GTFO, real companies makes profit without dirty games ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Anemone
Printable View
GTFO, real companies makes profit without dirty games ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Anemone
INDEEDQuote:
Originally Posted by Smartidiot89
-Intel also say "Hey Dell, if you use our CPU's and not AMD's we will give you a BIG discount."Quote:
Originally Posted by Anemone
Hence all the Anti-Trust law suits that they are going to lose sooner or later. FYI, the whole X86 license thing that Intel are griping about is just so they can have some ammo to hold over AMD's head because they know they are going to have to cough up cash due to law suits.....but that's another story.
Golden Rule: A drug dealer can make ALOT of money.....The ILLEGAL way. That doesn't make him better just because he has more money. Especially when looking at it from a legal/ethical standpoint.
Yes but a company that says "our idea is best" yet fails to show that such a product can be made for a profitable return, hasn't really demonstrated anything other than a nice idea. There have been millions of "great products" over time that couldn't be made profitably, or in quantity. That's all I meant to show here. I like AMD's ideas, but they tend to worry less about what the idea will cost to produce, what it will cost to bring to market, and for how large a % of the market such a product will be preferred by. If you want to make a great product, MAKE it and SELL it and SHOW folks that it is great by showing it's market success. That to me is far more valuable than the "telling" that Nvidia does or AMD does or Intel does. Back when Intel was touting the Core duo as a great chip, I said the same thing. Show us, don't preach emptily to the world.
Telling someone they have it all wrong, especially when you have no idea what it sitting back in their labs, is meaningless dribble meant to cause threads like this and go nowhere.
Profitable returns? Are you serious? Denebs are selling like hot cakes. So did the the Athlon 64 series. The A64's would have been more profitable if Intel weren't making these unethical & illegal business deals. They are in court for a reson you know. Intel illegal business aspects kept AMD from making ALOT of money. Especially when the A64's were handing the P4's it's azz on a silver platter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anemone
Before AMD had to do basically everything on their own and really didn't have the funds of Intel, but Global foundaries are about to make the CPU business a even playing field. AMD will be able to produce CPU's just as easy as Intel. Watch how much AMD advance in the next two years. They already have plans to beat Intel to the 12 Core Market. That alone shows a sign of how things are going to change. As for the last sentence in your post.......That should go for AMD and Intel. Let's not take a trip down memory lane.
Intel indulges in price fixing, illegal business deals, and etc. just to beat out a under dog company that is ALOT smaller than them. Though I'm sure you think this is acceptable. As small as AMD is they still give the "giant" Intel a run for it's money and have been doing so for years. That alone is a feat that deserves recognition. NTM, AMD has been on point with all of their release dates of products now that Global Foundaries is in the building.;)
Haha, no mate, it is not overclocked. 1,2Ghz Dualcore IOP is fast enough anyways :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Mechromancer
I run that controller on water since March 08 to cure the overheating issues.. seriously what were they thinking, trying to cool a ~25W chip with a heatsink that puny. Takes about 5 minutes idle (!) with stock heatsink for the heat alarm to be triggered, sounds like a siren only it's 10x louder, scares the hell out of anyone :p:
So you either need to add a fairly loud fan, or you go WC on that sucker - I never have more than 45C on my raidcon now :D
As for the Vertex, I do have a few Supertalent Ultradrives (Vertex clones) to bench, however most HW raidcons (including the Adaptecs...) still aren't optimized for SSDs, meaning the performance/throughput won't be any higher than on an ICH10R, sometimes it's even lower... And I need my 5405 to run my Raid 5 anyways, god knows what'll happen if I dare to connect other disks to form other arrays :rolleyes:
On another subject, I finally got that PII 940 LinX/prime stable at 3.6Ghz/2,4Ghz NB using 1,47V Vcore and 1,36V on the NB - temps are great, but do you think that's too much volts? Also how far do you think can I push the NB speed/how far does it make sense? Just asking because you have the same CPU.
just because 1 person in AMD might have opened his/her mouth, im sure it doesnt mean the whole company thinks that way, anyway, whoever said it is pretty silly.
Finally a bashing intel thread YES !
yeah intel needs to get a life then using dirty tricks to win against amd
dell overpriced shyt is pointless to even start there
amd ALL THE WAY!
all real cores vs cores with SMT.
like a big V8 verus a small turbo 4
the turbo still can't match the V8's low end toque line.
Turbo is high stress and higher heat then a bigger engine would be, but only good at specific RPMs's
no replacement for displacement. BTW turbo's are displacement of AIR.
Now your talking my language.. allthough I have run supercharged v6:p:Quote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
Why choose if you can have both;)
MMMM V8 roar on tail pipes. drowns out those fart can honda's for miles lolQuote:
Originally Posted by charged3800z24
no matter what your always limited by engine size or else KABOOM!
though I covered this.Quote:
Originally Posted by knopflerbruce
because you still have set amount of data. to use...
I recently drove a heavily modified Mercedes C500, car of a totally insane friend of mine, pro racer... twin turbo 4l V8 - 680hp and torque limiter to 800nm, unless you're on the track :p: All carbon fibre car, no interior nothing, weights around 1150kg :shocked:
I was going 120km/h and then put the pedal to the metal in 4th gear... my rear nearly went off the street :D
Erm... what was the topic, anyway? :wasntme:
The sentence is really childish.. as if architectural/engineering decisions had something to do with manhood :rolleyes:
I thought only nVidia made this kind of poor comments..
All that matters is performance versus die space.. HT seems to work just fine, it's just another way of squeezing the core's performance.
And please.. don't turn this into an Intel business-hating discussion.. I'm pretty sure their technicians and engineers had nothing to do with it.
It doesn't matter. I'm still basking in the glow of that image :DQuote:
Originally Posted by jcool
You abviously haven't heard my GM 3800 power house LOL... it sounds no where near a fart canned honda:p:. Although my 2.4 HO headswap'd 97 cavy does :(. The 3800 supercharged SII is a strong motor. check out this twin turbo 3800 :up::up::up: http://3800z24.info/INTENSE_Fbody.wmvQuote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
Ok I am going to compare this to fake boobs. Eveyone loves them because they perform the same or better then the real thing. Enough said.
I think jerry seinfeld would tend to disagree :DQuote:
Originally Posted by HuffPCair
They are real and they are fabulous! :rofl: :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by chew*
The purpose of simultaneous multithreading is mainly to keep all functional units warm by shuffling threads. If you've got an ALU being used by one thread, and a multiplier sitting around doing nothing, why wouldn't you want the multiplier to be used as well? It's not about "fake cores", it's just about utilizing the hardware that's already there. Saying that a separate "hyperthreaded pipeline" is needed is a bit of an exaggeration; each thread needs a register file of its own and other additional registers to hold state, but the overhead is nowhere near having a separate full core, not even by the wildest long shot. I'm not convinced yet of SMT's effectiveness, but in premise it's quite a sound idea. Once again, it's not about having "fake cores" but about using existing logic more effectively. That quote is just FUD. It wouldn't surprise me at all if AMD ends up adopting SMT themselves sometime in the near future.
awsome post man really good info :clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gautam
Hey they are real on the outside lolQuote:
Originally Posted by chew*
I heard somewhere that they do have plans for the 2011ish timeframe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gautam
Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if Intel drops SMT. Eventually
:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by flippin_waffles