1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

AMD Comments on EC Ruling that Intel Violated EU Law, Harmed Consumers

Discussion in 'News' started by btarunr, May 14, 2009.

  1. Shadin

    Shadin New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    53 (0.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Am I the only one that thinks Hector was AMD's ruin? He came into the company while it was making plenty of money during the A64 days (despite Intel's illegal OEM dealings), and then sat there and collected a paycheck. Core 2 came out and AMD had nothing, nada, to compete. The transition from 939 to AM2 was pathetic. This was the man who ruined Motorola's CPU business, and then they put him in charge of AMD.

    Like I've said in other threads, Intel engaged in illegal business practices to prevent OEM manufacturers from offering AMD based solutions, and therefore they deserve the fine. However, AMD also deserves to be on the bottom right now for making a poor choice in leadership that resulted in a serious lag in R&D that they still haven't managed to overcome. Netburst/P4 was crap and AMD was superior, there's no denying. But while A64's were flying off the shelf from the enthusiast market, AMD sat around feeling good about itself while Intel was developing Core 2.
    Assimilator says thanks.
  2. Assimilator

    Assimilator

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Messages:
    579 (0.17/day)
    Thanks Received:
    94
    100% agreed. AMD were hopelessly, foolishly naive to believe that K8 was going to dominate forever and Intel was going to do nothing. At the time when they should have been extending their lead in the CPU market by innovating further, they were sitting on their hands and watching the money roll in. Then Core 2 arrived and the lead that AMD had was erased overnight... unless Intel gets complacent again, or Bulldozer/Fusion is as good as it's claimed, I honestly don't see AMD ever dominating in the CPU market again.

    Intel is far from blameless, but AMD's constant search for a scapegoat to explain their problems - as opposed to facing up to, and admitting, that their problems are their own - is really starting to get tiring.

    BTW, snakeoil and fullinfusion? Nice trolling, pity your "arguments" have very little of substance in them. Oh, and just in case you didn't realise, AMD fanboi-ism is not substance, mkay.
  3. cdawall where the hell are my stars

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Messages:
    20,648 (7.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,971
    Location:
    some AF base
    try not to call out people like that i don't want to see someone banned for a stupid comment
  4. sLowEnd New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2008
    Messages:
    33 (0.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1
    I don't think Athlon XP's had hypertransport

    Athlon 64 (K8) came out in 2003

    Hypertransport has gotten faster since then though. It's Hypertransport 3.0 now, and runs at a much higher speed than 1.0
  5. cdawall where the hell are my stars

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Messages:
    20,648 (7.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,971
    Location:
    some AF base
    athlon XP still used a FSB however the technology behind HT was implemented in transmeta chips in 2001


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertransport

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page