Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel a scammer?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 20, 2008 1:19:03 PM

I know this has been noted before, but I just want some opinions of others about this matter.

I'm looking at the Nehalem architecture today, and I'm saying to myself, this is very similar to AMD's architecture. So, has Intel stole AMD's ideas about it's architecture?

For example, Intel implemented the on-die memory controller on it's upcoming Nehalem processors which is, of course, AMD's idea at first. They didn't try to come up with something better, they just played it safe and stole what they knew would improve their processors.

Secondly, Intel implemented the quickpath interconnect, which looks very similar to the hyper transport AMD has in it's processors.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this seem a bit selfish from Intel to do that since they're already on top? Don't get me wrong, having better processors available is better for us, but using for a company to achieve that by using unlawful schemes like this doesn't cut it.

I'm not trying to start ANOTHER thread of AMD vs Intel flaming, so please don't turn it into one. I just want your input on this matter.

And no, I'm not a fanboy of either company.

More about : intel scammer

a b à CPUs
July 20, 2008 1:36:15 PM

what else do you expect this to be. STFU Flame girl!!!
July 20, 2008 1:42:16 PM

And have they ever lost to these law suits?

Did Intel try to better the IMC? Or just used it exactly how AMD does?
Related resources
a b à CPUs
July 20, 2008 1:58:45 PM

I sure wouldn't vow for intel's fair play, but you have to admit they are big enough to do their own homework. It just so happens that sometimes the solution used by the other guy is actually the best possible at the time, so it's either do the same or fall behind.
July 20, 2008 2:18:30 PM

Reverse Engineering works both ways.

AMD was the 2nd Company CPU company that did reverse engineering on Intel's processor. I pretty much view this the same way with the IMC.

And besides that.. who really cares about what other people think on AMD's ideas? They are not on top, it didn't get the speed crown, and so now Intel is taking the same/similar approach to another architecture.

Why not just sit it out and wait for AMD to out do Intel again? What's the point in talking about something that just isn't doing better on the desktop arena?
July 20, 2008 2:30:42 PM

As I understand the wording of the x86 licence, there allowed to copy each other, its one of the basic ideas behind it. Remember that AMD got their big break making 386 clones for IBM.
July 20, 2008 3:28:15 PM

Actually, DEC Alpha had the first IMC. AMDs new CEO was the VP responsible for it.
July 20, 2008 5:01:53 PM

Oh doodie... Looks like we will only have AMD for a CPU maker if Intel does go broke over law suits that you guys seem to want to happen.

This crap about the companies is a 2 edge sword. It cuts both ways for customers when you want better products to be affordable, but yet most fanboys bitch and praise about crap that generally will affect us all to a point, and the bitching just isn't doing anything for anybody.
July 20, 2008 5:23:02 PM

I think there are far too many bullsh*t patents anyway. Companies should not be able to patent a concept, especially when a patent is applied for without the intention of bringing it to market [/vague rambling]

Gene patents spring to mind as an example of the abuse of the patent system.
July 20, 2008 5:35:07 PM

nightscope said:
I know this has been noted before, but I just want some opinions of others about this matter.

I'm looking at the Nehalem architecture today, and I'm saying to myself, this is very similar to AMD's architecture. So, has Intel stole AMD's ideas about it's architecture?

For example, Intel implemented the on-die memory controller on it's upcoming Nehalem processors which is, of course, AMD's idea at first. They didn't try to come up with something better, they just played it safe and stole what they knew would improve their processors.

Secondly, Intel implemented the quickpath interconnect, which looks very similar to the hyper transport AMD has in it's processors.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this seem a bit selfish from Intel to do that since they're already on top? Don't get me wrong, having better processors available is better for us, but using for a company to achieve that by using unlawful schemes like this doesn't cut it.

I'm not trying to start ANOTHER thread of AMD vs Intel flaming, so please don't turn it into one. I just want your input on this matter.

And no, I'm not a fanboy of either company.



No, Intel designed their chips to work with that years ago with RAMBUS.
However, they realized that it was not useful at the time since other methods could deliver more than enough memory bandwidth.

