Will AMD Phenom beat CD2???

[Gikaseixas]

Originally posted by: gOJDO
IMO, if Intel are not going to release a Q6400 then the best bang for the buck of all desktop quadcore CPUs will be the Q6600.

I am 100% sure that Phenom won't catch up the performance of highest clocked Kentsfield. Phenom's performance will be attractive for those who love folding, but for general user and the rest Core2 will be the way to go.
Also, I am pretty convinced that Penryn will only widen the performance gap between Intel and AMD. On the desktop it will own K10 more than Core2 owned K8.

You are 100% sure? Why? Do you know anything we don't?

According to what Gary stated the AMD quad will scale very well giving it a chance to perform better as the speed (MHz) increases. At this point none of us is sure of how well it will do, with that said, Gary and other guys with access to more info than us have my vote of confidence...

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: Viditor
Just thought I'd add some more grist for the mill here...
Kris Kubicki Blog

Production Barcelona samples come with the BA revision designator. These processors, manufactured after work-week 30 (WW30 for those who work in the corporate world) include errata fixes not present in the chips reviewed on September 10th.

One AMD developer, who wished to remain anonymous for non-disclosure purposes, stated, "B1 versus BA should be at least a 5%, if not more, gain in stream, integer and FPU performance."

An AMD engineer, when confronted with the claim, stated that 5% gains when moving from B1 to BA processors "seem conservative."

Why would AMD send reviewers a chip that was 5% slower than the chips actually for sale? Just doesn't make sense.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Viditor
Just thought I'd add some more grist for the mill here...
Kris Kubicki Blog

Production Barcelona samples come with the BA revision designator. These processors, manufactured after work-week 30 (WW30 for those who work in the corporate world) include errata fixes not present in the chips reviewed on September 10th.

One AMD developer, who wished to remain anonymous for non-disclosure purposes, stated, "B1 versus BA should be at least a 5%, if not more, gain in stream, integer and FPU performance."

An AMD engineer, when confronted with the claim, stated that 5% gains when moving from B1 to BA processors "seem conservative."

Why would AMD send reviewers a chip that was 5% slower than the chips actually for sale? Just doesn't make sense.

I agree, it doesn't...of course that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
I have to say that this has to be the most botched launch of all time. It's a good thing H Richard left cause there'd be a posse out ofter him if he'd stayed...

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: zach0624

Originally posted by: Viditor
Just thought I'd add some more grist for the mill here...
Kris Kubicki Blog

Production Barcelona samples come with the BA revision designator. These processors, manufactured after work-week 30 (WW30 for those who work in the corporate world) include errata fixes not present in the chips reviewed on September 10th.

One AMD developer, who wished to remain anonymous for non-disclosure purposes, stated, "B1 versus BA should be at least a 5%, if not more, gain in stream, integer and FPU performance."

An AMD engineer, when confronted with the claim, stated that 5% gains when moving from B1 to BA processors "seem conservative."

This will be very interesting regarding phenom's performance since it will be running on something like a b2 or b3(I haven't read much about steppings for a while so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). Although this probably will end up like all the other info from amd and be BS. I really hope that is true though because, lets face it if amd goes down we will a be screwed.
Please AMD your our only hope.(sorry bad star wars joke)

AMD hasn't given out any BS, they just weren't able to fulfill the promise of a launch with the first stepping (B0)...in other words they screwed up.
That said, you are essentially correct...
Here's the list:

Stepping B0 - The first Barcelona benchmarked back in April...VERY broken and couldn't even clock over 1.6 GHz

Stepping B1 - This is the engineering sample chip given to reviewers and the one with all of the benches we've been reading. These are low and mid power Barcelonas (Opterons)

Stepping BA - This is the actual production Barcelona now shipping and available in stores. It is supposedly at least 5% faster than B1 with many errata fixed. Again, mid and low powered Barcelonas

Stepping B2 - Engineering sample version of High Performance Barcelonas. The 2.5 GHz Barcelona sample was one of these...

Stepping B3 - At the moment, this is reputed to be the actual shipping version of the high powered Barcelona, due to ship in Nov and be available in Dec.

Edit: BTW, the person Kris mentions as saying BA is 5%+ faster was an AMD Developer, not an employee...in other words, a 3rd party company man who is under NDA.

Ok. I am so confused its like watching Dems and rep. in a debate.


So Viditor. We have benchies of B1 with its performance Broken parts being reviewed. Along side a 2.5 B2(ES) with all the fixes inplace on the BA. We see that the B2 only scales 15% higher than the broken B1. THATS NOT GOOD!!.

SO B3> B2>BA> Broken B1 = BS. IF B1 is broken and B2 is after BA(Fixed) than a 2.5 B2 only scaling 15% better than broken 2.0 B1 is very disappointing.

Viditor I know you can see threw this BS. But if not I have to ask you to explain this phenomenon to me. I can't wait to here this one.

As of right now the only thing I am sure of is that AMD named the Phenom correctly . except that there is no scientific way to explain what I pointed out above.

The members here know better than anyone what AEG was all about. Many say that it no longer exist. I call BS. It just went undercover with new name. That is the only scientific explanation for the Phenomenon that I discribe above. This has no reflection on any members in THIS discussion.

But it is the only valid explanation as to whats going on here. The Phenomenon discribed above does however have a scientific explaination. That explanation is this. Phenom is being Spun big time . From the beginning to the very end.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by:

But once we get to Geshner thats the end of the game nothing is going to change that.

Speculation is nice and all, but this seems beyond premature...

We will save this for another discussion OK.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: zach0624

Originally posted by: Viditor
Just thought I'd add some more grist for the mill here...
Kris Kubicki Blog

Production Barcelona samples come with the BA revision designator. These processors, manufactured after work-week 30 (WW30 for those who work in the corporate world) include errata fixes not present in the chips reviewed on September 10th.

One AMD developer, who wished to remain anonymous for non-disclosure purposes, stated, "B1 versus BA should be at least a 5%, if not more, gain in stream, integer and FPU performance."

An AMD engineer, when confronted with the claim, stated that 5% gains when moving from B1 to BA processors "seem conservative."

This will be very interesting regarding phenom's performance since it will be running on something like a b2 or b3(I haven't read much about steppings for a while so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). Although this probably will end up like all the other info from amd and be BS. I really hope that is true though because, lets face it if amd goes down we will a be screwed.
Please AMD your our only hope.(sorry bad star wars joke)

AMD hasn't given out any BS, they just weren't able to fulfill the promise of a launch with the first stepping (B0)...in other words they screwed up.
That said, you are essentially correct...
Here's the list:

Stepping B0 - The first Barcelona benchmarked back in April...VERY broken and couldn't even clock over 1.6 GHz

Stepping B1 - This is the engineering sample chip given to reviewers and the one with all of the benches we've been reading. These are low and mid power Barcelonas (Opterons)

Stepping BA - This is the actual production Barcelona now shipping and available in stores. It is supposedly at least 5% faster than B1 with many errata fixed. Again, mid and low powered Barcelonas

Stepping B2 - Engineering sample version of High Performance Barcelonas. The 2.5 GHz Barcelona sample was one of these...

Stepping B3 - At the moment, this is reputed to be the actual shipping version of the high powered Barcelona, due to ship in Nov and be available in Dec.

Edit: BTW, the person Kris mentions as saying BA is 5%+ faster was an AMD Developer, not an employee...in other words, a 3rd party company man who is under NDA.

Ok. I am so confused its like watching Dems and rep. in a debate.


So Viditor. We have benchies of B1 with its performance Broken parts being reviewed. Along side a 2.5 B2(ES) with all the fixes inplace on the BA. We see that the B2 only scales 15% higher than the broken B1. THATS NOT GOOD!!.

SO B3> B2>BA> Broken B1 = BS. IF B1 is broken and B2 is after BA(Fixed) than a 2.5 B2 only scaling 15% better than broken 2.0 B1 is very disappointing.

Viditor I know you can see threw this BS. But if not I have to ask you to explain this phenomenon to me. I can't wait to here this one.

As of right now the only thing I am sure of is that AMD named the Phenom correctly . except that there is no scientific way to explain what I pointed out above.

The members here know better than anyone what AEG was all about. Many say that it no longer exist. I call BS. It just went undercover with new name. That is the only scientific explanation for the Phenomenon that I discribe above. This has no reflection on any members in THIS discussion.

But it is the only valid explanation as to whats going on here. The Phenomenon discribed above does however have a scientific explaination. That explanation is this. Phenom is being Spun big time . From the beginning to the very end.

Firstly, I want to be clear that this is coming from K2 (Kris Kubicki) and not me...

1. Both B1 and B2 have errata...B1 is low and mid power, B2 is high performance. Forget that the numbers are sequential, and think of them as parallel revisions (which they are).

2. BA replaces B1, and B3 replaces B2...again, according to what K2 wrote.

So,

B1 = low and mid power with errata
B2 = High Performance with errata

BA = low and mid power with errata fixed
B3 = High Performance with errata fixed

What we have seen demoed so far are B1 and B2...both still contain the errata.
What's shipping is BA...low power with the errata fixed and reputed to be 5%+ faster across the board

What's due in November is B3...High Performance with errata fixed and ?% faster

 

[Nemesis 1]

So are you saying that the fixes that were put in place on the BA weren't included on the B2? If this is true Viditor sell your stocks now. This company isn't worth your faith in them .

Kris Kubicki got his info from somewere . If it was from AMD why would anyone believe AMD after 1 whole year of complete BS.

Things should have a natural order. What your discribing is anything but natural order. Fact is to any logical person this is out and out unbelievable!

BA came befor B2 . This makes NO logical sense!

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
So are you saying that the fixes that were put in place on the BA weren't included on the B2? If this is true Viditor sell your stocks now. This company isn't worth your faith in them .

Yes, that's what Kris is saying...
As to the company and my stocks, if Richard wasn't already leaving I might just have done that!
Demos, getting the proper gear to the reviewer on time, checking whether it's working properly, and making sure the right model is installed, all falls under the perview of the marketing manager (in this case, Henri). I have seen screwups this bad before, but very rarely!

Kris Kubicki got his info from somewere . If it was from AMD why would anyone believe AMD after 1 whole year of complete BS

He actually stated that he got it from a 3rd party AMD developer, and not from AMD directly. However the AMD engineer he talked to did confirm it.

 

[Phynaz]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
So are you saying that the fixes that were put in place on the BA weren't included on the B2? If this is true Viditor sell your stocks now. This company isn't worth your faith in them .

Yes, that's what Kris is saying...
As to the company and my stocks, if Richard wasn't already leaving I might just have done that!
Demos, getting the proper gear to the reviewer on time, checking whether it's working properly, and making sure the right model is installed, all falls under the perview of the marketing manager (in this case, Henri). I have seen screwups this bad before, but very rarely!

Kris Kubicki got his info from somewere . If it was from AMD why would anyone believe AMD after 1 whole year of complete BS

He actually stated that he got it from a 3rd party AMD developer, and not from AMD directly. However the AMD engineer he talked to did confirm it.

The problem doesn't lie with Henri. The problem lies with Hector.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
So are you saying that the fixes that were put in place on the BA weren't included on the B2? If this is true Viditor sell your stocks now. This company isn't worth your faith in them .

Yes, that's what Kris is saying...
As to the company and my stocks, if Richard wasn't already leaving I might just have done that!
Demos, getting the proper gear to the reviewer on time, checking whether it's working properly, and making sure the right model is installed, all falls under the perview of the marketing manager (in this case, Henri). I have seen screwups this bad before, but very rarely!

Kris Kubicki got his info from somewere . If it was from AMD why would anyone believe AMD after 1 whole year of complete BS

He actually stated that he got it from a 3rd party AMD developer, and not from AMD directly. However the AMD engineer he talked to did confirm it.

The problem doesn't lie with Henri. The problem lies with Hector.

Hector may be blamed for many things, but this isn't one of them...(though I suppose he IS the one that hired him)
Nobody ever looks over the marketing manager's shoulders in these scenarios...
I have over 20 years experience in dealing with high-level demos and marketing teams, and I can assure you that in THIS case, the buck stops with Henri.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Viditor why you like Hector is unbelievable. I think it was you who said Hector brought AMD out of its hole to be a world class. Processor company.

As you know it takes time to develop a cpu is that not so. When did Hector ascend to AMD's Helm????

When did AMD 64 appear on the market?

How long was AMD64 in development?

It was Sanders who was at the helm when AMD developed AMD64 not Rector

It was sanders vision that developed K8 not Rectors.

Rector came into power after sanders visions were developing .

Rector was their for the glory years thats all . It is sanders who should have gotten credit for developing a K8 not Rector.

AMD64 was a product that could sell its self. In america today we have a problem of subpar workers displacing good workers because of Wages. Its showing in the quality of our goods . This is easy to see. Seems to me Rector fits this picture to a T. Sanders= K8 Rector = K10 .

Viditor I don't know if this has ever happened to you but it has to me. Many many others can relate to this.
You ever come up with an idea that helps improve a product or production. Than give that idea to a superior in the company only to have them take credit for your work? But when S-h-i-t happens it only rolls down hill.

Rector is at the top of AMD's Management . Every one ans to him that is in upper management. This is a perfect Example . Sanders vision = K8 Rectors get credit . K10 missteps S-h-i-t rolls down hill to Henry. But Rector is truely responsiable. My wife and son are in upper management I know how this works.

 

[Stoneburner]

So the reviews At did were based on non shipping chips with errors included but the chips that are shipping should be fixed and working a bout 5 percent faster?

Me Grimlock confused

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Viditor why you like Hector is unbelievable. I think it was you who said Hector brought AMD out of its hole to be a world class. Processor company.

As you know it takes time to develop a cpu is that not so. When did Hector ascend to AMD's Helm????

When did AMD 64 appear on the market?

How long was AMD64 in development?

It was Sanders who was at the helm when AMD developed AMD64 not Rector

It was sanders vision that developed K8 not Rectors.

Rector came into power after sanders visions were developing .

Rector was their for the glory years thats all . It is sanders who should have gotten credit for developing a K8 not Rector.

AMD64 was a product that could sell its self. In america today we have a problem of subpar workers displacing good workers because of Wages. Its showing in the quality of our goods . This is easy to see. Seems to me Rector fits this picture to a T. Sanders= K8 Rector = K10 .

Viditor I don't know if this has ever happened to you but it has to me. Many many others can relate to this.
You ever come up with an idea that helps improve a product or production. Than give that idea to a superior in the company only to have them take credit for your work? But when S-h-i-t happens it only rolls down hill.

Rector is at the top of AMD's Management . Every one ans to him that is in upper management. This is a perfect Example . Sanders vision = K8 Rectors get credit . K10 missteps S-h-i-t rolls down hill to Henry. But Rector is truely responsiable. My wife and son are in upper management I know how this works.

Actually, I give neither Hector nor JS3 credit for K8...what I give Hector credit for is formulating the deals with the OEMs. Jerry always rubbed them the wrong way, but Hector got it done...and without that, AMD would be dead right now.

 

[Nemesis 1]

I think I will completely disagree with this notion. Rector brought a law suite against Intel . Thats what opened up the OEM market to Rector ++++ the fact that K8 was that good. The trueth is AMD didn't have the resources to supply the oems When this law suite is over I believe the courts will come to same conclusion . Intel will be able to prove this with recent developments.

Intel's rebates may have been based on certain conditions . But in the end Intel will beable to prove AMD simply did not have the capicity to supply the OEMS with guartenteed deliveries. It is that simple. Why do so many places sell either Coke or Pepsi but not both . Now that is very very odd. It is also ilegal by AMDs standards

 

[KHarvey16]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
BA came befor B2 . This makes NO logical sense!

Where's it say that? Did I miss it?

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
I think I will completely disagree with this notion. Rector brought a law suite against Intel . Thats what opened up the OEM market to Rector ++++ the fact that K8 was that good. The trueth is AMD didn't have the resources to supply the oems When this law suite is over I believe the courts will come to same conclusion . Intel will be able to prove this with recent developments.

Intel's rebates may have been based on certain conditions . But in the end Intel will beable to prove AMD simply did not have the capicity to supply the OEMS with guartenteed deliveries. It is that simple. Why do so many places sell either Coke or Pepsi but not both . Now that is very very odd. It is also ilegal by AMDs standards

Then we shall have to agree to disagree...

Though I will add that most all of the OEM contracts were in place well before the lawsuit (Sun, HP, and IBM all had OEM contracts before the lawsuit).

As for capacity,
1. Fab 30 had a capacity of 5500 WSPW (Wafer Starts Per Week)
2. Even the largest K7 on .18u was only 129mm2
3. On a 200mm wafer, that's just over 200 candidate dice per wafer or 1.1 Million candidate chips/week
4. If we assume even an 80% yield (and most reports at the time wer well over that after ramping), that's 880000 chips/week or 45.76 Million chips/year.
5. I believe that the world market sales in those days was close to 120-130 Million chips/year, so they had the capacity to deliver 35% with Fab 30 alone. (though the actual amount was higher as the average die size was MUCH smaller)

Also, remember that Intel has voluntarily shut down the rebate program (though they can volunteer to start it again) since the lawsuit, so whatever has happened since that time carries far less weight.

