- Jan 10, 2006
- 2,363
- 1
- 20,015
First off it's great to be posting here again. I haven't been on TomsHardware for over 2 years now for reasons I won't disclose as they are unimportant. Recently I had a run-in with some folks over at AMDZone who seemed to live in a twilight zone of sorts. They had these odd (and false) beliefs regarding historical events involving AMD & Intel and were spreading this "FUD" around unhinged
That having been said I tackled their belief structures and refuted their arguments with clear evidence and I was met with... a ban. I remained respectful throughout the exchanges (something I rarely do) but even that was not enough. After I had defeated the best "minds" they had to offer the admin "The_Ghost" decided that I was a threat to their "alternate point of view" and banned me.
Slightly frustrated from the encounter I decided that the lies end here. So open up your textbooks friends we're going to have a look at some inaccurate claims made by AMD fanbois.
1.
This is quite a misleading statement but I see it parroted all around the web as though it were fact. The truth is a tad more complex and requires some clear and concise historical knowledge regarding a former large player in the CPU business known as DEC.
Digital Equipment Corporation was a pioneering American company in the computer industry. It is often referred to within the computing industry as DEC (this acronym was frequently officially used by Digital itself, but the trademark was always DIGITAL).
In May 1997, DEC sued Intel for allegedly infringing on its Alpha patents in designing the Pentium chips. As part of a settlement, DEC's chip business was sold to Intel. This included DEC's StrongARM implementation of the ARM computer architecture, which Intel sold as the XScale processors commonly used in Pocket PCs. (read more about it here: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/1997/10/8024).
Shortly after (in 1998) DEC sold it's Alpha CPU division to Compaq Computers: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-207442.html
This is of particular importance as now Compaq began working closely with AMD and had now licensed two bus technologies to AMD. The Alpha EV6 and EV7 buses. The Alpha EV6 bus was the DDR bus employed on the AMD K7 (Athlon/XP) while the EV7 was the building block for a scaled down point to point interconnect to be used on a future AMD project known as K8 (yes talking about HyperTransport here).
Then in 2001 it all changed. Intel bought the Alpha CPU division from Compaq: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,1000000091,2089920,00.htm
Of course Monopoly laws came into play as Intel would now control far too much Intellectual Property therefore a deal was brokered: Samsung, IBM and AMD would all receive rights to the Alpha Intellectual Property and thus HyperTransport was born.
What is important to note here is that INTEL not AMD owns the true Intellectual Property for the EV7 bus with AMD being a licensee. Therefore QPi did not copy HyperTransport but rather both are based to a large degree on the same IP (EV7 bus).
2.
This one is just false. Intel were actually the first to integrate a memory controller onto an x86 architecture based processor. In fact Intel did so on the mobile variant of their 386 and 486 processors as seen here: http://smithsonianchips.si.edu/intel/i386sx.htm
3.
Partially False. To start off, having a "native" anything is not a large accomplishment as it means nothing for performance. That having been said AMD were the first to introduce a "native" quad core part but not the first to introduce a native six core part. That award goes to the Intel Dunnington based processors: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-9878131-37.html
Anyways.. that is all for now
Next time I'll tackle QPi vs. HyperTransport.
Peace.
That having been said I tackled their belief structures and refuted their arguments with clear evidence and I was met with... a ban. I remained respectful throughout the exchanges (something I rarely do) but even that was not enough. After I had defeated the best "minds" they had to offer the admin "The_Ghost" decided that I was a threat to their "alternate point of view" and banned me.
Slightly frustrated from the encounter I decided that the lies end here. So open up your textbooks friends we're going to have a look at some inaccurate claims made by AMD fanbois.
1.
This is quite a misleading statement but I see it parroted all around the web as though it were fact. The truth is a tad more complex and requires some clear and concise historical knowledge regarding a former large player in the CPU business known as DEC.
Digital Equipment Corporation was a pioneering American company in the computer industry. It is often referred to within the computing industry as DEC (this acronym was frequently officially used by Digital itself, but the trademark was always DIGITAL).
In May 1997, DEC sued Intel for allegedly infringing on its Alpha patents in designing the Pentium chips. As part of a settlement, DEC's chip business was sold to Intel. This included DEC's StrongARM implementation of the ARM computer architecture, which Intel sold as the XScale processors commonly used in Pocket PCs. (read more about it here: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/1997/10/8024).
Shortly after (in 1998) DEC sold it's Alpha CPU division to Compaq Computers: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-207442.html
This is of particular importance as now Compaq began working closely with AMD and had now licensed two bus technologies to AMD. The Alpha EV6 and EV7 buses. The Alpha EV6 bus was the DDR bus employed on the AMD K7 (Athlon/XP) while the EV7 was the building block for a scaled down point to point interconnect to be used on a future AMD project known as K8 (yes talking about HyperTransport here).
Then in 2001 it all changed. Intel bought the Alpha CPU division from Compaq: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,1000000091,2089920,00.htm
Of course Monopoly laws came into play as Intel would now control far too much Intellectual Property therefore a deal was brokered: Samsung, IBM and AMD would all receive rights to the Alpha Intellectual Property and thus HyperTransport was born.
What is important to note here is that INTEL not AMD owns the true Intellectual Property for the EV7 bus with AMD being a licensee. Therefore QPi did not copy HyperTransport but rather both are based to a large degree on the same IP (EV7 bus).
2.
This one is just false. Intel were actually the first to integrate a memory controller onto an x86 architecture based processor. In fact Intel did so on the mobile variant of their 386 and 486 processors as seen here: http://smithsonianchips.si.edu/intel/i386sx.htm
3.
Partially False. To start off, having a "native" anything is not a large accomplishment as it means nothing for performance. That having been said AMD were the first to introduce a "native" quad core part but not the first to introduce a native six core part. That award goes to the Intel Dunnington based processors: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-9878131-37.html
Anyways.. that is all for now
Next time I'll tackle QPi vs. HyperTransport.Peace.
Now, if you post the same thing for Intel fanboys, I will support you to the full.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram