Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel copied us, says head of AMD

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • AMD
  • Intel
Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 3, 2008 1:27:34 PM

AMD are deserving of the top spot and are being robbed. Intel copy and cheat

Articles:
http://www.custompc.co.uk/news/601749/intel-copied-us-s...

http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/07/12/01/10171434....

Quotes from the Article
Quote:
AMD's CEO, Hector Ruiz, says that all the all the major recent innovations have come from AMD, while Intel is ‘trying to catch up’


Quote:
Talking to Gulf News, Ruiz said that ‘If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel


Quote:

Meanwhile, Intel’s forthcoming Nehalem architecture promises an integrated memory controller, which AMD has had since 2003


Intel are Evil!

More about : intel copied head amd

January 3, 2008 1:28:52 PM

Oh, thundy... give the Evil Empire thing a rest already, willya? Sheesh... :( 
January 3, 2008 1:45:23 PM

Just remember, if it wasn't for Intels' work back in the 60's - more than likely, you wouldn't own a personal computer.
Related resources
January 3, 2008 1:49:55 PM

Hey Thunder... have ya brought a phenom system yet? :heink:  . o O (I suppose I'll never get an answer)

You know, I'm kinda sick of all the flame threads coming up. Wish people would just buy what ever trips their trigger, rather then triggering flaming threads. Whats the point of these types of threads??

Quote:
Intel might have started the whole silicon microprocessor thing in the early days of computing, but AMD’s chief, Hector Ruiz, reckons that AMD’s been responsible for all the recent innovations in the chip industry.


:lol: . o O (Intel might have?)

No... they did start the whole silicon microprocessor.... thang.. :lol: 

Why whine about these things... I mean.. Okay.. Intel has a better product out there (because they got innovated), Sooo this whining thing isn't exactly innovating anything from AMD now... Sounds more like, "Aack... we had a good product and now Intel has something better that we have to top? I know, we will lie that our new latest product will be better... lets say.. 40% better."

Gah... Companies.. Can't be happy with them or without them. :lol: 
January 3, 2008 1:50:26 PM

How many threads have you started being anti Intel?

Everyone has their opinions of who is better and why. Everyone is accepting that people are not all going to like the same company. But I think everyone can say that they don’t like people pushing one thing or feeding us utter bull crap.

Please stop.
January 3, 2008 1:51:11 PM

Wasnt Hector the same one who said Phenom was going to be 40% faster clock for clock than kentsfield?
January 3, 2008 1:53:13 PM

Grimmy said:
Hey Thunder... have ya brought a phenom system yet?


Yeah, he got it from the same store Baron got his QFX. :bounce: 

Oh... ok... I promisd to lay off Baron. Sorry dude! Love ya! Let's do lunch! Have your people call my people! Ciao! :pt1cable: 
January 3, 2008 1:57:14 PM

AMD's management is like a crying kid who's cried wolf. Almost none of AMD's current or past product is "innovative", per se. AMD copied most of its technologies from other companies. I agree that both Torrenza and Fusion might be considered innovations, but none of current AMD's product is innovative.

EDIT: Actually, Torrenza is just an initiative that utilize AMD's current system architecture. Intel already attempted Fusion-like product back in 2000. Therefore, both of them shouldn't be considered "innovations".
January 3, 2008 2:14:29 PM

To innovate is to come up with something new. Sure AMD came up with some new stuff, but Intel seems to have perfected the innovations.

In the business world, its not always good to be first. Intel seems to be allowing AMD to guinea-pig all the new ideas, then Intel simply builds on those ideas that work well.
a b à CPUs
January 3, 2008 2:20:27 PM

If it were not for the group splitting from Fairchild Intel would not exist.

Texas Instruments should have then been appropriately attributed with the design and manufacture of the first microprocessor.

I miss my old TI programmable ... and my slide rule.

