What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Band Hero view!
guitarhero.com - The biggest event music event of the year is now in your living room.
185 Comments
- MaxxusFlamus, on 03/19/2009, -5/+120A company wants it's rival out of business?
You don't say. - swordedge, on 03/19/2009, -3/+68Just like Microsoft wants most of its competitors dead. The two are called a Duopoly by many. Networking people add Cisco Systems and its a Triopoly.
This attitude is unhealthy for everyone, including the monopoly in question. Example, till Firefox started stealing market share, IE was stuck at version 6 for something like 5 years. No competition, no innovation. - ileftfark, on 03/19/2009, -0/+57With VIA all but dead, even hardcore Intel fans should realize we need AMD.
- kingmanic, on 03/19/2009, -0/+43Competition is good for consumers. Monopolies are good for corporations.
- 0260, on 03/19/2009, -15/+52AMD/ATI for life. Represent.
- OPR8R, on 03/18/2009, -3/+37Intel dominates the market and has all of the cash. True, they offer faster chips (at the high end) but those chips aren't Intel's bread winners. From what I understand, Intel's market advantage allows them to use some pretty shady tactics to keep AMD out of a lot of the business lines where they'd be better competition.
Intel wants AMD out so they can go back to asking $$$$$ for even their lower-end CPU's. - kingmanic, on 03/19/2009, -1/+34Wii = medium margin ATI chips. ATI is doing all right.
- phrstbrn, on 03/19/2009, -1/+27All this stuff is FUD. AMD isn't going anywhere.
Intel and AMD have large cross-license agreements, and neither company can produce processors without licensing agreements from the other.
For example, AMD is able to produce x86 based chips (patented by Intel) because Intel granted them a license to do so. AMD has patents on x86-64bit extensions, and Intel cannot legally make x86-64 processors without the licensing agreement from AMD.
If Intel and AMD suddenly had a falling out, Intel would loose the ability to legally produce and sell 64-bit x86 processors in the United States (they'd need to only make 32-bit x86 chips, or develop a brand new, and incompatible processor technology), and AMD would no longer be able to make processors, period.
It might hurt AMD more, but Intel would be digging their own grave in doing so. - dvsbastard, on 03/19/2009, -3/+29Well oil companies tend to play nice together... a little *too* nice...
- Emachine, on 03/19/2009, -0/+20Competition is necessary for technological progress, especially in that industry.
- swordedge, on 03/19/2009, -1/+20they did that to keep the DoJ off their back.
- Evilblobs, on 03/19/2009, -0/+17Radeon 4000 series = win
- DeathfireD, on 03/19/2009, -0/+17AMD started out really small while Intel was dominating the market back in the 90's. AMD blindsided Intel so I have faith they'll do it again in the future.
- angryfirelord, on 03/19/2009, -21/+38Yes AMD, that's called competition. Stop whining and start innovating again. Perhaps you should have thought that ATI buyout a little better.
- t0x2c, on 03/19/2009, -1/+17You guys put your instruction cache on the opposite end of two of your cores. Then you "fixed it" in the i7 by putting everything in a line, giving the same result! That, and you want us dead :(
- inactive, on 03/19/2009, -0/+14Were you being intentionally off-topic or just stupid?
- inactive, on 03/19/2009, -3/+17It's not some David v. Goliath *****. Both companies are serious contenders in different circles.
AMD has a TON of non-x86 chips in a huge array of other applications that intel doesn't even come close to competing with. Last I checked they manufacture a huge array of chips in cars these days, among many other things.
AMD is in no real danger. They're going to be around for quite some time. - brim4brim, on 03/19/2009, -0/+13They can't kill them intentionally without breaking the law and becoming liable for large fines in the countries they operate and break laws.
I imagine the EU won't go too easy on them if they are breaking competition laws in the EU. The EU went to town on Ms before for this, no reason to suspect they'll be lenient on Intel. Intel do have a large plant in Ireland though and our politicians are good at protecting crooks so if anything shady is found, you can be sure they'll be fighting on the wrong side of the consumer to look good to Intel to try to keep the Leixlip plant secure as the entire town and surrounding towns and universities would be in trouble if Intel pulled out. - Qumahlin, on 03/19/2009, -0/+13Start innovating? You do realize that part of the issue with why intel's multi core line is performing better then AMD's is due to AMD actually innovating on how the cores work and not simply layering cores on top of eachother right?
As ATI stated, GlobalFoundies is indeed a subsidiary, Intel just doesn't want AMD churning out more product then they already do. - SpeedSteamBoat, on 03/19/2009, -1/+13Are you serious? Have you not seen that 4000 series? Not to mention ATI has chips in both of the current gen leading game consoles.
If you ask me, ATI is about the only thing AMD really has going for them at the moment. - tnoy, on 03/19/2009, -6/+17We do need AMD, but it doesn't mean I'm going to buy their product when Intel's offering outperforms theirs (for what I need, at least.)
- fallingdamage, on 03/19/2009, -1/+12first nvidia and now AMD.. intel just cant stand competition. They are turning into the RIAA of the tech world. "Lets look through our eulas, agreements, and patents and arbitrarily sue everyone who treads on even a hint of a breach"
- Platypus3333, on 03/19/2009, -1/+11Monopolies are not per se illegal. Certain activities to pursue and maintain monopolies are illegal.
- mabsark, on 03/19/2009, -0/+9For twice the price, nice if you've got money to burn.
- dungbeetle, on 03/19/2009, -1/+10That's because Intel sucked for so long because they didn't have any reason to be better. AMD came along and did better because it wasn't hard to do.
- Aadain, on 03/19/2009, -9/+18Really? Inside Intel you never hear anyone say they "want AMD dead". We may ridicule some of their stupid business/engineering choices, but we never actively talk about wanting them gone. If anything, we like having them around. They make us look better :)
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 03/19/2009, -0/+9Meh, I prefer to buy what suits my needs in terms of performance and price point. Brand loyalty hurts consumers by not encouraging innovation. Let a flop flop.
For the record, the current combo for me is Intel/ATI. Go figure. - Tenoq, on 03/19/2009, -1/+10It's competition right up until Intel abuses market power and trades illegally to achieve the aforementioned goal.
Which is precisely what Intel have done, and continue to do. Hence the entire case. :p - fluffyturtle, on 03/19/2009, -0/+9Minor critique: They have been competitive up to the point the C2D came out. PD's weren't very competitive against X2's.
Though I guess some could try to argue they still have competitive offerings at certain price points but I am with you, the lead is black and white. Intel is simply where it is at. - heynow21, on 03/19/2009, -8/+16Intel announced a $7 billion manufacturing expansion during a *depression*. AMD is already dead.
- solid12345, on 03/19/2009, -3/+11What you mean a competing company wants the other dead? Get out of here...
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 03/19/2009, -0/+8That's a little different. They aren't REALLY in competition anyway. They all sell the same exact thing, and bumping each other off is far less advantageous than just working together to fix the market.
- Tenoq, on 03/19/2009, -0/+8Ah... it still amuses me greatly how so many people think Microsoft bailed out Apple. As swordedge said, it was more to do with antitrust than anything else. Apple didn't need or what the money, but Microsoft had to do something to draw attention away from themselves.
Mission: success. Now everyone seems to think they 'bailed out' Apple, even though Apple still had about 10 times the Microsoft cash injection in their own cash reserves. - oMeSSiaHo, on 03/19/2009, -0/+8Just had to point out that PHD, eh?
- phrstbrn, on 03/19/2009, -0/+7I didn't misunderstand. I know that doing so AMD would be out of business immediately.
However, it's not in Intel's best interest to pull the plug on AMD. Losing the ability to make 64-bit x86 processors is HUGE for Intel. It would put them at LEAST 2 years behind schedule (if not more), as they have already mapped out their next processors at LEAST 2 years ahead (and you can almost bet they're ALL based on the 64-bit extensions). They'd literally have to stop producing new processors for YEARS.
The rest of the industry will scrable, Intel will become irrelevant, and you will be able to welcome your new RISC overlords. - uRmyHartBstopR, on 03/19/2009, -0/+7look better? More like AMD forces Intel to innovate. If AMD ain't around you lazy lard ass would never innovate and charge us hundreds of dollars for a 5% increase in clock rate.
- themastersb, on 03/19/2009, -0/+7Intel seems to want the processor monopoly, but sometimes people just want affordable CPUs
- Rantus, on 06/11/2009, -0/+7Did it ever occur to anybody that maybe that was what the Ati purchase was all about? Everybody here acts like AMD isn't an innovator or something. They whooped Intel's ass once before and they can do it again. But oh well, we're talking about Digg here.
How about before AMD came out with X86-64? What would all you have said if someone told you that AMD was about to whoop Intel's ass to the point where Intel would have to license AMD's IP?
Maybe Intel is the one without the new ideas. Sure, the Core architecture rules but it was by no means an epiphany on Intel's part. They had to go back to the Pentium M architecture to save their asses. What are they going to do when the Core architecture runs its course? They already copied the integrated memory controller tech from AMD, that's what the i7 is all about. Look how long it took them to do that. So what's next? Somebody here should have that all figured out right? - mabsark, on 03/19/2009, -1/+8Oh yeah, just ignore all those AMD systems which cost a fraction of the price of an Intel system, and are actually more than enough for most peoples needs. For most people's computing needs, a bloody Atom would be fine, so take your head out of your arse.
- cubicledrone, on 03/19/2009, -1/+7Create a monopoly? Like Sirius/XM?
- AlyxVance, on 03/19/2009, -1/+7This is not true. Currently AMD holds the patent for AMD64 which Intel has to license in order to build 64 bit machines. But then AMD has to license x86 from Intel. They have to coexist or they both die.
- rolf, on 03/19/2009, -1/+7I say this as an AMD fan. Apple has spent years on PPC justifying the chip over Intels all the while trying to kick IBM to get out decent notebook chips and faster speeds. The switch to Intel was probably one of the best moves they ever made and it hepled their notebook market explode.
Apple should be focused on selling computers because that nets them money, not trying to pick ideological sides in a CPU war, which nets nothing. AMD's notebook offerings are lagging behind. Apple would be stupid to pick them for its current products.
Even now, AMD is viewed as a budget product. That isn't compatible with Apple's image anyway. - SpeedSteamBoat, on 03/19/2009, -1/+6You're kidding yourself if you honestly believe that Apple or AMD are any more or less "evil" than their competitors.
- mabsark, on 03/19/2009, -0/+5You're spot on, except for the last sentence. Most people don't need such a powerful CPU and never will.
- boogie606, on 03/19/2009, -0/+5if either one were to go out of business, the technologies you mention would just be assets to be sold to pay off creditors. guess who would buy which assets?
- NismoTigerWVU, on 03/19/2009, -1/+6Now let me start off with stating that I'm not a lawyer (in fact, my fore coming Ph.D will be in Biochemistry).
That said, I understand AMD licenses X86 from Intel.
However, Intel licenses AMD64 from AMD.
This sure seems like mutually assured destruction, unless Intel is somehow trying to push the Itanic onto the desktop.
Otherwise, if Intel had to roll back to an outdated 32 bit desktop, the 3 gigs or less amount of workable RAM would be a bottleneck.
It seems as though all sides would be better off if they just let this go and continued on.
For the last few years and the immediate future, Intel has the upper hand on the vast majority of the market.
Unless they are seriously afraid of Bulldozer and Bobcat I can't see what Intel would gain from this.
They would seemingly be much better off dealing with pressure from a currently weak AMD than the US government (monopoly issues). - phrstbrn, on 03/19/2009, -0/+5They won't have 100% market share if this happens and x86 becomes irrelevant. That's the point. Having a multi-year gap is just asking for RISC processors to fill the void (you DO realise that there are processors other than x86).
Why do you assume that it will be Intel's *new* standard which will become the defacto, when there are already well established processors out there that already work TODAY.
Sure, Intel may have to best offerings right NOW, but if you axe their 64-bit lines, their offerings are pale in comparison to already existing RISC processors.
People aren't going to wait several years and wait for Intel to do something (which is going to inevitably be a new processor/instruction set), they're just going to switch off their platform. And by the time they do release something (years later), they'll be miles behind PowerPC, ARM, etc. And then why would you switch to Intel? You've already broken compatibility, why go with a now inferior technology?
It's all moot, this is never going to happen anyways. Intel would be stupid to go down this path, the only outcome is they become losers. - inactive, on 03/19/2009, -0/+5Not to mention that when you benchmark comperable x86 chips, the AMD proves superior, more often than not and less expensive every time.
- mabsark, on 03/19/2009, -0/+5Intel Itanium, need I say more?
- mabsark, on 03/19/2009, -0/+5@Aadain
It bloody well better, considering the price difference. -
Show 51 - 100 of 187 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is