Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Pondering about the AMD Vs Intel debate

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 6, 2001 1:39:57 AM

this debate seems very cyclic...
each time a new speed revision of the p4 or athlon comes out the good old dead horses are dug up, wheeled out and given a good whipping.

anyone else getting tired with all the seemingly endless debates?


Is that a Northwoody in your pocket or are you just eXPited to see me?
November 6, 2001 1:47:44 AM

this debate seems very cyclic...
each time a new speed revision of the p4 or athlon comes out the good old dead horses are dug up, wheeled out and given a good whipping.

No i am not as long there is respect for bolth side.The intel vs AMD is what make the forum structure.

No more intel vs amd no forum , for sure way less post.

Wisdom dont come with time
Meilleur chance la prochaine fois
November 6, 2001 1:56:43 AM

maybe...
but there are other things apart from glorious intel and wonderful amd...
via, chip archetectures, netburst, quantispeed (p.s. i thing both are utter marketing BOLLOCKS), northbridges, memory interefaces, cache and latencies.

for example. here is a question.
does anyone think it is possible to design a cpu socket that will last 5 years?
without major strustural changes?

socket A for amd looks to be fairly long lived, but even so its unlikely to last 5 years at the front line.

Is that a Northwoody in your pocket or are you just eXPited to see me?
Related resources
November 6, 2001 4:35:18 AM

Well I read that Windows XP and PENTIUM 4 processors make it easy to transfer stuff off your digital camera.

AMD = Anger Management Disorder
November 6, 2001 4:53:21 AM

Mhmmm. If I may ask...what exactly does the P4 have to do with transferring off a digital camera? Most USB digital cameras worth having use the USB Mass Storage Interface, which is limited far more by the bandwidth of USB than the CPU horsepower. I'm fairly certain there's a similar Mass Storage Interface standard for FireWire, but it's still not a problem for even old P3 CPUs (FireWire bandwidth again).

Kelledin
<A HREF="http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/" target="_new">LFS</A>: "You don't eat or sleep or mow the lawn; you just hack your distro all day long."
November 6, 2001 6:19:47 AM

Quote:
Well I read that Windows XP and PENTIUM 4 processors make it easy to transfer stuff off your digital camera.

LOL, ya everything, that was even out years before this winXP suddenly "enhances" or was "designed" for winXP. utter BS. like video cameras, looking around the other night i saw that somehow, the canon GL1, after being out for over 2 years is suddenly "designed for windows XP"? damn i knew i should've waited to buy mine!

well if luck is a lady, it explains why i have no luck :frown:
November 6, 2001 6:58:36 AM

Yea, its all marketing..i believe microsoft is getting profit from this also..its like saying winXP can make your p2 450 faster or something..its just to raise prices
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 6, 2001 7:23:07 AM

So how do you reckon we can stop all this ramping up of CPU speeds all the time? WE DON'T NEED ALL THIS SPEED!

If MS just stopped for a while and calmed itself down, intel and amd would be able to make windows actually run at a reasonable speed. As it is, the needs of the OS outstrip the available speed of processors and mostly has.

Right, idealistic rant over. :smile:

No, i lied. I also hate this new proposed labelling of CPUs by AMD. ie. rather than an athlon 1.4GHz or something, it'll be called the 2000xp or whatever. What a load of tosh! :eek: 
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 6, 2001 7:24:27 AM

So how do you reckon we can stop all this ramping up of CPU speeds and OS processing requirements all the time? WE NEED CPUs TO CATCH UP WITH OSes!

If MS just stopped for a while and calmed itself down, intel and amd would be able to make windows actually run at a reasonable speed. As it is, the needs of the OS outstrip the available speed of processors and mostly has.

Right, idealistic rant over. :smile:

No, i lied. I also hate this new proposed labelling of CPUs by AMD. ie. rather than an athlon 1.4GHz or something, it'll be called the 2000xp or whatever. What a load of tosh! :eek: 
November 6, 2001 7:26:52 AM

aww, damn, i'm an addict, i swear i'm not. honestly :frown:

well if luck is a lady, it explains why i have no luck :frown:
November 6, 2001 8:59:20 AM

Heheh.......I can't remember how many times this has been posted since 1997. That's how long I've been here posting. I like both cpus to a point, but I have problems with Intel.

I have problems with Intel's business practices, the way they treat their engineers and the way they made it to the top, aka steal technology from other companies which they used to lock out those same companies.

AMDmeldown hates the fact that there are people that know the real facts about cpu history and that Intel is not the great inventor that it claims to be.

