII, and all of the PIIIs at the same frequency. Unfortunatly for AMD, they were released to late.
2. AMD's K7 design was bad - AMD's K7 was the first CPU to reach the 1GHz milestone. Also, compared to Intel's SHITTY P4 Williamette, the K7 Thunderbird was faster and most stabe. The only users that experienced problems with these chips bought cheap crappy motherboards, poorly constructed with cheap components and minimalist design. (Jetway, PCChips, ECS Elitegroup) are just some manufacturers that spewd out these toiletpaper quality mainboards. As for "who's got the best CPU", just pin a AMD Barton 3200+ against a 3GHz P4 Northwood. The Soket 478 CPUs were JUST BAD, and Intel suffered because of it.
3. AMD never made any quality products.
- Perhaps you are conveniently forgetting the launch of the AMD 64 series of CPUs? At the time they were the fastest CPUs avadible, and way cheaper than Intel's LGA775 series Chips. (most of them at least). I remember lots Intel owners asking me to build them AMD Opteron or AMD Athlon FX sistems.
Read up before saying stuff like this, it only makes you look stupid.
You should SERIOUSLLY STOP TALKING.
1 AMD's K6III procesor wasn't as good as the PII.
- The K6III CPU MOPPED THE FLOOR WITH THE PII, and all of the PIIIs at the same frequency. Unfortunatly for AMD, they were released to late.
2. AMD's K7 design was bad - AMD's K7 was the first CPU to reach the 1GHz milestone. Also, compared to Intel's SHITTY P4 Williamette, the K7 Thunderbird was faster and most stabe. The only users that experienced problems with these chips bought cheap crappy motherboards, poorly constructed with cheap components and minimalist design. (Jetway, PCChips, ECS Elitegroup) are just some manufacturers that spewd out these toiletpaper quality mainboards. As for "who's got the best CPU", just pin a AMD Barton 3200+ against a 3GHz P4 Northwood. The Soket 478 CPUs were JUST BAD, and Intel suffered because of it.
3. AMD never made any quality products.
- Perhaps you are conveniently forgetting the launch of the AMD 64 series of CPUs? At the time they were the fastest CPUs avadible, and way cheaper than Intel's LGA775 series Chips. (most of them at least). I remember lots Intel owners asking me to build them AMD Opteron or AMD Athlon FX sistems.
Read up before saying stuff like this, it only makes you look stupid.
- Aug 25, 2007
- 8,445
- 0
- 30,780
[citation][nom]fucable[/nom]the DOJ's top antitrust official. In a speech to the Center for American Progress, Varney said the Department of Justice will be "aggressively pursuing cases where monopolists try to use their dominance in the marketplace to stifle competition and harm consumers.” Why arent they going after all the cable companies in the US then?[/citation]
They said it on Monday, it's been four days. Give them a chance. Bush had eight years and didn't go after the cable companies.
They said it on Monday, it's been four days. Give them a chance. Bush had eight years and didn't go after the cable companies.
- Aug 25, 2007
- 8,445
- 0
- 30,780
[citation][nom]starryman[/nom]OK so who benefits??? Sure AMD will have better access but where does that $1.5 go? Does it go to AMD? Does it go to the US Government? Or do those pricks at the EU have another payday? Bottom line EU sux.[/citation]
[citation][nom]starryman[/nom]EU = Anti-American.[/citation]
The EU is representing the millions of European customers who were affected by Intel's actions. If the the charges are coming from the EU, the fines are coming from the EU and the actions in question relate to Intel's actions in EUROPE, why would the US Government see any of that money?
The European Commission does not exist to fight on the behalf of the American consumer. If the US government feels Intel's actions were anticompetitive/America was affected by Intel's actions, it needs to address that issue with it's own lawsuit.
As far as I'm aware, the money from Intel goes to the EU's central budget, which, according to the Commission, reduces the contributions that Member States pay to the EU. In other words, that money goes to the countries who were affected by Intel's actions.
[citation][nom]starryman[/nom]EU = Anti-American.[/citation]
The EU is representing the millions of European customers who were affected by Intel's actions. If the the charges are coming from the EU, the fines are coming from the EU and the actions in question relate to Intel's actions in EUROPE, why would the US Government see any of that money?
The European Commission does not exist to fight on the behalf of the American consumer. If the US government feels Intel's actions were anticompetitive/America was affected by Intel's actions, it needs to address that issue with it's own lawsuit.
As far as I'm aware, the money from Intel goes to the EU's central budget, which, according to the Commission, reduces the contributions that Member States pay to the EU. In other words, that money goes to the countries who were affected by Intel's actions.
chrisatamd
Distinguished
- May 14, 2009
- 3
- 0
- 18,510
JMnEntegart is correct. If you read the FAQs related to the findings from the EU (http://budurl.com/EUFAQ) it state clearly that the money goes back to the EU central budget.
AMD won't see any monies directly from this fine.
Here are direct quotes from that document:
Did the Commission co-operate with the United States on this case?
