AMD Exec would never buy an AMD Chip

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nate39

It fails because what Intel did was wrong regardless of the competition and if AMD was truly that bad why were they trying to stifle competition? If they would actually use this as a defense they will be laughed out of court it would seem. Am I missing something?

---

Yes.
Intel's way is money and power.
AMD is positioning itself as a company of ethics selling a good product at a fair price.

Traditionally money and power are preferred over morals and ethics.

As was said many times before, it is cutted out of context. I'd say the way he meant it was like he would never buy AMD because would be convinced by PR/media massage that Intel is the only way. But as long as he worked for AMD, he knew AMD (K8 at those times) was signifficantly better.

Anyone read the actual document?
What's up with the black lines,I thought Intel can do full HD now :rofl::p:
A 64 was launched in September of 2003,the document says Athlon - as in
Athlon xp,not athlon 64.

I see "In 2004, AMD Executive Vice President Henry Richard, the company's highest ranking sales executive, declared internally..." there, you don't?

So 2004 - Athlon 64. In the era of K7, there were cycles when one company had higher freq and other had higher freq thus one or other was better, but K7 was not really bad either.