A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » Processors » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

AMD's 45nm technology compared against Intel's



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old December 20th 08, 02:11 AM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Robert Myers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 606
Default AMD's 45nm technology compared against Intel's

On Dec 19, 7:42*pm, krw wrote:


You deserve every bit of grief you get, troll.


Bullies always say that: he/she asked for it. The purely unself-
conscious state of your nastiness and self-righteousness is a wonder
to behold.

  #22  
Old December 20th 08, 02:22 AM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Robert Redelmeier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 316
Default AMD's 45nm technology compared against Intel's

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers wrote in part:
On Dec 19, 2:58| pm, Robert Redelmeier wrote:
as above, this makes Sebastians intercission entirely
appropriate. | As was mine when you mocked him.


As I said some time ago, I really have no use for you.


Then why bother replying to me?

Go pick a fight with someone else.


I do not consider this a fight. Revealing that you do.

I shall continue to mock AMD boosterism until AMD finally
becomes a subsidiary of IBM.


While being an Intel booster of equal if not greater
partisanship? Your bias staggers the imagination.

Should this also be considered a promise to stop if
and when they merge?

I see Intel, AMD, IBM, Microsoft and other players each as
helping net progress. Not without serious faults in all.
Glass half empty? Or half full? Or twice as big as required!


-- Robert R


  #23  
Old December 20th 08, 04:31 AM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Robert Myers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 606
Default AMD's 45nm technology compared against Intel's

On Dec 19, 2:58*pm, Robert Redelmeier wrote:
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers wrote in part:

On Dec 19, 10:17*am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
Oh, so I undestand, you lack your own will. You're predetermined,
you're not guilty, you're just pushed to trolling by evil Us.

You made one of the more memorably preposterous claims in my
memory of reading Usenet. *Subsequent events have made the
preposterousness of your claim even more obvious. *If you're
going to spend the rest of your time on Usenet trying to repair
your damaged ego, there's no real reason for me to respond to you.


Such ad-hominem is exactly what obliges me (and perhaps others) to
intercede.


Nothing obliges you to do anything. What's happening here is so
unimportant that I can't find words for it. If you think otherwise,
you need professional help.

Irrespective of their own skills and right to respond,
no-one can defend themselves on equal terms against ad-hominem.
However correct, their arguments can be seen as self-serving.
I have even defended you when I didn't see you as the aggressor.

Don't worry about me.

If anyone should be barking, it would be the OP, because it was
his post that I mocked. *You're not properly involved at all.


as above, this makes Sebastians intercission entirely
appropriate. *As was mine when you mocked him.

I'm tired from shoveling. You really are just too much.

I have explained this before and do not expect you to understand
this time either.


Listen, asshole. What you don't understand would fill the Library of
Congress several times over. You don't know what you're talking
about.

If I really DON'T understand something about interactions with you,
maybe there's a reason? In your neatly closed moral universe,
everyone is just as you imagine them to be. In this case, you've got
it so wrong that it's beyond imagining that you would ever understand
just how wrong you are and why.

Who knows? I may be making the exact same mistake with you.

*However, you are not the only reader on USENET.
You may correctly infer that I value the opinion of an unknown
anonymous lurker well above yours. *Your reasoning has given me
no reason to value it. *My choice. *But does not free me from
the moral obligation to defend others against ad-hominem.

A self-righteous vigilante is hardly better than a bully. I don't
have a problem with Yousuf. I do have a problem with you. To say
that I have a problem with Sebastian would imply that we have any kind
of relationship at all, and we don't.

Robert.

  #24  
Old December 20th 08, 04:51 AM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Robert Myers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 606
Default AMD's 45nm technology compared against Intel's

On Dec 19, 8:22*pm, Robert Redelmeier wrote:
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers wrote in part:

On Dec 19, 2:58| pm, Robert Redelmeier wrote:
as above, this makes Sebastians intercission entirely
appropriate. | As was mine when you mocked him.

As I said some time ago, I really have no use for you.


Then why bother replying to me? *

I don't have to explain myself to you, and I don't propose to.

Go pick a fight with someone else.


I do not consider this a fight. *Revealing that you do.

*Rolls eyes* And...?

I shall continue to mock AMD boosterism until AMD finally
becomes a subsidiary of IBM.


While being an Intel booster of equal if not greater
partisanship? *Your bias staggers the imagination.

What staggers the imagination is the way that you take yourself
seriously. Yousuf's scrambling to find positive things to say about
AMD and negative things to say about Intel is just funny.

The IBM connection is somewhat less amusing. In all seriousness, I
don't think that AMD can be a subsidiary of IBM, otherwise I think it
already would have happened.

Should this also be considered a promise to stop if
and when they merge?

That was not a serious comment. I think the AMD thing is over.

I see Intel, AMD, IBM, Microsoft and other players each as
helping net progress. *Not without serious faults in all.
Glass half empty? *Or half full? *Or twice as big as required!

I don't admire AMD and Microsoft and I've said why over and over and
over again. Intel would be a case study in just how many things you
can do wrong and still stay on top of the heap. IBM is IBM. Without
IBM, Linux would have no credible future.

Robert.

  #25  
Old December 20th 08, 05:15 AM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
krw[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 150
Default AMD's 45nm technology compared against Intel's

In article 876d2377-1a5a-401d-ab92-acdd9950dfe5
@e3g2000vbe.googlegroups.com, says...
On Dec 19, 7:42*pm, krw wrote:


You deserve every bit of grief you get, troll.


Bullies always say that: he/she asked for it. The purely unself-
conscious state of your nastiness and self-righteousness is a wonder
to behold.


[I R O N Y]
/
/
/
O

--
Keith
  #26  
Old December 20th 08, 06:04 AM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Yousuf Khan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 914
Default AMD's 45nm technology compared against Intel's

Robert Myers wrote:
I don't admire AMD and Microsoft and I've said why over and over and
over again. Intel would be a case study in just how many things you
can do wrong and still stay on top of the heap. IBM is IBM. Without
IBM, Linux would have no credible future.



If one of the Intel cases studies of what you can do wrong is about how
to use your ill-gotten monopoly powers to bully customers and
competitors, then I agree.

Yousuf Khan
  #27  
Old December 20th 08, 06:07 AM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Robert Myers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 606
Default AMD's 45nm technology compared against Intel's

On Dec 19, 11:15*pm, krw wrote:
In article 876d2377-1a5a-401d-ab92-acdd9950dfe5
@e3g2000vbe.googlegroups.com, says...

On Dec 19, 7:42*pm, krw wrote:


You deserve every bit of grief you get, troll.


Bullies always say that: he/she asked for it. *The purely unself-
conscious state of your nastiness and self-righteousness is a wonder
to behold.


[I R O N Y]
* * * * */
* * * * /
* * * */
* * * O

Irony can be like (-1)**n. In fact, it almost always is.

Robert.
  #28  
Old December 20th 08, 06:26 AM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Robert Myers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 606
Default AMD's 45nm technology compared against Intel's

On Dec 20, 12:04*am, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Robert Myers wrote:
I don't admire AMD and Microsoft and I've said why over and over and
over again. *Intel would be a case study in just how many things you
can do wrong and still stay on top of the heap. *IBM is IBM. *Without
IBM, Linux would have no credible future.


If one of the Intel cases studies of what you can do wrong is about how
to use your ill-gotten monopoly powers to bully customers and
competitors, then I agree.

Read the thread in comp.arch about garbage in, garbage out, especially
what Lynn Wheeler has posted. There aren't many saints in business or
politics. I'm sure that if I *worked* for Intel, I would loathe it.

Robert.
  #29  
Old December 20th 08, 12:06 PM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Robert Redelmeier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 316
Default AMD's 45nm technology compared against Intel's

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Yousuf Khan wrote in part:
If one of the Intel cases studies of what you can do wrong
is about how to use your ill-gotten monopoly powers to
bully customers and competitors, then I agree.


Although I like AMD, that doesn't make me hate Intel.
They've just done some stupid things that their large size
enables them to survive. I do not think Intel's misbehaviour
has approached that of IBM, let alone Microsoft.

Respectfully, I do not believe that Intel acquired its'
monopoly by illegal means. At critical junctures, they
just out-competed. Monopolies themselves are _not_ illegal,
but finding yourself with one (and AMD may also qualify)
does mean certain behaviours are prohibited under US law.

Sure, some Intel offices did some illegal things, but I believe
this is a local matter and not a matter of corporate policy.
Certainly Intel HQ was quite contrite towards the US DoJ when
challenged. Contrast MS (take us to court) or IBM (we'll
talk but lawyer you to death).

What specific actions do you consider Intel "bullying"?
A certain amount of pressure is normal in business.
The most persistant oddity has been the Dell sole-source,
but I'm confident the DoJ has been all over those agreements.


-- Robert R

  #30  
Old December 21st 08, 07:12 AM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Yousuf Khan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 914
Default AMD's 45nm technology compared against Intel's

I did not start this thread to discuss Intel's legal issues or business
practices, it was supposed to be about Intel's manufacturing technology,
but as usual it's gone off-kilter. So anyways, let me get my two cents
in about the original technological argument before we send it back to
legal and business issues.

As you'll recall, Intel announced its 45nm process with HKMG (High-K,
Metal Gates) to great fanfare. Various websites and forums proclaimed it
an amazing achievement. Well, the standard AMD 45nm SOI without HKMG
process seems to be superior to Intel's, as they are seeing lower power
and thermal requirements at the low-end, and higher overclockability at
the high-end. AMD will be adding HKMG later on in the 45nm process too,
but so far it looks unnecessary.

Robert Redelmeier wrote:
Although I like AMD, that doesn't make me hate Intel.
They've just done some stupid things that their large size
enables them to survive. I do not think Intel's misbehaviour
has approached that of IBM, let alone Microsoft.


That belief is not supported by the facts. Intel has already been tried
and convicted by two countries, Japan and South Korea. Now they're in
the fight of their lives in the entire EU, affecting dozens of countries
of course. There is no such thing as lesser misbehaviour when it comes
to anti-trust, you either committed the acts or you didn't.

Respectfully, I do not believe that Intel acquired its'
monopoly by illegal means. At critical junctures, they
just out-competed. Monopolies themselves are _not_ illegal,
but finding yourself with one (and AMD may also qualify)
does mean certain behaviours are prohibited under US law.


Intel was kicked out of the memory market quite some years ago, because
it couldn't compete. One can only assume that they took that exit
personally and decided that the processor market was their line in the
sand, the one that no one else shall be allowed to pass. Let's not
forget that at one time there must have been nearly a dozen companies
that produced x86 processors, now they are down to the final two. It
seems like they have outcompeted them, but dead men can't tell their tales.

Sure, some Intel offices did some illegal things, but I believe
this is a local matter and not a matter of corporate policy.
Certainly Intel HQ was quite contrite towards the US DoJ when
challenged. Contrast MS (take us to court) or IBM (we'll
talk but lawyer you to death).


It was hardly just a local matter, it's endemic to its entire corporate
culture, worldwide. It's not even beneath them to try to crush a
charity, if they perceive it to be not using their parts. This should
not be a surprise, once monopoly mentality hits, it hits the entire
corporation, like at IBM and Microsoft previously. BTW, just because the
American government hasn't held Intel accountable, that's just a false
sense of security: no one should expect either the US DoJ or FTC (or any
other federal agency, for that matter) were at all doing their jobs
properly during the entire George W. Bush administration.

In Europe, it looks like Intel has already seen the hand-writing on the
wall, even before the EU's competition commission has issued its ruling.
It's now suing the EU for unfairness. I guess it realized the EU was
unfair, when they raided Intel's offices *twice*!!

Intel Calls EU Antitrust Probe 'Discriminatory and Partial' - CIO.com -
Business Technology Leadership
"The European Union's antitrust investigation of Intel is
"discriminatory and partial," the chip maker complained in an action
that's detailed in a recent edition of the EU's official journal, saying
it's not being permitted to properly defend itself against the charges."
http://www.cio.com/article/466613/In...and_ Partial_

It's also decided to retroactively sue the South Korean FTC, just to
show it's being besieged unfairly by everybody.

EETimes.com - Intel seeks to overturn Korean FTC ruling
"In response to a ruling, Intel has filed a complaint with the Seoul
High Court seeking to overturn the KFTC's final written decision that
was served on Intel on Nov. 7. The filing asserts that ''the KFTC has
made substantial factual and legal errors in formulating its final
written opinion,'' but Intel did not disclose the details."
http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/s...leID=212400117

What specific actions do you consider Intel "bullying"?
A certain amount of pressure is normal in business.
The most persistant oddity has been the Dell sole-source,
but I'm confident the DoJ has been all over those agreements.


The Dell issue all of those years ago is just one of the points of
contention. One can even argue that Dell has tumbled from the top spot
in the US market, as a result of Intel pulling all of its subsidies from
them ($1bn/year). The fact that Intel pulled its subsidies could also be
seen as a result of AMD's lawsuit making things too hot for them.

But Dell isn't the only example. In Europe, a major computer store
chain, Media Markt, has been accused of taking Intel money in return for
refusing to accept computer models with AMD processors in them.

Intel also gives illegal discounts which are not based on sales volume,
but on market share percentages (e.g. bigger discounts if 80% of your
processors are Intel rather than just 70%, or 90% over 80%, etc.).
Discounts based on volume are perfectly legal, discounts based on sales
proportion are not.

It does not even see a problem with competing against its own partners,
even if that partner is a charitable organization. A few years ago, the
OLPC effort invited Intel to sit in on its board meetings as one of its
partners, hoping that Intel would stop trying to sell its own notebook
against them. Intel used to opportunity tell potential customers that it
sits on the board of OLPC and that it knows for sure that OLPC is crap,
and they should buy from Intel instead. Various world governments sent
the transcripts of Intel's backstabbing sales efforts to OLPC. OLPC then
kicked Intel out again.

Yousuf Khan
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GPU Computing: Intel's Larrabee - AMD's Fusion - NVIDIA's Tesla + CUDA NV55 Intel 0 October 31st 07 01:21 AM
GPU Computing: Intel's Larrabee - AMD's Fusion - NVIDIA's Tesla + CUDA NV55 AMD x86-64 Processors 0 October 31st 07 01:21 AM
GPU Computing: Intel's Larrabee - AMD's Fusion - NVIDIA's Tesla + CUDA NV55 Nvidia Videocards 0 October 31st 07 01:21 AM
GPU Computing: Intel's Larrabee - AMD's Fusion - NVIDIA's Tesla + CUDA NV55 Ati Videocards 0 October 31st 07 01:21 AM
AMD's Athlon64 or Intel's P4? [email protected] General 38 February 8th 05 05:59 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.