I have a tear in my eye ...

onboard memory controller ... innovative.
Server cpu scaling (OMC) ... innovative (still innovative for Barcelona).
64 bit ... innovative.
quad issue ... innovative (shift in focus from frequency to IPC).
Dual core ... innovative.
Quad core ... innovative.
first to a gigahertz ... innovative.
first to back to $5 a share ... not so innovative ... lol
no jingle ... not so innovative.
paper launch of phenom rushed to market with a bug ... not so innovative.
Marketing Department ... non-existent.
a b à CPUs
January 3, 2008 2:31:46 PM

Meh - One could just as easily argue that Intel's engineers decided that certain ideas that AMD went ahead and ran with weren't quite ready for prime time. The obvious example: Some people like to sneer at 'Double Cheeseburgers', but they WORK better than the 'Native' quads from AMD, were faster/easier to deliver to the buying public, and also offered the side benefit of being flexible enough that some of the same equipment could be used for dual core or quad core stuff as the need of the day dictates.

To take an extension of that example to the extreme: Leonardo DaVinci "invented" lots of things, including a rolling, armored fortress armed with Cannons. Couldn't make it actually *work* tho... Hence no Medieval tanks.

Having the idea, and/or being first with it certainly has strong advantages. But at the end of the day, it's still got to work better than the other guys' stuff.
January 3, 2008 2:51:24 PM

"If you want to make a comptuer processor from scratch, you must first create the universe"

Damn I love putting things in perspective.

Ok now someone post a picture of an Abacus.

Stupid surf control at work won't let me... :kaola: 
January 3, 2008 3:25:42 PM

AMD have continued to make innovative technology, that has been good for the computer industry. Intel realize that they are behind in technical capabilities..so they take the quick route and copy AMD technologies.
Phenom is criticized..however Intel have made a direct copy with their Nehalem Quad processor. Intel know that they cannot be taken seriously if they continue to sell double Cheese burger quads.
Without AMD, computer technology will slowdown and Intel would have to think for themselves for a change.

Don't bite the hand that feeds! AMD are essential for CPU technology! Evil Intel!
January 3, 2008 3:55:35 PM

thunderman said:
AMD have continued to make innovative technology, that has been good for the computer industry. Intel realize that they are behind in technical capabilities..so they take the quick route and copy AMD technologies.
Phenom is criticized..however Intel have made a direct copy with their Nehalem Quad processor. Intel know that they cannot be taken seriously if they continue to sell double Cheese burger quads.
Without AMD, computer technology will slowdown and Intel would have to think for themselves for a change.

Don't bite the hand that feeds! AMD are essential for CPU technology! Evil Intel!


*yawn*

I don't even want to try anymore.
January 3, 2008 4:00:03 PM

I find it interesting you generalize ALL of 'CPU technology' to AMD and Intel.

IF AMD disappears (like it would, ... seriously - these guys know all sorts of routes to acquire cash), the resultant vacuum would be filled by another processor company.

Nature abhors a vacuum. - Francois Rabelas
January 3, 2008 4:02:18 PM

yomamafor1 said:
*yawn*

I don't even want to try anymore.


I'm with you. I was chuckling out loud at work. His threads are improving, those articles are only a month old, not years! Baby steps!


My question: If AMD invented everything and Intel copied, why are Intel chips way faster? Why did Intel have a quad core over a year before AMD did?

I love that AMD is now going to do a MCM and Intel is now switching to monolithic. The irony!
January 3, 2008 4:03:10 PM

blueeyesm said:
the resultant vacuum would be filled by another processor company.


Such as....!?!?
January 3, 2008 4:08:05 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
Such as....!?!?


Any that wish to.

Hell, who's to say some research lab doesn't suddenly spin off a company with some new method to make processors and explodes onto the market?

Think maturely, rather than reacting like that. Sheesh.
January 3, 2008 4:10:12 PM

thunderman said:
AMD have continued to make innovative technology, that has been good for the computer industry. Intel realize that they are behind in technical capabilities..so they take the quick route and copy AMD technologies.
Phenom is criticized..however Intel have made a direct copy with their Nehalem Quad processor. Intel know that they cannot be taken seriously if they continue to sell double Cheese burger quads.
Without AMD, computer technology will slowdown and Intel would have to think for themselves for a change.

Don't bite the hand that feeds! AMD are essential for CPU technology! Evil Intel!