Intel has done some good, but held back the computing world more than once, just like MS.
November 6, 2001 9:52:23 AM

i personally dont prefer the route intel has taken with higher Mhz at the expense of IP/clock cycle... they just knew that Mhz sells so they would push their numbers at the expense of overall performance. sure rdram, dual channel and SSE2 help... but they are covering the problems over, and expect software producers to help by creating sse2 optimisations.

plus intel has had trouble with the concept of value... always too expensive, specially in australia!
$1000+ for a p4 2.0? i think not.


Is that a Northwoody in your pocket or are you just eXPited to see me?
November 6, 2001 3:43:55 PM

Maybe Intel don't do enough to explain that performance equals clockspeed X IPC (or something like that) to the end customers, but is it really neccessary? I don't know the technical issues, but it seems resonable to assume that the archicture was overhauled in favor of incorporating the NetBurst architecture. I don't think Intel was engaged in a nefarious plot to mislead the customers.

In my view, SSE and SSE2 is really not covering the problem over. They are trying to take advantage of doing things in parallel. I think that is one of the ways that Net-Burst architecture contributes. Especially helps the MD part (Multiple data stream) in the SIMD (Single Instruction Multiple Data Stream). I believe that the SSE2 registers is double the amount compared to SSE (for example, from four floats to 8 floats). This means a faster data bus (i.e., NetBurst) is required.

Disclaimer: This is just a guess.

"... plus intel has had trouble with the concept of value... "

It is what the market will bear.

I can hardly wait for Northwood!
November 6, 2001 4:10:45 PM

"AMDmeldown hates the fact that there are people that know the real facts about cpu history and that Intel is not the great inventor that it claims to be."

MeldarthX, I'm guessing that of all the products you buy or eat, you are probably most focused on one Company and that's Intel why? because right now it's so cool to bash Intel, It is the "in thing" to do!

You bashers have no spines and lack self confidence, you need to follow other peeps like the lemmings you truly are, you have no voice only repeating what others say.

ps, how do you know what Intel does with it's engineers and employees? from hearsay or have you worked at Intel?

also, the only reason AMD has the Athlon is because the US Government (FTC) forced Alpha to give it to AMD, remember that.

you don't know jack about Intel or AMD you are just a lemming repeating recycling repeating.

"<b>AMD/VIA!</b>...you are <i>still</i> the weakest link, good bye!"
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 6, 2001 4:14:20 PM

sure.. but no one forces you or anyone to contribute and/or read these posts.. and even so, I still cant help myself from time to time, and also discuss things that have been discussed for years, and will be discussed for many more years.

If you'r really too tired of them, I suggest you visit Aces' hardware forum. Much more mature, and usuallly in depth posts, and damn, thats one fast site...

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 6, 2001 4:20:31 PM

>personally dont prefer the route intel has taken with higher Mhz at the expense of IP/clock cycle...

I dont see whats there to like/dislike. Its the performance that counts; I dont care how they achieve it. If VIA where to release a 15 Ghz cpu that performs like current AMD and Intel cpu's, is no warmer either, and is priced reasonably.. I'd seriously consider it.. not very likely though ;-)

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 6, 2001 4:37:35 PM

>I can't remember how many times this has been posted
>since 1997. That's how long I've been here posting.

And still a newbie ? ;-)

>Intel has done some good, but held back the computing world more than once, just like MS.

Just like any monopoly (or almost-monopoly). Its in the nature of business practice. If you where in charge of intel/MS/.., you'd be crazy to act differently. Thats why competition is so important. If nothing else, this should be the number one reason to support the underdog.. in this case AMD. Even intel users and lemmings alike should realize that. If one day the tables change, and AMD becomes a near monopoly, I'll be crossing my fingers for Intel to give it some competition.

The fact that AMD currently sells cpu's that are both faster and cheaper makes it much easier to favour them.. and much stranger that they still only have a "marginal" part of the business.

Go ahead meltdown, start flaming..blabla burning cpu's.. incompatibility.. instability.. blablabla.. FUD..

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
November 6, 2001 8:21:32 PM

You assume people only follow a trend. I see many people here who have their own thoughts and reason for thinking them and don't need to belittle others to express them.

Some people like AMD

Some people like Intel

Some people like whoever can produce a better all around product, and that differes from one person to another depending on the needs of that person.

Just accept that oppinions will differ, and don't think someone is stupid for having a different one.

For the rest of you who need to prove one company is better than the other, the pissing contest will be held somewhere outside. :wink:

60 FPS, 70 FPS, 80 FPS Crash!
Daylight comes and I have to go to work :frown:
November 6, 2001 8:28:19 PM

Quote:
Well I read that Windows XP and PENTIUM 4 processors make it easy to transfer stuff off your digital camera.

Hmm, does the P4 have a built in video input in the chip?

That's uder nonsense. You're talking about the differences in software. The transfer rates will be at the speed of the port it uses, and that hasn't been limited by a CPU since a 486.

Now, video editing with the new SSE2 commands, that's another issue. That is an advantage of the P4, but the gains off of that will not be had for all for perhaps another year.

60 FPS, 70 FPS, 80 FPS Crash!
Daylight comes and I have to go to work :frown:
November 6, 2001 8:32:08 PM

The scary part is, for buisness apps, they are correct if you are going from 98/ME to XP. It's the same boost that Win2K got though, so going from 2K to XP will slow you down just a bit I believe.

60 FPS, 70 FPS, 80 FPS Crash!
Daylight comes and I have to go to work :frown:
November 6, 2001 9:20:23 PM

AmdMeltdown, I'm guessing that of all the products you buy or eat, you are probably most focused on one company, and that's Intel. Why? Because you don't actually know jack about CPUs, so you allow the company that looks biggest in TV commercials to spoon-feed you the lamest of their marketing hype and BS. To you, following the apparent leader just seems like the "in thing" to do.

Quote:
ps, how do you know what Intel does with it's engineers and employees? from hearsay or have you worked at Intel?

...you just chose the wrong minefield to jerk off in. I wouldn't normally mention this...

Get your head out of the sand and head over to <A HREF="http://www.faceintel.com/" target="_new">FACEintel</A>. There's been a continuing fight for employees' rights going on between Intel and its ex-employees for years. EFF has had to step in a few times on behalf of the FACEintel organization.

Quote:
also, the only reason AMD has the Athlon is because the US Government (FTC) forced Alpha to give it to AMD, remember that.

It could also be said that Intel bought the Alpha division because, even after years of Alpha R&D being put on a back burner, Intel still couldn't beat Alpha's 64-bit technology.

Kelledin
<A HREF="http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/" target="_new">LFS</A>: "You don't eat or sleep or mow the lawn; you just hack your distro all day long."
November 6, 2001 9:43:02 PM

Yes the fight does get old but without the fight what else would there be?

This whole AMD/Intel thing has me in a bind because:

1)Historically Intel has been the best/most reliable chip.

2)Currently AMD makes the fastest chips in most benchmarks.

3)AMD CPUs offer best price/performance.

4)No one ever got fired for buying IBM.

What I mean by all this is that personally I currenty favor AMD but professionally we still sell Intel. Intel is todays IBM and no business wants to take a chance on AMD. AMD is a "handymans" product that people who know what they are doing will buy. AMD needs to get ahead, stay ahead and fix that damn thermal diode issue before they are taken seriously buy businesses. Any issue no matter how small needs to be taken seriously if AMD is to be the number one chipmaker. This includes the PR rating crap. I understand the logic but it looks bad. It looks like they are behind and artifically pumping up the numbers. They need to get the clock up to Intels, not for performance but for marketing.

Remember if you ain't Muslim you ain't Shiite.
November 6, 2001 9:44:30 PM

yeah. your right. it IS about performance...
but they sell the p4 2.0 as something somehow superior.
knowing full well that the competition, the xp 1900+ runs at 400Mhz less while getting on average the same performance.

they just love using peoples missconceptions about mhz = performance. implicit dishonesty

it wasnt always like this... remember back the the pentium2/3 days? their chips WERE better than any competition. the k5/k6 and cyrix couldnt compete.

Is that a Northwoody in your pocket or are you just eXPited to see me?
November 6, 2001 9:48:57 PM

i suppose i just have a bizzare idea that eventually certain people will grow up.
crazy huh?

and i do visit aces forum
and overclockers australia
and storagereview.com
and united devices (cure for cancer)
and neoseeker
lol

Is that a Northwoody in your pocket or are you just eXPited to see me?
November 6, 2001 10:09:31 PM

The K6-2 was AMD's first competitive chip. It provided near Pentium 2 business app performance, superior 3D performance with 3DNow! optimized apps although it was poor in non-optimized apps. Then came the K6-3 to compete with the P3450 and 500. The 450MHz K6-3 was faster than the 500MHz P3 in business apps, slower in unoptimized 3D and as fast in 3DNow! apps.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
November 6, 2001 10:31:11 PM

wow
didnt know there was that much employee hastle with intel...

sure they are big, the bully, both employees, customers and compeditors, but thats what corporations do, but not to that extent.

P.S. what is netburst? is that just the very long instruction pipleine aint it?

Is that a Northwoody in your pocket or are you just eXPited to see me?
November 6, 2001 10:37:48 PM

As I understand it, Netburst technology is a combination of the long pipelines, high frequences and SSE2.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
November 6, 2001 11:42:04 PM

Clockspeeds aren't the issue. Reputation is the issue.

Correct, AMD doesn't have the best reputation because of past products. Correct Intel has a pretty good reliability history.

So, what AMD needs to do, is start advertizing a bit to the public. They did when they introduced the Athlon, but the stoped shortly afterwards, and their product was rated in the comercials against a pentium. AMD needs to step out of the shadow, and stop acting like they are in it when advertizing. They need to do some serious PR to try to get a better public opinion.

Intel also needs to get it's butt in gear. They've been acting as if they have nothing to lose, and are losing more than they want to. Perhaps they will not look as highly at clock speed and start thinking more about true performance. And they need to wonder if RDRam is truely the viable solution they thought it was. With DDR ram heading the DDR400 direction, it will give the same bandwith with less latency, and truely unlock the bus speed advantage of the P4.

Now, what I would also like to see, is perhaps some work on the PCI Bus. It's still this old 32 bit bus running at 33 Mhz. I'm sure they could come out with a newer solution and could speed up several other areas of the computer. Sound technology could probably benifit greatly with a new interface, as data increases and sound goes more digital.

And, while I'm ranting on technology in general, I wish that programers today would work to streamline their code more. With today's modern processors and storage solutions, many coders have gotten sloppy, and often use ineficiant and excessively large code to do things. I would think that you could probably eak out anywhere from a 5-25% performance gain from simply streamlined code. Unfortunately, most companies are in such a hurry to get their product out that they don't put a high priority on this. This also results in conflicts, errors, and other issues.

Ok, I'm done ranting now.

60 FPS, 70 FPS, 80 FPS Crash!
Daylight comes and I have to go to work :frown:
November 7, 2001 12:38:29 AM

I agree with 99% of your post except the clockspeed thing. Dodge has the Viper and Chevey has a Corvette. Most folks don't buy either car but it important for the companies to have a cool car even if no one buys it. Same goes for chips. AMD should make a superfast 2G+ chip in small quantities and charge a huge amount of cash for it, not so that anybody buys it but so they look like a leader.

If not the superfast chip idea, they could spend a huge amount of cash educating the public as to why clock is not as important as work done. My thinking is that it would be cheaper to make the chips then educate John Q. I think the chip idea will mean more as we get closer to 3G. AMD was first to 1G, Intel first to 2, hopefully AMD will be the first to 3 even if it is a paper release. Notice the headlines don't say anything about performance. You will never see "AMD first to reach a 3G level of performance with their 2.3G CPU" as a headline except maybe at AMD's website. I agree that clock does not matter except that it does.

Remember if you ain't Muslim you ain't Shiite.
November 7, 2001 1:09:55 AM

Dodge has the Viper and Chevey has a Corvette.

Bolth suck in a race.They ae just good for 1/4 mile if we can say good.

Wisdom dont come with time
Meilleur chance la prochaine fois
November 7, 2001 1:14:22 AM

I have problems with Intel's business practices, the way they treat their engineers and the way they made it to the top, aka steal technology from other companies which they used to lock out those same companies.

Want link.Try to give 1 that not come from AMDzone or something like that.

Wisdom dont come with time
Meilleur chance la prochaine fois
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 7, 2001 2:54:04 AM

Ha ha that’s the funniest propaganda I have ever heard in my entire life. OMG Kelledin you actually believe that garbage? It like saying NASA never warned the astronauts of the dangers of space shesh, welcome to the real world, next thing you know ill sue Canada cause its cold to work in. Man you have more anti Intel in you than AMDmeltdown has anti AMD.

These people are mad at Intel cause they are rejects and couldn’t handle the higher requirements of Intel corps expanding endeavors so Intel removed them from the loop we’ve seen this with Motorola, Ford, GMC, GE, even Boeing. Its the little guys that are dumb asses that want more cause their dumb ass neighbor says hey man they are big go [-peep-] with them and see what happens.

Oh Kelledin Intel couldn’t beat their 64 bit cause they never owned the ia-64 architecture because as we can see the Itainium can do more per clock than the alpha could so quit the anti Intel [-peep-]. It dumb and pointless.

PS: Can I sue you for being such a smuck and bring garbage to the forum?

-Spuddy

<font color=red>Being Evil Is Good. Cause I Can Be A Prick And Get Away With It.</font color=red> :lol: 
November 7, 2001 3:03:52 AM

Quote:
Dodge has the Viper and Chevey has a Corvette.
Quote:


Those are high performance sports cars. High performance processors don't need high clockspeeds. If performance wasn't an issue, AMD and Intel could pump out 3, 4, maybe even 5 Ghz processors. However, no one would want a 5 Ghz 286, as today's processors would still out perform it.

A High performance car may have more performance than a normal person can use, but it still has performance, and that's what consumers demand.

60 FPS, 70 FPS, 80 FPS Crash!
Daylight comes and I have to go to work :frown:
November 7, 2001 3:46:19 AM

Quote:
OMG Kelledin you actually believe that garbage?


After three years of knowing about it, I still haven't decided yet. Can you establish proof one way or the other? It sounds like you're running on hearsay... :wink:

Quote:
Oh Kelledin Intel couldn't beat their 64 bit cause they never owned the ia-64 architecture because as we can see the Itainium can do more per clock than the alpha


Not quite. Itanium falls short of the Alpha in some areas and consumes an ungodly amount of power. Alphas went beyond 150MHz before they needed anything more than a heatsink; Itaniums need extreme cooling in a 7u chassis just to run smoothly at 800. And as the Pentium IV demonstrated, you can't base performance just on IPC or on MHz anymore.

Quote:
Can I sue you for being such a smuck and bring garbage to the forum?


Meltdown asked; I delivered. Can you deliver? :tongue:

Kelledin
<A HREF="http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/" target="_new">LFS</A>: "You don't eat or sleep or mow the lawn; you just hack your distro all day long."
November 7, 2001 7:23:00 AM

Yep that is the funny part, Intel almost demands that software engineers cover their mistakes......most programs will never see SSE2 opt. The programs with some SSE are just coming out, which benfits both AMD and Intel.

Intel isn't going to fall any time soon, but if they keep up what they are doing, they will.......customers are getting smarter, and if they aren't their kids are.......

Their kids are going to be the driving force for the next 30 years.......for technology
November 7, 2001 7:39:11 AM

Of course Intel is counting on misleading cunsumers. Right now most consumers believe that mhz means that the machine is the fastest. This is clearly not the case; Intel knew what it was doing when it created the p4. Intel willingly sacrificed ip speed for mhz speed.

Net-burst will not help this either, a full redesign is needed. The biggest bottle necks in computers right now is disk speed, bus and ipc. Intel didn't improve any of those. Bus speed went up, but when you lower ipc speed, you lose any advantage you would have gained with the increased bus speed.

We see this clearly in the P4. The PIII coppermine shows a beautiful balance with mhz and ipc speeds as does all the Athlons.

We will have to see what Northwood can do. It still has the same design flaws of the P4, the cache system is faster but there is nothing they can do about the flaw in the piping design with prefeching.

But Intel has a history of taking a pile of crap cpu and turning it into what it should of been in the first place.....;)
November 7, 2001 8:00:05 AM

"also, the only reason AMD has the Athlon is because the US Government (FTC) forced Alpha to give it to AMD, remember that."

Wrong, as normally. AMD worked on the deal with DEC and then Compaq for about 2 years. They saw what Intel was developing from stolen technology and knew they could do better.

you don't know jack about Intel or AMD you are just a lemming repeating recycling repeating.

I'm hurt you don't remember me, and the last time I had to put you in your place. You are a mormon plain and simple.

Deny, that back in the late 80s that AMD had to bail out Intel from finantale*sp* and structural problems. Late 80s and beginning of the 90s, 2 out of 3 cpus sold were not Intel. Intel was getting their collective asses handed to them.

AMD and Intel went into contract to delevelope the next 2 generations of cpus. AMD did 90% of the R&D, because Intel did not have the money. Also AMD was making all of Intel's control chips at that time.

Big reason for this was big blue did not want Intel to have complete control on the cpus it used.

When the research was almost completed on the 286 and 386, Intel cleaned out the R&D lab and told AMD they didn't have any information on what happened. Intel then ended their contract with AMD on delevelope. 6 months later Intel came out with the 286; which all the original 286 cpus that first came out had the stamp of AMD on them. AMD sued Intel for the stolen intell property rights and breach of contract.

