AMD'S LAWYERS ON SKYPE

skype makes there software better for intels because intels are better, more cache equals more performance and higher mhz is faster!

yeah thats totally bs with skype - should make a patition here - sign here is you think the skype/intel "deal" should be trashed
 

MadModMike

Distinguished
Feb 1, 2006
2,034
0
19,780
0
Wow... I always knew my Intel processors were better... Now I have proof! Aw shoot... I don't have a dual core yet :cry:
Dude, your 18GHz CPU is pwnage man, where can I get one?

I think that Skype is just another company to jump into bed with Intel. Futuremark + SiSoftware + Skype + Intel = Wedding Made In Technology Hell.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
 

mpjesse

Splendid
Dec 31, 2007
7,214
0
25,810
6
Thank you Jesus! I'm glad AMD is going to bring this up in the anti-trust case. I personally believe this deal Intel signed with Skype/eBay is just going to damned far.

-mpjesse
 

luminaris

Distinguished
Dec 20, 2005
1,361
0
19,280
0
Couldn't agree with you more. I much as I like both processor manufacturers, I don't agree at all with what Intel is doing to push their products.
 
Wow... I always knew my Intel processors were better... Now I have proof! Aw shoot... I don't have a dual core yet :cry:
Dude, your 18GHz CPU is pwnage man, where can I get one?

I think that Skype is just another company to jump into bed with Intel. Futuremark + SiSoftware + Skype + Intel = Wedding Made In Technology Hell.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time

Isnt it funny when AMD wins in an intel optimised benchmark

on the otherhand, years ago amd aparently was doing the same thing as intel
 

MadModMike

Distinguished
Feb 1, 2006
2,034
0
19,780
0
Apache, I don't care that Intel is doing shoddy business tactics, but they're promoting a CPU Architecture that is inferior to something by their competitor, and that is just R-Tarded.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
 

CompGeek

Distinguished
Jan 23, 2005
455
0
18,780
0
Poo AMD. :roll:
Well that's what you get for being the SECOND greatest chip manufacteurer! :lol:
BTW AMD is wasting time with the law suit.
 

MadModMike

Distinguished
Feb 1, 2006
2,034
0
19,780
0
Poo AMD. :roll:
Well that's what you get for being the SECOND greatest chip manufacteurer! :lol:
BTW AMD is wasting time with the law suit.
BTW, you're wasting time posting your Intel Fanboy Propaganda, thanks fanboy newb, go have a popsicle and watch cartoons.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
 

mpjesse

Splendid
Dec 31, 2007
7,214
0
25,810
6
I don't! I sell too much crap on eBay. Don't need any more higher selling fees...

Besides, this isn't a lawsuit against Skype. All they've done is subpoenaed the details of the Intel/Skype deal to help build their case. No one (including AMD) is contending this deal broke a law. However, it could be argued that what INTEL is doing is anticompetitive which would lend to the anti-trust lawsuit. Does that make sense? I'm not so sure myself...
 

CompGeek

Distinguished
Jan 23, 2005
455
0
18,780
0
But seriously now there is some truth in my post. AMD is fighting in an unfair battle so i must admit it's a miracle they've survived this long. Remember what experts said about AMD a few years ago? They said that it would be out of the market in a couple of years. And i as many others believed that. In fact if it weren't for Net Burst AMD might not be in its current position.
Intel is still x times bigger and still has a major influence and can come up with unresistable bargain prices.
But no one said that the market world was fair nor that it should be.
As long as Intel is holding the monopoly this won't change. Win by faul play? If it's necesary yes! If you can kill competition,do it! I think Intel's actions are quite understandable. If you can't kill him with rocks,use knives instead.
 

MadModMike

Distinguished
Feb 1, 2006
2,034
0
19,780
0
But seriously now there is some truth in my post. AMD is fighting in an unfair battle so i must admit it's a miracle they've survived this long. Remember what experts said about AMD a few years ago? They said that it would be out of the market in a couple of years. And i as many others believed that. In fact if it weren't for Net Burst AMD might not be in its current position.
Intel is still x times bigger and still has a major influence and can come up with unresistable bargain prices.
But no one said that the market world was fair nor that it should be.
As long as Intel is holding the monopoly this won't change. Win by faul play? If it's necesary yes! If you can kill competition,do it! I think Intel's actions are quite understandable. If you can kill him with rocks,use knives instead.
Jeez...Fanboy...

