I see absolutely no reason to go Intel now

Crashman · Mar 16, 2004

I can only remember a few examples from the dozens of articles I've read. Let's start with the most recent, some bigwig at VIA got in trouble for stealing network technology from his former employer. Now we can go back, VIA never had a licence for P4 chipsets, but SiS did. Therefor VIA could sell P4 chipsets at a much greater profit than SiS, this hurt the industry as well as SiS themselves. VIA stole DVD decoder tech from...who was it, ALi? VIA used extortion to prevent Abit, Asus, and MSI from releasing their 735 chipset boards, when VIA's own KT266A was delayed and the KT266 couldn't compete (even in performance).

Like I said, my memory isn't perfect, so you'll have to look up other examples yourself.

As for AMD's not using Dual Channel as well as P4's, the answer is obvious: The CPU has a SINGLE DDR 64-bit channel, giving it a 128-bit DDR channel (64-bit dual-channel) makes little sense because the CPU bus has only half the bandwidth.

Whatever rediculous patent you're refering too, it doesn't matter because the math tells me that 64-bit DDR bus CPU's won't make good use of 128-bit DDR memory busses at the same frequency. 2 does not go into 1. As far as I know having the memory controller on the CPU increases performance by reducing latency between the CPU and memory controller.

Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!
Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!

darko21 · Mar 16, 2004

Re: VIA never had a licence for P4 chipsets, but SiS did. Therefor VIA could sell P4 chipsets at a much greater profit than SiS, this hurt the industry as well as SiS themselves. VIA stole DVD decoder tech from...who was it, ALi? VIA used extortion to prevent Abit, Asus, and MSI from releasing their 735 chipset boards, when VIA's own KT266A was delayed and the KT266 couldn't compete (even in performance).

OK crash we will break this down cause I really want to understand this whole kafuffle your bringing up.

Re: VIA got in trouble for stealing network technology from his former employer.

Sounds like an every day event (in this industry) accusation to me from Microsoft down. Has there been any conclusion verdict in this particular case?

Re: VIA never had a license for P4 chipsets, but SiS did. Therefor VIA could sell P4 chipsets at a much greater profit than SiS, this hurt the industry as well as SiS themselves.

How much if anything did SiS pay Intel? Like I said Intel only enforced it to prevent amd from benefiting from a quad pumped design. I personally don't think Intel was justified in this but one gets into legal grey areas like when Intel tried to force rambus on us and expect memory manufactures to pay royalties to rambus thus benefiting Intel which invested heavily in rambus stock before trying to force it on us.

VIA stole DVD decoder tech from...who was it, ALi?

You tell me its news to me. Is ALi an American company since this issue is so important to you. Once again these kind of accusations go back and forth endlessly.

VIA used extortion to prevent Abit, Asus, and MSI from releasing their 735 chipset boards.

Is this the same kind of extortion Intel used on Via with the P-4 license? not to mention the extortion they (indirectly tried to force on the public via rambus) could it be?

Re: As for AMD's not using Dual Channel as well as P4's, the answer is obvious: The CPU has a SINGLE DDR 64-bit channel, giving it a 128-bit DDR channel (64-bit dual-channel) makes little sense because the CPU bus has only half the bandwidth.

Ok I'll ask for some help here from THGF's people. Was this not implemented because of the Intel patent? was it not the 128 bit ddr channel Intel was so aggressively protecting that prevented amd from using it one way or the other?

I'm just trying to learn crash. How about you?

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.

Crashman · Mar 16, 2004

There is no patent on 4x transfers, they're used in AGP4x video cards, and that's an open standard. Who was it that gave us this wonderfull open standard? You know who.

Extortion in this case is easily defined. SiS paid a license fee PER CHIPSET, VIA did not. I believe I read it was $6 per unit. That's a lot of cash. Intel didn't extort anything from VIA, VIA simply refused to pay. And that's a GOOD thing, because we didn't NEED VIA contaminating the P4 board market they way they poluted the AMD board market.

No, VIA told boardmakers they'd cut/delay shipments to these companies if they produced boards with the 735 chipset. Since these companies sold more VIA than SiS chipset boards, this was a very real threat.

