Originally posted by: MarcVenice
Chances are Intel has been, and probably still is, using underhanded tactics to keep AMD from gaining marketshare.
And yes 1 billion = peanuts. It's a third of their 2008 profit, and 4,5% of their total income from that year. I find it sad that AMD won't be receiving it.
AMD has been hurt bad by this. Can you imagine if they had gained massive marketshare during the K8 vs P4 days? They could have had a lot more revenue, which could have translated in more money for R&D, better investments etc, which could have ment they would have been a better position right now, instead of a crappy one.
Originally posted by: Lothar
Originally posted by: MarcVenice
Chances are Intel has been, and probably still is, using underhanded tactics to keep AMD from gaining marketshare.
And yes 1 billion = peanuts. It's a third of their 2008 profit, and 4,5% of their total income from that year. I find it sad that AMD won't be receiving it.
AMD has been hurt bad by this. Can you imagine if they had gained massive marketshare during the K8 vs P4 days? They could have had a lot more revenue, which could have translated in more money for R&D, better investments etc, which could have ment they would have been a better position right now, instead of a crappy one.
They could have gained marketshare if they didn't make their dual core A64 chips expensive as f*ck.
AMD priced themselves out of the market.
Originally posted by: Fox5
Originally posted by: Lothar
Originally posted by: MarcVenice
Chances are Intel has been, and probably still is, using underhanded tactics to keep AMD from gaining marketshare.
And yes 1 billion = peanuts. It's a third of their 2008 profit, and 4,5% of their total income from that year. I find it sad that AMD won't be receiving it.
AMD has been hurt bad by this. Can you imagine if they had gained massive marketshare during the K8 vs P4 days? They could have had a lot more revenue, which could have translated in more money for R&D, better investments etc, which could have ment they would have been a better position right now, instead of a crappy one.
They could have gained marketshare if they didn't make their dual core A64 chips expensive as f*ck.
AMD priced themselves out of the market.
They were selling every chip they had. They weren't that expensive anyway, they were basically priced the same way core 2 duos were before core 2 quads came out. (or the way core 2 quads are currently) Single cores were left to the < $200 market, same as dual cores are now.
Besides, AMD's anti-trust claims come mostly from the times of the original Athlon, which had it been more successful (which is arguably deserved), they would have been in a position to expand capacity in time for the Athlon 64s and capitalize on their superior product. With the original Athlon (including Athlon XP) they could barely give away a generally superior product.
Originally posted by: Lothar
Originally posted by: Fox5
Originally posted by: Lothar
Originally posted by: MarcVenice
Chances are Intel has been, and probably still is, using underhanded tactics to keep AMD from gaining marketshare.
And yes 1 billion = peanuts. It's a third of their 2008 profit, and 4,5% of their total income from that year. I find it sad that AMD won't be receiving it.
AMD has been hurt bad by this. Can you imagine if they had gained massive marketshare during the K8 vs P4 days? They could have had a lot more revenue, which could have translated in more money for R&D, better investments etc, which could have ment they would have been a better position right now, instead of a crappy one.
They could have gained marketshare if they didn't make their dual core A64 chips expensive as f*ck.
AMD priced themselves out of the market.
They were selling every chip they had. They weren't that expensive anyway, they were basically priced the same way core 2 duos were before core 2 quads came out. (or the way core 2 quads are currently) Single cores were left to the < $200 market, same as dual cores are now.
Besides, AMD's anti-trust claims come mostly from the times of the original Athlon, which had it been more successful (which is arguably deserved), they would have been in a position to expand capacity in time for the Athlon 64s and capitalize on their superior product. With the original Athlon (including Athlon XP) they could barely give away a generally superior product.
Athlon XP weren't superior to the Northwood chips. Williamette, yes but not Northwood.
They lost the crown after Northwood and didn't regain it until A64 was released.
AMD did not drop their A64 dualcore below $300+
Look up the price the A64 dualcores with 1MB cache.