Now that Intel is going to be moving to Octo-Cores and beyond, they are moving to it because it know makes design sense.

If there was the slightest truth, AMD's lawyers would be at work.
However, no need for facts in this fourm...............
July 20, 2008 5:52:34 PM

^ Um AMD lawyers have been hard at work for quite a while. Just not about this, but for Intel paying off PC makers to not ship PCs with AMD chips. I believe Intel just lost a suit in the EU over it.

I like how people don't care if Intel steals patents or uses other people's technology without compensation or permission. Would any of you like to patent something only to have a huge corporation steal it, make billions off it, and then give you nothing?
July 20, 2008 6:12:38 PM

The on die memory controller is too general to sue Intel over. This concept does not belong solely to AMD. IBM does this with their POWER5 and Sun Microsystems as well with UltraSPARC T1.

Saying Intel is cheating for making an on die memory controller is like saying motherboard manufacturers cheat graphics card companies for making an integrated graphics controller.
July 20, 2008 6:12:57 PM

You like how people don't care? Would it be also in terms of:

How about people who share copy righted music that pisses off bands?

Or software companies of people who somehow end up getting a free copy of their software?

How about how many people on this forum has any patents that Intel just stole to make money off it?

What.. am I suppose to buy products based upon how trustworthy they say to be, when I know money is the root of all evil?
July 20, 2008 6:25:43 PM

AMD is the market leader if you look at this from a technological point of View. Intel is considered the Market leader by those who just look at the finance and ignorant of the truths about what Intel actually are.
AMD was humiliating Intel for quite sometime, then when AMD released the Athlon 64 this REALLY hurt Intel. AMD were the first to bring Dual core technology to the server market, then AMD offered the AMD X2 to the desktop market. Intel's solution was to stick two Pentium 4's together, this resulted in a very hot and not very efficient chip. Why did Intel survive? Well we know Intel was Bullying and bribing Companies to use their Chips and I hope Justice prevails in the Anti-trust Cases currently happening. Intel's fight back was the Core2Duo chip ..which was certainly a leap for them especially after the awful Pentium D CPU. What do we learn some months on? Core2Duo was supposedly a stolen patent from a university and it looks like Intel is facing yet another lawsuit. This is the kind of company Intel are and that's why it's unjust that AMD is in such a financially crippled position presently. AMD are the real innovators...not Intel.
It's obvious that Intel has once again hit a dead end and that dead end is the FSB. It does not take rocket science to see Intel has followed AMD's approach to quad core. If AMD does go bankrupt then Intel would have to think for themselves for a change...The Computer industry would be in real trouble I do believe

Support the Honest company! Support AMD!
July 20, 2008 6:40:24 PM

I agree that AMD was never able to get their fair share in the CPU market when AMD had the better product because Intel played dirty.

But now Intel clearly has the better product.

But if you compare the size of the two companies and their resources etc. then IMO AMD is still doing rather well.
July 20, 2008 6:42:05 PM

thunderman said:
AMD is the market leader if you look at this from a technological point of View. Intel is considered the Market leader by those who just look at the finance and ignorant of the truths about what Intel actually are.
AMD was humiliating Intel for quite sometime, then when AMD released the Athlon 64 this REALLY hurt Intel. AMD were the first to bring Dual core technology to the server market, then AMD offered the AMD X2 to the desktop market. Intel's solution was to stick two Pentium 4's together, this resulted in a very hot and not very efficient chip. Why did Intel survive? Well we know Intel was Bullying and bribing Companies to use their Chips and I hope Justice prevails in the Anti-trust Cases currently happening. Intel's fight back was the Core2Duo chip ..which was certainly a leap for them especially after the awful Pentium D CPU. What do we learn some months on? Core2Duo was supposedly a stolen patent from a university and it looks like Intel is facing yet another lawsuit. This is the kind of company Intel are and that's why it's unjust that AMD is in such a financially crippled position presently. AMD are the real innovators...not Intel.
It's obvious that Intel has once again hit a dead end and that dead end is the FSB. It does not take rocket science to see Intel has followed AMD's approach to quad core. If AMD does go bankrupt then Intel would have to think for themselves for a change...The Computer industry would be in real trouble I do believe

Support the Honest company! Support AMD!


LOL!!!
They are the leader from a Technology Point of View?

Even AMD does not even try to claim that anymore.
They now admit they shoot for the "Value" segment because they can't compete from a technological POV.

Sadly, they don't even offer value since their production costs are higher.

July 20, 2008 6:48:18 PM

San Pedro said:
^ Um AMD lawyers have been hard at work for quite a while. Just not about this, but for Intel paying off PC makers to not ship PCs with AMD chips. I believe Intel just lost a suit in the EU over it.

I like how people don't care if Intel steals patents or uses other people's technology without compensation or permission. Would any of you like to patent something only to have a huge corporation steal it, make billions off it, and then give you nothing?


No, they did not lose a lawsuit.
The EU has admitted it's getting involved to ensure "Competive Balance".
They are taking action to assist a company which has a strong manufacturing presence in Europe.
It's protectionism at it's finest.

AMD was never able to produce enough chips to fully satisfy demand.
As a result, AMD would be hard pressed to ever prove harm.

What harmed AMD is they were busy investing in new production facilities and not improving their product.
As a result they doubly hurt themselves.

The lack of technological advancement has forced them to slash prices since their products are no longer competitive and significantly reduced demand.

The reduced demand is now forcing them to sell the expanded capacity they built at a loss since they do not forsee themselves being able to need that capacity due to non-competitive products.

The problems faced by AMD are AMD's doing.
a c 126 à CPUs
a b À AMD
July 20, 2008 8:18:30 PM

nightscope said:
I know this has been noted before, but I just want some opinions of others about this matter.

I'm looking at the Nehalem architecture today, and I'm saying to myself, this is very similar to AMD's architecture. So, has Intel stole AMD's ideas about it's architecture?

For example, Intel implemented the on-die memory controller on it's upcoming Nehalem processors which is, of course, AMD's idea at first. They didn't try to come up with something better, they just played it safe and stole what they knew would improve their processors.

Secondly, Intel implemented the quickpath interconnect, which looks very similar to the hyper transport AMD has in it's processors.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this seem a bit selfish from Intel to do that since they're already on top? Don't get me wrong, having better processors available is better for us, but using for a company to achieve that by using unlawful schemes like this doesn't cut it.

I'm not trying to start ANOTHER thread of AMD vs Intel flaming, so please don't turn it into one. I just want your input on this matter.

And no, I'm not a fanboy of either company.


Technically Intel had a IMC way before AMD did. AMD was just the first to impliment it. Oh and AMD can thank IBM for their lovely IMC. The reason why Intel never used it was due to 2 factors. 1 it didn't bring enough improvement and 2 the memory that they planned on using (Rambus) was too frickin expensive at the time.

QPI is like HTT but its still different. If we wanted to go the route you are talking, before K8 AMD still had the FSB.

Quote:
From what I understand, Intel originally developed the IMC not AMD. AMD just perfected it and when Intel saw how well it worked they went with it.
However.....Intel has stolen many other companies copyrighted patents and have been and still are being sued for it. Transmeta comes to mind. Intel stole 11 of Transmeta's patents. They do play dirty.


Ar you seriously going to go this route again? Considering that Transmeta was counter sued for infingement on Intels patents you would think you would learn to shut up and accept the fact that in the world market companies always have the chance of using something that another company has patented without knowing of it especially when they just patent it without using it and wait for some company to use it without their permission just to get a lawsuit and money out of it.

nightscope said:
And have they ever lost to these law suits?

Did Intel try to better the IMC? Or just used it exactly how AMD does?


Look to my explination above. Every company runs into this now and then. In technology its very common. Right now RAMBUS is suing NVidia.

They basically took their MC and put it on die. But they did of course try to make it better. But the thing is with a MC even though AMDs is on the chip it does the same thing as what Intels current CPUs do with their MC on the Northbridge. It connects the CPU to the memory. The IMC of course has the ability to use more of the potential bandwidth given by the memry but still it does the same thing.

rtfm said:
I think there are far too many bullsh*t patents anyway. Companies should not be able to patent a concept, especially when a patent is applied for without the intention of bringing it to market [/vague rambling]

Gene patents spring to mind as an example of the abuse of the patent system.


Agreed. I especially hate how Universities will patent something, never use it and when they see someone else come up with the same idea they sue them.

Oh well. What can you do right?

As for the OP, overall it doesn't matter. Consider that AMD got its start by reverse engineering Intels x86 chips. In the technology world they always use whatever the other created as along as it helps the consumer (and their wallets). But let us not forget that AMDs main resource for a lot of things is IBM who still works with Intel on a lot of things too.
a c 126 à CPUs
a b À AMD
July 20, 2008 8:22:51 PM

thunderman said:
AMD is the market leader if you look at this from a technological point of View. Intel is considered the Market leader by those who just look at the finance and ignorant of the truths about what Intel actually are.
AMD was humiliating Intel for quite sometime, then when AMD released the Athlon 64 this REALLY hurt Intel. AMD were the first to bring Dual core technology to the server market, then AMD offered the AMD X2 to the desktop market. Intel's solution was to stick two Pentium 4's together, this resulted in a very hot and not very efficient chip. Why did Intel survive? Well we know Intel was Bullying and bribing Companies to use their Chips and I hope Justice prevails in the Anti-trust Cases currently happening. Intel's fight back was the Core2Duo chip ..which was certainly a leap for them especially after the awful Pentium D CPU. What do we learn some months on? Core2Duo was supposedly a stolen patent from a university and it looks like Intel is facing yet another lawsuit. This is the kind of company Intel are and that's why it's unjust that AMD is in such a financially crippled position presently. AMD are the real innovators...not Intel.
It's obvious that Intel has once again hit a dead end and that dead end is the FSB. It does not take rocket science to see Intel has followed AMD's approach to quad core. If AMD does go bankrupt then Intel would have to think for themselves for a change...The Computer industry would be in real trouble I do believe

Support the Honest company! Support AMD!


You talk about people being ignorant yet you seem ignorant to the fact that AMD is a company. They will screw you as long as it help them make money.

The patent lawsuit was for a feature in Core 2 Duo not the chip itself. Look it up before posting. funny thing is Intel has had that in their chips for a long time.

As for your whole AMD innovation BS. Dude AMD has yet to truly innovate anything since K8. Its all been IBMs handy woork that AMD uses and takes the glory for. If IBM was not there to give them the IMC for K8 they would be screwed. If it wasn't for IBM AMD wouldn't have a HK/MG that IBM is currently working on.

Seriously you are hilarious. If I were too look at the two companies, Intel and AMD, Intel would have more innovations that they created on their own than AMD has. But between IBM and Intel its harder to say.
July 20, 2008 8:51:32 PM

I dont think it is fair to say that Intel is the only one playing dirty and stealing others technology. Yeah, Intel is going to adopt the IMC and QPI. But if you look on AMD's side, their next gen processors are going to incorporate the high-k metal gates and ultra low k dielectrics. These are the same technologies that Intel is using in the Core 2 line which make them exceptionally well. IMO, the next line of CPU's, the Deneb and Nehalem, could be very similar in performance since they are using quite similar technology. The only difference that will probably be seen is the price, since Intel will once again have the $1500 Extreme Edition, since that is what Intel does. IDK what AMD will release for their "high-end". Maybe another FX processor, which would be really cool if they did.
July 20, 2008 8:52:22 PM

tbh, all companies are out there to get your money, they don't care what happens and seriously this thread is just turning into a amd vs intel thing and should be closed.
July 20, 2008 10:21:46 PM

It doesn't have to be turned into an AMD vs Intel thread so don't try to make it one.

I forgot about the L3 Cache too that Nehalem. I still don't get why have l3 at all if you can squeeze it all in l2... Oh well

When is AMD's next lineup supposed to be being released?
July 20, 2008 11:08:52 PM

first are supposed to arrive early 4Q '08.
samples arrive in 3Q '08.
July 20, 2008 11:12:41 PM

and the good news is it is completely backward compatible with AM2 and AM2+ mobo's. It will also support DDR3 ram in AM3 boards.
a c 126 à CPUs
a b À AMD
July 20, 2008 11:41:12 PM

^Thats a roadmap from AMD. No guarantee considering their last roadmap got scrapped and everything thusfar has been delayed.

Only downside to the backwards compatability is with the AM2 and AM2+ mobos you will be limiting the CPUs true potential.

As for Deneb performing on par with Nehalem, I don't think it will. Nehalem is not just adding a IMC and QPI to Core 2. Its also enhancing and improving the IPC and overall performance.

And on a small thought, I though that Deneb was just going to be AM2+ compatable not AM2 as well. Maybe I was thinking wrong.
July 21, 2008 12:26:02 AM

well if for some reason AMD comes through with all they are saying, including operating at 3+ GHz, I think AMD might have another product on its hands like the 4850/4870, which would be really sweet.
July 21, 2008 12:28:01 AM

Quote:
From what I understand, Intel originally developed the IMC not AMD. AMD just perfected it and when Intel saw how well it worked they went with it.
However.....Intel has stolen many other companies copyrighted patents and have been and still are being sued for it. Transmeta comes to mind. Intel stole 11 of Transmeta's patents. They do play dirty.


Please look up the definition of "patent infringment", before coming on here to embarrass yourself.
July 21, 2008 6:04:37 AM

was it really necessary to make a big deal out of that? You knew what he meant. You can't just "steal a patent."
July 21, 2008 9:21:28 AM

You seriously need to focus more on the topic and less on flaming others' posts.

Is the IMC currently at it's optimum level or can it be improved further? and what about hypertransport?
a b à CPUs
July 21, 2008 11:31:02 AM

Intel would still be on socket 7 if it were not for AMD continually pushing them to release better products.

While Intel has billions to invest in research AMD still managed to pip them with the Athlon XP line and then Athlon64, AthlonX2's ... and then they crashed and burned ... bummer.

If they can't stay competitive and do go down the tubes I doubt whether Intel will even release Nehalem.

Why?

Because Intel will only give you what they want you to have ... remember Netburst??

Unless there is a clear monetary gain.

With no AMD around then Intel will keep producing nice little 45nm packages ... after they clear all of the 65nm stock of course.

You might then get a 100mhz step every few months just to keep you thinking they are "researching better cpu designs".

With AMD gone expect Intel to go back to sleep again.

With no competition the customer gets what the manufacturer wants them to have.

I guess that is the sad outcome ... when Goliath gets so big poor David needs an M60 Tank to even dent the guy's kneecap.

Intel's illegal business practices over the past few years have virtually excluded AMD from getting and keeping sufficient marketshare to remain afloat on volume.

Lets hope Dirk pulls out a sharp one and shoves it right up Paul's ..
July 21, 2008 12:41:52 PM

Reynod you pretty much answered it all in one post, good job :p 

Maybe the lawsuits will give AMD some extra time to do something.
a b à CPUs
July 21, 2008 1:33:47 PM

...don't know why I bothered to read this thread. Not an unbias'd post to be found.
July 21, 2008 1:43:10 PM

I believe more in action.. not words.

This crap about if it wasn't for AMD, Intel would still.. blah blah blah.

So AMD would have just been more innovating on its own without Intel being around?

Why hasn't AMD put a product out to beat Intel down with now? Intel just lucky that the 2 year old C2D still can out do a phenom in the desktop arena?

What, AMD wants money from Intel? I don't call that innovation, but greed. Makes them no better then Intel.

How about this, no innovation from Intel, well.. no one will buy any CPU anymore. We might as well become apple fanboy's and start having wars on red or green apples.
a b à CPUs
July 21, 2008 2:46:53 PM

Grimmy said:
We might as well become apple fanboy's and start having wars on red or green apples.



Agreed - Ban fanboi nonsense. And besides, everyone *KNOWS* that Fuji apples are best. ;) 
July 21, 2008 2:47:11 PM

AMD hasn't put out a product to beat Intel's C2D line because the one that was supposed to, had several bugs and issues. Even now, when the Phenom series has finally passed the bugs, it can't compete with the C2Q offerings because Intel took the chance to completely stop them. If we compared the Phenom 9850 to a C2D E8400, i think there might be a small performance gap. The problem is, were comparing a dual to a quad, which is a problem for AMD.

If i was AMD, I too would want money from Intel. If AMD was operating on a budget like that of Intel, I think they could have released some really nice stuff. But since they aren't, they are struggling along because of the big losses each quarter.

And I'd like a blue apple, since it'd look nice.
a c 126 à CPUs
a b À AMD
July 21, 2008 3:05:05 PM

Scotteq said:
Agreed - Ban fanboi nonsense. And besides, everyone *KNOWS* that Fuji apples are best. ;) 


I disagree. Galas are better :kaola: 

the last resort said:
AMD hasn't put out a product to beat Intel's C2D line because the one that was supposed to, had several bugs and issues. Even now, when the Phenom series has finally passed the bugs, it can't compete with the C2Q offerings because Intel took the chance to completely stop them. If we compared the Phenom 9850 to a C2D E8400, i think there might be a small performance gap. The problem is, were comparing a dual to a quad, which is a problem for AMD.

If i was AMD, I too would want money from Intel. If AMD was operating on a budget like that of Intel, I think they could have released some really nice stuff. But since they aren't, they are struggling along because of the big losses each quarter.

And I'd like a blue apple, since it'd look nice.


Well here is the thing. When a company creates something and is in the market as long as Intel and has their hands in more than just CPUs (Intel is also doing a lot with flash/NAND memory and a lot of other things) you become a large well funded company. They didn't just get the money from CPUs. Intel has been in many other areas and as they stated before they are focusing on other areas they see are more important.

AMD came late in the game. So it would take them a while to build up and take a place next to one that has 30+ years of history. Kinda like how it took the foreign car companys 20+ years to actually be accepted in the US market and then another 10-15 to become the top. Its not an overnight thing. And all the lawsuits, you know AMD does not get the fines Intel is recieving.

And Reynod, don't think for one second that AMD wont do the same thing if Intel wasn't there. I personally don't think they would stop innovating (either AMD or Intel) if they were the only one. I just think they would take their time and we would have something better. Netburst was a good idea on paper but it failed in production. It wasn't that bad (I know since I built a machine based on one before A64 was out) and performed decently in what was needed but not what was supposed to be. Although it did clock relatively high (4GHz on Air wasn't that bad) but it just had too long pipelines at that time.

I feel bad for AMD as they made a lot of the wrong steps and hopefully they will be making the right ones from now on.

As for the IMC, there are always enhancements and improvements that can be made. Look at AMDs IMC. They currently run on the HTT 2.0 and have the HTT 3.0 lined up for AM3. Intel has their QPI which looks to be as powerfull if not more powerfull than HTT 3.0 and I am sure it will be enhanced by the trichannel DDR3 and when the 32nm shrink comes out in 2009 you will likely see QPI 2.0. Technology can always be made to be better.
July 21, 2008 3:30:52 PM

jimmysmitty said:
You talk about people being ignorant yet you seem ignorant to the fact that AMD is a company. They will screw you as long as it help them make money.

The patent lawsuit was for a feature in Core 2 Duo not the chip itself. Look it up before posting. funny thing is Intel has had that in their chips for a long time.

As for your whole AMD innovation BS. Dude AMD has yet to truly innovate anything since K8. Its all been IBMs handy woork that AMD uses and takes the glory for. If IBM was not there to give them the IMC for K8 they would be screwed. If it wasn't for IBM AMD wouldn't have a HK/MG that IBM is currently working on.

Seriously you are hilarious. If I were too look at the two companies, Intel and AMD, Intel would have more innovations that they created on their own than AMD has. But between IBM and Intel its harder to say.