Getting back to that "patent", they might have patented a few things, but not 4x transfers. The COULD have patented the way it was IMPLEMENTED, but they couldn't patent the 4x feature on it's own. And no pumps are involved, god, you guys even have THG editors using the word "pumped" now.

Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!
Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!

P4Man · Mar 16, 2004

> VIA never had a licence for P4 chipsets, but SiS did

VIA claimed it had one throught the aquisition of whatever company, and according to the court settlement it seems they had a good case, otherwise intel would not have given in. Also, the whole idea of a chipset licence is rathet an example of extortion by intel instead of VIA, and a monopoly practice trying to protect intels own chipset business.

>VIA stole DVD decoder tech from...who was it, ALi?

And Intel stole CPU technology for their PPro from, who was it ? DEC ?

>VIA used extortion to prevent Abit, Asus, and MSI from
>releasing their 735 chipset boards

And Intel used extortion to prevent Abit, Asus, MSI, etc from releasing slot A board in 1999. And intel used illegal strongarm tactics to put intergraph out of business. Seriously, it looks like intel is an even worse company than VIA. Maybe you want to start shooting intel customers now ? Oh but wait, intel is an American company, so either its okay for intel to do this, or those things just can't happen here since you have laws preventing all this !

Like I said earlier, I'm by no means a VIA fan, and if I can, I will avoid their products, but based on technical reasons rather than some strange emotional or double standard patriotism. K8T800 seems like a fine chipset, and until I hear from any problems with it, i will have no problems recommending it, or buying it.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

P4Man · Mar 16, 2004

>Ok I'll ask for some help here from THGF's people. Was this
>not implemented because of the Intel patent?

No. AMD licenced the Alpha EV6 bus, which is a dual pumped (its a perfectly right word Crash, "dual pumped") bus limited to 200 MHz DDR (400 MT). Using a dual channel chipset with DDR400 gives you 800MT, which twice as much as the Athlon XP's frontside bus, so it doesnt help a whole lot. Just slightly lower latency as single channel.

What you may be confusing with is that AMD was indeed forced to develop its own FSB after a court settlement (or ruling, not sure); intel tried to revoke AMD's right to produce x86 chip some years ago, and as a result of that case, AMD was granted eternal rights to x86 and its extentions (MMX, SSE, SSE2/3), Intel was granted a pretty broad cross licence (giving it for instance the right to use AMD64, but not HyperTransport), and AMD would no longer be allowed to produce pin compatible CPU's, hence, they could not use the P4 bus, and licenced the EV6 bus instead.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

darko21 · Mar 16, 2004

Re: There is no patent on 4x transfers, they're used in AGP4x video cards, and that's an open standard. Who was it that gave us this wonderfull open standard? You know who.

Lets not over complicate the # 4 we are talking about Intel preventing amd using ddr in dual channel through the north bridge to it's theoretical maximum. It was Intels patent that forced amd to wait and use the on die memory controller was it not?

Re: Extortion in this case is easily defined. SiS paid a license fee PER CHIPSET, VIA did not. I believe I read it was $6 per unit. That's a lot of cash. Intel didn't extort anything from VIA, VIA simply refused to pay. And that's a GOOD thing, because we didn't NEED VIA contaminating the P4 board market they way they poluted the AMD board market.

Now we are getting somewhere Remember when some smaller memory companies bowed to rambus and paid their phony ddr memory license and later the larger companies stood up and said to he11 will you? That is a lot of cash crash, so crash If Intel makes 80-85% of cpu's sold and produces a large portion of the chipsets for said cpu's. does this not put them in some kind of conflict. I mean why not make it a million dollars per license. Just think what Intel could then charge for a board and still under cut all competition. No I think the real reason was to prevent amd using the more advanced memory transport (note I said memory transport cause you don't seem to care for the # 4 or the word pumped)

Re: No, VIA told boardmakers they'd cut/delay shipments to these companies if they produced boards with the 735 chipset. Since these companies sold more VIA than SiS chipset boards, this was a very real threat.

Well I don't care to defend Via anymore then I'd care to defend Hitler or Microsoft. I'm just seeking the truth. I know all large companies do this kind of stuff (which I am very against) I mean just how often does Microsoft (the ultimate American company) pull stunts like this? This whole area is not my cup of tea but I have learned to question your opinions.

