FluffmeisterI'm very happy for them, they make a great product and it rightfully sells.

Also it apparently annoys some people here, and it's fun to wind them up.

leeb2013Still, having said that, I hope they spend some profits on improving CPU performance a bit faster than the current rate.

JorgeThere are lots of companies who make and sell excellent products but they also pay their proper income taxes and do not resort to chronic violations of law to stiffle competiton - for which Intel has been convicted in the U.S., Europe and Asia. If you're going to applaud a company you might want to pick an ethical one who doesn't exploit their customers

HumanSmokeSo, you'll be buying systems made by VIA Tech then? Considering that AMD has a blot on it's record fromprice fixing ( graphics sold up to a year and a half after AMD acquired ATI), and marketing blatantly false informationregarding CPUs ?
Remember to boycott all graphics that use Samsung, Elpida, and Hynix memory IC's while you're at it.

EagleyeSince you're clearly Bashing AMD

EagleyeA long-standing class action case against Nvidia for allegedly conspiring with AMD.
(Taken from your link)

Nvidia would be required to pay $850,000 into a $1.7 million fund that will be made available for payments to the class, with AMD left to make up the rest.

On September 16, 2008, ATI Technologies ULC (ATI), Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., AMD US Finance, Inc., and 1252986 Alberta ULC (collectively, the ATI Entities), executed a settlement agreement relating to the claims of the certified class of direct purchaser plaintiffs previously approved by the District Court for the Northern District of California (District Court), which consists of purchasers who bought graphics cards directly from the websites of ATI or NVIDIA Corporation (NVIDIA) in the United States during the period December 4, 2002 to November 7, 2007. The settlement agreement calls for the ATI entities to pay $850,000 into a fund to be made available for payments to the certified class in exchange for a dismissal of all claims related to the lawsuit. The ATI Entities are not obligated under the settlement agreement to pay attorneys' fees, costs, or make any other payments in connection with the settlement other than our payment of $850,000. The settlement agreement is subject to court approval and, if approved, would dispose of all claims raised by the certified class in the lawsuit against the ATI Entities. On October 2, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an order staying the direct purchaser plaintiffs' petition for permission to appeal the District Court's order regarding class certification.
The ATI Entities have also reached a settlement agreement with the remaining individual indirect purchaser plaintiffs in the lawsuit. On July 18, 2008, the District Court denied a motion seeking to certify a class of all indirect purchasers in the United States who purchased a product containing a graphics processing unit initially sold by the ATI Entities or NVIDIA. On September 9, 2008, the ATI Entities and NVIDIA reached a settlement agreement with the remaining individual indirect purchaser plaintiffs that provides for the ATI Entities to pay $112,500 in exchange for a dismissal of all claims and appeals related to the lawsuit raised by the individual indirect purchaser plaintiffs. This settlement is not subject to the approval of the District Court. Pursuant to the settlement, the individual indirect purchaser plaintiffs have dismissed their claims and withdrawn their petition for permission to appeal the District Court's order denying their motion for class certification.

EagleyeLet me start by saying AMD just last year made it on the (Top spot) list of honourable companies based on the semi conductor market

HumanSmokeWhich is obviously why I linked to a story pertaining to both Nvidia and AMD price fixing :rolleyes:
...as well as reminding Jorge about who supplies the memory IC's for both Nvidia and AMD boards :rolleyes:

You know what else is taken from the link:

If Nvidia's share comes to $850K out of $1.7 million, what does that leave for AMD? Hint: The same amount. Hint#2: Equal culpability.
Since the article seems not to have convinced you, and rather than research anything about it, just highlight one sides culpability - here it is from AMD's own financials


So you're comparing AMD's current conduct (so as to dismiss shady business practice from 2006-08), but having a cry about Intel's record up to and prior to the same time period. Sounds pretty hypocritical and a piss poor attempt to rewrite history TBH :rolleyes:

EagleyeSeriously are you for real? The article has nothing to do with AMD, and here you are again bashing AMD for the gullibility of a company once called ATI.

...graphics cards directly from the websites of ATI or NVIDIA Corporation (NVIDIA) in the United States during the period December 4, 2002 to November 7, 2007.