http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/ Engadget Comments for AMD's fancy new Quad FX chips smeared by single Intel CPU http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/Dec 2nd 2006 9:29PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/Dec 2nd 2006 9:59PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/
Not the CPU.

They even state that on the second line of their press release:

"The AMD “Hollywood” graphics processor resulted in Nintendo delivering a brand new level of immersive gameplay and interaction for consumers in North America."

Enjoy the stupid fanboy land.]]>Dec 3rd 2006 1:22AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/Dec 3rd 2006 7:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/Dec 3rd 2006 12:21PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/Dec 2nd 2006 9:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/Dec 2nd 2006 9:12PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/Dec 2nd 2006 9:32PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/Dec 2nd 2006 9:38PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/
And realistically, QuadFX isn't meant for desktop users. But for the people it IS aimed at, it's not really as bad off as this article (and the slightly misleading title of the post) would have you believe.

I think by now we all know that the Core 2 Duo's beat AMD's top of the line, no suprise, and we all know that four CPU's on one chip is a better solution than gluing together two dual core chips in a way that was not initially intended.

All QuadFX boils down to is a stop gap and an option for people who want to (or are contractually obligated to) stay in the AMD camp, but also have quadcore.

The NATIVE quad CPU chips should be out next year, earlyish.

And Engadget, seriously, you can't bother to find an Intel roadmap? No speculation is required about what Intel will or will not do in the meantime...we allready know.

This is no different than NVIDIA releasing the GeForce 8800 before ATi gets their R600 out the door. They both have an answer, and they will both release it shortly.

But what would engadget be without sensationalist nonsense?]]>Dec 2nd 2006 9:37PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/
Plenty of good ones, plenty of bad ones.]]>Dec 2nd 2006 9:38PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/
Um... Wii uses IBM's Broadway CPU. It's funny how of all the sites on the internet, you stumbled onto one that's wrong.

R U a Moron or somthing?, AMD is used in Wii you fool, so then AMD is laying about too? because they released the same information in a press release... you sore loser]]>Dec 2nd 2006 10:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/Dec 2nd 2006 10:04PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/One would expect for companies to try to beat other companies.]]>Dec 4th 2006 9:44PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/
If you were a fan at all you would know that the Wii uses the IBM Broadway chip. Look it up, I've seen all the info, and it uses IBM. Here I'll even make it easy for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadway_(microprocessor)]]>Dec 2nd 2006 10:19PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/Dec 2nd 2006 10:29PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/Dec 2nd 2006 10:29PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/
Anyway thanks Alcaron.]]>Dec 2nd 2006 10:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/
Anyhow, the Wii is considered old technology as far as processor and GPU. I'm not arguing about gameplay or anything like that, but as far as processing power and graphics power, Wii sucks. And Christian is a moron.]]>Dec 2nd 2006 10:39PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/Dec 2nd 2006 10:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/
His writing matched the style of Engadget quite well. If you would rather read official whitepapers then you shouldn't be reading this in the first place. We appreciate that you have a firm grasp on cpu architecture and an obviously deep understanding of the minute details of silicon engineering principles. Good for you.

Why would you stoop to something so low as bashing a journalist bringing information to the masses?
]]>Dec 2nd 2006 11:29PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/
As far as your statement goes, it is utter trash. Kentsfield and Clovertown have 4 cores. They are so not aimed at single task processing.

And AMD not changing the architecture means nothing. They came up with a new platform to try beat Intel, and failed. Wrap it up in whatever fanboyish bullshit-flavoured honey you like: AMD's platform is inferior to Intel's at this point in time. The 4x4 platform has been planned for a long time, and includes expensive hardware that fails to outperform it's cheaper alternatives. That is the point of the story, and fully accurate as far as the sources cited are concerned.
]]>Dec 3rd 2006 12:20AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/
AMD’s Hollywood Graphics Processor Delivers the Next-Generation Gaming Experience for Innovative New Video Game Console

Notice that it says GRAPHICS PROCESSOR. That is not the same as the CPU.]]>Dec 2nd 2006 10:59PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/Dec 2nd 2006 11:26PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/Dec 2nd 2006 11:29PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/]]>Dec 2nd 2006 11:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/
See my previous point if you need clarification as to why that is.