Re: Getting back to that "patent", they might have patented a few things, but not 4x transfers. The COULD have patented the way it was IMPLEMENTED, but they couldn't patent the 4x feature on it's own. And no pumps are involved, god, you guys even have THG editors using the word "pumped" now.

Apples and oranges they both taste good but I fail to see what you mean. we are talking about Intel preventing amd using ddr in dual channel through the north bridge to it's theoretical maximum.

Sorry if I got ya all confused by the #4 or the word pumped.

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.

darko21 · Mar 16, 2004

OK P-4man to the rescue,

about bloody time too. and about my previous post it's just my opinion or best guess and if p4man says i'm wong (which I think he did) then I am wrong.

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.

kinney · Mar 16, 2004

lol

well, i'd rather have no people skills than beat around the bush and inadvertently let crap be spewed that is completely incorrect or wrong.

so be it.

----
Reject religon, embrace Jesus
Support the terrorists, vote democrat
NV/AMD/IBM axis of evil team leader
RESIDENT FORUM WARRIOR

pauldh · Mar 16, 2004

Yup, I later realized you were not, and felt you definately didn't deserve the other part. Rough day and I took what you said wrong. Plus I had hoped for more "meat" as to agreeing with me on that my first words in this topic were pro AMD, both XP2500+ and even A64. I just couldn't believe you would think I am only pro Intel when I stated 3 of the best 4 choices IMO are AMD now. SO your 4 letter reply did burn me up. :lol:

Sorry you had to see the original. First time I ever posted something without having a happy, light, or humorous attitude. Quite honestly, i vented quickly before dinner posting while taking you too seriously compared to ever before. I thought about it during dinner and edited out my venting of the days frustrations as soon as I left the table. It was way out of character for me and I no way could have been happy leaving it that way.

You do frustrate me by claiming I say exactly the opposite of what I do say, but you didn't deserve that venting. But for 10 minutes, yeah, I didn't like you. Yes, I am offended by the method of saying shutup paired with your signature, but that isn't something I would discuss either on this forum. I am not offended by other people who use that terminology but think it doesn't mesh with your sig. But, I'd rather continue with hardware and won't preach to you here.

ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt

Xeon · Mar 16, 2004

VIA claimed it had one throught the aquisition of whatever company, and according to the court settlement

VIA acquired S3 and S3 helped develop the P4 bus. They didn't develop the entire bus so the courts ruled that VIA and Intel would sign a 10 year cross licensing agreement.

VIA also decided that they can use this bus that they don’t own on their C3 line, which in this case was a P3 bus. Then they got high on their horse and said they owned P4 technologies and would reverse engineer the core so they could make clone P4's.

Also it's VIA, Intel didn't need to worry about their [-peep-] chipsets lowering their sales on chipsets. VIA and its reputation were all that was necessary.

And Intel stole CPU technology for their PPro from, who was it ? DEC ?

Cross licensing again big guy and in the end they acquired DEC and all their fabulous patents. Christ it’s like saying AMD owned Hyper Threading because of 5,944,816 patents.

And Intel used extortion to prevent Abit, Asus, MSI, etc from releasing slot A board in 1999

Is that so best back that one up with a solid link of truth cause I was around in 1999 and didn’t see [-peep-] about that.

And intel used illegal strongarm tactics to put intergraph out of business

What that failing company they are as bad a Cray is old and out of date. Companies like that get absorbed or die off.

No. AMD licenced the Alpha EV6 bus

They actually own it now came with the NextGen deal along with the K7.

intel tried to revoke AMD's right to produce x86 chip some years ago

Oh you mean when Intel told AMD to stop making their CPU's right, yaw I can see where you got confused.

AMD was granted eternal rights to x86 and its extentions (MMX, SSE, SSE2/3)

No for bloody sakes incorrect they signed a 10 year cross licensing agreement to use Intel’s own x86. The agreement covers nothing in the forms of MMX/SSE/SSE2/SSE3. Those after I do believe 2 years become a open standard and any company that wishes to use them can.

Intel was granted a pretty broad cross licence (giving it for instance the right to use AMD64, but not HyperTransport)

No incorrect again Intel does not have rights to x86-64 those are extensions that they can utilize the same manor AMD used MMX except for one small thing x86-64 is already open standard since its just that extensions its not pure 64bit all it is, is 16 extra registers gunned to do 64bit long code.

