AMD vs. Intel: Refuting Historical Inaccuracies

[Cryslayer80]

As Randomizer said, the TLB was over-hyped despite what some of the threads I may have created said... LOL. However, it was enough to create a stop-ship order for Barcelona Opterons.

The main issue with Phenom I was that AMD simply couldn't clock it high enough. The monolithic (aka native, "real", etc...) design that was supposedly superior to Intel's MCM design didn't allow them flexibility in manufacturing.

When your making all four cores at once your processor is only as fast as its slowest core. So if you have 2 cores that can run at 1.9 ghz, and 2 cores that can run at 2.3 ghz, the processor can only be a 1.9ghz processor.

However, Intel's design allowed them to come to market with a Quad Core a year early and also allowed them to pair up two similarly performing dual cores. So while AMD was trying to accomplish a difficult goal, making four fast cores, Intel only had to make two fast cores and pair them together.

Yes, the MCM approach did change the performance of the processor, it changed it for the better.

AMD Fanboys cried until they will blue in the face trying to say that Intel's quad wasn't "real". However, the benchmarks and results were very real, and it was just a lame attempt to discredit a great product due to fanboyism.

This also lead to another popular AMD Fanboy myth, that the FSB was saturated. While it may have been under very unusual workloads, for the average user wanting to play games at the time and perform other tasks, it most certainly was not saturated. AMD Fanboys would try to argue that despite what benchmarks said, that AMD processors were somehow faster.

AMD's inability to have a quad core also lead to their decision to make a "dual socket enthusiast platform" called QuadFX. So instead of gluing double cheeseburger together in a single package, they did even worse, they glued them together on a single motherboard using two sockets, and that was their "quad core" solution. This was the birth of the need of a kilowatt power supply.

Barcelona simply didn't perform up to expectations and was not any where near Intel's top end, in fact, they couldn't even match the performance of AMD's slowest quad-core which had been out for over a year. Phenom II has closed the gap significantly, but as you can tell by the Phenom II X4 965's $250 price tag, they simply don't offer a product that can compete with more expensive Intel processors currently. However, because most people don't purchase processors that cost more than $250, AMD seems to be surviving by offering only budget and (lower) mid-range products. AMD's processors also seem to have more (and cheaper) motherboard options then Intel, especially the i7 line.

All in all, for a budget system it's a toss up, but if you want to go into the mid-range and beyond Intel is the only show in town (although this won't matter for most people, as we don't want to pay our early-adopter tax).

Yeah OMG AMD all midrange. Only n00bs pay just $250 for a CPU even though it is able to catch up with a $1000 CPU. But who cares, ME'S WANT INTEL AND ME'S GONNA PAY DA PRICE. ME SMART. AMD DOOOWN LOW END $250 CPUs. THAT IS LOOOOW!!!! I7 WIIIN!!!

 

[SpidersWeb]

so why didn't AMD releasde a better stepping for the Phenom II

I beleive it's due out in 2010.
It will be welcomed by all, but it's a bit late.
That's AMD's solution at present, a new stepping + 6 core option.

Should help them keep the 'best noticable performance for your dollar' but I'm not expecting crap-myself performance increases.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

ES samples are out, and the new stepping should hit soon, as the NDA lifts soon

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

Yeah OMG AMD all midrange. Only n00bs pay just $250 for a CPU even though it is able to catch up with a $1000 CPU. But who cares, ME'S WANT INTEL AND ME'S GONNA PAY DA PRICE. ME SMART. AMD DOOOWN LOW END $250 CPUs. THAT IS LOOOOW!!!! I7 WIIIN!!!

Dude, did you even read my posts? Or is your bias that strong?


"although this won't matter for most people, as we don't want to pay our early-adopter tax"

"However, because most people don't purchase processors that cost more than $250, AMD seems to be surviving by offering only budget and (lower) mid-range products. AMD's processors also seem to have more (and cheaper) motherboard options then Intel, especially the i7 line."

That's me saying that it doesn't matter for the average Joe that Intel has parts selling for more than $250, as most people don't buy them because the price premium (early adopter tax) is too great.

I know it's tough to read all the historically accurate stuff about how much the Barcelona, Agena, and Quad FX launches sucked, but it's the truth. The good news is, that as I said, "Phenom II has closed the gap significantly".

