Like who? IBM? No. Apple? No. Coca Cola? No. Siemens? No. Samsung? No. Who?Quote:
Originally Posted by mAJORD
And AMD is only a CPU manufactor due to stolen technology and making clones.
Printable View
Like who? IBM? No. Apple? No. Coca Cola? No. Siemens? No. Samsung? No. Who?Quote:
Originally Posted by mAJORD
And AMD is only a CPU manufactor due to stolen technology and making clones.
isn't that because of IBM... that was ture a long time ago, but I think they've moved to new deigns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
and you forgot sun micro systems.
I would have to write page after page if all companies that did or do unethical business had to be included. You dont become big by being nice.Quote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
Also the OP is misleading (surprise). Its allegations, not being guildty in anything (yet).
:rolleyes::rolleyes::eek::eek::(:(Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Fanboyism reach itīs climax. I think this is the oficial new signature of XS members to replace the Nvidia one.
I'm trying to choose if I put this one or the: "AMD is the new VIA", but this one looks the winner for this month.
Grow up v_rr. Quoting others in your sig to bash them is a bit childish isn't it?
I'm sure there is a way to normally discuss things.
Ye and AM386 and AM486 wasnt clones and made by reverse engeering Intels tech? Good one. You are right, you did just reach your climax.Quote:
Originally Posted by v_rr
Jesus Christ don't you guy's ever give it a break? All of ya S.T.F.U and give it a break already with this juvenile drama.:shakes:
Shintai? Is that you? Or is someone posting on your account? :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
I remember you made some pretty wild points, but I didn't know as an Intel fanboy :confused:
The word is cross licensing agreement. And if you really think AMD is the one copying, AMD had an integrated memory controller LONG before Intel did, so both companies try to innovate in different ways.
Frankly, I'd rather have some competition. I wouldn't want this industry to end up like the 3d animation industry at the moment with all major software licenses belonging to Autodesk, which lovingly increased the price of the cheapest and most well known animation tool (softimage) by 5-6 times just to bring it par with their other solutions (Maya and 3ds max).
Monopolies never think of the customer m8, they only care about profits.
Perkam
I agree. :ROTF: Hasn't a clue.Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleZero
You should know your history about 386SL etc. Or even 4004 with "IMC" for that matter. What came first? K8 or 4004 or SL386? Talk about wild points...Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
And turn the time back to 1991. See what it brings. You talk about legal rullings in an aftermath.
I dont like Intel because I know how they do business. However I am not blind and thinking AMD is the pure holy saviour. Does that make me a fanboy? The fanboy must be the one that feels offended. But even then, there is a reality to live in. just like you cant have great graphics performance without AMD or nVidia atm.
And you dont need to be a monopol to give a rats rear end about consumers.
We should let all the murderers and rapists go because what they did was in the past.Quote:
Originally Posted by 003
:rolleyes:
Unfortunately the justice system does not work that way.
Incorrect information. Intel had one i386 with an IMC. AMD never had anything that early w/ an IMC.Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
Neither Intel nor AMD invented the integrated memory controller. But it was AMD that implemented in a modern CPU with substantial increases in memory performance and it would be naive to think that Intel's decision to have an IMC on the Nehalem wasn't influenced by AMD's successes with the technology.Quote:
Originally Posted by mstp2009
Perkam
Yeah they had it in i386SL and then dropped it for good(until i7 last year).AMD's approach was the right one at the right time since it propelled them into server market in which they had 0(zero) percent share.Not to mention that,on desktop, K8 was healthy faster than anything K7 or netbUst(P4 had some stuff that it did better,but a small number of them).Quote:
Originally Posted by mstp2009
To call AMD a copy cat after K7,K8,AMD64,serial HT bus,IMC is really something else...
:eek::eek: how do you know all these? Now they are doing nothing wrong?:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by 003
that Double O Three has no idea what he is talking about....:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by B.E.E.F.
"Jesus Christ don't you guy's ever give it a break? All of ya S.T.F.U and give it a break already with this juvenile drama."Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] riptide
Even if Intel broke every law they are accused of, it isn't in the same league as any of the things you mentioned. There is such a thing as Statute of Limitations, look it up? Maybe Double Clueless can look it up as well:rofl::ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by B.E.E.F. View Post
We should let all the murderers and rapists go because what they did was in the past.
I mean come on, how simple minded can you be if you have no clue that businesses pass on expenses like fines to consumers. That means higher prices so even if AMD is under cutting Intel that still equals higher prices as well. Maybe some little kid might think Intel isn't going to raise prices if pushed. Only someone who's been drinking thinks AMD isn't going to raise prices to levels just below Intel's now higher prices. Only a misguided Fans or AMD employee can see any good in that. So come Double Zero, point out the cluelessness instead of childishly off topic flame baiting:rolleyes: yea mods, clean it up LOL!:rofl:
If it weren't for Alpha, what you're saying would be true about the copy cat thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
:sofa:
look at all the trolls....
so let me get this straight, because amd is undercutting intel's prices, intel is going to raise prices. and i think this is wrong because i'm a drunk fanboi. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
i'm glad intel has been fined for unethical business practices, but i doubt this will "scare them straight." i don't recall the amount intel has been fined, but i'm sure they still made more money because of these backdoor deals. it's going to take some very aggresive prosicutors and regulators to clean the market up.
NO! Let's say Intel is fined X million US Dollars. They determine what they need to cover that, they raise prices by Y amount to cover said fine. Now let's just pick one out of many examples. One example: A $279 i920 prices is raised to $360 and Q9550 is set at about $335. X4 955BE would then increase from around $250 to $310. Anyone thinking AMD isn't going to follow Intel prices increases are setting themselves up to look silly!Quote:
Originally Posted by 570091D
Both Japan and Korea wanted Intel to change its business model and Intel did! Talking about squeezing companies for billions when Japan and Korea both collected less than 100 million combined should send up red flags! Hate for some large faceless company while cheering for another is almost a form of retardation!
yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
i don't think you understand modern business economics. the old model was cost + profit = price, but in todays highly competitive market that no longer applies. the new formula: profit = cost - price. the price remains constant and drops after prolonged market exposer. modern companies make money by reducing the cost to make the product (nvidia's simplified 9800gtx/gts250). the only market that does not act this way is raw materials (oil, milk, grain, lumber). intel would be foolish to increase prices in this economy, and it's not like no-one would notice the reason for the price hike. additionally, amd WOULD NOT increase prices to match intel's. if intel were to increase prices that would only increase demand for amd product. amd would maintain their current price structure and watch their market share rise because their products would be more competitive.:yepp:
AMD and intel developed x86 kinda "together" then intel gave AMD the cold shoulder and took it all. AMD balked at that (rightfully so) courtroom decision I believe it was forced intel to let AMD have their share of the IP. That was in the very beginning of the x86 development and intel was already trying to kill AMD back then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Surely you knew that.
??Quote:
Originally Posted by SparkyJJO
The K5 was the 1st AMD product that wasn't a reversed engineered Intel one. AMD copied Intel's previous designs down to the microcode ( I remember a lawsuit on this ).
1st attempt ended in utter disaster; than they bought the cores from outside ( Nextgen ). Even then, they used the lead designer of Pentium to get to the K6.
So no, Intel and AMD did not develop x86 together. By the time AMD actually figured to do something on its own, Intel was designing the Pentium 4.
You are so correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by SparkyJJO
Shintai is still in my sig:D
Come on, without AMD Intel wouldn't have Nehalem today, they'd b so far behind then it is today.
Without competition on the x86 market, Intel might've just stayed with Pentium 4 to achieve it's 10ghz dream or something
Without Intel and IBM's pushing, AMD would still be making BIOS chips. Need to read up on history before history comes back to bite you a new one.