Once AMD wins this lawsuit, Intel won't have it's grasp it once did, and the tables will turn. Intel started back in 1986 to throw tantrums, when IBM required 2 sources for CPU's and AMD was under license from Intel for a little while than Intel decided to cancel the deal. That lead to AMD winning $1 Billion from the Supreme Court in 1991 for Intel's Premature ending of the contract. In 1991 as well, after the litigation hold up by Intel, the AMD Am386 Processor was released, clocked 7Mhz above the 386's 33MHz. AMD has almost always been ahead of Intel in price/performance, and if it wasn't for Intel making that mistake back in 1986, AMD and Intel could have become 2 great companies making great chips together, but instead it's 1 company trying to kill the other because they are mad.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
 

luminaris

Distinguished
Dec 20, 2005
1,361
0
19,280
0
I agree with that. The thing is, Intel is so used to having strong marketing while their products have been rather less than on par.

Now, Intel is faced with having to produce products that not only catch up to AMDs current performance, but surpass it by such a margin that will put them ahead of AMD. Intel is already ahead technology wise but that's pretty much it. Although you can OC them to death, not everybody wants to OC and you should be able to at least buy a chip that comes close to its rival.

Even today, Intel still thinks like they always have. Market their products to death and talk alot about how much more they deliver. Well, we simply won't know how they will deliver until Conroe gets here but I gotta feeling, its either going to catapault them way ahead of AMD or it will be disaster.

I myself am rather surprised AMD is still in existence only because of Intels tactics. I'm glad they did survive too.
 

hergieburbur

Distinguished
Dec 19, 2005
1,907
0
19,780
0
But seriously now there is some truth in my post. AMD is fighting in an unfair battle so i must admit it's a miracle they've survived this long. Remember what experts said about AMD a few years ago? They said that it would be out of the market in a couple of years. And i as many others believed that. In fact if it weren't for Net Burst AMD might not be in its current position.
Intel is still x times bigger and still has a major influence and can come up with unresistable bargain prices.
But no one said that the market world was fair nor that it should be.
As long as Intel is holding the monopoly this won't change. Win by faul play? If it's necesary yes! If you can kill competition,do it! I think Intel's actions are quite understandable. If you can't kill him with rocks,use knives instead.
Ok, now your just an idiot. Your basic premise is eliminate the competition any way possible. Thats the LAST thing any smart consumer wants. By eliminating competition, you eliminate innovation, and nothing ever gets better.

BTW, if you ever wrote a post that wasn't dripping with Intel, I would be utterly shocked. Grow up and open your eyes.
 

MadModMike

Distinguished
Feb 1, 2006
2,034
0
19,780
0
BTW, if you ever wrote a post that wasn't dripping with Intel, I would be utterly shocked. Grow up and open your eyes.
you know i think hes on intel's payroll

And are you on AMD's? ;)

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
 

MadModMike

Distinguished
Feb 1, 2006
2,034
0
19,780
0
You gotta admit tha Intel has very good marketing, but it's most filled with crap. But afterall, all marketing is like that.
Marketing only sells the product, it doesn't make it better. The problem I have is that Intel Fanboy's try to believe the Marketing and say their Intel P4's are "pwnage", which they have to know is BS, but than again, most Intel Fanboy's have never used a AMD CPU or just an old one. A friend of mine was comparing a K6 600MHz to his 1.5GHz Pentium M and was reluctant to switch to AMD. I ended up drawing a diagram and descriptions comparing Pentium D to Athlon X2, and now he is the proud owner of a 3800+ X2 :).

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
 

MadModMike

Distinguished
Feb 1, 2006
2,034
0
19,780
0
i wish i was on amds payroll then i would be making better opty for all of you to oc that take 50 watts and 1.2 volts :D AT LOAD ON 90NM SOI :D
LOL. That was funny. There is no way you could do that, since the CPU's (most single core) operate on 60 Amps, 60 * 1.4v = 84 Watts, which is about the standard for A64 and O64CPU's. Dual-Core runs on 80 Amps, which increases it 112 watts. But Intel is claiming with their 2010+ Xeon's, to get it down to .1v, which I find to be freakin' hillarious!

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
 

g-paw

Splendid
Jan 31, 2006
4,479
0
22,780
0
First both national and international law says the market should be fair. Second, unless you own a boatload of Intel stock, why would you want them to have a monopoly, especially if you buy their product? If Intel ever became a monopoly, I seriously doubt that tellling them you're fanboy will get you a 50% or$70% discount.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS