http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/ Engadget Comments for AMD's "Break Free" website targets Intel's business practices 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/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/Aug 9th 2007 9:49AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/Aug 8th 2007 4:17PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/Aug 24th 2007 4:48AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/Aug 8th 2007 4:52PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/Aug 8th 2007 4:17PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/
(And this is being said by a loyal AMD customer who is holding off replacing his primary PC (4.5 year old Barton core Athlon 2800+) just to wait for the Phenoms to drop)]]>Aug 8th 2007 4:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/Aug 8th 2007 4:47PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/Aug 8th 2007 4:25PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/
-----------
http://www.webyaa.com/category/technology]]>Aug 8th 2007 4:22PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/Aug 8th 2007 4:23PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/
I personally love AMD, but product loyalty in the technology market doesn't make sense. I can't wait to see what they're going to do with ATI integration, but they're going to have to actually finish doing that before I can buy another product of theirs again.]]>Aug 9th 2007 1:37AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/Aug 8th 2007 4:26PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/Aug 8th 2007 4:33PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/Aug 8th 2007 4:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/
Get the chips right and smart users will buy and ask for them.

I think theyre bitching that they cant squeeze no-good low end chips on everything like intel :P]]>Aug 8th 2007 4:38PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/Aug 8th 2007 4:40PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/Aug 9th 2007 10:04AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/
They pretty much hit the wall with performance when they started using DDR2 and failed to get the speed increase the technology really offers. Some of the early benchmarks showed little to no improvement in memory bandwith performance justified in upgrading to the AM2 platform. The only innovation they have done since then is releasing the Turion 64 X2 which isn't all that impressive. It should be interesting to see what happens with their DDR3 platform nVidia is working on to see if they will actually catch up or continue to fail and fall further behind the tech race.]]>Aug 8th 2007 4:55PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/Aug 8th 2007 4:57PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/
The next major innovation AMD needs to be working on is getting a unified chipset with killer ATI video and AMD processor harmoniously working on one motherboard together. Before Intel does!

]]>Aug 9th 2007 10:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/Aug 8th 2007 5:43PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/Aug 9th 2007 4:55AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/Corporations, evil though they may be, are there for the sole purpose of making a dollar, nothing more.]]>Aug 8th 2007 5:47PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/Aug 9th 2007 7:14AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/
Only recently have major computer manufacturers started offering AMD in their lineup (i.e. Dell), but if you look at the systems with these processors, they aren't the best they could be. Yet the Intel systems can be configured to have all of the best parts!

After the Pentium 4 screw ups (slower than Pentium 3 speeds and far too much heat and power consumption) and the miserable attempt at dual core chips with the D series of Pentiums and Celerons, I don't understand why anyone would want to limit their offering of systems to a single chip maker. This is the main reason why I have built all of my own computers from retail parts using AMD since 2000.

I think that these lawsuits, and the site, will have an affect on companies. Retailers, system builders, etc. will be more likely to consider offering more AMD products in the wake of consumer awareness.

In response to mrF1xIT, a new socket type is not a reason to upgrade. If buying a new computer, the AM2 socket would have given you the ability to buy a 'green' chip that uses as little as 65W at full capacity. It also gave you the ability to use DDR2 at exceptional bus speeds, though you are correct that this does not truly affect performance. However, the power consumption is nearly half that of DDR using DDR2.

Would you upgrade to Windows Vista right now just because it offers DirectX 10? No [hopefully, no games actually support to make it 10 better than 9]. You start playing the wait and see game. Do they have drivers for my equipment, can I play my games on it, etc. However, if you're buying a new computer, you may take the plunge as an investment so you don't have to upgrade down the road.

Anyway, the Core 2 Duo lineup is really the only race Intel has beaten AMD in (as far as performance) since AMD's products took the lead ["quad-cores" not included].]]>Aug 8th 2007 5:46PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/
P.S. Ever notice how the only thing internet providers ever provide is the speed in GB/s even though latency affects your download speed and quality more? Computer chips were the same way ‘back then’ where you got one number even though it was only 50% of the necessary information to understand performance. RAM (alluded to earlier) still works the same way for most consumers; they say the bus speed but ignore the latency ratings which effects RAM speed just as much and often more because if you have to wait several clock cycles a fast bus won’t do anything to speed up all the idling. It’s like having a car that can go 200mph but only for 15 seconds a minute while an 80mph car can go non-stop.]]>Aug 8th 2007 7:17PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/
The best Pentium D was slower than the 'most economical' Athlon X2 in many multi-threaded applications. (one example here: http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/08/01/dual/). The best Pentium D did have better performance in standard, single-threaded apps, but that's not why you buy dual-core processors, is it?

