Why all the AMD hate, guys?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
werxen

werxen

Distinguished
Sep 26, 2008
1,331
0
19,310
Let us stop the fanboyism and acknowledge AMD's market strategy - the AVERAGE consumer not troubled by synthetic benchmark scores or maxing our Crysis. I see too much hate going on from both camps - let us make love not war. But in reality anyone who 'hates' AMD needs a friggin reality check. Intel will not be on top forever - anyone remember the Athlon series? People were sure AMD would lead the way forever after that.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes


Garbage. AMD is nowhere near as corrupt as intel, if they were they would be the ones getting lawsuits thrown at them left right and centre. Intel is the most corrupt company in the world, don't even try to pretend AMD or anyone else is nearly so bad.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Yeah I know! The i5 750 and the i7 920 are such horrible chips for the money! /s

Everything you listed is exactly what EVERY COMPANY DOES, they stifle and harm competition while trying to charge the most for their products to MAKE MONEY. Companies are evil, that is that. I distinctly remember some AMD dual cores costing well over $1000, but that was to help Intel because AMD is such a thoughtful and loving company right?

Remember your talking to someone who would LOVE to see AMD thrash Intel, but that doesn't mean I'm going to make excuses for them being in second place, hell I'll even admit that they have a lot of great price/performance products right now.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


NO NO and NO.

But is 10am and I am still up from last night and there is snow outside that I don't want to deal with so I shall go take a nap and watch some football. Good to have you back jennyh. That is enough for me today.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Wow here I thought the most corrupt company was Halliburton and all the other oil companies that are draining the world economy for record profits. How about The car companies that have been finding ways to make their cars fall apart so that you buy new ones.

Nope Intel is the worst because they use dirty tactic so that they can charge $280 for a Core i7 920!!

Notice I am not saying Intel is NOT corrupt, but we seem to be doing fine as consumers right now and innovation seems to be plenty driven.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yes, yes they are. Followed by nVidia. Both these companies are in the PC business. Do you see a trend?

All these companies are the pack leaders and have the ability to use unfair tactics and have the money to spend on anti-competitive acts and the subsequent law suits.

If tables were turned AMD and ATI likely would have ended up doing the same thing. They didn't, they never had the chance. Does that make them morally better or worse is the question. I suppose the likeliness of wrong doing in a different setting is not the same, so yes morally AMD is slightly better.

I agree that BOTH Intel and nVidia are corrupt. nVidia is the one that is actually hurting innovation and has hurt it. Look at the TWIMTBP and the PhysX propaganda and anti-competitiveness of purposefully limiting ATI cards in Batman AA. Hell look at the biggest offender! When DX10 was coming out, nVidia could not make a card that supported everything in DX10, which is what is in DX11, so Microsoft for some unknown god damn reason decided to gimp DX10 for nVidia even though ATI had cards that worked perfectly with the "real" DX10. Then when the HD 2000 series came out everyone bashed ATI because the cards sucked, well no ***, they were designed around the real DX10 and microsoft had taken out most of the technologies that were built into ATI's architecture. Why that did not turn into a HUGE ass law suit is beyond me, but I still bought nVidia.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

Theres one lil difference in your assumptions.
Intel has bought OEMs, IBM, denied licenses, denied sales on a cheaper solution, making that solution more expensive, thus uncompetitive.
Its not so easy as you say, but sounds good.
Imagine M$ trying to say for all Apple users that want to use any of M$' products itll cost you more than it would if your just bought a windows OS?
Never seen that happen before.
Imagine M$ denying Apple to run anything using M$, wouldnt allow for license, never seen that happen.
I picked M$, because as we know, its a monopoly as is Intel, very close in numbers for DT, and nowheres can I find such actions as Intel has done, then again, its not just AMD thats been hurt here, as the FTC is starting to point out, as Intels denied too many companies too many things to and its coming home to roost.
Why didnt Intel come to an agreement with the FTC? Thats the question we have to ask ourselves, as M$, when confronted, agrees to these entities demands, period.
Its either the demands were too high for Intel to swallow, Intels actions have caused such high demands be placed, and or, Intel is still trying to be monopolistic despite its fate
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I'm going for the latter. Intel said that the FTC's requests would 'make it impossible for us to do business'.

That's a flat out lie. What it means is, it will make it impossible for intel to maintain their monopoly.

The goal of the FTC is to reduce intel's monopoly, and one way or another that will happen. Intel, being intel, will resist every step of the way.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote



Your Back!!



