You know guys, what I hate about all of this. Is the labelling that people get. Just because you support AMD or Intel doesn't mean that you are a FANBOI or anything. As clearly mentioned in this thread, most people (myself including) will go for the best bang for buck CPU/Arch. I used to use AMD back in the days of the Netburst CPU's. I had an AMD 64 3000+. After that, I went to a C2Q Q6600. My friend went with a Phenom I.
The point is that with so much swings in the trend these days it's hard to be a fanboi and stick with 1 vendor. It's cyclical, one cycle AMD is the king, one cycle Intel. It's just that for the past couple of cycles AMD has had it hard and Intel really has shone. Lets not forget that Intel was a bit more immune to the financial crisis as compared to AMD. The acquisition of ATI cost them dearly and finally the spinoff of the fabs as GlobalFoundries also took some time. Now that AMD is strictly a design / IP house they can now focus on designing good CPU's and not worry about the business of making them. Same goes with ATI GPU's. As far as Larabee is concerned, I think that it will be a big player. It might be really hard to program for in the beginning with all that massive parallelism involved, but once the developers get a hang of it, I think that it will be really good! Plus I like the idea of making dozens of simple cores and gluing them all together to make a general purpose GPU. The possibilities are endless, use 10 cores for the AI, use 10 for this and use 20 for that.......interesting concept. Either way, Stan hit the nail on the head. Competition is key in this sector. VIA is not a player but still has a niche. AMD and Intel are vital to keep this sector growing and more appealing for the end consumer! -----Original Message----- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Stan Zaske Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 11:51 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Windows 7 RC Torrent == Bad Duncan anybody can see that you're a good man. I've never meant any disrespect towards anybody on the list despite the times I've stuck my foot in my mouth. I've only ever tried to step back and look at the big picture not because I think I'm smarter than anybody else or because I'm a radical. I just want to be rational, logical, and intelligent without feeling like I have to cater to the opinions of the "collective" or else! What Intel did was WRONG and it severely damaged AMD despite AMD's poor decisions and without AMD we're all screwed as I think an intelligent man such as yourself can surely see. :-) DHSinclair wrote: > Stan, > Thank you. A terse response at best. If you choose to go back channel, > I think you will find my addy in the header. I answer it privately. > I do not mean to start a fight. I mentioned that you seem to be an > AMD-focused person. FINE. > We all have 2 (or more) choices available. > I do what the collective seems to "feel" is a best choice. Pardon me > for choosing incorrectly.. > Run whatcha brung! Whatever. > Best, > Duncan > > At 20:01 05/19/2009 -0500, you wrote: >> I think I understand why you took this particular time to mention >> these things Duncan. I have no idea why my email is arriving with the >> [Bulk] whatever and have no idea why you would find that irritating >> nor why you think I'm being clandestine considering my name is Stan >> Zaske and it's not an alias. In stead of being passive/aggressive why >> don't you tell me what you are really feeling and we can discuss it >> like gentlemen on the back channel. Perhaps you think I was being >> unfair by criticizing Intel for it's illegal activities hence the >> fanboy accusation. Perhaps you think I was being unfair in what >> maccrowj said. I thought I was being factual without any personal >> attack upon anybody. :-) >> >> DHSinclair wrote: >>> Stan, >>> Please fix your email. Getting tired of the [H][Bulk] business. RU >>> really clandestine? >>> More inline below............ >>> Best, >>> Duncan >>> >>> At 15:40 05/19/2009 -0500, you wrote: >>>> Dude [bad rejoiner if you want to keep the discussion friendly!], I >>>> don't want to get into a flame war >>>> [reads like you really do!] >>>> with you but 3 countries >>>> [which 3? ULive in SoCal, so why do you even care about the other >>>> 2? U do not live there........Oh!, Japan, Korea? Why do you even >>>> care? >>>> THEY depen on U and I do buy what they build.....] >>> >>>> have independently concluded that Intel bribed manufacturers to >>>> freeze out AMD in their distribution networks with so-called >>>> rebates and to delay the release of AMD based products. AMD didn't >>>> make crappy PC's with their products. >>> >>>> [just your opinion. Info here in the SE is that most of the returns >>>> are AMD.] >>> >>>> They made some missteps along the way (Phenom I) as Intel did >>>> (Netburst) but AMD didn't attempt to bribe manufacturers to give >>>> preference to their products. Intel did and next March we're going >>>> to see Intel get spanked again in US court this time. The Ati >>>> division of AMD makes excellent GPU's and I predict that nVidia is >>>> going to have a rude awakening in the 4th quarter when DX11 high >>>> performance cards come out. >>> >>>> [Clearly your opinion! My last 6 months with ATI video cards leaves >>>> me to beg the HWG for suggestions to go back to nVidia. Yes, ATI >>>> may eventually catch up. Right now, today, I am still watching; and >>>> converting back to nVidia as fast as I can($)] >>> >>>> Larrabee is going to get spanked by both camps when Intel realizes >>>> that using x86 to make a video card is another netburst dead end. ;-) >>> >>> I do accept that UR an AMD fan-boy. Very strong. Fine. Suspected >>> this 5 yrs ago. Now confirmed. >>> >>> OK. Perhaps I might be wimpy. Acceptable. I started way back when >>> with Intel (IP266). Now, I am coming back to Intel just because it >>> seems to me [?] that planet Earth is also moving Intel. You have >>> every right to just label me a whore..........on the other >>> side.......... :) >>> No problemo! >>> Best, >>> Duncan >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> maccrawj wrote: >>>>> EU thinks anti-competitive the minute a company is successful & >>>>> dominates based on customer choice. >>>>> >>>>> I say "look at all the crappy PC's that could have been made with >>>>> AMD chips these past 5 years (and some have been)! It's not been >>>>> good for AMD these past ~5 years and it has a more to do with AMD >>>>> than Intel, just look at them fraking up ATI. >>>>> >>>>> Stan Zaske wrote: >>>>>> Yeah, Intel has been in the news a lot lately and their poor >>>>>> decisions are costing them dearly. Japan, Korea and now the EU >>>>>> have concluded that they are anti-competitive. Next year I >>>>>> believe AMD will get their shot in court and I predict that Intel >>>>>> will again be held accountable. Imagine all the money that AMD >>>>>> lost over the past 5 years because of Intel's bribes to PC >>>>>> makers. Beginning to look like the GM of the semiconductor world >>>>>> minus the threat of bankruptcy of course. >>> > >