The X2 3800+ was there, but it was a crippled child and I didn't want that, not to mention Socket AM2's poor performance.
I know what I'm talking about.
I was one of the few who was looking to jump from an overclocked P4 2.4C@3.2GHz Northwood straight to dual core A64's but I found them to be expensive and delayed my purchase.
Intel pulled the rug from AMD by releasing a ~$330 dual core chip that vastly outperformed AMD's flagship $999 Athlon FX-62.
FYI, Intel also had the E6300 dual core Allendale selling at $183 during the Conroe launch.
Originally posted by: Fox5
Originally posted by: Lothar
Originally posted by: Fox5
Originally posted by: Lothar
Originally posted by: MarcVenice
Chances are Intel has been, and probably still is, using underhanded tactics to keep AMD from gaining marketshare.
And yes 1 billion = peanuts. It's a third of their 2008 profit, and 4,5% of their total income from that year. I find it sad that AMD won't be receiving it.
AMD has been hurt bad by this. Can you imagine if they had gained massive marketshare during the K8 vs P4 days? They could have had a lot more revenue, which could have translated in more money for R&D, better investments etc, which could have ment they would have been a better position right now, instead of a crappy one.
They could have gained marketshare if they didn't make their dual core A64 chips expensive as f*ck.
AMD priced themselves out of the market.
They were selling every chip they had. They weren't that expensive anyway, they were basically priced the same way core 2 duos were before core 2 quads came out. (or the way core 2 quads are currently) Single cores were left to the < $200 market, same as dual cores are now.
Besides, AMD's anti-trust claims come mostly from the times of the original Athlon, which had it been more successful (which is arguably deserved), they would have been in a position to expand capacity in time for the Athlon 64s and capitalize on their superior product. With the original Athlon (including Athlon XP) they could barely give away a generally superior product.
Athlon XP weren't superior to the Northwood chips. Williamette, yes but not Northwood.
They lost the crown after Northwood and didn't regain it until A64 was released.
AMD did not drop their A64 dualcore below $300+
Look up the price the A64 dualcores with 1MB cache.
The X2 3800+ was there, but it was a crippled child and I didn't want that, not to mention Socket AM2's poor performance.
I know what I'm talking about.
I was one of the few who was looking to jump from an overclocked P4 2.4C@3.2GHz Northwood straight to dual core A64's but I found them to be expensive and delayed my purchase.
Intel pulled the rug from AMD by releasing a ~$330 dual core chip that vastly outperformed AMD's flagship $999 Athlon FX-62.
FYI, Intel also had the E6300 dual core Allendale selling at $183 during the Conroe launch.
Athlon XP + Athlon were superior from 1999 to 2002. Athlon XP traded blows with Northwood, before finally losing soundly because AMD was late to market with the Athlon 64. The Opteron was out for a while though, and kicking ass. The northwood was solidly on top for less than a year.
Before core 2 duo, there were sub $200 dual cores. Not sure of the prices of Athlon X2s, but there were Opterons below $200. Anyway, the argument is that Intel's business practices stunted that superior product from 1999-2002 from gaining market traction, putting AMD in a poor position to market and produce Athlon 64s, which did have a large demand.
AMD had the superior cpu for the majority of the time from 1999 to 2006 when the core 2 duo came out. That's actually kind of amazing, considering AMD didn't significantly alter the design (most significant was integrating the memory controller) during that time period.
Intel's had less than 3 years on top and has already put out two significantly different designs, and 1 refresh.
Originally posted by: William Gaatjes
Originally posted by: taltamir
Originally posted by: 2March
Originally posted by: taltamir
capitalistic countries are the LEAST polluting, the LEAST abusive of workers, the LEAST oppressive...
The issue is that humans are selfish, capitalism uses selfishness in an intelligent manner. Communism and socialism pretends it doesn't exist and allows it to run rampant and cause even more harm.
