You're sidetracking, that wasn't my point tough guy...
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
will amd be making a comeback?
- Thread starter mnewxcv
- Start date
- Status
You're sidetracking, that wasn't my point tough guy...
Apparently you haven't been paying attention for a while. Many Intel X58 motherboards do support SLI.
Of course that wasn't your point. You quoted what I said, not what you said.
christof139
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2008
- Messages
- 217
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. So NVIDIA decided to be nice to Intel for a wee bit it seems. Too bad this wasn't done before the X58 if you didn't notice.
Many people that use Intels would rather use ATI so Intel is still almost forced to make ATI compliant chipsets.
Amazing isn't it?? Ha ha ha. Yes it is. The way it be's.christof139
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2008
- Messages
- 217
Plain and somple AMD has never been out of the enthusiast etc. markets, and the same applies to Intel when it had its Presscotts and PD 4 space heaters that somewhat bombed in the high performance end of things. I still have a couple of them and they are OK for many things, just as AMD's B2 PH1's are still OK for many things, especially with newer and more efficient/friendly chipsets. The performance of the PH2 940 etc. is as good and slightly better in a few benchmarks as the comparably priced i7-920, ans who wants or needs to spend $900 to $1,000 or so for a home-use CPU that is also taken to task by PH2's in the $200 range, and the answer to this is not many people do. An Q8200 etc. and PH2 710 and 810 etc. are more than good enough for most people and businesses.
Silent.Sin
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2003
- Messages
- 969
I think AMD might be in a better position to get off of that list and make it through to a more pleasant economic situation than some of the other companies on the list, though. They did just get some significant investment infusions and are actively attempting to restructure their business model from the ground up and have been since before the bottom fell out globally. The same can't be said for many corporations and it might be too late for a lot of them to even start since it's such a lengthy process.
That's interesting; Freescale sells more processors than anyone because they own all of Motorola's popular designs, plus tons of other embedded parts. I haven't been following that market lately, but I assumed they were just printing money. Last I looked, they had nearly 30% of the embedded market, which means they were shipping more than 3 billion processors each year.
That is a rather uninformed thing for you to say. I was well aware that nVidia did not previously allow SLI on Intel chipsets. However, that is no longer the case, so it is a moot issue.Too bad this wasn't done before the X58 if you didn't notice.
I don't know where you got the idea that most people using Intel CPUs use ATI cards, but you're dead wrong: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Many people that use Intels would rather use ATI so Intel is still almost forced to make ATI compliant chipsets.
And I seriously doubt Intel would ever make their boards incompatible with ATI graphics cards. Such a move would make absolutely no commercial sense.
christof139
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2008
- Messages
- 217
Why don't you learn to also comprehend rather than just read English!??!
I never said that MOST Intel users prefer ATI cards, rather I clearly stated that MANY Intel users do indeed prefer ATI cards and that is a true statement, just as many AMD users prefer ATI cards and many Intel and AMD users prefer NVIDIA cards and some prefer both. MANY does not = MOST, and you should check this in a dictionary, thesaurus, etc.
Yes, that is what I said, that Intel has to make ATI compatible mobos for their own good. How brilliant of you to repeat what I said.
Please go back to school or somewhere and learn how to comprehend English.
You are quite the near TROLL.
And the same Moody's that helps set AMD's interest rate for loans and credit rating.Is that the same Moody's that rated billions in sub-prime mortgages AAA so they could by bought by small community pension funds in Iceland?
Probably even done by the same division and exact same analysts.
I think you need to calm down a little bit. Yes, I misread your statement as saying "most" instead of "many". I apologize for that. There's no need to freak out.
As for my saying that Intel would never remove compatibility for ATI graphics cards, let me clarify what I meant by that. I wasn't saying that it makes sense for them to keep compatibility now because it would make them less profitable (since yes, you already said that). I meant that regardless of ATI's market position, it wouldn't make any sense for Intel to remove compatibility, since it wouldn't help them commercially. In any case, Intel wouldn't be able to do such a thing, since it would mean that they would no longer be compliant with the PCI-E specification (since to be compliant, their products would have to be compatible with all other compliant items, including ATI and nVidia graphics cards).
And the same Moody's that helps set AMD's interest rate for loans and credit rating.
Probably even done by the same division and exact same analysts.
And who pays Moody's their income? The banks loaning AMD their money.
Ahh, ain't the free market great?
christof139
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2008
- Messages
- 217
You ALMOST ALWAYS misquote and misconstrue me.
