Larry Qualig wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> AMD aims to reclaim CPU crown with 2007 quad-core
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | ...the puzzle is coming together and suggests that AMD may have a
>> | shot at trumping Intel by mid-2007, at least until the blue team
>> | rolls out 45 nm chips.
> Did you actually READ the article???? The answer is obviously not
> because it's full of "might" "perhaps" "maybe" "have a shot" and so
> forth. The article CLEARLY says that Intel has the lead and the new
> quad-core from AMD won't change that one bit.
You've made one horrible assumption there... that people don't WANT a quad
core AMD processor. We're holding off hardware purchases, so that we can
take advantage of AMD's future processors. Screw Intel and screw windows...
Hmmm.... I guess you can add a third target to that comment... screw novel
> While AMD is still very upbeat on its (continuing) success, the company
> did not have such a great run recently. Just announced yesterday, the
> firm's Quad FX (4x4) platform was not able to spark the kind of
> enthusiasm we would have expected from such an innovative product. Most
> reviewers, including Tom's Hardware Guide, were hesitant to point to
> some benefits of the platform and CONCLUDED THAT IT ISN'T A COMPETITOR
> for Intel's quad-core at this time. Even if AMD has been criticizing
> Intel for quickly assembling a "pseudo" quad core processor (that
> basically consists of two dual-cores) for the sake of having the first
> quad-core in the market, doesn't change much the fact that AMD has
> gambled away its lead, perhaps by underestimating how quickly an angry
> Intel could strike back.
> So sure... the new chips from AMD that will be out sometime next year
> are already underperforming what Intel is shipping today.
> Nice (fictional) headline - " Wintel Being Left Behind as AMD Quad Core
> Takes Crown "
>> They are Linux supporters.
> How so? I see nothing that AMD is doing that Intel hasn't also done.