Intel have done very little to innovate in years.... Die Shrinks and Double Cheeseburger quads is hardly what I call innovation. A company who continues to sell ancient FSB chips is not to be taken seriously.
AMD offer the future, why do you deny it? Nehalem is clone of AMD technologies...you have to ask yourself why that is. AMD Phenom technology is far more advanced .... Intel like usual cannot think for themselves, they turn to a more capable company like AMD for the answers.

AMD is the true Market Leader and innovator! AMD is more trustworthy!

AMD4Life!!
July 21, 2008 3:42:28 PM

My Ancient FSB is bigger then yours. :p 
a c 126 à CPUs
a b À AMD
July 21, 2008 3:49:20 PM

thunderman said:
Intel have done very little to innovate in years.... Die Shrinks and Double Cheeseburger quads is hardly what I call innovation. A company who continues to sell ancient FSB chips is not to be taken seriously.
AMD offer the future, why do you deny it? Nehalem is clone of AMD technologies...you have to ask yourself why that is. AMD Phenom technology is far more advanced .... Intel like usual cannot think for themselves, they turn to a more capable company like AMD for the answers.

AMD is the true Market Leader and innovator! AMD is more trustworthy!

AMD4Life!!


You realize your major flaw in all of this don't you? Intel has developed a IMC before AMD (it started way back in the 486 days and was going to be a SoC with a GPU as well). Die shrinks are important as they allow performance and power improvements, one thing that AMD usually does well. AMD has to thank IBM for their technologies so technically AMD does not innovate, IBM does.

To tell you the truth the biggest innovation recently is the HK/MG. Why you ask? Becuase its a major change to the foundation of CPUs that allows for better, faster and cooler CPUs.

Seriously stop being ignorant and open your eyes. Both are companies. Both are going to try to get you to buy their stuff even if its crap. AMD does NOT care about you as a person but as a potential sale. Then they will hopefully sell you a newer CPU or mobo. Same with Intel. Same with every company.
a c 126 à CPUs
a b À AMD
July 21, 2008 3:50:59 PM

Grimmy said:
My Ancient FSB is bigger then yours. :p 


LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
July 21, 2008 3:51:22 PM

yeah, well my FSB operates at higher speed. ;) 
a b à CPUs
July 21, 2008 4:05:41 PM

HK/MG was a good point.

Intel has always been superior in transistor design and that is reflected in the size of the cache and the (now) much increased efficincy in their process.

What else explains how they have gotten core2 to run like lightening on such an outdated bus?

If AMD could get their act together in term of the production process they might be a few more steps further down the track.

Maybe they are still using the same litho process we used to make maps with??

No wonder they can't get 65nm even up to 90nm speeds ...

Too many lines intersected when they shrink the die shots.

"Honey ... I shrunk the kids ... now they only have one leg" ...
July 21, 2008 4:07:55 PM

the last resort said:
yeah, well my FSB operates at higher speed. ;) 


Oh.. yeah.. well... I'm ... I'm going to get enzyte.. coded into my WinDose, and my FSB will just be bigger, so it won't have ta be fast!!!

Now dat's innovated!!

And den... I will control de world!!!!

Enzyte4/\/\oreFBS!!
a c 126 à CPUs
a b À AMD
July 21, 2008 4:10:45 PM

the last resort said:
yeah, well my FSB operates at higher speed. ;) 


Grimmy said:
Oh.. yeah.. well... I'm ... I'm going to get enzyte.. coded into my WinDose, and my FSB will just be bigger, so it won't have ta be fast!!!

Now dat's innovated!!

And den... I will control de world!!!!

Enzyte4/\/\oreFBS!!


Yea well my older P4 EE has longer wider pipelines, if ya know what I mean....
July 21, 2008 4:18:37 PM

Hey.. no fair.. that isn't the same architecture. :cry: 
July 21, 2008 4:22:48 PM

yeah, well my X2 6000+ runs HOT.
a c 126 à CPUs
a b À AMD
July 21, 2008 4:25:28 PM

^Still same FSB so :kaola: 
July 21, 2008 4:31:44 PM

jimmysmitty said:
^Still same FSB so :kaola: 


But but but but... they say longer isn't better, well.. that's what they found out, CPU wise. :kaola: 
!