But yes, sadly, I agree with you...his post DOES match Engadgets "style" quite nicely...which is a damned shame.

The problem with Engadget is they want to act like journalists when it comes to tossing weight around, but when people call them on their BS they hide behind the "we're just a blog, not journalists".

It's the epitome of wanting to have your cake and eat it to.

Sorry but in this world you either have credibility, and the lovely responsibility and work required to earn and sustain that credibility, or you don't, and you get the pleasure of posting whatever tripe you want with as little effort as you feel like.

You don't get both though.]]>Dec 3rd 2006 12:12AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/
This is our world, and always will be.

Now I suggest you leave, AMD fanboy.]]>Dec 2nd 2006 11:33PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/
Can we possibly stop the bash-fest?

Just an idea... ]]>Dec 2nd 2006 11:37PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/Dec 2nd 2006 11:40PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/Dec 2nd 2006 11:42PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/Dec 2nd 2006 11:47PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/Show some class, you bitter Betsy.]]>Dec 2nd 2006 11:56PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/
Touché.]]>Dec 3rd 2006 1:59AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/
But like I said, adding that "single CPU" makes it sound a LOT more impressive than it actually is...hell, until I read it even I thought it was an actually SINGLE core...I thought "hell, thats odd, the tests have to have been heavily single threaded for that to happen".]]>Dec 3rd 2006 12:17AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/Dec 3rd 2006 12:52AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/
The bottom line is that all you need to know about Karl's statement is this:

"And AMD not changing the architecture means nothing. They came up with a new platform to try beat Intel, and failed. Wrap it up in whatever fanboyish bullshit-flavoured honey you like: AMD's platform is inferior to Intel's at this point in time. The 4x4 platform has been planned for a long time, and includes expensive hardware that fails to outperform it's cheaper alternatives. That is the point of the story, and fully accurate as far as the sources cited are concerned."

He doesn't even appear to know that the K8L is in the works. And while the 4x4 platform (so um, btw, if its inferior to Intel's...perhaps you would like to point out where Intel competes with that other 4 in 4x4...if you even know what I am referring to) has been planned for awhile (long time is pushing it), that doesn't mean the first iteration is going to somehow be king of the hill.

But yes, he is right about one point, if you are upgrading right now, and what the highest performance, then yes, Intel is your best bet. But do bear in mind...that only applies if money is no object. There are still pricepoints where AMD wins.

Stick around, in a few months we will REALLY see who wins this "round". When AMD releases the K8L.]]>Dec 3rd 2006 2:35AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/Jun 14th 2007 12:51PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/Dec 3rd 2006 1:17AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/
And I like Engadget's style. Short and sweet. Not always correct, but they do a pretty good job of fixing stories.

But news is never perfect.

Think about it.]]>Dec 3rd 2006 1:43AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/
My last 4 computer upgrades have been AMD chips, but I think my next upgrade, which will probably be a notebook, will be an Intel chip as I move away from PC gaming (what all is coming to PC gaming anyway? C&C3, Supreme Commander, Halo 2..., and Crysis? Not worth a couple hundred bucks to me even though they are appealing). Obviously, I do not plan on custom building my notebook/laptop myself, but I do custom build my PCs (not fancy I know), and even if I for some reason upgraded my PC, then I doubt I would be going with this beast because of the power consumption over an Intel Core 2, or the eventual release of the Intel Quadcore whose name escapes me (I know it's something like that).

All-in-all, this is a bad showing by AMD. It was their chance to show up Intel, which recently has been on a roll, and they fell flat.]]>Dec 3rd 2006 1:46AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/
I do not want AMD to fail, nor do I want Intel to fail. This is one of the few industries where this kind of innovation really does help the consumer win, and we win big. Faster clocks speeds, more cores per chip, lower power consumption (usually...), and price wars (where the only winner is always the consumer).

As I said in my last post, I had been won over by AMD offering the better product and clearly this post is showing off a failure by AMD compared to Intel's option. Now, with that said, AMD was trying something here that does have some other perks mentioned by a few other savvy posters, plus the ability to go to eight cores (2 quad core chips) next year. Yeah, I think AMD failed pretty bad, but it's probable that they picked up something from this that will help them compete with Intel in the future, and that's what I am looking forward too.

One thing I am a bit shocked about is that this runs really hot according to Tom's Hardware, which sounds odd since I've never dealt with cooling problems with my AMD systems, and just adds to the feeling that this was rushed to compete with Intel's Quad core offering.

My biggest point of this rambling post is that it's a pretty foolish thing for a lot of people to be going on and on about how great AMD is and that most people don't understand the place of hte Quad FX compared to the Intel Quad core, because I don't think the point of the post was to slap AMD, but it was to slap the Quad FX platform.

People that know the nitty gritty about CPUs know where these chips go right and wrong, but to the vaguely computer literate among us, the review above is clearly spot on. The Quad FX falls short for what it meant to do: beat Intel's offering.]]>Dec 3rd 2006 1:59AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/Dec 3rd 2006 2:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/
Except that is not what it was meant to do.

"because I don't think the point of the post was to slap AMD, but it was to slap the Quad FX platform."

Which is still stupid because the platform itself is fine. Its the current iteration of the CPU's available for it thats not (QuadFX refers almost MORE to the chipset/system than the CPU, yes the system is named 4x4 but if you see how they refer to it QuadFX is tossed around MUCH more). As I believe you yourself mentioned the QuadFX platform will be able to run with 8 cores using AMD's TRUE quad core CPU's next year.

"All-in-all, this is a bad showing by AMD. It was their chance to show up Intel, which recently has been on a roll, and they fell flat."

No, it isn't their chance to show up Intel. Their chance to show up Intel comeas early next year when they release the K8L, the same chip that brings pretty significant architecture changes as well as NATIVE quad core. Their NATIVE quad core chip is their chance to show up Intel. Not the first gen. QFX.

"It's fair game for the Quad core and QuadFX to be compared, especially because AMD themselves are even naming the chip to compete with it."

Two things, first the Intel quad core is called the...hmm, lemme see if I can remember without referring to the article...QX6700?...after scrolling up, yes, thats the name. So QuadFX is named to compete with that...how?

Secondly, any CPU is fair game to compare to any other CPU, thats fine by me, the only thing I took issue with was the sensationalist title and the apparent shock some people seem to have over this.

It has no REAL new architecture, it is a WORSE implementation AS IT STANDS (again, you yourself pointed out the REAL reason they are doing this...when they release the K8L you will be able to have 8 cores per system. And when they match Intel's Octo Core chips you will be able to do 16...thats pretty handy).

Absolutely nothing is surprising or unexpected about this result, nor does this result matter because its not like AMD' isn't releasing a TRUE CPU update in the next few months that IS supposed to compete with Intels latest and greatest.

Again and hopefully for the last time, this is NO different than NVIDIA getting their 8800 series out the door before ATi gets their R600 out the door. Nobody is seriously suggesting that the last card ATi released displayed a failure on ATi's part because their old core but new technical release failed to compete. When the K8L (and respectively, the R600) are released you can THEN compare apples to apples.

Meanwhile the only real issue here is that if your upgrade cycle happens to be due right now...Intel is the speed leader. If your upgrade cycle, like mine, happens to be in a few months...you, like me, may find AMD has a better solution. In the meanwhile QuadFX will cater to the people who either choose to value support for their preferred company (due to maybe the way one conducts business over the other, maybe they own stock, or a host of other reasons), or are otherwise obliged to stay with AMD. And later on the REAL reason for QuadFX will come along in the K8L.]]>Dec 3rd 2006 2:20AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/
Well it's exactly what they did in the years before the dual core craze.]]>Dec 3rd 2006 4:13AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/Dec 3rd 2006 12:20PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_543~114315,00.html
“Having powered the graphics in the Nintendo GameCube, AMD is delighted to strengthen its relationship with Nintendo as it drives the next revolution in video games with the Wii.”

The GPU is AMD/ATI, the CPU is IBM Broadway.
They call it an AMD gpu in this press release because AMD bought ATI.

Check your sources, tool.]]>Dec 3rd 2006 5:42AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/Dec 3rd 2006 6:30AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/
rispex.]]>Dec 4th 2006 4:32AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/02/amds-fancy-new-quad-fx-chips-smeared-by-single-intel-cpu/http://media.thechrispirilloshow.com/mp3/cps_20060713_amd.mp3]]>Dec 3rd 2006 10:17AM