We all acknowledge that AMD has excellent choices for people, and many times people on a budget are going to be driven to AMD.

Now it's time for you to open your eyes and lower your bias and admit that Intel's top end exists, and AMD has nothing to compete with those processors, AMD admits this itself via its own pricing. That doesn't take away from AMD great offerings for the budget\low-mid range buyers.

 

[fazers_on_stun]

well if they weren't good, AMD is bound to have a lot of stock left over

Actually a good portion of AMD's (GF's) production is still on 65nm, which means Barcelona and P1. They have to amortize the cost of that fab equipment somehow, since they probably don't need the tax breaks due to lack of profits 😀.

 

[Cryslayer80]

Dude, did you even read my posts? Or is your bias that strong?


"although this won't matter for most people, as we don't want to pay our early-adopter tax"

"However, because most people don't purchase processors that cost more than $250, AMD seems to be surviving by offering only budget and (lower) mid-range products. AMD's processors also seem to have more (and cheaper) motherboard options then Intel, especially the i7 line."

That's me saying that it doesn't matter for the average Joe that Intel has parts selling for more than $250, as most people don't buy them because the price premium (early adopter tax) is too great.

I know it's tough to read all the historically accurate stuff about how much the Barcelona, Agena, and Quad FX launches sucked, but it's the truth. The good news is, that as I said, "Phenom II has closed the gap significantly".

We all acknowledge that AMD has excellent choices for people, and many times people on a budget are going to be driven to AMD.

Now it's time for you to open your eyes and lower your bias and admit that Intel's top end exists, and AMD has nothing to compete with those processors, AMD admits this itself via its own pricing. That doesn't take away from AMD great offerings for the budget\low-mid range buyers.

In it's pricing, AMD shows it's stupidity, not admittance. They could easily bring out a mildly overclocked $1000 chip that will make it look like they have the fastest processor out there to people like you. But, whatever... AMD BUDGET! AMD NO GO HIGH END!!! NO!!! OMG WTF FAIL ONLY $250??? BUT I WANT A 100000 BUCKS CPU OMGGGG!!! INTEL FTW! INTEL FANBOYZ NO BIAS, AMD FANBOYZ EVIL! AMD EVIL!

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

In it's pricing, AMD shows it's stupidity, not admittance. They could easily bring out a mildly overclocked $1000 chip that will make it look like they have the fastest processor out there to people like you. But, whatever... AMD BUDGET! AMD NO GO HIGH END!!! NO!!! OMG WTF FAIL ONLY $250??? BUT I WANT A 100000 BUCKS CPU OMGGGG!!! INTEL FTW! INTEL FANBOYZ NO BIAS, AMD FANBOYZ EVIL! AMD EVIL!

Dude. Benchmarks. Intel's best, when running CPU intensive tasks simply and easily beat AMD's best.

AMD's most expensive processor is $250 bucks because they don't make anything that competes with Intel's top-end stuff.

AMD pricing isn't stupid, it's realistic (although they need to cut the price of the PII 965 down closer $200).


You seem to have an issue admitting that, even though it doesn't matter for most people, that Intel has a high-end and AMD does not.

 

[yomamafor1]

In it's pricing, AMD shows it's stupidity, not admittance. They could easily bring out a mildly overclocked $1000 chip that will make it look like they have the fastest processor out there to people like you.

Except they can't, because the best quad core AMD can offer at the moment perform about the same as a C2Q or Core i5, let alone i7. Now I can get an i7 rig for less than $1000, why do you think anybody with an IQ points over 60 would want to spend $1000 on an AMD CPU where it can be easily outperformed by an Intel CPU costing 80% less?

 

[Cryslayer80]

Except they can't, because the best quad core AMD can offer at the moment perform about the same as a C2Q or Core i5, let alone i7. Now I can get an i7 rig for less than $1000, why do you think anybody with an IQ points over 60 would want to spend $1000 on an AMD CPU where it can be easily outperformed by an Intel CPU costing 80% less?

Lol the same you said goes for Intel.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

Lol the same you said goes for Intel.

But his point is that if AMD priced the Phenom II X4 965 at $1000 it wouldn't make sense, because its performance is similar to the $200 Core i5 750.