L2 cache ...
On Die L2 cache ...
Dual Core w/ shared L2 Cache ...
MMX ...
SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4
Dual Channel Memory ...
RDRAM - fast, but expensive
DDR2, DDR3 support
First to 130nm, 90nm, 65nm, 45nm
Double pumped Integer processing units...
Quad pumped FSB...
VLIW Itanium Big Box processors...
Hyperthreading tech...
Dual OS tech...
etc....

64-bit was a bit premature... No one who bought an Athlon 64 in 2003 ever ran a 64-bit stable OS with it... unless it was a linux box...
On-Die Memory controller... Both Intel and AMD had always been developing this, but Intel decided that is wasn't yet necessary... As Core 2 without on-die memory controller owns any Athlon with an on-die memory controller, seems Intel was right...

January 3, 2008 4:14:20 PM

blueeyesm said:
Any that wish to.

Hell, who's to say a some research lab doesn't suddenly spin off a company with some new method to make processors and explodes onto the market?

Think maturely, rather than reacting like that. Sheesh.



Think maturely?

It's rather naive to think that just any company that wishes will be able to make a product that could even beat the slower AMD processors, let alone compete with Intel.

It is my opinion that the only way for someone to enter the CPU market is to purchase AMD, I just don't see how it could be possible any other way. The amount of R&D that would go into creating a competitor to Intel would be equal to the GDP of several third world countries.
January 3, 2008 4:20:27 PM

BSMonitor said:
On-Die Memory controller... Both Intel and AMD had always been developing this, but Intel decided that is wasn't yet necessary... As Core 2 without on-die memory controller owns any Athlon with an on-die memory controller, seems Intel was right...


thunderman didn't read the entire article me thinks..

Quote:
Meanwhile, Intel’s forthcoming Nehalem architecture promises an integrated memory controller, which AMD has had since 2003, and Intel is also promising processors with integrated graphics, which AMD has already announced with its Fusion technology.

That said, 64-bit desktop computing has yet to become widespread, and Intel’s Core 2 Quad processors are dramatically outperforming AMD’s Phenom chips. AMD’s AMD64 architecture may have been ahead of its time, but Intel’s Core 2 has proved that you don’t necessarily need an integrated memory controller to make the fastest chip.


PS. Does he ever join in on a discussion? Or does he just make flame attracting threads as soon as he finds any anti Intel/pro AMD article (even if it's years old), he's like a forum bot (if not human) emulating Digg lol.
January 3, 2008 4:26:02 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:

It's rather naive to think that just any company that wishes will be able to make a product that could even beat the slower AMD processors, let alone compete with Intel.

It is my opinion that the only way for someone to enter the CPU market is to purchase AMD, I just don't see how it could be possible any other way. The amount of R&D that would go into creating a competitor to Intel would be equal to the GDP of several third world countries.


So keeping the scope to just two companies, like rednecks arguing over a ford or chevy to see who gets their fat asses from A to B, no company would "buy" AMD if it goes bankrupt.

Any company worth their grain will have a product that doesn't necessarily have to compete - they just have to make something the consumers feel they not just want, but need and do it in a way that Intel can't.

The amount of R&D needed wouldn't have to exceed even Uzbekistans GDP (55.75 billion (2006 est.)). At any rate, what VC wouldn't want to invest in the next big thing, if they felt there was really something to it? Thats' how Nvidia ultimately dominated - they produced a product that consumers felt they needed.
January 3, 2008 4:35:58 PM

IBM is always around to pick up the pieces.
January 3, 2008 4:38:08 PM

skittle said:
IBM is always around to pick up the pieces.


Motorola, Intersil, Via, etc. etc.
January 3, 2008 4:40:14 PM

via? dont make me laugh...
January 3, 2008 4:46:32 PM

Laugh all you want, they still have niches Intel is only starting to try to get into.

January 3, 2008 4:50:50 PM

blueeyesm said:
Laugh all you want, they still have niches Intel is only starting to try to get into.



The part I don't think you get is that the majority of us are talking about the value/enthusiast desktop segment.

There isn't a company that is going to come out of left field and get a product that competes with Core 2 right now... And if they do, they will get killed by Nehalem.