It was Intels patent that forced amd to wait and use the on die memory controller was it not?

No its AMD's inability to deliver any of their products on schedule.

Xeon

Scratch Here To Reveal Prize

pauldh · Mar 16, 2004

I'd rather take a long time to explain something correctly and show all sides to an issue, than blurt out a one sided opinion or prove I don't read.

But we are very differnent. I hate misleading people, which is what a strictly pro AMD / NV agenda exactly does. As would strickly Pro Intel/ATI post do also. Anyway, I can live with our differences, people are different.
Fanboy Forum Warrior vs. Open Minded Long (yawn)Poster.

ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt

darko21 · Mar 16, 2004

You know what spud looks to me like these issues go to court for a reason. way to many sides and points on who owns what if anything.

I was trying to figure out why crash felt people (americans) should avoid VIA products from an ETHICAL point of view.

I did not know the reason why he felt that way about via but I have learned it's a very complicted issue that should be left for the courts like it was.

Seems to me avoiding via products based on morral reasons is just plain stupid. Should americans avoid memory from companies that refused to pay royalties to rambus when producing ddr.

After reading your last post spud I find it very ironic that you called me an amd fanboy earlier.

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart. Edited by darko21 on 03/16/04 12:58 PM.

Crashman · Mar 16, 2004

It was S3, they claimed their P3 bus license from their purchase of S3. Intel threatened to sue over junk chipsets like the Appolo Pro using Socket 370, but didn't follow through. BTW, the Appolo Pro is the P3 version of the KT133.

Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!
Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!

Crashman · Mar 16, 2004

I don't see that AMD was slowed down at all. They released a DDR bus processor, a LONG time ago, many years ago. And they kept that processor on the market for a LONG time, by updating it. Intel had the Pentium II/III, AMD had various versions of the Athlon. The PII/III used an SDR bus, Athlon used a DDR bus. P4 came out with a QDR bus, etc etc. AMD couldn't simply add a QDR bus to the t-bird/t-bred/barton any more than Intel could simply add a DDR bus to the PIII. In either case it would result in a "new" processor, requiring new chipsets, etc. So even if Intel could prevent AMD from using a QDR bus on the Athlons, they wouldn't NEED to...AMD wasn't going to use a QDR bus anyway.

AMD circumvented that side of the FSB by linking the CPU core directly to the memory controller by an internal, faster bus.

Any company can release 128-bit memory pathway chipsets, but without a CPU bus to support it, it does very little to increase performance. And AMD was using a DDR CPU bus by design, it was PART of the Athlons.

Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!
Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!

juin · Mar 16, 2004

Nous avons mesuré le taux d’utilisation processeur (sur un Athlon 64 3000+) lors de ce test en émission et réception, c’est à dire lorsqu’ils sont utilisés à leur maximum. La puce 3Com s’en tire le mieux avec seulement 19.7% d’utilisation processeur, contre 57.7% pour le nForce3 250Gb et 59.1% pour le Realtek. Il faut toutefois mettre ces mesures en relation avec les débits : en effet, pour 1% d’utilisation processeur, le 3Com transfère 29.12 Mb /s, contre 25.4 Mb /s pour le nForce3 250Gb et ... 12.7 Mb /s pour le Realtek, qui est donc clairement la moins bonne solution de ce côté.

Hardware.fr nforce 250

The P4 overcome anything by far thank to HT in realife Ht will be more usefull that anything.At my work bettween or at home i download most the time for a new movie playing music internet and else.At work i reach between 4 to 5 apps on 10 windows 3 in real time.Ht will be a bless to me also CSA will help a lot.Platform performance that what i need not cpu power.My friend work for a corp that do global service provider and web hosting that all intel CPU in all computer from workstation to server they just buy 10 new laptop all Pentium M with ati GPU.Most dont care if that AMD or intel either place they just want intel chipset.Also all nforce 2 and SIS chipset have a issue with clone mac adresse with onboard ethernet card.A driver update solve all issue but try to ask a 40 year old mothers what is your mothersboards.At 99.5% of time they will not know that a lot more work for the tech at the phone.50% of USB lan connection dont work well if they have win 98 or via chipset.SIS|ali seem to work fine.