AMD is out of headroom and the best they can do is release the PII 975 in H1 2010 with a slight bump in frequency at 140 watts.


Once again, not that it will matter too much for most consumers, because most people are going to buy the top-end products that Intel has to offer because of the price premium, however, at least with Intel there is a choice.

 

[Cryslayer80]

Dude. Benchmarks. Intel's best, when running CPU intensive tasks simply and easily beat AMD's best.

AMD's most expensive processor is $250 bucks because they don't make anything that competes with Intel's top-end stuff.

AMD pricing isn't stupid, it's realistic (although they need to cut the price of the PII 965 down closer $200).


You seem to have an issue admitting that, even though it doesn't matter for most people, that Intel has a high-end and AMD does not.

PII 965... NO, IT SHOULD COST $0. AMD NO WORTH. AMD LOOW ON SYNTHETICS! AMD EVIL!!! OMG!!! BBQ!

And by the way, have you not noticed all I7's are FREAKING same??? They just added a little more clocks to make it look faster to people that have <60 IQ. Who would buy a freaking $1000 chip when you get a $250 one which performs the same in nearly all tasks (to be fair, though, heavy tasks go to Intel due to it's support and optimization). Okay, Intel has high end? Let's put it this way then:

Low end: AMD Phenom II 955 - $180/Intel Core I5 750 - $200
Mid end: AMD %/ Intel Core I7 960 - $550
High end: AMD %/ Intel Core I7 975 - $1000

Does that make sense? Just because of Intel's foolish pricing standards we are going to change CPU standards as well? Okay, then Core i7 960 is mid end... Even though you can get I7 920 that will kick it's a** overclocked. Intel does not control high end, Intel controls idiot-end, which falls to people who have less than 60 IQ and are capable of buying $1000 parts, thinking they will have a more future proof/faster machine...

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

PII 965... NO, IT SHOULD COST $0. AMD NO WORTH. AMD LOOW ON SYNTHETICS! AMD EVIL!!! OMG!!! BBQ!

And by the way, have you not noticed all I7's are FREAKING same??? They just added a little more clocks to make it look faster to people that have <60 IQ. Who would buy a freaking $1000 chip when you get a $250 one which performs the same in nearly all tasks (to be fair, though, heavy tasks go to Intel due to it's support and optimization). Okay, Intel has high end? Let's put it this way then:

Low end: AMD Phenom II 955 - $180/Intel Core I5 750 - $200
Mid end: AMD %/ Intel Core I7 960 - $550
High end: AMD %/ Intel Core I7 975 - $1000

Does that make sense? Just because of Intel's foolish pricing standards we are going to change CPU standards as well? Okay, then Core i7 960 is mid end... Even though you can get I7 920 that will kick it's a** overclocked. Intel does not control high end, Intel controls idiot-end, which falls to people who have less than 60 IQ and are capable of buying $1000 parts, thinking they will have a more future proof/faster machine...

What are you smoking?

AMD's PII X4's are all the same but for clock differences, which is a huge difference...

I never said that the PII 965 should be $0, I said it should be closer to the price of the Core i5, which I see them as equivilants to each other (minus overclocking ability, i5 has headroom, AMD, not so much).

Also, you do realize that back in the day when AMD was the perfomance leader they had processors selling for over $1000, right?


You can't rationalize with irrational people so I guess I'll have to give up...

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

Yeah OMG AMD all midrange. Only n00bs pay just $250 for a CPU even though it is able to catch up with a $1000 CPU. But who cares, ME'S WANT INTEL AND ME'S GONNA PAY DA PRICE. ME SMART. AMD DOOOWN LOW END $250 CPUs. THAT IS LOOOOW!!!! I7 WIIIN!!!

I'd like to begin by saying that I am viewing the Intel Core i7 vs. Phenom II performance debate as an architectural enthusiast and a person who not only games on his computer but also edits a lot of HD content (trans coding and encoding).

You state that a $250 CPU catches up with a $1000 CPU? How exactly and in what scenario? I'm assuming you're referring to how well both CPUs perform in a GPU bottle necked scenario (certain Game titles).
Please understand that, in the event when testing two CPUs and that a separate system component becomes a bottleneck for performance, it does not mean CPU 1 is equal to CPU 2. What you need to do in those instances is you need ensure the findings from this test are not diluted by a bottleneck (removing the bottleneck from the equation would be a wise move).