The Commission and the United States Federal Trade Commission have kept each other regularly and closely informed on the state of play of their respective Intel investigations. These discussions have been held in a co-operative and friendly atmosphere, and have been substantively fruitful in terms of sharing experiences on issues of common interest.
Does Intel have to pay the fine immediately?
The fine must be paid within three months of the date of notification of the Decision.
Where does the money go?
Once final judgment has been delivered in any appeals before the Court of First Instance (CFI) and the Court of Justice, the money goes into the EU’s central budget, thus reducing the contributions that Member States pay to the EU.
Hope that helps clear up some common misconceptions about the ruling.
AMD won't see any monies directly from this fine.
Here are direct quotes from that document:
Did the Commission co-operate with the United States on this case?
The Commission and the United States Federal Trade Commission have kept each other regularly and closely informed on the state of play of their respective Intel investigations. These discussions have been held in a co-operative and friendly atmosphere, and have been substantively fruitful in terms of sharing experiences on issues of common interest.
Does Intel have to pay the fine immediately?
The fine must be paid within three months of the date of notification of the Decision.
Where does the money go?
Once final judgment has been delivered in any appeals before the Court of First Instance (CFI) and the Court of Justice, the money goes into the EU’s central budget, thus reducing the contributions that Member States pay to the EU.
Hope that helps clear up some common misconceptions about the ruling.
Gin Fushicho
Distinguished
- Mar 11, 2009
- 1,777
- 0
- 19,790
- Sep 14, 2005
- 3,038
- 1
- 20,810
Given the fact that none of these supposed 'infractions' actually happened in the EU, it does look like a bit of EU money-grubbing. As well, AMD has (had, it's globalfoundries now) a large MFG plant in Germany, mostly subsidised by the Germans, so that makes it look to be a bit of a conflict of interest.
Perhaps the EU's consumers would rather that PC's sold within the EU reflect the single unit price of any product used rather than the tray price / lot price? I'm sure that would please AMD/ATI, Intel and Nvidia to no end. It would also raise the prices of, say, netbooks to almost Apple prices. That would please Apple as well...
Perhaps the EU's consumers would rather that PC's sold within the EU reflect the single unit price of any product used rather than the tray price / lot price? I'm sure that would please AMD/ATI, Intel and Nvidia to no end. It would also raise the prices of, say, netbooks to almost Apple prices. That would please Apple as well...
i wish intel will put AMD out of business.Amd processor suck an they have so many names to confused consumer ! what the meaning of 3500++
??? intel is very clear : dual core or core 2 duo. How many LGA 775 motherboard available compare to AM2 or AM3? I learned at a computer science technical school that INTEL processor are 3 times faster , for example AMD 1 GHZ processor is the equivalent of Pentium II 450 MGHZ processor and it's true.I have AMD 1 GHZ and the computer restart all the times!!!
i think you to be a real geek to used AMD !!
I leave in africa in the country name Cameroon.We have two major problem:
sometimes they shutdown electricity without notice and the sun
you put a pentium equiped machine in the sun all day like those secretary working outside by 35°C , no problem but AMD even with 30 °C
the processor and the motherboard blow up.
LONG LIVE INTEL !!!!!!!!!!!!!
??? intel is very clear : dual core or core 2 duo. How many LGA 775 motherboard available compare to AM2 or AM3? I learned at a computer science technical school that INTEL processor are 3 times faster , for example AMD 1 GHZ processor is the equivalent of Pentium II 450 MGHZ processor and it's true.I have AMD 1 GHZ and the computer restart all the times!!!
i think you to be a real geek to used AMD !!
I leave in africa in the country name Cameroon.We have two major problem:
sometimes they shutdown electricity without notice and the sun
you put a pentium equiped machine in the sun all day like those secretary working outside by 35°C , no problem but AMD even with 30 °C
the processor and the motherboard blow up.
LONG LIVE INTEL !!!!!!!!!!!!!
I would not buy an AMD processor ever again. I threw out 3 AMD based computers in 4 years during my AMD phase then got a P4 in 2004. Still have the p4 playing games that came out last year.
There was nothing wrong with AMD processors in themselves, it was the chipsets that let them down. That is why AMD is cheap, you had to constantly install 4in1 drivers and it still never was quite 100%.
If the EU forces shops to stock AMD based stuff the shops will go broke.
There was nothing wrong with AMD processors in themselves, it was the chipsets that let them down. That is why AMD is cheap, you had to constantly install 4in1 drivers and it still never was quite 100%.
If the EU forces shops to stock AMD based stuff the shops will go broke.
jimmysmitty
Champion
- Oct 5, 2007
- 21,598
- 599
- 59,140
[citation][nom]pc_gi[/nom]Intel's procs are way way way too expensive. I use only Intel but I wish they had prices like AMD. And I'm sure most Intel users feel the same way. Maybe this SMALL chunk of money will help them start making the right decisions and hold the consumer in their better interests. But that's not at all whats really going to happen. Greed greed greed.[/citation]
Um what? Do you not remember the X2 supreme years? FX chips much like Intels Extreme chips at $1K+? The top performance will always charge a premium. And you better bet that is AMD has the best performer (and I mean blows Intel away) again their CPUs will cost more than they do now by a large margin. Its just simple business economics. He who reigns supreme, charges supreme.