I didn't 'freak-out', I became mildly annoyed. You 'freak-out' it seems and it's not even a hot (or very cold for that matter) LZ.
If I 'freaked-ot' there would be a lot of loud noise etc. and to heck with any consequences.Of course Intel wouldn't pull a boner like that because Intel is not stupid and wouldn't want to put a slice in their neck. It is ironic though.
Intel does have good business sense. I hope Intel never goes away, dissolves, whatever, and I also hope NVIDIA still gives Intel a bit of a hard time like seemingly a lot of companies have/are done/doing. When Intel flopped with their PD's I was rooting for them to come up with something cooler and faster etc., and I am doing the same for AMD now because the competition is good for both companies and their R&D and consequent/subsequent products and last but not least us consumers of all types.
hedron
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2008
- Messages
- 495
why would the government break up intel?????? they wouldn't be a monopoly, and even if, monopolies are NOT illegal!!!
They broke up AT&T ... To my knowledge they didn't attain their monopoly by illegal means.
I think the only thing that Intel understands is that they never wanted to license x86 to AMD in the first place, and they now have the legal means to cancel the license.
Byebye AMD.
No, it's an instructionset. An instructionset that is (mostly) implemented through microcode. Microcode falls under copyright. Aside from that, various aspects of the modern x86 design are patented.
So it's not literally licensing the x86 instructionset itself, but rather licensing some of the copyrighted and/or patented technologies that are required to make a modern x86-compatible CPU.
Theoretically it IS possible to create an x86 without violating these copyrights and patents.
Two examples come to mind... First being the Transmeta Crusoe, which handles the x86-compatibility in software rather than hardware.
Second is the Cyrix 486. Intel went to court, and wasn't actually able to win the case. In the end they settled, where Cyrix didn't require a license itself, but was only allowed to have its CPUs manufactured by companies that did own a license (such as TI and IBM). It turned into a cross-license when Cyrix sued Intel over violating some of Cyrix' patents regarding register renaming and such, in the Pentium Pro.
But apparently AMD never went that route, why else would they have the license in the first place?
So they are bound by the license agreement that they signed with Intel. If AMD wants to claim that the agreement is not legal, then all Intel has to say "Why did you wait for nearly two decades to bring that up? And why are we already negotiating the renewal of the license in 2011?". AMD can't make a strong case.
QFT.
More than likely though, what will occur is Intel will wind up licensing the technology again to AMD, but will wind up with a better agreement than the one that is in place now. Basically, the way I see it, Intel can't avoid the obvious antitrust nonsense without AMD, and AMD can't survive without Intel licensing the tech.
It's a massive game of corporate chicken, and really, Intel has the upper hand.
Intel doesn't want AMD to curl up and die, as that'd get legislators from the US and EU descending upon them like banshees. I don't for one moment believe that AMD didn't take all the proper legal steps when it spun off GlobalFoundries, and thus Intel is merely blowing hot air. The real question is for what reason.
Fun thing will also be when VIA's 'x86 license' runs out in a few years time.
Personally I have been disgusted with Intel's practices for over a decade already (they _are_ abusing their monopoly position and always have), and I wouldn't mind seeing them get smacked down for a change.
Fun thing will also be when VIA's 'x86 license' runs out in a few years time.
Personally I have been disgusted with Intel's practices for over a decade already (they _are_ abusing their monopoly position and always have), and I wouldn't mind seeing them get smacked down for a change.
Here's my theory:
AMD is in such dire straits that they had no alternative... This was the only way they could survive. So they're playing all-or-nothing now, hoping that the case against Intel's alleged business practices and the sheer size of Intel will somehow swing things in AMD's favour (which does not necessarily mean that they would have the right to this under normal circumstances).
I've been more disgusted by AMD really. They've accused Intel of things without providing proof. In fact, they involved many companies without consent. The most telling tale for me was when Dixons outright said: "No, we don't want anything to do with this case. We don't support AMD's accusations, we just don't sell as many AMD systems because of supply and demand".
For me that was enough proof that AMD doesn't have a case at all. Even their own 'witnesses' are against AMD.
AMD is playing a dirty game, AMD is the one blowing hot air.
Intel is quite open, and the license agreement speaks for itself. AMD's split-up is a very dubious thing considering the license terms, and Intel has no choice but to approach AMD to mediate the situation... Which according to the license terms has to be done within 30 days, else legal action should be taken.
It's all there.
Intel is being lenient with a 60 day ultimatum rather than 30 days. AMD is the one not responding to Intel's approach, and wasting its time. You have to draw the line somewhere, and the license agreement terms say that this line is 30 days.
Unlike AMD, Intel also doesn't sling mud around, and doesn't try to involve other cases into this issue. They're just saying "The next step is mediation", as per the terms.
I think it's more likely that AMD didn't take the proper steps, because they were gambling that Intel wouldn't have the balls to complain about it due of the risk of anti-trust issues. Intel is just giving AMD a wake-up call and telling them that they aren't going to put up with that sort of thing.
AmongTheChosenX
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2007
- Messages
- 7,157
i wish we could have jsut some regular wholesome competition. why should lawyers need to helo us with this crap? lol
Tell that to Neelie Kroes
Yeah well, we Europeans don't want your dirty, decadent way of life
Yeah well, we Europeans don't want your dirty, decadent way of life
Believe it or not, nor do many Americans.
AmongTheChosenX
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2007
- Messages
- 7,157
yeah we're just "stuck" with it. its like a parasite
LAiN_OfTheWired
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2008
- Messages
- 825
I'm not a loyalist of either brand... My last 2 builds (last 3 processors) have been AMD, though. I was Intel-only until the first dual-core processors started appearing. The AMD equivalent was simply much faster for the price, so I've been AMD since the Athlon64 X2 3800+ Socket 939. I was happy with that one, I was happy with the slight upgrade to a 3800+ on AM2, I was happy with the 6400+ as an upgrade from that on the same mobo, and now I'm happy with my X3 720 AM3.
If the Core i5 shows off some nice prices, I may use Intel for a dedicated folding machine and seedbox for the MAME community, but AMD is staying in my gaming machine for this generation.
If the Core i5 shows off some nice prices, I may use Intel for a dedicated folding machine and seedbox for the MAME community, but AMD is staying in my gaming machine for this generation.
Digitalpro5
n00b
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2007
- Messages
- 14
Voted for leveling out, but wish for a better AMD.
Just put together AMD X720 BE with a Biostar 790GX 128. Running benchmarks and so far so good. No overclocking yet, but I know my 4th core can at least boot to windows xp so after all the stock benchmarks are done I'll start working on OC with 3 and 4 cores.
This system might replace my main system which is a E6750 @ 4Ghz (500x8mhz fsb) on an Asus P5E. But when ever I get around to getting an Intel Quad that might switch again. But its all about price/performance, and AMD I think will always win there.
Just put together AMD X720 BE with a Biostar 790GX 128. Running benchmarks and so far so good. No overclocking yet, but I know my 4th core can at least boot to windows xp so after all the stock benchmarks are done I'll start working on OC with 3 and 4 cores.
This system might replace my main system which is a E6750 @ 4Ghz (500x8mhz fsb) on an Asus P5E. But when ever I get around to getting an Intel Quad that might switch again. But its all about price/performance, and AMD I think will always win there.
christof139
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2008
- Messages
- 217
Intel had the first working x86 CPU in 1978, but IBM, Cyrix, AMD, etc. had their own versions of x86 or x86 capable CPU's. So, perhaps the courts will decide that x86 is not soley Intel's invention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86
"The instruction set architecture has twice been extended to a larger word size. In 1985, Intel released the 32-bit 80386 (or i386) which gradually replaced the earlier 16-bit chips in computers (although typically not in embedded systems) during the following years; this extended programming model was originally referred to as the i386 architecture (like its first implementation) but Intel later dubbed it IA-32 when introducing its (unrelated) IA-64 architecture. In 1999-2003, AMD extended this 32-bit architecture to 64 bits and referred to it as x86-64 in early documents and later as AMD64. Intel soon adopted AMD's architectural extensions under the name IA-32e which was later renamed EM64T and finally Intel 64. Among these five names, x86-64 is probably the most commonly used, although Microsoft and Sun Microsystems also use the (perhaps even more vendor-neutral) term x64."