"P.S. Ever notice how the only thing internet providers ever provide is the speed in GB/s even though latency affects your download speed and quality more? "

You must not live in the US. Our consumer internet is still rated in MegaBits (not bytes), and most ISPs cover themselves by saying speeds "up to" x.x. Even with cable, they usually say up to 5.x Mb/s, but it only works half that fast (they usually impose their own limit-- You're not going to tell me that I can't reach 5.x simply because there are too many people on the Internet at 3am in that location...) and that's only with download speeds. Uploads are usually 1/6th of the reported speed.

"The Pentium D was a quick response to the need for dual cores and when they were sold they were a great quality for their price and most of the over clock far better than their competitors."

The Pentium D was only a quick response to the need for dual cores in Intel's product line-up, so that the retailers, system builders, et al. wouldn't be able to break the exclusivity contract that AMD is complaining about in the law suit. If Intel waited for a decent product, the market would have been clamoring for AMD. This would have created instability in the market place, since consumers want dual core instead of dual proc, but retailers and systems builders wouldn't be able to give them what they need without having to charge more for Intel products (AMD's suit claims Intel had clauses in contracts for price increases if the company didn't exclusively sell Intel products). So Intel fans got a half-baked product because Intel wanted to throw something out there to bridge the gap and retain market share.

It is *never* a good idea to sacrifice quality just because your customers believe in [most of] the history of a brand name, especially when the consumer market only has real care or access to those brand names. All we really care about from Intel, as end-consumers, are the Pentium and Celeron names, so tarnishing those brands can ruin your entire credibility for the market.]]>Aug 9th 2007 10:27AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/
Allow me to rephrase that for you so it's less hypocritical:

"I don't understand why anyone would want to [broaden] their offering of systems to [anything from Intel]. This is the main reason why I have built all of my own computers from retail parts using AMD since 2000."

At any rate, when I upgraded from my Athlon XP 2500, the Pentium D had a far better bang for its' buck compared to Athlon X2s at the time. Case in point, the $100 Pentium D 820s performed only slightly worse than the $200 Athlon X2s.

I was the proud owner of a 486 DX2, a Pentium, a K6, a K6-2, a Celeron II, an Athlon XP, a Pentium D and am now a proud Core 2 Quad owner. AMD would have had 4 out of my 8 personal systems, except they just didn't step up to the plate this time. I wanted quad core for my particular applications, and despite the fact that Hypertransport is freaking practically made for high speed multi-die-single-chip interconnect, AMD's marketing department said that "fake quad" is "bad form" in a last ditch effort to one-up Intel by being first to an achievement that they pulled out of a hat (even though they have no problem at all with multi-chip 8 core!!).

And now this! Honestly, AMD has been pissing me off more and more lately. They need to get someone smart in charge again. Preferably someone who climbed the ranks from the R&D department with a clue on what makes a chip "fast", as opposed to leaving the reins in the hands of their idiotic marketing department (hint hint, hey AMD, a successful brand name doesn't make a chip fast, and neither does having a monopoly!!). In the words of the great Napoleon, "Gosh, IDIOT."]]>Aug 9th 2007 6:58PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/Aug 8th 2007 6:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/Aug 8th 2007 6:45PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/Aug 9th 2007 7:57PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/Aug 9th 2007 1:03AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/AMD's complaints are true.]]>Aug 8th 2007 6:42PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/Aug 8th 2007 7:12PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/Make something decent and maybe people will use it.]]>Aug 8th 2007 7:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/Intel has engaged in monopolistic practices without a doubt, now and in the past. I use both Intel and AMD machines and own stock in both, but I believe in AMD's suit. Look what M$ did to lots of good companies by illegally (in my opinion and Judge Penfield _____ opinion) using their control of the op system to gain advantages in apps. The proper solution would have been to sever M$ apps from op system, forming two companies, but politics triumphs over justice. Our government has no stomach for fighting anti-trust cases (the govt case vs M$ hinged on the browser issue, which was tertiary). Go AMD!]]>Aug 8th 2007 8:40PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/http://dimbulb.typepad.com, if you'd like to check it out.]]>Aug 8th 2007 9:01PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/Aug 8th 2007 9:09PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/Aug 9th 2007 12:56AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/It is with a heavy heart that I admit I will not be buying any more AMD products until they practice what they preach on that slogan. :(]]>Aug 9th 2007 5:35AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/08/amds-break-free-website-targets-intels-business-practices/Aug 9th 2007 11:09PM