We all realize other companies make chips other than AMD/Intel.. but would you put a VIA chip in a desktop?
a b à CPUs
January 3, 2008 4:51:41 PM

So, if AMD was supposedly the first to introduce all this technology, then why aren't they leading the world with their innovations? I just don't understand how a company can create something so great (that is 'copied') yet fails to deliver the products they are being copycatted with.

That's like saying you invented the round wheel, then patented your 'square' wheel and wonder why it failed.

Also, wouldn't that be like Ford complaining that they developed the automobile assemby line and telling all other car makers that they 'stole the idea' from them?
January 3, 2008 4:57:37 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
Think maturely?

It's rather naive to think that just any company that wishes will be able to make a product that could even beat the slower AMD processors, let alone compete with Intel.

It is my opinion that the only way for someone to enter the CPU market is to purchase AMD, I just don't see how it could be possible any other way. The amount of R&D that would go into creating a competitor to Intel would be equal to the GDP of several third world countries.
Yeah, it's not like some company is all of the sudden going to jump into the market; fabs aren't cheap, and the R&D to get where even AMD is now is far greater than anyone just jumping into the market will be able to afford. It would be very interesting if Nvidia ended up buying AMD, as they have discussed the idea of making CPUs in the past.
blueeyesm said:
So keeping the scope to just two companies, like rednecks arguing over a ford or chevy to see who gets their fat asses from A to B, no company would "buy" AMD if it goes bankrupt.

Any company worth their grain will have a product that doesn't necessarily have to compete - they just have to make something the consumers feel they not just want, but need and do it in a way that Intel can't.

The amount of R&D needed wouldn't have to exceed even Uzbekistans GDP (55.75 billion (2006 est.)). At any rate, what VC wouldn't want to invest in the next big thing, if they felt there was really something to it? Thats' how Nvidia ultimately dominated - they produced a product that consumers felt they needed.
You do realize we're talking about CPUs, right? Please explain to me who these buyers are that are looking to buy an inferior product, but one they "feel like they not just want, but need". These aren't cars, iPods, or even game consoles, these are CPUs which the vast majority of buyers know nothing about, nor do they care. They're merely purchasing what comes in their Dell, HP, Gateway, Sony, Toshiba, or Apple computer. Even if a company did decide to jump into the market, they'd have to compete a company with a current market value of over $143,000,000,000. Without a foot in the industry today, there's no way someone new can just pop in when Intel has years of brand recognition, and the vast majority of OEMs supporting them. Heck, even when AMD had the superior chip, Intel was easily able to outsell AMD on all fronts.
January 3, 2008 5:02:58 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
I'm with you. I was chuckling out loud at work. His threads are improving, those articles are only a month old, not years! Baby steps!


My question: If AMD invented everything and Intel copied, why are Intel chips way faster? Why did Intel have a quad core over a year before AMD did?

I love that AMD is now going to do a MCM and Intel is now switching to monolithic. The irony!


Dang! You have time to chuckle while flipping burgers? :bounce: 


Once China gets its tech industry on a role all our chips will be made in China. That means lead in your CPU again.
January 3, 2008 5:05:24 PM

I enjoy reading thunderman's threads. He is clearly knowledgeable when it comes to processors, and he is using this knowledge to make posts that he knows will get a rise out of us. My favorite quote so far is "Quad2Duo's double cheeseburger Pentium 3." That's good stuff.
January 3, 2008 5:05:46 PM

Reynod said:
onboard memory controller ... innovative.


What exactly is so innovative about a technology that Intel had on their first microprocessor in 1971?
January 3, 2008 5:06:13 PM

Heyyou27 said:
Without a foot in the industry today, there's no way someone new can just pop in when Intel has years of brand recognition, and the vast majority of OEMs supporting them. Heck, even when AMD had the superior chip, Intel was easily able to outsell AMD on all fronts.

There's probably one way.

Google.

If Google buys AMD and rename it as Google, I'll bet AMD's market share will increase. Besides if that happens, AMD is no longer in debt.
January 3, 2008 5:06:30 PM

Paid Intel fans bash AMD?....that's the claim Sharikou has made on his blog. Not sure if this is true...However Sharikou is one of the leading experts with a reputable blog, so it could well be possible.