AMD is just as corrupt, they just don't do any of that crap because even when they did have a lead, they are winning by a hair. If they did do such under the table acts, and got caught, they would be devastated, so they just keep that hair winning lead instead of risking it all and becoming less than a formidable opponent to intel


If AMD actually branched out like Intel, they would have tons more marketing and revenues, the main reason why people pprefer intel is because they have a hand in almost everything computerish. for a short list: wireless standard, USB, SSDs, mobos, processors, etc.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Problem is, when they had the lead, Intel was doing it to AMD, and had been for awile already.
All the gains Intel has seen are built upon a house of cards, as we really dont know how good Intel will perform under "fair practice".
Problem is, their entire structure has relied upon this amount of manipulation, all the while all its competitors have also been doing well as well, so we see LRB, denying netbooks decent gfx etc in order to hold such positions, as theyve already hust AMD severly, and thats when the law came a knockin.

How this is going to effect Intel in the future no one knows, as they somply wont be able to push others buttons, and will have to simply compete, and with the agreements already written, theyll have to comply, or be severly sued by AMD, which Intel will simply have no escape from.
Imagine say 20% of your entire business model depended on such actions, and now youre faced with no longer having this "support", it must be devasting at Intel at the higher level, and is why I keep saying Otellini has to go, as hes allowed this good company to suffer this.
If this all never had happened, we wouldnt be seeing Intel as it is today, but itd be healtheir than in its current position, and possibly even better in many aspects, as would of course AMD, VIA, nVidia and who knows who else
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

There is a huge difference in what you say and how things played out. Keep in mind this extends from late 90s to 2006 when Spintel lifted Dell's (and others) restrictions.

Your first point, ya, the i7 is killing AMD right now, but Bulldozer was supposed to be out in 2009 (read a 2006 roadmap)

Your second point, EVERY COMPANY DOES blababla TO MAKE MONEY ... BS. Spintel lowered thier cpu prices to a point to stifle competition by selling at or near cost to make. Why? because they had billions in revenue coming from elsewhere besides CPUs. AMD did not, and cutting prices cuts AMD's profits all together to the point where they could not afford to continue. What happened? in 2006 AMD started losing massive ammounts of money in the CPU business so they purchased ATI bring in more revenue. AMD had to cut jobs and fabs to decrease spending, wich also pushed Bulldozer back by 2 years. INTEL MADE THIS HAPPEN over a 5+ year period.

As far as having a $1000 CPU, when has the top of the line cpu NOT been $1000? That has nothing to do with a company being corrupt, just a niche market to make a little money off of. Look at the current Spintel EE cpus.

In the meantime, Intel released thier Core processor line on time, AMD released Phenom late, Intel released thier I7 on time, AMD is late with Bulldozer. When you have to restructer a corp completely because of the monopolistic abuse of the competitor, things go bad.

Your third point, whose side were you on in 2004?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Or when AMD's engineers go to production with their cutting edge processor with the TLB bug.
Thats called dumb.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


This is the problem here. People liek you think AMD iis some Godsend company. Well hate to break it to ya, they aren't. They are just as bad. They are just smaller so they hide it more.

As for Intel being the most corrupt, you really don't know do you? Look up Viacom. A telecommunications company that owns pretty much all the media in the world.

Intel looks like a mom and pop shop compared to them.

Trust me, you do not know what a corrupt company is.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Oh, the horror: Intel lowered their prices! People bought PCs for less! Man the barricades!

Again, if Intel sell CPUs for $1000 the AMD fanboys whine. If Intel sell CPUs 'at or near cost to make', then the AMD fanboys whine. Should Intel really have to ask AMD fanboys what price they're allowed to charge for their products?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Im thinking most here dont think AMD is anything but another company, and one thats been severly effected by illegal activities by another company, and now its time to pay up, and some dont like that, because its THEM who hold Intel that high, which is unfortunate on both counts
Time to get rid of Otellini
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

but its much closer the am3 vs 1156/1366
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

What AMD fanboy is whining about Intel selling cpus for $1000? heck id love it if intel's cheapest cpu was $500, if that were so, AMD wouldn't be on the verge of sinking. But truth of the matter is, Intel burned the CPU market trying to burn AMD with it. They got cocky and got caught.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Ok i just want to point out some stuff.

First off, Intel isn't necessarily evil, they just got a little carried away like any other company on a success streak would do. I don't hate Intel in the least bit, but I admit after learning about paying OEMs to only buy their chips I lost a lot of respect for them.

And secondly, why do you people keep arguing about PII 965s and i7 920s????? Even if the 920 wins, you have to remember that Phenom II quads, i5's, and i7s are basically the best of the best. Just go to best buy or look at your less computer savvy friend's computers (unless he's loaded and has an Alien ware) and look how much better any of these chips will be.

And also a response to Upendra on the last page: I don't think Bulldozer will be anything like a slightly better PII at all. Its arch is completely different, and by the tech info AMD released in the Financial Analyst Day '09 it looks pretty serious.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Intel already payed up. AMD agreed to it. Thats over.

As for Otellini I am not too sure. So far since 2006 he has led the company to great profits and released great products in the CPU, SSD and NAND memory area.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom