Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why we must love Intel & AMD.

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 18, 2001 11:05:37 AM

If Intel or AMD had no competition do U think they would ramup CPU speeds as fast?
No way, we would still be waiting for 1 gig and don’t even mentions the prices which would be double.
We need those die hard Intel fan that will keep Intel in business now matter how overpriced there CPU’s are.
And if Intel takes the lead again I hope there will be a group to keep AMD alive.
As for me I buy whatever gives me the best Price Vs. Performance.

Hell I hope Cyrix makes the next breakthrough chip.
We need all the competition we can get.

The point is only a fool would want AMD or Intel or whoever to go out of business.

Thx and Cya

More about : love intel amd

January 18, 2001 1:52:49 PM

Cyrix was bought by VIA. Besides i want IBM to come out with a chip. image a power4 x86 processor. power4 is 3x faster then the G4.

Cel 533 - 256mb sdram
15gb HD - ati radeon 32mb ddr (200/200)
SB live! mp3+ - win98 Beos
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 18, 2001 3:01:51 PM

Yeah, I'm still crying over 3dfx.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 18, 2001 3:06:00 PM

As far as I am concerned I would like to see as many players in the X86 market as poss, the more players there is the faster the progression and the cheaper the CPU's.....
sounds good to me ..

M

one of the first UK T-Bird users....
January 18, 2001 3:46:09 PM

Apple is a good example of that.

I think motorola beeper and cell phones sales kept them alive thru the rough times. even the stock hit like $17 bucks a share at its low.

I remember looking at apple roadmap a year and a half ago and highest CPU listed was 500Mhz and that was already in production. giving everone a clear picture that no new higher Mhz were in the future.

Even at WWDC 2000 (world wide developer conference) Apple did not anounce new higher Mhz. Main focus was on OS X. Yes, I was at WWDC 2000.

Competition is definitly is in our favor when it comes to x86 based CPU development and prices.
a b à CPUs
January 19, 2001 12:06:25 AM

Hey, that's what I do-GO APPLE! (If people want them bad enough to pay those prices, let them. It's not like they don't have a choice!)

Suicide is painless...........
January 19, 2001 12:27:34 AM

I would like to see a new type of chip come out period, let someone wow the market! Of course it would have to be somewhat compatable but lets open this up!


-=-Sean-=-
I hate picking fights... but it's so fun :smile:
a b à CPUs
January 19, 2001 12:51:01 AM

Yeh, let nVidia come out with one! Maybe 256-bit with a custom operating system or super version of Linux.

Suicide is painless...........
January 19, 2001 3:26:53 AM

i would use linux, but i dont feel like figuirng out commands associated with the unix based os, maybe when i go to college next year...

If at first you don't succede, skydiving isn't for you.
<font color=blue>Intel Inside</font color=blue> = Idiot Outside
January 19, 2001 4:20:47 AM

I hate to burst your bubble but I doubt Linux will take over anytime soon.
Just imagine dropping a Linux based PC on some secretary’s desk and say ”here u go, I need this connected to the network and internet today”.
I would love for linux to compete with windows but I think it will be years before it’s as easy to setup as windows. As bloated and buggy as windows is u got to admit after a format u can get everything up (drivers, network, internet, etc.) and running in under an hour by just pointing and clicking.
Can u do this with Linux?
Thx & Cya
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 19, 2001 4:40:22 AM

I don't think so wusy. Most people want an os that is easy out of the box. In fact the vast majority of people that use windows probably don't even know what an OS is. I have no love for microsoft, but they can adapt and quickly. Microsoft is too big do disapear like you think it will.

pill128

Take your pill, and get some sleep.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 19, 2001 8:28:41 AM

we had a consultant apply to join our team and when we spoke to him he didn't know what an OS was .....scary..needless to say he didn't make the grade but the most scary thing is he has been contracting for 5 years.

M

one of the first UK T-Bird users....
January 19, 2001 4:48:44 PM

Linux will not replace windows. Most apps do not run on linux. sure you can compile your own software on linux but too much crap involved.

Linux is for developers, ISP's, people who like to tinker/program, experimental hacking, IRC, small websites, and programmers.
January 19, 2001 5:12:11 PM

I love the competition between AMD and Intel. I'd buy an AMD chip except that I hate VIA so I don't want one of their motherboards bringing me down. I wish AMD would write their own chipsets like Intel does.

Macs suck. It makes you wonder why Cyrix/VIA doesn't just make a Mac clone and take all of the market away with a Mac that's actually fast AND inexpensive. There must be some legal issue there preventing it.

Personally I'd have like to have seen Commodore's Amiga series have lasted. At the time, they had much better graphics and sound than an x86 even though they had LESS memory. There must have been some good designing involved there. Too bad they've been sold several times and have turned into a joke. I'd have liked to have seen Apple fall instead of Commodore.

Linux won't replace Windows. Not until they can standardize themselves and make a much better OS for ease of use and for Visual programming. That's where Windows really hits the spot is the API. It'll take a few years for Linux to get it's act together. And even then, if no one ports code over to Linux, then it'll never replace anything. Without software to run, an OS is nothing but a hobby.

And since games comprise the majority of the software in the world, until companies start releasing for Linux at least as much as they do for Windows, Linux will never be accepted by a majority.

I'm not saying either OS is better or worse. They both have their advantages and disadvantages. But anyone who thinks Linux will replace Windows any time soon is deluded. The market just isn't there for it. Stupid people aren't smart enough to use it. And marketting thrives on the stupidity of people. So that right there sums it up.

- Sanity is purely based on point-of-view.
January 20, 2001 5:12:41 AM

if cyrix ever comes out of the gate with more horsepower than the athlon or even the p4 then, I will bet my life that all the amd puppies will cozy up to their new hero underdog and pretty much backstab Amd.

Because in my eyes all amd users do is o'c this o'c that goto thg, o'c some more, they need more speed for what? none of them ever do anything with it.

It's a dogs life they live. hehe. ;-)


- Amd Helpdesk -
January 20, 2001 2:32:12 PM

You're exactly right. IF that happened we would move to Cyrix. WE don't stick with a company for no reason at all. We have brains :tongue:
And while you're making up lame exuses for staying with Intel all the way, we're paying half as much for twice as much performance. Someday you're gonna have to face the facts.
January 20, 2001 3:01:59 PM

Of course you can point and click with Linux. Last time I installed Redhat Linux 7, it took me 7 or so mouse clicks and entering a little information with the keyboard. Linux is getting there, it'll just take a little time. Microsoft isn't where it is today without several years of updating their OS's. You also have to balance ease of use with customization. Complete ease of use--> Apple, complete customization--> Linux, or one of the other BSD's. Microsoft is right in the middle.
<font color=red>Rant mode on</font color=red>:
In my opinion the one thing we really ought to be pushing AMD and Intel to do is change the hardware platform to reflect the advances of technology. They're still using a platform designed in the late 70's early 80's to mount their CPU's. Today's software has to take into account the X86 hardware and jump through hoops to run. Imagine a hardware platform built from scratch for today's CPU's. Software would run at least twice as fast, more likely 4 to 5 times faster. Sure the new 64-bit processors are a newer design, but they still have to sit on the older platform. I just don't freakin' get it.
<font color=red>Rant mode off </font color=red>
Just my opinion.
January 20, 2001 4:05:23 PM

The only problem with dumping x86 legacy is a lot of people (& business) use old programs & hardware. They are not willing to throw away all there old stuff and upgrade. Especially if the business is using custom written software (that 10 years old and still works). The big chip makers aren’t going to make a new chip that won’t sell and has very little software. The P4 doesn’t have a lot of software optimized but It can run the old stuff. It’s like Ford making a new car that’s twice as wide. Sure it can seat more people and go around corners twice as fast but there are no roads wide enough to drive it on. Only a few people will buy it (to race it on a racetrack) and it will be a huge failure. Intel, AMD & Ford only make things they think will sell and sell well. Money, that’s all they care about. It will take a long time before computers no longer support X86 and by that time There will be emulators to run the old stuff kind of like the C64.
I can see it happening but slowly. There are new computer that only have USB to connect printers and no ISA slots. Just my opinion.
Thx & Cya
January 20, 2001 4:33:54 PM

I can understand the software component of your argument, but not the hardware. The computers will still be able to communicate with one another through whatever protocol you want to use. So yes, you'll still be forced to support 2 different platforms but you won't make the legacy computers obsolete immediately. It will have to start with servers- I don't think large companies will balk at the price if the performance gains are huge, which it will be. And, no offense, your car analogy isn't valid. You're taking it to an unrealistic extreme. My saying we ought to force Intel or AMD to do this is incorrect. Like you said, it's forcing companies to drop that lame argument about legacy hardware. I'm sure Intel and AMD would love to improve the hardware, heck it only makes their processors perform better. But I think having Intel or AMD introduce something new would be the necessary first step. Build it and they will come! Ha! ..uh sorry, that was lame.
January 20, 2001 11:38:42 PM

Uhhh... yeah. I want and like AMD because it gives the best bang for the buck. If it was Cyrix tomorrow, then I'll like Cyrix. Do you work for Intel or something? It's almost like they're your football or baseball team. I want a good product and I frankly don't care who provides it.
!