And of course AMD would be happy.
But I wounder if they will get in trouble for giving some of their CPUs away for free like they did during that time. Even if Intel was doing something giving CPUs away for free is illegal too.....
Um what? Do you not remember the X2 supreme years? FX chips much like Intels Extreme chips at $1K+? The top performance will always charge a premium. And you better bet that is AMD has the best performer (and I mean blows Intel away) again their CPUs will cost more than they do now by a large margin. Its just simple business economics. He who reigns supreme, charges supreme.
And of course AMD would be happy.
But I wounder if they will get in trouble for giving some of their CPUs away for free like they did during that time. Even if Intel was doing something giving CPUs away for free is illegal too.....
jimmysmitty
Champion
- Oct 5, 2007
- 21,598
- 599
- 59,140
[citation][nom]razzb3d[/nom]You should SERIOUSLLY STOP TALKING.1 AMD's K6III procesor wasn't as good as the PII.- The K6III CPU MOPPED THE FLOOR WITH THE PII, and all of the PIIIs at the same frequency. Unfortunatly for AMD, they were released to late.2. AMD's K7 design was bad - AMD's K7 was the first CPU to reach the 1GHz milestone. Also, compared to Intel's SHITTY P4 Williamette, the K7 Thunderbird was faster and most stabe. The only users that experienced problems with these chips bought cheap crappy motherboards, poorly constructed with cheap components and minimalist design. (Jetway, PCChips, ECS Elitegroup) are just some manufacturers that spewd out these toiletpaper quality mainboards. As for "who's got the best CPU", just pin a AMD Barton 3200+ against a 3GHz P4 Northwood. The Soket 478 CPUs were JUST BAD, and Intel suffered because of it.3. AMD never made any quality products. - Perhaps you are conveniently forgetting the launch of the AMD 64 series of CPUs? At the time they were the fastest CPUs avadible, and way cheaper than Intel's LGA775 series Chips. (most of them at least). I remember lots Intel owners asking me to build them AMD Opteron or AMD Athlon FX sistems. Read up before saying stuff like this, it only makes you look stupid.[/citation]
Um from what I remember AMDs A64 was released with K8 which was directly competing with Pentium 4 which was on the S478. LGA775 was released mainly for conversion to dual core and was in direct competition with Athlon 64 X2.
K7 was ok. It wasn't AMDs fault mainly it was the fact that they had no chipsets of their own and had to rely on VIA/SIS to create them and they sucked. A friend of mines mobo wouldn't recognize his CPU at its correct speed. Had to set it lower than the stock manually to get it to run.
[citation][nom]demonhorde665[/nom]this is the dumbest thing i have ever seen any one write on this site .... wow i'm speechless... tell me you are making a joke , because any one with half a brain knows k6-II was a terrible processor , k6-III was mediocre and k7 (the athlon ) was one of amd's best processors ever , and no they don't still make k7's they are curently on k8/9/10 now (phenom II being the k10).seriously dude either you are A: making a really funy joke B: you don't really know what you are talking aboutC: you got dropped on your head alot as a baby D: all of the above sorry for repost but damn this site needs an edit button ... and i need to get some sleep[/citation]
Um there is no K9. They skipped it for K10. And both Phenom and Phenom II are K10. Phenom II is actually considered K10.5. Other than that I agree to a point.
Um from what I remember AMDs A64 was released with K8 which was directly competing with Pentium 4 which was on the S478. LGA775 was released mainly for conversion to dual core and was in direct competition with Athlon 64 X2.
K7 was ok. It wasn't AMDs fault mainly it was the fact that they had no chipsets of their own and had to rely on VIA/SIS to create them and they sucked. A friend of mines mobo wouldn't recognize his CPU at its correct speed. Had to set it lower than the stock manually to get it to run.
[citation][nom]demonhorde665[/nom]this is the dumbest thing i have ever seen any one write on this site .... wow i'm speechless... tell me you are making a joke , because any one with half a brain knows k6-II was a terrible processor , k6-III was mediocre and k7 (the athlon ) was one of amd's best processors ever , and no they don't still make k7's they are curently on k8/9/10 now (phenom II being the k10).seriously dude either you are A: making a really funy joke B: you don't really know what you are talking aboutC: you got dropped on your head alot as a baby D: all of the above sorry for repost but damn this site needs an edit button ... and i need to get some sleep[/citation]
Um there is no K9. They skipped it for K10. And both Phenom and Phenom II are K10. Phenom II is actually considered K10.5. Other than that I agree to a point.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Review AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D Review: Devastating Gaming Performance- Started by Admin
- Replies: 202
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
Question Disk Management Showing A SSD That Isn't There? (Windows)
- Started by GeneralT001
- Replies: 30
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram