[citation][nom]KT_Wasp[/nom]This article was written by someone who went into this "interview" with their own preconceived notions. All it was ,was one question, asked over and over again, in an argumentative tone, followed by a "preachy" speech based on the "interviewer's" own views. How do you expect AMD to shed light on this subject when it is apparent that the person who did the interview had their own agenda?Do a search on newegg right now for sub-$100 Retail CPUs :Intel:Single core = 1 (1.8GHz)Dual Core = 8 (1.6GHz - 2.8 GHz)AMD:Single Core = 3 (2.2GHz - 2.7GHz)Dual Core = 9 (2.6GHz - 3.0GHz)Triple Core 2 (2.1GHz - 2.3GHz)Quad Core = 1 (2.3GHz)Intel does offer up some good CPUs in that price range, but half of those Intel dual-cores are 2.2GHz and under, where as AMD's lowest offering for dual cores is 2.6GHz. AMD also has triple and quad core options... I don't think you will see an Intel quad core offered at the sub $100 mark any time soon.Intel has more money.. hands down... AMD is hurting for money, but still delivers better price conscience options.... Instead of doing underhanded things for business, why doesn't Intel just suck it up and lower their prices? I guess what I'm trying to say is, AMD's argument holds some water and this article was clearly written by someone who refuses to see that.[/citation]
While I agree with what you're saying, a dual core intel @2 ghz will not necessarily perform the same as a dual core AMD @2ghz, so you can't compare solely by clock speed.
Also, you say that it was one question over and over again, which it was, but I don't see that AMD ever really answered that one question, they kind of skirted around it.