Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

If AMD goes bankrupt will INTEL have monopoly?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 12, 2008 10:01:03 AM

My question is what if AMD goes bankrupt and suddenly intel has 100 % marketshare on the computing industry. Will they raise prices of all their processors to 2000 $ each? Should we support AMD from going bankrupt by buying their chips even if they are slightly worse? Intel microsoft of the pc consumer.... Hope this doesnt happen and i feel every chip i buy from intel it speeds up the inevitable
July 12, 2008 10:36:18 AM

Provided that firms like Nvidia or IBM are uninterested in the techs AMD is holding.
July 12, 2008 11:17:30 AM

fugben said:
My question is what if AMD goes bankrupt and suddenly intel has 100 % marketshare on the computing industry. Will they raise prices of all their processors to 2000 $ each? Should we support AMD from going bankrupt by buying their chips even if they are slightly worse? Intel microsoft of the pc consumer.... Hope this doesnt happen and i feel every chip i buy from intel it speeds up the inevitable

As a consumer you should only be concerned about one thing and one thing only - that is price. In this case the best performance for a given price. Performance can mean different things like power consumption, computing power, etc.
If AMD bites the dust it will do so because it couldn't deliver. Survival of the fittest, if you want.
Once you bring other elements into the equation, like buying only from companies that have a monkey paw in their corporate logo, you cross over to the dark side of illogical beheavior and join religious fanatics, politicians, tv preachers, marketing people, fans and apple customers.
Related resources
July 12, 2008 11:28:10 AM

I would be surprised if the government would let them go under. Besides Bankruptcy doesn't mean the would go out of business, it just means they would flush their debt and reorganize the stuff they can't flush. So in short after their stock goes through the hit of filing BK, they should be in good shape because they will have much less debt. If they make it through the announcement then they would likely recover rather quickly.
a c 117 à CPUs
a b À AMD
July 12, 2008 11:29:26 AM

I think the premise of the question is false.

AMD will not drop off the face of the planet and Intel will not instantly leap to 100% market share.

Even if AMD went bankrupt (very, very unlikely) they would continue to operate.


July 12, 2008 11:34:57 AM

As for supporting them if they go to 2k a processor that would be a bit excessive. But I do think we win if we support them. Had they not been around the last few years with their 64 bit processors we wouldn't be enjoying the latest generations from Intel. We would likely be talking about rumors of the Pentium 3 is being replaced with a Pentium 4. AMD pushed Intel to pull out all the stops to gain back the performance edge. If AMD is not around Intel's R&D budget will likely shrink and we lose when that happens.
July 12, 2008 11:38:14 AM

AMD will not go bankrupt. The worst would happen is AMD being restructured, and launch as a new corporation (at least on the management level). It will then release competitive CPU, and take on Intel again.

Its all part of the cycle.
July 12, 2008 11:38:46 AM

Wisecracker said:
I think the premise of the question is false.

AMD will not drop off the face of the planet and Intel will not instantly leap to 100% market share.

Even if AMD went bankrupt (very, very unlikely) they would continue to operate.


I agree it's a reorganization of debt not a death sentence. Many companies that are still around filed BK at one time. I would be willing to bet that General Motors files BK before AMD does.
July 12, 2008 12:08:03 PM

Even if AMD did die, they wouldn't have a monopoly (Via makes stuff, albeit slow)
July 12, 2008 12:13:08 PM

Well... then AMD should buy out Via, they can take them down too while their are at it, and when Intel becomes a true monopoly, then the government will be force to split them up to have different companies to break the monopoly.

I'm pretty much at the point in.. who gives a frack? I want to be happy for a while longer for what I have, not have to buy something that will last 6 months, then wella... spend another fortune, whether its AMD or Intel just to run something smoothly.

I remember when I couldn't even afford to get a X2 4400+, not to mention I didn't even have a 939 MB which today isn't even supported, which prolly is a good thing.
July 12, 2008 12:15:17 PM

I doubt that other companies would just let AMD disappear completely - a company like IBM could buy them to get themselves a foothold in the x86 market.
a b à CPUs
July 12, 2008 12:38:04 PM

cisco said:
I agree it's a reorganization of debt not a death sentence. Many companies that are still around filed BK at one time. I would be willing to bet that General Motors files BK before AMD does.


Yep.
July 12, 2008 12:43:07 PM

fugben said:
My question is what if AMD goes bankrupt and suddenly intel has 100 % marketshare on the computing industry.


If AMD were to cease to exist (not quite the same as bankruptcy) then Intel would have a virtual monopoly on x86 CPU sales (VIA are competing only in small niche markets).



Quote:

Will they raise prices of all their processors to 2000 $ each?


Unquestionably. They have done it before when they had more competition than now but had a virtual monopoly, of course they would when they had less competition and an even stronger monopoly.


Quote:

Should we support AMD from going bankrupt by buying their chips even if they are slightly worse?


I argued that point about 6 months ago.



Is it wise to pay $10 more for the same performance (from AMD) to save yourself paying $1000 extra 5 years down the road?

IMO it worth the 10 dollar hit now.



A lot of others seen it differently though.
July 12, 2008 12:45:39 PM

even if amd's situation got very bad, i wouldn't be surprised if one or several companies step in to buy out amd to keep intel from becoming the only major manufacturer of cpu's.
July 12, 2008 12:47:53 PM

Grimmy said:
Well... then AMD should buy out Via, they can take them down too while their are at it, and when Intel becomes a true monopoly, then the government will be force to split them up to have different companies to break the monopoly.

I'm pretty much at the point in.. who gives a frack? I want to be happy for a while longer for what I have, not have to buy something that will last 6 months, then wella... spend another fortune, whether its AMD or Intel just to run something smoothly.

I remember when I couldn't even afford to get a X2 4400+, not to mention I didn't even have a 939 MB which today isn't even supported, which prolly is a good thing.


Grimmy..I remember when the p2 pro's came DOWN from 2 grand to 1200, I started planning like mad ! Those really were the BAD old days before computers were a commodity item.

and that was just the CPU !
July 12, 2008 12:48:19 PM

Nik_I said:
even if amd's situation got very bad, i wouldn't be surprised if one or several companies step in to buy out amd to keep intel from becoming the only major manufacturer of cpu's.



The x86 license forbids it.



The buy-out would require Intel to sanction it, and they wouldn't unless the buyout company was significantly smaller than them, or there was a court order.
July 12, 2008 12:52:48 PM

Amiga500 said:
If AMD were to cease to exist (not quite the same as bankruptcy) then Intel would have a virtual monopoly on x86 CPU sales (VIA are competing only in small niche markets).



Quote:

Will they raise prices of all their processors to 2000 $ each?


Unquestionably. They have done it before when they had more competition than now but had a virtual monopoly, of course they would when they had less competition and an even stronger monopoly.


Quote:

Should we support AMD from going bankrupt by buying their chips even if they are slightly worse?


I argued that point about 6 months ago.



Is it wise to pay $10 more for the same performance (from AMD) to save yourself paying $1000 extra 5 years down the road?

IMO it worth the 10 dollar hit now.



A lot of others seen it differently though.


that argument is such bulls%%%...if a company had a monopoly and the price of a chip went way up, people would stop buying new chips and upgrading so often, so the company sales would slump; and as far a s a 10 dollar difference..what anout when company b simply has no competitive product for top performance at ANY price ?! I am not gonna buy a phenom anything when quad 9750's exist if I want something badass.

July 12, 2008 1:01:02 PM

Amiga500 said:
The x86 license forbids it.



The buy-out would require Intel to sanction it, and they wouldn't unless the buyout company was significantly smaller than them, or there was a court order.


wow that's so stupid...
July 12, 2008 1:14:00 PM

royalcrown said:
that argument is such bulls%%%...if a company had a monopoly and the price of a chip went way up, people would stop buying new chips and upgrading so often, so the company sales would slump;


Were you around during the Pentium Pro era then? :sarcastic: 


Quote:

and as far a s a 10 dollar difference..what anout when company b simply has no competitive product for top performance at ANY price ?! I am not gonna buy a phenom anything when quad 9750's exist if I want something badass.


Who said anything about top end? :sarcastic: 






Learn to read stupid fanboy, and that applies to history as well as forum posts.
July 12, 2008 1:15:30 PM

Nik_I said:
wow that's so stupid...


Well, from intels POV it is protecting itself, can't really blame them.


That is just the way it is - which is why talk of IBM or Samsung buying out AMD to compete in the x86 market is rubbish. It would take a significant change in the cross-license agreement to allow it.
July 12, 2008 1:15:43 PM

I wouldn't read too much into it, because both tech companies have had their down periods when it comes to the high-end performance lead. What most typical home buyers care about is performance at a mainstream price and both companies offer capable products.
July 12, 2008 1:24:02 PM

Amiga500 said:
Were you around during the Pentium Pro era then? :sarcastic: 


Quote:

and as far a s a 10 dollar difference..what anout when company b simply has no competitive product for top performance at ANY price ?! I am not gonna buy a phenom anything when quad 9750's exist if I want something badass.


Who said anything about top end? :sarcastic: 






Learn to read stupid fanboy, and that applies to history as well as forum posts.


I was around before the PPRo era..speaking of learning to read and fanboyism:

1. Read my reply to grimmy
2. I own an AMD "stupid fanboy", and they simply have no product to compete, so why should I subsidize their **** products vs intels good products ?

Yes, both cpu's being roughly equivalent, buy what you like, buy amd for 10 bucks more, no big deal. Don't forget to take into account platform changes if they apply as far as figuring the 10 bucks though.
July 12, 2008 1:28:45 PM

I apologize on the dumb ass, I turned ******* knob to 11 without chilling out. Still had to be an intel fanboy owning my new 5400 isn't it ?
July 12, 2008 1:33:39 PM

royalcrown said:
I was around before the PPRo era..speaking of learning to read and fanboyism:

1. Read my reply to grimmy


Then do you suffer from short term memory loss?

Quote:
if a company had a monopoly and the price of a chip went way up, people would stop buying new chips and upgrading so often, so the company sales would slump;


Equate that with Intel during the Pentium Pro era.

Now explain how Intel got away with $2K CPUs without killing themselves?




Oh, yes... because there was no widely known alternative. Guess what - exit AMD and there is no alternative never mind an underground one.




Quote:

2. I own an AMD "dumbass", and they simply have no product to compete, so why should I subsidize their **** products vs intels good products ?



**** is within 5-10% performance at the same price point?


No. **** is 10% more performance for 200% the cost. (see GTX280 on release of 4870)






Quote:

Yes, both cpu's being roughly equivalent, buy what you like, buy amd for 10 bucks more, no big deal. Don't forget to take into account platform changes if they apply as far as figuring the 10 bucks though.


Yeap. AM3 CPUs will work in AM2+ mobos.

Nehalem will not work in current Intel boards.


An AM2+ is definitely more future proofed than a 775. Whether future AM3 CPUs will be better than current 775 Penryns is another matter.
July 12, 2008 1:43:00 PM

Okay AMIGA 500, my view of why they were 2000 bucks back then is simple,

1. computers were not the commodity item they are today..
a. the market wasn't saturated with everyone owning a computer.
b. The "wow" factor for even having a computer back then was much higher.
c. Manufacturing tech in general as far as cpu's was a newer field and more costly as far as gaining the knowledge and cost on a given process node.

there wont be another confluence of these things unless all of a sudden super ultra optical computers come out.

2. I believe it is more than a paltry 10 -15 percent except in various editing type apps. Yes..as someone who is tired of bang for the buck and wants to go with absolute performance once in awhile, i would pay an extra 200 bucks.

How can you possibly think that mainstream cpu's would go back up to 2 grand, do you really think the brunt of people would rush out to upgrade then (given the likelihood that it'd just be an incremental performance increase ?
July 12, 2008 1:48:23 PM

royalcrown said:
Okay AMIGA 500, my view of why they were 2000 bucks back then is simple,
How can you possibly think that mainstream cpu's would go back up to 2 grand, do you really think the brunt of people would rush out to upgrade then (given the likelihood that it'd just be an incremental performance increase ?


With the margins, Intel don't need to sell anything like the numbers they do currently to make the same money.



And yes, eventually people will be forced to.
July 12, 2008 2:04:31 PM

yes, they would..after all the old used computers and modded servers died eventually, but that would be a very long time and in that meantime intel would have to ride out a huge loss of business; I don't think they will do that. Things would go up to a point, but I doubt back to the days of 3500 dollar computers.

look people already whine about gas now, but if it follows the cpu trend of the 90's and becomes, oh 6 times what it is now, people wont drive much at all and only rich people would have a car.

Fabs and all of that cost too much to be supported by a niche market, and i think the volume would drop below that threshold of volume they need if they go price nuts. Old stuff would become way to valuable to junk then, so they still wouldn't sell new stuff. I could always be wrong, but people never take that into account.

remember back in the ppro days, how many people actually had one vs a 286- 486?

July 12, 2008 2:31:34 PM

funny, cause I have like 3 Pentium Pros in my basement, (from a dual socket mobo), like 18 486's, and like 12 Pentium 2 MMX's.
And no, AMD will not just "die". They have huge roots. If they "died", their server line would still exist, because too many people rely on the opty's. Such as several F1 teams, and several large scale animation company's. If no one else would by AMD to keep them manufacturing these processors, there are several companies around the world that would pool money to keep AMD going, because they run on AMD, not Intel.
July 12, 2008 2:36:15 PM

the last resort said:
funny, cause I have like 3 Pentium Pros in my basement, (from a dual socket mobo), like 18 486's, and like 12 Pentium 2 MMX's.
And no, AMD will not just "die". They have huge roots. If they "died", their server line would still exist, because too many people rely on the opty's. Such as several F1 teams, and several large scale animation company's. If no one else would by AMD to keep them manufacturing these processors, there are several companies around the world that would pool money to keep AMD going, because they run on AMD, not Intel.


unless you sell vintage pc's...you are a packrat sir !
July 12, 2008 2:42:21 PM

yeah I pulled them out of some comp's my school was throwin away. That's also how i picked up 3 IBM laptops FOR FREE. They are 600 MHz celerons, and can run XP, so Im happy.
July 12, 2008 2:45:12 PM

No, it would not be allowed.
July 12, 2008 3:13:22 PM

The OP has a valid point, if AMD goes out of business (not bankrupt, bankruptcy will be a restructure, not the end of the x86 world), then Intel will have a monopoly and Intel will start charging more for less.

Royal Crown brought up a good point about Fabs not supporting such low volume. Very true, so we will be stuck with whatever chip line up Intel has plus the next down the road for 5-10 years. Why? Because nothing is pushing them forward. If you want ~2 GHZ C2D to cost $100 forever then go ahead let Intel dominate the market.

Why isn't Nehalem out now? Because AMD can't compete in that market segment so Intel is taking its sweet time. Even looking at Nehalem you can see AMD's impact on the x86 industry, IMC and QuickPath, taken straight from AMD's playbook. Royal Crown if you truly think the x86 market would still advance at its current rate after AMD's demise then you are dead wrong.

What the point? Even if AMD doesn't go out of business, a weak AMD is like a taste of no AMD. You see the benefits of competition at market segments AMD competes in. If AMD can't compete due to lack of a viable architecture due to lack of R&D funds then the end loser is you the consumer. If you like paying $1000+ for your high end that rarely changes with little performance increase, keep supplying the big blue giant with $$. If you want to see the high end become the mid end really fast then consider throwing some $$ to the green dwarf with the red hat.
July 12, 2008 3:27:53 PM

Gawd... even if there were many CPU makers of all sorts, there would still be whats called "Monopolistic Competition".

And since dies are getting smaller, cost are cut, so the cherry picked ones would not be something that we would prolly not see in our rigs, unless we win the lotto, or actually work for the company and get a ES chip.

Also, allot people complain about how software hasn't be able to keep up with hardware, namely CPU's that buying a quad these days isn't worth it since it doesn't get used... much, and performs worse then duals.

So maybe the CPU line needs a break/slow down so software makers can deal with change, and give us more apps to be happier with. :lol: 
July 12, 2008 3:49:48 PM

I'll state the obvious, competition is good and should AMD go down, it will significantly change the CPU market and I am pretty damn sure Intel will take advantage of it. Who would not ? As someone stated previously, computers are much more a commodity nowadays then when Pentium Pro were around so I don't think Intel could charge as much but they would certainly charge more. Anyways, it took AMD and their Athlon to kick the giant right in the balls and if they are not around to pester it, the giant will fall asleep again......
a b à CPUs
July 12, 2008 3:59:11 PM



Yeap. AM3 CPUs will work in AM2+ mobos.


Now when did I hear this one before........ Oh yeah AMD on the Phenom with Socket AM2
July 12, 2008 4:04:01 PM

skywalker, no i don't think the pace would stay brisk, but it is already at a trickle precisely because AMD has nothing on the upper end, so it would stay a trickle.

Okay skywalker...what would intel sell once everyone had a mid to high end intel chip, they'd either have to lower prices on their chips, make the sweet spot more for less, or produce something faster, once the bulk of consumers are experienced in pcs and their computers are fast enough to sate what they ant to do, why would they upgrade unless there was a more compelling reason than a 200 mhz bump ?

The proportion of computer luddites is going to be very small in the next few years, the market is saturated now.

Fatcat of course prices would go up, just not as much as the op states imho.
July 12, 2008 5:20:20 PM

royalcrown said:
skywalker, no i don't think the pace would stay brisk, but it is already at a trickle precisely because AMD has nothing on the upper end, so it would stay a trickle.


I agree with just about all of your analysis in this thread.

However, I do want to take issue with the your comment above. Coming from the inside, I can guarantee you, from a process perspective, intel is accelerating their process development, not decelerating it.

Nehalem is scheduled to appear sometime in Q4 -- a little more than 1 year after Penryn, and a little more than 2.25 years after Conroe. And three years after Cedar Mill. Where is the slowdown in new products? If you take Conroe as *early*, which I do, we're on a one year cadence.

What I think you *meant* to say is that intel is not pushing as hard. ie, Penryn was not as good as it could have been (see the OC headroom there), perhaps Nehalem will be the same. In my view, a potentail lack of competition won't slow down the product releases, but it can retard the performance growth of new products.

The flip side, and that's what you and others were getting at is, this is a double edged sword. Make/price things too good and you've just cannibalized your future sales. Make/price things not good enough and 1) you get beat out by your competitor or 2) if no other competitor, nobody sees a business need to buy it. It's #2 which will prevent the catastrophy Amiga warns of.
July 12, 2008 5:44:53 PM

Hellboy said:
Yeap. AM3 CPUs will work in AM2+ mobos.


Now when did I hear this one before........ Oh yeah AMD on the Phenom with Socket AM2


Many AM2 motherboards do support the phenom processor. If the motherboard manufacturers choose not to release bios updates to allow phenom support then it isn't the fault of AMD. Seriously, you seem to bring this issue up in every thread where someone says something even remotely positive about AMD. Don't you have anything worthwhile to add to the conversation or are you just trying to start flame wars again?
July 12, 2008 6:17:41 PM

royalcrown said:
skywalker, no i don't think the pace would stay brisk, but it is already at a trickle precisely because AMD has nothing on the upper end, so it would stay a trickle.


That is the point. Its a trickle because AMD is pretty much bankrupt right now (thanks ATI) and its new K10 was troubled in many ways.

My point:
Current Intel Quad Core lineup:
Q6600
Q6700
Q9300
Q9450
Q9550
QX6800
QX9650
QX6850
QX9770
QX9775
Half of Intels Quad Core line up are Extreme Edition chips. Which means $1000+. The only processors below $500 are 2.66 GHZ and lower, why? Because that where the phenom 9950 sits, @ 2.6 GHZ. The QX6800 was released a year and a quarter ago and there is no mainstream part to replace it, just another QX SKU priced out of mortal reach ($1000+). Do you want this with Nehalm? where only the rich can enjoy a high end part a year and a half after its release. Normal market cycle for tech: New product released early adopters and enthusiasts pay a premium for it. 6 months to a year later mainstream version comes out at a more mainstream price. Based on what Intel has already done they are going to release the "mainstream" 3.0 GHZ quad core whenever they feel like it, or when AMD offers competition.

Heck Intel isn't even putting pressure on AMD right now. They could cut the price on every quad core by $50-$75 and still turn a profit and put AMD right out of the market. But why do that when you need AMD to stay one company (at this point they do). So they price their chips to archive maximum margin with little to no market share change.
a b à CPUs
July 12, 2008 6:26:23 PM

First of all I'll say that 60% of the nearly 100 computers that I own are Intel based,10% AMD and 30% other.
Many of them are vintage going all the way back to 1975 and yes I still have some punchcards from even earlier times.
I just helped AMD in a little ways by getting the Phenom X4 9850 BE CPU and a ASUS M3A32-MVP motherboard based on AMD chipsets.I also bought a el cheapo ATI graphics card temporarily and am looking forward to getting a 2 GB DDR5 Radeon 4870 X2 graphics card when they become available.

The joke will be on Intel Fanboys (They are cutting their own throats but don't realize it yet)
when or if AMD goes belly up as they will suffer the consequences of drastic price increases and slower innovation.I too will have to suffer somewhat along with everyone else although I at least tried in helping AMD survive a little bit.Whenever I have the opportunity I will continue helping AMD (I'd sure like to see that Dual Deneb system become available too in 2009).


July 12, 2008 6:45:09 PM

FIRST OF ALL, i dont think they would have a monopoly, but they would grow larger. secondly, if they did have a monopoly, economically speaking, they would NOT be able to put there prices as 'high as they want'....it doesnt quite work like that... if they raised their prices to whatever they want, there profits would go down, i promise you, and as a company, theyre best interest is to maximize profits
July 12, 2008 6:50:01 PM

If AMD does fold, at least I have a crazy AMD rig that cost me less than $600, and the only way to go from here is new video cards. (Which will be ATI, mind you.)
July 12, 2008 6:59:28 PM

And let me add another thing. AMD just released the new X2 5800+. Intel might feel a little something in the dual core area. This new processor operates at 3 GHz like the 6000+, but it has an 89W TDP, which is 36W less than the 6000+. And the best part is, it is only $96, making it 50% the price of the E8400 and the E6850. And for the E8500, the price is 35%. Who gives a frick if the the TDP is 24W larger. I would care more about the difference in price.

AND now I'm going to get flames because everyone is going to say that the 3.0 GHz AMD is absolutely no match for the 3.0 GHz Intel. Who cares, people. I'll keep my money, and Intel fans can keep lowering the price on my AMD stuff.
a b à CPUs
July 12, 2008 7:31:09 PM

Just_An_Engineer said:
Many AM2 motherboards do support the phenom processor. If the motherboard manufacturers choose not to release bios updates to allow phenom support then it isn't the fault of AMD. Seriously, you seem to bring this issue up in every thread where someone says something even remotely positive about AMD. Don't you have anything worthwhile to add to the conversation or are you just trying to start flame wars again?


Sorry Just An Engineer..

I know what your saying but some motherboards just dont support it... Regardless who's fault it is - to be honest I dont care who's fault it is......Im sitting in front of a Abit NF-M2SV AM2 and no where does it state Phenom compatibility...

But when news of the Phenom came out one of AMD's stances on the product is that it would be AM2 Compatible...

If it stated "should be" or "might" then there is a difference, but I sold machines on the stance that this would be compatible with the newer processors...

Thats my beef on this subject....

July 12, 2008 8:00:15 PM

no and no

no it won't go bankrupt it will get bought

#2 there are other chip makers
July 12, 2008 8:07:27 PM

dragonsprayer said:
no and no

no it won't go bankrupt it will get bought

#2 there are other chip makers




Other chip maker ? Name me one that has a significant importance in the x86 market. AMD is a small shop compare to Intel and most other a smaller than AMD...
July 12, 2008 8:40:52 PM

Bankrupt sometimes is a good thing for large corporations.

Donald Trump one of the most successful business men in the world has done it Multiple times. I don't see AMD going under anyhow. AMD and Intel both make money off Each other.

and it would be Horrible for consumers.

Competition drives new technology and lower prices. having just intel would allow them to slack off alot. that being said..

No they would not be considered a monopoly. they would have to Buyout AMD and be subject to "trying to control the market" win CPU's

if anything someone else might say buy half of AMD stock and become a joint partner with them.

you never know who might join up with who ;) 
July 12, 2008 9:21:23 PM

the last resort said:
funny, cause I have like 3 Pentium Pros in my basement, (from a dual socket mobo), like 18 486's, and like 12 Pentium 2 MMX's.
And no, AMD will not just "die". They have huge roots. If they "died", their server line would still exist, because too many people rely on the opty's. Such as several F1 teams, and several large scale animation company's. If no one else would by AMD to keep them manufacturing these processors, there are several companies around the world that would pool money to keep AMD going, because they run on AMD, not Intel.

Don't forget that not only does AMD own ATI,AMD made parts are in about 1/3 of all new cell phones and AMD owns companies that make other simiconductor parts.

The last group of computers I built over tha past year all used 3Ghz AMD 6000+ CPU's becuase Intel had nothing in that speed range that even came close to the price.
July 12, 2008 10:10:02 PM

Some of us here stick with our brands out of loyalty,no matter how good or bad their respective products are and cost
July 12, 2008 10:16:44 PM

as long as there are people who are willing to stick with their respective company, both companies will survive. w00t.
!