AMD had the first x86-64-bit extended instruction set, AMD64, and did not Intel use AMD64 for it's IAE-32e/EMT64?? Intel obtained the rights to use AMD64 from AMD if I remember correctly. So, AMD and other CPU manufacturer's can prove that they had their own independently developed x86 CPU instruction sets and did not have to rely on Intel's version of x86, but Intel used AMD64 for it's own 64-bit instruction set named IAE-32e/EMT64. IOTW, the courts seem to already have decided that x86 is not the sole invention of Intel, although Intel had the first working CPU using x86 other corps. were already working on their own versions of x86 instruction sets and subsequent CPU's like Cyrix' 5x86 and 6x86 (better than a Pentium 1) models and AMD's K5 Kx86 "was heavily based on AMD's earlier 29K RISC design", etc. Perhaps in reality Intel invented or evolved x86 instructions from already existing IBM etc. instruction sets. Seems that pre x86 and x86 and similar to x86 instruction sets were more or less shared, copied, modified upon, etc. throughout the industry, therby making these x86 instuctions sets industry standards and for all practicality almost the property of public domain, or at least common property throughout the industry. Whew.
Maybe x86 is actually the invention or perhaps more aptly the evolution of previously existing instruction sets and abundant and new additons and modifications from various sources (coprs. and individuals) that neither Intel nor AMD nor any other corp. can lay sole claim to.
Hmmmmmm???? Well, you can determine all this and send your results in to the Fed. court or arbitrator, whatever, and in a year or so maybe something might be hashed-out. In the mean time, the weather is getting warmer, it's still light outside, and methinx I'll mosey on out to get some vittels and fresh air.
@ Digitalpro5, LAin otheWire,:
BTW, I also just bought an X3 720 for the Asrock 790GX DDR2 mobo I got back from RMA (hope it works), but need to get an OS, a freebie maybe from work most likely, or use Linux freebies (never have before and am somewhat unsure) that I have on disk, or maybe get (actually buy IOTW) a 64-bit Vista OS (unsure here too, but most bugs are gone now and I got a new printer for cheap $$ to replace my 1996 Canon Multipass that I finally canned so no driver problems now). Might as well go 64-bit for my new AMD system, unless I get a freebie 32-bit Win XP again. Too many decisions to make and too many avenues of approach to problem solving going on here.
Still have to get that E4700 system together with 2 x 7900 GS KO vid cards for my old METW-VI game and similar oldies. Whew. Procrastination maximus extremus expontentious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86
"The instruction set architecture has twice been extended to a larger word size. In 1985, Intel released the 32-bit 80386 (or i386) which gradually replaced the earlier 16-bit chips in computers (although typically not in embedded systems) during the following years; this extended programming model was originally referred to as the i386 architecture (like its first implementation) but Intel later dubbed it IA-32 when introducing its (unrelated) IA-64 architecture. In 1999-2003, AMD extended this 32-bit architecture to 64 bits and referred to it as x86-64 in early documents and later as AMD64. Intel soon adopted AMD's architectural extensions under the name IA-32e which was later renamed EM64T and finally Intel 64. Among these five names, x86-64 is probably the most commonly used, although Microsoft and Sun Microsystems also use the (perhaps even more vendor-neutral) term x64."
AMD had the first x86-64-bit extended instruction set, AMD64, and did not Intel use AMD64 for it's IAE-32e/EMT64?? Intel obtained the rights to use AMD64 from AMD if I remember correctly. So, AMD and other CPU manufacturer's can prove that they had their own independently developed x86 CPU instruction sets and did not have to rely on Intel's version of x86, but Intel used AMD64 for it's own 64-bit instruction set named IAE-32e/EMT64. IOTW, the courts seem to already have decided that x86 is not the sole invention of Intel, although Intel had the first working CPU using x86 other corps. were already working on their own versions of x86 instruction sets and subsequent CPU's like Cyrix' 5x86 and 6x86 (better than a Pentium 1) models and AMD's K5 Kx86 "was heavily based on AMD's earlier 29K RISC design", etc. Perhaps in reality Intel invented or evolved x86 instructions from already existing IBM etc. instruction sets. Seems that pre x86 and x86 and similar to x86 instruction sets were more or less shared, copied, modified upon, etc. throughout the industry, therby making these x86 instuctions sets industry standards and for all practicality almost the property of public domain, or at least common property throughout the industry. Whew.
Maybe x86 is actually the invention or perhaps more aptly the evolution of previously existing instruction sets and abundant and new additons and modifications from various sources (coprs. and individuals) that neither Intel nor AMD nor any other corp. can lay sole claim to.
Hmmmmmm???? Well, you can determine all this and send your results in to the Fed. court or arbitrator, whatever, and in a year or so maybe something might be hashed-out. In the mean time, the weather is getting warmer, it's still light outside, and methinx I'll mosey on out to get some vittels and fresh air.