Therefore I ask that you compare encoding and trans coding performance as well as 3D imaging and other CPU intensive results rather than gaming.

In it's pricing, AMD shows it's stupidity, not admittance. They could easily bring out a mildly overclocked $1000 chip that will make it look like they have the fastest processor out there to people like you. But, whatever... AMD BUDGET! AMD NO GO HIGH END!!! NO!!! OMG WTF FAIL ONLY $250??? BUT I WANT A 100000 BUCKS CPU OMGGGG!!! INTEL FTW! INTEL FANBOYZ NO BIAS, AMD FANBOYZ EVIL! AMD EVIL!

AMD could not "easily" release a $1000 CPU as nobody would buy it. It would need to beat Intel's $1000 offering in order to sell (which it wouldn't).

Intel's higher end chips are for the enthusiasts who are seeking the best possible performance. There is a market for them as they're selling.

PII 965... NO, IT SHOULD COST $0. AMD NO WORTH. AMD LOOW ON SYNTHETICS! AMD EVIL!!! OMG!!! BBQ!

And by the way, have you not noticed all I7's are FREAKING same??? They just added a little more clocks to make it look faster to people that have <60 IQ. Who would buy a freaking $1000 chip when you get a $250 one which performs the same in nearly all tasks (to be fair, though, heavy tasks go to Intel due to it's support and optimization). Okay, Intel has high end? Let's put it this way then:

Low end: AMD Phenom II 955 - $180/Intel Core I5 750 - $200
Mid end: AMD %/ Intel Core I7 960 - $550
High end: AMD %/ Intel Core I7 975 - $1000

Does that make sense? Just because of Intel's foolish pricing standards we are going to change CPU standards as well? Okay, then Core i7 960 is mid end... Even though you can get I7 920 that will kick it's a** overclocked. Intel does not control high end, Intel controls idiot-end, which falls to people who have less than 60 IQ and are capable of buying $1000 parts, thinking they will have a more future proof/faster machine...

"Have you noticed that all AM3 based Phenom IIs are all the same? And that all AM2+ based Phenom IIs are all the same? I mean they just have some different clocks like OMG?!". You don't have an argument there. CPUs are generally the same (within the same product group) and usually differ based on how they "bin". Those which reach higher clocks are binned as higher end chips.. those that do not are binned as lower end chips. When there is a high demand for the lower end chips, they will bin what would have sold at the higher end to a lower end sku (this is how we get Core i7 920s that overclock well). This is pretty much how the CPU industry works as a whole.

You can get a Phenom II X4 920 and overclock it to kick a Phenom II 955s a** what is your point? I mean you could buy an AMD Athlon64 X2 4400+ and overlock it to kick an X2 4800+s a** or an FXs a**. I have to ask.. what is your point?

 

[SpidersWeb]

PII 965... NO, IT SHOULD COST $0. AMD NO WORTH. AMD LOOW ON SYNTHETICS! AMD EVIL!!! OMG!!! BBQ!

And by the way, have you not noticed all I7's are FREAKING same??? They just added a little more clocks to make it look faster to people that have <60 IQ. Who would buy a freaking $1000 chip when you get a $250 one which performs the same in nearly all tasks (to be fair, though, heavy tasks go to Intel due to it's support and optimization). Okay, Intel has high end? Let's put it this way then:

Low end: AMD Phenom II 955 - $180/Intel Core I5 750 - $200
Mid end: AMD %/ Intel Core I7 960 - $550
High end: AMD %/ Intel Core I7 975 - $1000

Does that make sense? Just because of Intel's foolish pricing standards we are going to change CPU standards as well? Okay, then Core i7 960 is mid end... Even though you can get I7 920 that will kick it's a** overclocked. Intel does not control high end, Intel controls idiot-end, which falls to people who have less than 60 IQ and are capable of buying $1000 parts, thinking they will have a more future proof/faster machine...

The <60 IQ thing shows massive ignorance/arrogance.
The parts above the 920 are heavily overpriced, however the people who buy them are not stupid, they either:
- want a higher binned part for slightly better overclocking
- just want the fastest specced computer without bothering with overclocking and voiding warranties.