There issue when not going with intel that most customer|end useur cannot solve.

i need to change useur name.

trooper11 · Mar 16, 2004

well i hope your not trying to say they wnet to intle just becuase it sintel, and not on any perforamnce reason, if oyu are, tahts just very sad, and its something ive seen alot, on both sides. ppl blindly going with intel or amd just becuase of the name, obviously mor eon the intel side since it is more mainstream. obvioulsy they can schoose anyhting they want, but to say its the right choice just becuase its intel would never be right to say, certain areas warrant amd, other warrant intel. and if your going ot say intel has better workstaion/server products then i would question that as well. there are many equal amd solutions, and for large scale implimentation, amd chips, sepcifically opterons, can be cheaper then a compareable intel solution. I just odnt like hearing anyone say they wan tintel and wont consider anyhting else becuase its intel and they have to be better.

darko21 · Mar 16, 2004

The PII/III used an SDR bus, Athlon used a DDR bus. P4 came out with a QDR bus, etc etc. AMD couldn't simply add a QDR bus to the t-bird/t-bred/barton any more than Intel could simply add a DDR bus to the PIII.

Fair enough, I do realize that the athlon does use 64 rather than 128. but I'm thinking the intel p4 license prevented amd from being able to utilize the faster transport through the northbridge. The pentium-M is a p3 basically and it can use a 400 FSB. I was thinking on the line that if amd did make the path 128bit wide on the athlon the p4 license would prevent it from utilizing it through the northbridge. so why go to all the trouble. That was my line of thinking anyway.

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.

juin · Mar 16, 2004

What AMD sell it a CPU intel sold a solution.AMD never really get that either AMD useur.If you buy a HP box you dont care what inside what matter is what the box would give you reponse to certain need you have not what a CPU can do on some benchmark.

Some graphic workstation will choose a lesser cpu but with a Quadro FX gpu the others will go for a bigger CPU.The customer that come dont care want inside he will chose the best for it need and budget.If at a certain software Nvidia offer better driver support for intel chipset and intel CPU he dont care if that because nvidia offer more support for intel or amd.He chose the box that suit better if that come with a intel cpu so be it.

A name matter a lot for 20 year ppl have chose intel and they dont see any reason not to go with intel.Performance in benchmark most will not care.I dont even look at benchmark any more as any compiling option will put 1 or the others in front what matter to me is what box offer the best.AMD is not a platform provider only a CPU maker.This can be see in real life as most dont know AMD and know apple as they are selling platform of software and hardware.The same thing is seen with itanium as it int performance with ICC and GCC is low unless it use HP compiler for HP unix 11.Who care most itanium will be ship with linux or windows and will have slow performance on int.The work they can do with the box is less and see Xeon as a better performer.

i need to change useur name.

P4Man · Mar 17, 2004

>VIA acquired S3 and S3 helped develop the P4 bus.

Its not about "helping intel develop" anything, that doesnt give you any rights, its about the cross licencing S3 and intel had. VIA claimed this cross licence they aqcuired through S3 allowed them to produce pin compatible cpu's; and without the original contracts and a degree in law, I don't think anyone of us can make a usefull comment on it.

>Also it's VIA, Intel didn't need to worry about their
>[-peep-] chipsets lowering their sales on chipsets

You mean like when intel didnt worry when VIA took 50% of the chipset business with its crappy Apollo Pro 133 ?

>Is that so best back that one up with a solid link of truth
>cause I was around in 1999 and didn’t see [-peep-] about
>that

I guess you werent paying attention then.

>Cross licensing again big guy and in the end they acquired
>DEC and all their fabulous patents

Thats how it ended; it started with DEC suing intel for patent infringement, and they proved their case in court. It was settled, sure, doesnt make intel any more innocent than whatever Crash claims VIA is guilty off. Intel just bought its way out.

>What that failing company they are as bad a Cray is old and
>out of date

Cray is bad hu ? okay. Regardless, once more, intel was sued for monopoly abuse, and illegally making it impossible for Intergraph to compete. though the case isnt over yet, they where already forced to pay $300M with possibly much more to come.

>No for bloody sakes incorrect they signed a 10 year cross
>licensing agreement to use Intel’s own x86. The agreement
>covers nothing in the forms of MMX/SSE/SSE2/SSE3.