I personally think that Intel doesn't have a hope in Hell of actually winning the lawsuit (especially after they lost or destroyed the e-mail evidence they were ordered to retain by the courts)...the only 2 scenarios that make sense to me are
1. Intel settles at the last moment, thereby sealing a lot of the records that will be displayed in court and avoiding a very high potential award
2. Intel tries to appeal for as many years as they can in hopes that AMD will settle out of frustration at a later date.

My bias is towards option 1 as it seems to me to make the most sense for Intel and will most likely be the far cheaper option. JMHO

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: KHarvey16

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
BA came befor B2 . This makes NO logical sense!

Where's it say that? Did I miss it?

By Dave Graham BA is the fixed B1 rev that patches AMD errata 281 (stream, int, float performance). No production systems will use B1 chips. PERIOD. straight from AMD's mouth about 30 minutes ago from the field application engineer who has to support this. All review systems that you've seen have utilized a BIOS patch to workaround the errata which does in fact impact performance.

B2 is the mask revision for higher speed parts. AMD will announce these in Q4 and ship for rev. either at the end of Dec. or Jan. these will be 2.5 and 2.6 parts.ham

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
I think I will completely disagree with this notion. Rector brought a law suite against Intel . Thats what opened up the OEM market to Rector ++++ the fact that K8 was that good. The trueth is AMD didn't have the resources to supply the oems When this law suite is over I believe the courts will come to same conclusion . Intel will be able to prove this with recent developments.

Intel's rebates may have been based on certain conditions . But in the end Intel will beable to prove AMD simply did not have the capicity to supply the OEMS with guartenteed deliveries. It is that simple. Why do so many places sell either Coke or Pepsi but not both . Now that is very very odd. It is also ilegal by AMDs standards

Well in Coke and Pepsi's case I believe they have very comparable marketshare so yeah exclusivity in some situations isn't anti-competitive because the impact isn't threatening when both are of comparable marketshare.

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/bus...0527_COKE_GRAPHIC.html

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Cmon guys the writing is on the wall, Barcelona is not going to be the C2D killer we thought it would be. Just like the R600 wasn't an 8800 killer. It's like de ja vu all over again. If a company has a processor that will beat its competition it will do everything in its power to show the world that, not hide in secrecy like AMD is doing. I'm hoping for the best, but as far as I can see the writing is on the wall. Intel will continue to hold the crown.

 

[Nemesis 1]

I see your point but its also removing my right to get the drink i want at the food place i preferr.

What happened To Digital equipment . Didn't IBM squezee them out of the market.
I suppose that the IBM pc using intel x86 squezed them out. Why isn't ms a monopoly by law . Shouldn't it be broken up like AT&T was.

To many differant standards going on here . Its USA for crying out load.

How do we know mike dell didn't approach intel and say if we sell Intel exclusively and we get a cut on cpu cost we can under sell everone in the market.

I don't see why Dell and Intel couldn't agree to such a deal . After all its Dells choice . Did dell ever sell AMD cpu's till recently?

I just don't see what the problem is.


Perfect example is Apple Intel now . Intel exclusive for Apple it was Apples choice and apple is grabing market share now with intel.

apple is also getting 1st products from intel is that illegal ? Dell is know longer intels cpu's first to market vender . when c2d first appeared it was apple that got first shipments from intel . if i was pc maker i would go exclusive intel in the hopes of getting first products ahead of dell hp. first to market is no small deal. so i think amd is just cring like a baby .

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
I see your point but its also removing my right to get the drink i want at the food place i preferr.

What happened To Digital equipment . Didn't IBM squezee them out of the market.
I suppose that the IBM pc using intel x86 squezed them out. Why isn't ms a monopoly by law . Shouldn't it be broken up like AT&T was.

To many differant standards going on here . Its USA for crying out load.

How do we know mike dell didn't approach intel and say if we sell Intel exclusively and we get a cut on cpu cost we can under sell everone in the market.

I don't see why Dell and Intel couldn't agree to such a deal . After all its Dells choice . Did dell ever sell AMD cpu's till recently?

I just don't see what the problem is.