5 years went by, Intel also released the stolen 386 cpu, while AMD had to start from scratch. Intel was found guilty, but the damage had been done. AMD did come out with their own versions of the 286 and 386, but they came too late. Intel had grown into the largest cpu manufacture.

AMD had caught up, and they cpus again were faster for their clock speed. Intel brought out Pentium Pro. Which again they were used on stolen intell rights and architechture. This time by DEC. Intel was again found guilty. They had stolen cache architechture and cache structures from DEC's Alpha.

This technology became the base of the Pentium, PII, PIII, and P4.

Intel built their empire on stolen techology. That is what I have a major problem with. AMD at least goes out and gets the rights to use the technology they are using or create their own.

Also for the last 3 years, AMD has beated Intel in patents hands down.

I'm a lemming? Right, how many times do you have to be proven an idiot before you go away?

At least when BMO was here, he knew what he was talking about most of the time.
November 7, 2001 8:16:46 AM

hehe, just because I don't post very much anymore. This place hasn't changed much over the years......same arguements, different faces at times........

Don't worry about AMDmelt, we've had this arguement again and again. Again and Again I show what little he really knows.......
November 7, 2001 8:31:38 AM

No real links, but look at court cases, Intel has been caught several times stealing from their competitors. The case with AMD made a lot headlines. More contracts came from that lawsuit, which made Intel give bus architechture and licences to AMD through the socket 7 motherboards. That is why Intel came out with the slot 1 interface. They did not have to share that with AMD or other cpu makers.
November 7, 2001 2:48:34 PM

<i>"Wrong, as normally. AMD worked on the deal with DEC and then Compaq for about 2 years. They saw what Intel was developing from stolen technology and knew they could do better"</i>

BS, here's the <A HREF="http://www.techlawjournal.com/atr/80427intc.htm" target="_new">agreement</A> worked out by the FTC!

<i>"I'm hurt you don't remember me, and the last time I had to put you in your place. You are a mormon plain and simple."</i>

I'm not a mormon! so stfu!

<i>"Deny, that back in the late 80s that AMD had to bail out Intel from finantale*sp* and structural problems. Late 80s and beginning of the 90s, 2 out of 3 cpus sold were not Intel. Intel was getting their collective asses handed to them."</i>

AMD was asked to help out with chip production nothing more, but AMD wanted much more(like a crazed gf looking for marriage) so Intel kicked them to 'da curb. short and sweet!

<i>"AMD and Intel went into contract to delevelope the next 2 generations of cpus. AMD did 90% of the R&D, because Intel did not have the money. Also AMD was making all of Intel's control chips at that time."</i>

more total BS, where are your links, the proof?

<i>"AMD had caught up, and they cpus again were faster for their clock speed. Intel brought out Pentium Pro. Which again they were used on stolen intell rights and architechture. This time by DEC. Intel was again found guilty. They had stolen cache architechture and cache structures from DEC's Alpha."</i>

again more BS, again where are your links?, here's <A HREF="http://www.techlawjournal.com/atr/80427intc.htm" target="_new">mine</A>
the rest of your post is more useless garbage. and yes, you are a lemming, who has been recycling this bs for the longest time.

even AMDpuppies like you know what's the <A HREF="http://www.pcmech.com/show/tt/207/" target="_new">real story</A>.

"<b>AMD/VIA!</b>...you are <i>still</i> the weakest link, good bye!"
November 7, 2001 4:07:43 PM

I dont know about you but part of the article you refrenced does not make sense.

"This Intel-Digital settlement agreement included the following provisions:

Intel pays $700 Million to Intel.
Cross licensing of patents.
Intel acquires Digital's semiconductor manufacturing facility in Hudson, Massachusetts.
Intel agrees to manufacture Alpha microprocessors for Digital."

Now how can a company pay its self 700 million dollars?


:cool: <font color=orange> intel amd the ultimate deathmatch</font color=orange>
November 7, 2001 4:50:15 PM

Yup Meltdarth...

The FTC then ensured that Intel couldn't use this cooperation between DEC and AMD to AMD's disadvantage, by the consent decree which stipulated licenses of the technologies they had been working on together and separately.

Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
November 7, 2001 7:53:56 PM

>Intel pays $700 Million to Intel.

this is obviously a typo, it should say: Intel pays $700 Million to DEC.



"<b>AMD/VIA!</b>...you are <i>still</i> the weakest link, good bye!"
!