Also not everybody is a student on a tight budget.
For some people $US1000 isn't a big deal at all. I realise for you it probably is, and you can't validate the extra expense for a small increase in performance, but not everybody is on a tight budget. People spend $1000 on a bottle of wine that to most of us tastes the same as the $12 crap from the supermarket.

Also anyone with an IQ less than 100 will likely not be able to afford anything high end anyway. Just pisses me off when you throw insults around when up until your posts, everybody in this thread was civil.

Now on the actual topic, I would consider the 955 and 965 to be in the high end bracket at present, but I line these up with the Core2Quad and often the i5, which are now called mainstream products by Intel, but it will take time for the market to adjust.

All the i7 range is top end. Intel works more like this:

Low: Core2Duo / Core i3
Mid: Core2Quad / Core i5
High: Core i7 / Core i9

I don't know how you got your list.

The 965 is on the border line between mid and high. For the moment, a 955/965 is more than ample, and in many games/machine builds it keeps up with the i7 no problem and any performance differences are likely unnoticable, but in other situations it can drop back down to Intel's 'mid-range' bracket with it's buddy the Core2Quad.

 

[Cryslayer80]

What are you smoking?

AMD's PII X4's are all the same but for clock differences, which is a huge difference...

I never said that the PII 965 should be $0, I said it should be closer to the price of the Core i5, which I see them as equivilants to each other (minus overclocking ability, i5 has headroom, AMD, not so much).

Also, you do realize that back in the day when AMD was the perfomance leader they had processors selling for over $1000, right?


You can't rationalize with irrational people so I guess I'll have to give up...

Oh, poor you. I think every Intel fanboy ends his argument like that, so I will too. You can't rationalize with irrational people. Wow. You are smart. And you are smoking some hard crack. For the thread creator, my point is not just inside Intel, my point is that people who buy $300+ CPUs (at least I7's for now) are not enthusiasts, but are rather greatly misinformed or stupid.

Oh, and just because i5 has lower stock clocks doesn't make it's headroom better. You can usually overclock AMD Phenom IIs to 3.9-4.0 on air and the same goes for I5.

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

Oh, poor you. I think every Intel fanboy ends his argument like that, so I will too. You can't rationalize with irrational people. Wow. You are smart. And you are smoking some hard crack. For the thread creator, my point is not just inside Intel, my point is that people who buy $300+ CPUs (at least I7's for now) are not enthusiasts, but are rather greatly misinformed or stupid.

Oh, and just because i5 has lower stock clocks doesn't make it's headroom better. You can usually overclock AMD Phenom IIs to 3.9-4.0 on air and the same goes for I5.

What are these people misinformed about? (those buying the $300+ CPUs).

Will a Core i7 960 not outperform a Core i7 920 (both stock clocks)? Does the average user "overclock"? Does overclocking always produce stable results?

I don't see your line of reasoning here so help me out by answering those questions asked above first.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

my point is that people who buy $300+ CPUs (at least I7's for now) are not enthusiasts, but are rather greatly misinformed or stupid.

Oh, and just because i5 has lower stock clocks doesn't make it's headroom better. You can usually overclock AMD Phenom IIs to 3.9-4.0 on air and the same goes for I5.

Your point is wrong though. If someone has money to waste and they don't mind paying a price premium for the best parts, then why not! Keep in mind that people used to by the AMD FX parts for these huge price premiums. If money isn't an issue for a person, why be limited to something that isn't the best. For the rest of us who have less discretionary income we have to choose wisely, which usually is between AMD and Intel in the sub $250 range, because both companies make great products in that range.


As for your headroom argument. Yes, they both top out just under 4 ghz.

The difference?

The i5 750's stock frequency is 2.66
The Phenom II 965's stock frequency is 3.4


The i5's are getting 46% overclocks.
The Phenom 965's are getting 14% overclocks.

Why the big difference? Because Intel has WAY more headroom than AMD does!


That's a huge difference. Looking at the overclock frequency without looking at the stock frequency is an error in your logic.

 

[SpidersWeb]

All we're saying is that some people pay the extra because it's what they want. Doesn't make them stupid, just means they've got money to spare. I'm sure if Bill Gates was building a new PC he wouldn't run out saying 'get me a 920, I can overclock it and save some money!'

(Personally though, if I went i7, I would get 920 and overclock to 3.8, but if I had $$$ in the bank, owned my house etc, I'd happily go for the Extreme Edition, because the money wouldn't really be a big concern)

 

[Upendra09]

not neccesarily, cuz u can have a gamer who is hardcore and has 1 million in pocket money,

However, he know nothing about how the goddamn box under his desk works, all he cares about is playing L4D2 or crysis etc. on high sttings with ultimate eye candy, so he will buy the proc that has the highest stock clock and enjoy

like i said

i7 plus two or more 5890s in CF will cream any PII

i am not an Intel fanboy, i can prove it if u want i will give u my planned build and u tell me if i can change anything on it.

 

[Cryslayer80]

What are these people misinformed about? (those buying the $300+ CPUs).

Will a Core i7 960 not outperform a Core i7 920 (both stock clocks)? Does the average user "overclock"? Does overclocking always produce stable results?

I don't see your line of reasoning here so help me out by answering those questions asked above first.

Average user? Can't an average user push three buttons to get I7 920 to work at I7 960's clock speed? And even if he can't, he can always check out forums or ask friends before buying and people will tell him how to OC without risking damaging components. But that is not the main thing. The thing is, average users DO NOT buy I7's. And is it worth spending another $300 for a little GHz? That is on the user to decide, but I think it is moronic.

PS: Those people are misinformed about what they are buying. It's simple.

 

[Cryslayer80]

not neccesarily, cuz u can have a gamer who is hardcore and has 1 million in pocket money,

However, he know nothing about how the goddamn box under his desk works, all he cares about is playing L4D2 or crysis etc. on high sttings with ultimate eye candy, so he will buy the proc that has the highest stock clock and enjoy

like i said

i7 plus two or more 5890s in CF will cream any PII

i am not an Intel fanboy, i can prove it if u want i will give u my planned build and u tell me if i can change anything on it.

A PII with two 5890's (supposedly, those cards aren't out yet) would perform EXACTLY the same.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

Average user? Can't an average user push three buttons to get I7 920 to work at I7 960's clock speed? And even if he can't, he can always check out forums or ask friends before buying and people will tell him how to OC without risking damaging components. But that is not the main thing. The thing is, average users DO NOT buy I7's. And is it worth spending another $300 for a little GHz? That is on the user to decide, but I think it is moronic.

PS: Those people are misinformed about what they are buying. It's simple.

You're making an assumption that there is no possible reason why someone would want to pay the price premium for the extra performance. I think you're simply wrong.

I agree that for most people, buying a cheaper processor (sub $250) makes sense. Including myself, my Q8200 cost me $150.

HOWEVER, saying that anyone who buys a processor that costs more than that is stupid and misinformed and has an IQ of less than 60? I think that's a really bad argument.

 

[Cryslayer80]

Okay, peace. I'm wrong (and tired).

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

Average user? Can't an average user push three buttons to get I7 920 to work at I7 960's clock speed? And even if he can't, he can always check out forums or ask friends before buying and people will tell him how to OC without risking damaging components. But that is not the main thing. The thing is, average users DO NOT buy I7's. And is it worth spending another $300 for a little GHz? That is on the user to decide, but I think it is moronic.

PS: Those people are misinformed about what they are buying. It's simple.

People who purchase Dell, HP, Acer etc computers are usually average users. Average users do not overclock and for the average user.. the experience of hitting the "bios shortcut" key(s) is a new experience and everything they see on their screen might very well be Chinese to them for all they know.

That point is now made. Average users do not overclock. (I thought this would have been a given but you're really pushing this fanboi thing far).

Now you claim average users don't buy Core i7s? Well what do you call the user who buys a Dell Studio XPS machine? or the HP Pavilion machine?

Average users don't buy parts.. they usually buy OEM PC Maker machines. They buy a package not just a CPU.


So for the average user there really is a difference between a Core i7 920 or an i7 960. Maybe not to you but to the average user the difference is in speed (he/she would likely assume that more MHz = more speed).

That's the average user. Is the average user misinformed? Well, I'd say you're misinformed on several fronts to start. As for the average user? Probably more likely to not be informed of much, but instead relying on the PC Salesman/woman to lead them in the right direction.

 

[SpidersWeb]

I think we can drop it now.

Who wants hotdogs. I'm hungry.