OK...
So we (the European communists) polute more than the US does....
the europeans are slightly more socialist capitalists, but yes they pollute more than the USA, and are CERTAINLY more abusive... heck britain just banned all forms of "fetish" (any sex act not approved by the state), and self defense is practically illegal there too... germany had that debacle when they legalized prostitution and as a result women were contacted via their welfare... but due to 3 refusals to work and you are out rules women were given a choice, become a whore or lose your benefits. Privacy in those countries is also long gone...
But both EU and USA are way more free and less polluting than china and russia.
You want socialism, look at china and russia (there was never a communist country, there were only socialist countries that wanted to be communist eventually. socialism is a "trasition state between capitalism and communism")
germany had that debacle when they legalized prostitution and as a result women were contacted via their welfare... but due to 3 refusals to work and you are out rules women were given a choice, become a whore or lose your benefits.
That sounds like blackmail and i doubt that is legal. It seems a government officer misused his authority. In my country(not Germany)we have welfare too. But a lot people abuse the welfare sytem because they do not want to work. They just want to receive payments. Now to relieve the welfare system from this burden, heavier rules are applied. People are now more or less forced to work and if they still do not want to, they get the bare bare minimum to pay for food and a roof above their heads but that's it. No luxury. When you are not able to work because of an illness different rules apply and higher payment is afcourse in order. Regular check ups are done to make sure people are not magically cured. This is a good system but it wil not function without a re-education service and a cooperation between government and companies to stimulate the economy to create jobs for al those people. uckely this is sort of the case.
When talking about pollution, where do you get those numbers ?
Abuse of American Children by United States Government is Widespread
Under cover of law, an ever increasing number of children are being abused by the laws created when politicans and judges enact laws without forethought or inteligence.
Claiming to get tough on crime, politicians in an effort to elevate their own political careers, quickly draft legislation which senate, congress and states hastily ratify, enact and blindly implement thereby creating thousands of child victims.
The abuse has a chronic effect and the nightmares never end for these innocents.
Statements like, "We Must Protect the Children!", and "I intentend to Get tough on Crime!" are heard all over America from politicians wishing to gain political clout. These people care nothing about our children, or reducing crime. Their only goal is to climb the political ladder of success. Not to mention the many Constitutional violations these laws encompass. Americans need to know about all the Abusive Tactics of the United States Government and Local Judges and Law Enforcement Agencies. This website is dedicated to telling the truth about the Widespread Abuse of our children at the hands of Bigger Government.
When I read the accusations I was thinking "doesn't EVERYONE do that?". And I didn't mean HYPOTHETICALLY, I mean literally every business that I know of has exclusivity deals... how about they take apart the RIAA because they have exclusivity deals with radio stations that FORBIDS radio stations from playing songs by artists who did not sign over 90+% of their profits to the RIAA? Or take apart the MPAA because of their exclusivity contracts with theaters (highly exploitative, 70-90% of movie ticket sales AND a portion of concessions too) or how they are bullying companies that sell movies...There was nothing illegal about their business practices.
I give a $25 rebate to some of my customers for having their prescriptions filled at my store as opposed to my competitors.
I don't see anything illegal about Intel offering a rebate to suppliers who buy Intel chips.
There was nothing illegal about their business practices.
I give a $25 rebate to some of my customers for having their prescriptions filled at my store as opposed to my competitors.
I don't see anything illegal about Intel offering a rebate to suppliers who buy Intel chips.
The EU has proven time and time again that it's nothing but a politically motivated court.
Having a superior product doesn't mean anything if you can't make enough of it.
AMD realized they had a supply problem(count the number of Intel vs AMD fabs). That's why Dresden was built.
I don't care if a company does 1 million designs in a year.
I want the best value chip on the block that I can buy when I'm considering my purchase and that's it.
Whether a company has had only 1 design over 10 years or 100 years is irrelevant.