Perfect example is Apple Intel now . Intel exclusive for Apple it was Apples choice and apple is grabing market share now with intel.

apple is also getting 1st products from intel is that illegal ? Dell is know longer intels cpu's first to market vender . when c2d first appeared it was apple that got first shipments from intel . if i was pc maker i would go exclusive intel in the hopes of getting first products ahead of dell hp. first to market is no small deal. so i think amd is just cring like a baby .

Really? You don't really have a right to buy whatever drink you want at a restaurant, you have a right to buy whatever they carry. There is a no one pointing a gun to your head and saying you must go to that restaurant. If you want that drink badly enough, you will simply go to another restaurant. They are also potentially losing some customers due to the reduction in choices, so it's not all advantages for a restaurant to only carry 1 drink.

In Apples case it's fine that particular vendor has a small enough marketshare that exclusivity with one manufacturer isn't going to cause enough damage worth caring about.

Since now that Dell is both AMD/Intel as well as most other Major OEM such as Gateway and HP, AMD has most of the largescale OEM carrying it's products, so it's up to AMD getting out good products now.

With Intel and AMD, it can be classified as critical damage if Dell doesn't carry AMD because they have significant OEM marketshare, simply because Intel's marketshare is at about a 4:1 ratio with AMD's give or take and not a 1:1.

At any rate AMD doesn't have any more excuses with major OEM now as they all carry AMD, as well, besides Apple that has so little marketshare that they aren't worth mentioning.

Microsoft is a monopoly are you talking about the Operating System sector right?, Well there are some alternatives now, like Mac OS for x86 and Linux, so I wouldn't complete agree.

Though I do agree that AMD loves to use the anti-competitive flag a little too often.

 

[Nemesis 1]

So your saying that its allright for apple because of small but rapidly growing market share to be exclusive to Intel . So when penryn is released and Apple gets the first shipped processors that its OK . But what if Apples market share keeps growing at present rate when will it not be alright? With VM it is possiable for Apple to grow by intel exclusitivity. Just like Intel grew Dell because of its exclusivtivity. Dell was first to recieve Intel new products . This isn't a small matter.

If I owned HP and I decided to go Intel exclusive. Your saying that is wrong. Iwill never understand that kind of thinking not as an American.

Its my company so I can put in the box what ever I want.

If Intel gave me a better deal because I was exclusive your saying thats wrong . I say its OK and very smart. When AMD had the performance lead that could hurt my sales. But isn't it really my choice. Intel wouldn't care if Dell went exclusive AMD I doubt intel would care. But Dell would go bankrupt without Intel . Thats A fact.

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
not as an American.



.

Huh? As an american you do what the gubmint says!

IN all seriousness, there are reasons for such regulations so falling back on simplistic libertarian notions isn't helpful here. It's a point alot of people misunderstand about AMD fanboys, alot of them arent' fanboys they just want some competition.

 

[Nemesis 1]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=F7LNUkHa7U8

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
So your saying that its allright for apple because of small but rapidly growing market share to be exclusive to Intel . So when penryn is released and Apple gets the first shipped processors that its OK . But what if Apples market share keeps growing at present rate when will it not be alright? With VM it is possiable for Apple to grow by intel exclusitivity. Just like Intel grew Dell because of its exclusivtivity. Dell was first to recieve Intel new products . This isn't a small matter.

If I owned HP and I decided to go Intel exclusive. Your saying that is wrong. Iwill never understand that kind of thinking not as an American.

Its my company so I can put in the box what ever I want.

If Intel gave me a better deal because I was exclusive your saying thats wrong . I say its OK and very smart. When AMD had the performance lead that could hurt my sales. But isn't it really my choice. Intel wouldn't care if Dell went exclusive AMD I doubt intel would care. But Dell would go bankrupt without Intel . Thats A fact.

Apple, isn't big enough to be a threat yet in the x86 world, when they actually become a threat, I doubt it will ever occur, since they cater to the more wealthy of the market. Your situation is only hypothetical, we will deal with that when we come to it.

Like I said already, with something as large HP/Dell, it is enough to cause significant damage. This is not acceptable to AMD's continued existence. Not so for the moment with Apple.

Not so when your actions, will cause the destruction of a company that was preventing a monopoly. AMD was first introduced as a second source so that if the super unlikely event Intel died we would have second source for x86 processors, AMD's continued existence, is of paramount importance. If what Intel does endangers that, that is not acceptable.