Tot he best of my knowledge, it does cover extentions to the x86 ISA such as SSE1/2/3, and AMD64. The two year "cooling down" period may or may not be true (I doubt it, considering SSE3 is expected this year from AMD, maybe even this quarter), so If you have any proof otherwise, I'll be glad to read it.

>Those after I do believe 2 years become a open standard and
>any company that wishes to use them can.

Not true AFAIK. This is limited to AMD and intel. VIA and Transmeta need to licence these extentions (as well as x86 itselve) if they do not have a similar cross licence (which Transmeta doesnt have, VIA might have one now). An indication of this is that transmeta acutally licenced AMD64 a while ago.

>No incorrect again Intel does not have rights to x86-64

It does.

>those are extensions that they can utilize the same manor
>AMD used MMX

Exactly, because of the cross licence.

>except for one small thing x86-64 is already open standard

No its not. Intel can use it, you can't, neither can IBM, VIA, Transmeta or anyone else without licence.

>since its just that extensions its not pure 64bit all it
>is, is 16 extra registers gunned to do 64bit long code.

What a load of crap.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

P4Man · Mar 17, 2004

BTW, they didnt buy DEC. They aqcuired a lot of its IP, and a licence to fab Alpha chips (weird enough). Still doesnt change the fact intel infringed DEC's patents. Not that I think thats a big deal, or a reason to avoid Intel products, but it just aint any different from what VIA is argued to be doing with those (rather useless) DVD decoding technology in would have "stolen" from whoever.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

Crashman · Mar 17, 2004

Yes, the Pentium-M is a redesigned PIII, just like the A64 is a redesigned Athlon. In both cases it required them to abandon any similarities to previous platforms.

Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!
Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!

P4Man · Mar 17, 2004

You can't patent a 128 bit bus. AMD could no longer use Intel's front side bus, like AGTL(+), but nothing stopped AMD from creating its own quad pumped 128 bit bus if they wanted to. But instead of reinventing the wheel, they licenced Alpha's bus which was far superior to the P3 bus, and had different qualities compared to the P4 bus (better for SMP with its P2P topology, slower for single cpu through its lower bandwith/clockspeed).

>The pentium-M is a p3 basically and it can use a 400 FSB.

Sure, you could build the AGTL+ bus into any cpu if you wanted to, even an Athlon or PowerPC. You would just need the specs and permission from intel. VIA is likely to incorporate this bus into their next gen CPU's. Likewise, intel could well produce a socket A EV6 compatible P4 if they somehow wanted to.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

trooper11 · Mar 17, 2004

well ok and your point is? Amd focused on chips, intel diversified to release complete soultions. Tath doesnt mean its right, just becuase ppl buy for solutions and not performance. I know it goe son all the time though, but I dont have to like it or think its the way things hsould be. As far as not looking at benchmarks, I rarely do either, but its good a basic comparison sometimes, depending on how extensive it is. It comes down to my personal experince with the product once i try it. I can see that amd chips do deserve more widespread use, but they arent. You cna say what you want about intel having better solutions, but the fact is there are other options, and they are available, but since most ppl, like you said, just look at the box, not the chip, they will never get the chance to try it. One can only hope as time goes on, the market draws more amd solutions to the mainstream.

juin · Mar 17, 2004

To P4Man and you

On box solution intel vs AMD.Athlon MP was able to use point to point connection like alpha but the chipset have never support it.So for the customer it was 266 mghz FSB 64bit vs 400mghz 64bit bus and intel MCH was much faster.Also AMD was not having the resource to deal with making a others bus protocol.

i need to change useur name.

juin · Mar 17, 2004

Cray is bad hu ? okay. Regardless, once more, intel was sued for monopoly abuse, and illegally making it impossible for Intergraph to compete. though the case isnt over yet, they where already forced to pay $300M with possibly much more to come

I see that news also after the court appeal it seem not so sure that they will be guilty after all the clipper patent is also use on AMD chip.

i need to change useur name.

I see absolutely no reason to go Intel now

Polypheme

Distinguished

Polypheme

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Illustrious

Distinguished

Illustrious

Distinguished

Polypheme

Polypheme

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Polypheme

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Share this page