AMD Exec would never buy an AMD Chip

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10433953-64.html

oh man .. ditch the stock!

lol fail... (the exec..)

amd are awesome for cheaper builds

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bojamijams

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10433953-64.html

oh man .. ditch the stock!

---

he's full of him self.

/facepalm

....and this was a comment made SIX YEARS AGO.

Hardly relevant, IMO.

The quote is from 2004... which means he'd take a P4 over an athlon 64? fail

its very possible that quote was taken out of context. it could have been the sales exec getting mad at an engineer complaining that he cant sell them at the price he wanted too. to never want to use them in his own system, that parts funny cause so many complain that intel chips feel sluggish in windows

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kai Robinson

....and this was a comment made SIX YEARS AGO.

Hardly relevant, IMO.

---

Well, being 6 years old does make it less bad. But that's still horrible PR regardless, and a very stupid comment for an Exec to make

AMD has enough problems with sales as it is, they really don't need Henri running his dumb mouth, telling people with zero computer background that Intel is the only way to go

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AliG

Well, being 6 years old does make it less bad. But that's still horrible PR regardless, and a very stupid comment for an Exec to make

AMD has enough problems with sales as it is, they really don't need Henri running his dumb mouth, telling people with zero computer background that Intel is the only way to go

---

It's old and should be forgotton.

A lot has changed, it's not really relevant anymore.
Don't fall for Intel's PR...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alpha_tot

The quote is from 2004... which means he'd take a P4 over an athlon 64? fail

---

who doesnt love their presscott..

You have to admit, whether it was 4 years ago or six years ago. AMD had a more competitive line up then, compared to what it has now.

I was ROFL when I saw the title

Though, it would make much sense if it was said between 2006 and 2009. In 2004 AMD was not only competitive, it was actually better than Intel.

Never is a bad word, but as for today, it's a good decision.

lol

There are so many things wrong with that article it's not even funny. Epic Fail :down:

hehehe sounds like PR desperation hehehe

First of all it was cited at the time AMD was dominating intel(facepalm number 1) ;second of all AMD is competitive today in all the segments except the high end (both server and desktop;high end is hardly relevant profit wise)-facepalm no 2.

So all in all, fail article and facepalm granted from me(after 6 years).

Read the story; it's an internal memo. This has nothing to do with PR.

Convoluted style and shallow research makes my ass burn.

Hope you all read the entire article. There is lot more interesting things talked about then just what the topic of the thread says. And also for those saying its irrelevant because its old, Hellloooooo. THats the point. If it was said today it would have no counter-point or bearing on Intel's defense. Intel is bringing up this quote to undermine AMD's case. "AMD has accused Intel of essentially blocking PC makers from buying its chips by using alleged anticompetitive business practices. (AMD has claimed that PC makers would rather buy its chips but were pressured not to.)" And Intel was accused of these crimes during the same time when this statement by the AMD exec was made. Do I need to connect the dots for you all? If AMD is trying to accuse Intel of blocking PC makers from buying its chips it doesn't look good when AMD's own exec said HE wouldn't even buy them, making the AMD accusations look less credible.

A -> B -> C Reading comprehension. Most of you failed to see the point of the article. But keep on facepalming and calling the quote old,:ROTF:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tenknics

Hope you all read the entire article. There is lot more interesting things talked about then just what the topic of the thread says. And also for those saying its irrelevant because its old, Hellloooooo. THats the point. If it was said today it would have no counter-point or bearing on Intel's defense. Intel is bringing up this quote to undermine AMD's case. "AMD has accused Intel of essentially blocking PC makers from buying its chips by using alleged anticompetitive business practices. (AMD has claimed that PC makers would rather buy its chips but were pressured not to.)" And Intel was accused of these crimes during the same time when this statement by the AMD exec was made. Do I need to connect the dots for you all? If AMD is trying to accuse Intel of blocking PC makers from buying its chips it doesn't look good when AMD's own exec said HE wouldn't even buy them, making the AMD accusations look less credible.

A -> B -> C Reading comprehension. Most of you failed to see the point of the article. But keep on facepalming and calling the quote old,:ROTF:

---

using such a quote for legal reasons is laughable. theres NO details about the email other than who wrote it and thats its internal. as far as we know its sarcastic

Intel is good at two things :

1.crashing their opponents by blocking their to get supply from other suppliers
2.marketing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tenknics

Hope you all read the entire article. There is lot more interesting things talked about then just what the topic of the thread says. And also for those saying its irrelevant because its old, Hellloooooo. THats the point. If it was said today it would have no counter-point or bearing on Intel's defense. Intel is bringing up this quote to undermine AMD's case. "AMD has accused Intel of essentially blocking PC makers from buying its chips by using alleged anticompetitive business practices. (AMD has claimed that PC makers would rather buy its chips but were pressured not to.)" And Intel was accused of these crimes during the same time when this statement by the AMD exec was made. Do I need to connect the dots for you all? If AMD is trying to accuse Intel of blocking PC makers from buying its chips it doesn't look good when AMD's own exec said HE wouldn't even buy them, making the AMD accusations look less credible.

A -> B -> C Reading comprehension. Most of you failed to see the point of the article. But keep on facepalming and calling the quote old,:ROTF:

---

this kind of internal memo isn't strong enough to support Intel in FTC case

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haylui

Intel is good at two things :

1.crashing their opponents by blocking their to get supply from other suppliers
2.marketing

---

So are you saying they are not good at making processors?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

First of all it was cited at the time AMD was dominating intel(facepalm number 1) ;second of all AMD is competitive today in all the segments except the high end (both server and desktop;high end is hardly relevant profit wise)-facepalm no 2.

So all in all, fail article and facepalm granted from me(after 6 years).

---

If I was the exec who said that six years ago, I would definitely agree with the facepalm. However in todays chip market, if I was a business exec, I would agree, that its better to use Intel chips because they offer way better performance per watt. And as an overclocker, they kill AMD on anything that is not ln2 or liquid helium.

Additionally, they are only competitive when their quadcores or tricores are taking on Intels dual-cores or last generation processors(at significantly higher speed to do it to in this case). The thing is, AMD fastest chips cost just as much to make as Intel fastest if not more.

Xbitlabs was saying that the phenom II x2 cores are just as large in die size as the core i7.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...n-ii-x2_3.html

They are only competitive using brute force(large die size or extra cores) and taking small margins which cause the company to lose money. This mean they are far behind techwise and this type of business model is not sustainable. This they are not truly competitive.

If Intel started to price their chips like AMD and follow the same business model, they would take out AMD in a year. Their current pricing plan is a more of making due with what they have, rather than something to due with how fast their chips are.