@ Digitalpro5, LAin otheWire,:
BTW, I also just bought an X3 720 for the Asrock 790GX DDR2 mobo I got back from RMA (hope it works), but need to get an OS, a freebie maybe from work most likely, or use Linux freebies (never have before and am somewhat unsure) that I have on disk, or maybe get (actually buy IOTW) a 64-bit Vista OS (unsure here too, but most bugs are gone now and I got a new printer for cheap $$ to replace my 1996 Canon Multipass that I finally canned so no driver problems now). Might as well go 64-bit for my new AMD system, unless I get a freebie 32-bit Win XP again. Too many decisions to make and too many avenues of approach to problem solving going on here.
Still have to get that E4700 system together with 2 x 7900 GS KO vid cards for my old METW-VI game and similar oldies. Whew. Procrastination maximus extremus expontentious.
Except Intel is the company that invented it as well as the methods for implementing it into hardware. So it is solely their invention. And the dispute that led to the creation of the cross-license agreement between AMD and Intel is proof of that, since the entire point of the agreement was to allow AMD to use Intel's x86 instruction set in all of their own CPUs. If they would have decided that x86 did not belong to Intel, then there would have been no need for a cross-licensing agreement since AMD would have been allowed to use x86 without any sort of contract with Intel.
Intel did not "obtain" the rights to x86-64. They had the rights by default due to the cross-licensing agreement with AMD.
All of those architectures were designed much later than the introduction of x86.
I think AMD will be okay, Phenom II are awesome for the price. A core system of some flavor of PII, good 790* mobo, and 4gb of ddr2-1066 is insanely cheap. Throw in something like an HD48[30/50/70] and you have a nice rig that will play games at high settings and high res and has the cpu power and memory to do anything else you need.
I have no problem with nvidia but I find the nvidias that compete with ati @those price points come up short. 4830 is an awesome budget oc card for 100 or less.
I have no problem with nvidia but I find the nvidias that compete with ati @those price points come up short. 4830 is an awesome budget oc card for 100 or less.
I was all AMD for a long time, this is the first Intel system I have ever built. I am hoping AMD can bring something compelling to the table soon, but I am thoroughly enjoying my trip to the dark side.
knothead34
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2005
- Messages
- 1,599
it swings back and forth....amd ruled for a bit then intel then amd now intel. so i would expect amd to make some kind of comeback its when is anybodys guess.
christof139
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2008
- Messages
- 217
Designed later but as an alternative/addition. However, this shows that other companies did not wish to be locked into Intel's x86, so they developed thier own x86 compatible codes. Cyrix I don't believe paid Intel licensing fees. This may also show that Intel does try to monopolize. When AMD invented the AMD64 extension, some deal was made already in place under the original contract anyway, so today in both 32-bit and 64-bit we have x86 exisitng in not its original form. There may be some time limit and/or some other clauses concerning these matters despite patents etc., as is sometimes the case with these situations.
christof139
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2008
- Messages
- 217
With the new and cool running and eneregy efficient and baclward mobo compatible Shanghai CPU's and the upcoming Istanbul and beyond, coupled with the new and hoepefully successful FAB 2 plant in NY and AMD/GF's intention to make 3-types of chip silicon - they wish to sell Bulk Silicon to other CPU makers and for RAM etc. - things may pick-up and in a few years things will be rolling OK. In a few years AMD will have 32nm and 22nm CPU's, some with onboard graphics using ITT (I think it is ITT) Z-RAM and IBM and AMD intend on using enhanced SOI for top-end CPU's and HighK Silicon for energy efficient CPU's and Bulk Silicon for mainstream CPU's. The fact that IBM is in collaboration with AMD and that both feel that SOI is still the way to go for high end CPU's may be indicative of upcoming and effective enhancement of SOI. Time will tell.
In the mean time, for the mainstream and budget ends, the present AMD CPU's are fine, and the Intel i5 should also be good, but people probably won't get VT with the lower and mid end 15's as they do on the AMD CPU's.
The more variety of CPU's the better for all concerned methinx me do. Should be interesting.
In the mean time, for the mainstream and budget ends, the present AMD CPU's are fine, and the Intel i5 should also be good, but people probably won't get VT with the lower and mid end 15's as they do on the AMD CPU's.
The more variety of CPU's the better for all concerned methinx me do. Should be interesting.
- Status