Link to the Blog:
http://sharikou.blogspot.com/

AMD4Life!
January 3, 2008 5:07:34 PM

You know thunderman, I get the feeling you're getting paid by AMD to bash Intel...
January 3, 2008 5:08:51 PM

just face it these companies need each other, if we didn't have AMD we would still be using 4ghz pentium D processors while are cases caught fire
January 3, 2008 5:14:32 PM

:lol: 

No... I think customers like us, who seek fast PC's need both companies.

Do you think AMD wants Intel competition? Seems as though their CEO whines about stuff rather then do anything.

Do you think Intel wants AMD's competition? Oh wait, AMD needs a better product to really be competitive... :cry: 
January 3, 2008 5:29:35 PM

caamsa said:
Dang! You have time to chuckle while flipping burgers? :bounce: 


I will not accept your invitation to the e-penis war.
January 3, 2008 5:32:32 PM

blueeyesm said:
Any company worth their grain will have a product that doesn't necessarily have to compete - they just have to make something the consumers feel they not just want, but need and do it in a way that Intel can't.


Not in the computer world. In the computer world it so simple to compair products, BENCHMARK THEM. 100% factual and objective comparison.

Many other products are purely subjective, example: Which car is better? What cereal tastes better? What cell phone is cooler?
January 3, 2008 5:35:11 PM

thunderman said:
Paid Intel fans bash AMD?....that's the claim Sharikou has made on his blog. Not sure if this is true...However Sharikou is one of the leading experts with a reputable blog, so it could well be possible.

Link to the Blog:
http://sharikou.blogspot.com/

AMD4Life!


expert? reputable blog?


AHHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHA

Im beginning to like thunderman, he gives me a good laugh.
a b à CPUs
January 3, 2008 5:45:17 PM

LOL - don't forget to credit the US government. Their projects - especially during WWII and during the Cold War after - greatly accelerated the development of electonics; and it was DARPA, the Defense Research Projects Agency, that pioneered the Internet.

January 3, 2008 5:47:34 PM

rockyjohn said:
and it was DARPA, the Defense Research Projects Agency, that pioneered the Internet.


Your mistaken, that was Mr Gore.
January 3, 2008 5:49:26 PM

I see where thunderman has come from since all the AMD fanboys have abandon ship from sharikou's blog!
January 3, 2008 6:03:42 PM

The british invented the computer! don't take all the credit, you're all just copying us :p 
January 3, 2008 6:05:26 PM

How many people do we know that once said they would only buy AMD? Out of those people, how many of them have moved to the conroe or kentsfield?
January 3, 2008 6:17:32 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
Not in the computer world. In the computer world it so simple to compair products, BENCHMARK THEM. 100% factual and objective comparison.

Many other products are purely subjective, example: Which car is better? What cereal tastes better? What cell phone is cooler?



Which desktop processor is better?


You forgot that one.

You've been misconstruing what I said. Offer something that they don't just want, but need. I did not say offer something similar and let the numbers be cast.



January 3, 2008 6:21:05 PM

blueeyesm said:
Which desktop processor is better?


You forgot that one.

You've been misconstruing what I said. Offer something that they don't just want, but need. I did not say offer something similar and let the numbers be cast.


It's simple, pick the benchmark of what you want to do and then use factual, objective comparisons.
January 3, 2008 6:29:53 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
It's simple, pick the benchmark of what you want to do and then use factual, objective comparisons.


Ohhhhh, it's simple. Riiight. [/sarcasm]


Nothing is as simple as it appears to be.




January 3, 2008 6:36:00 PM

I hope you guys realize that Thunder is another one of Sharikook's multiple personalities. His blog is dying and he is trolling for unsuspecting noobs.
January 3, 2008 6:39:31 PM

blueeyesm said:
Ohhhhh, it's simple. Riiight. [/sarcasm]


Nothing is as simple as it appears to be.


Addition is. And so is picking which processor is better suited for your "needs".
    • 1 / 6
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!