Last message on previous page:
Your kidding right?

Most of the innovation in the cpu market has been as a direct result of AMD ... whether their innovative product or Intel's response to AMD's innovation.

The innovation in the GPU parket is due to (a lot who died along the way) and in the last 5 or so years NVidia and ATI (AMD).

Starting to see a picture here??

I could throw the huge list up again for you to nit pick at it ... but the fact remains we are enjoying decent processing power and graphics power largely due to the competition created by AMD and NVidia innovation.

If Intel were just on their own we would all still be driving PII-550's in Slot 1 boxes on crappy Intel chipsets. The last 5 years would have seen the P3 cpu increased my 10Mhz in clock speed every 6 months ... at best.

The Intel fans should respect AMD and NV for the hard work to push the Intel giant out of its slumber and respond with some decent products.

Spin my statements any way you wish but they are essentially true.

Don't worry as a much much bigger and wealthier diversified giant than I corp wouldn't like to see drastic price increases on components in their P.C. division due to CPU price increases.Tom's Hardware had such an article about this very subject this year.
Any company that makes P.C's don't like losing profits and marketshare due to less sales.
Even Microsoft wouldn't enjoy a slowdown of software sales and huge loss in profits.I am sure many other companies and developers would agree on that as well.
I Corp = Commodore 64.
Many people enjoyed their Commodore 64's when that era existed in time.
The clones may die off someday.I guess that would make it easier for Microsoft just making software for the PC.
Don't worry very much though I'ers as you still have the Macintosh platform with 6% marketshare.Oh and there is Linux too and you can enjoy Tux Racer.

it's not going to happen they will get bailed out by Germany, Saudi Arabia, the U.S. government etc etc etc...

It's a two-way street. Both companies have been very innovative. But for some reason you only want to see good in one of them.

All I can say, it takes 2 to tango... AMD was there when Intel was in the beginning. Sure, Intel was founded in 1968, while AMD came one year later, 1969.

Can anyone really say, hey... I was there at Intel/AMD when the came up with this, and yes, they are right. No.. all we can do, is look up info.

And in any competition, there's going to be heated debate about SOMETHING.

Besides, if AMD was the only one out there, I'd still prolly be saving up for that X2 4400+

If there was only AMD or Intel, stuff would progress, but it would be slow... just enough progresion to be a reason to upgrade... expect ages for stuff to fall in price... expect mainstream stuff like the Q6600 to cost like the QX9650...

In an AMD world people would be bragging about getting the Phenom to stock speed 3Ghz...

Somebody would find that the 45nm Sempron dual-core would overclock really well and etc.

What a world that'd be...

You seem to have missed the point of my post. My whole point was that since AMD has lower overhead they can charge less and have the same margin as Intel since less overhead cost will be attached to each chip. I am aware that Intel is making more profit per chip which is why I said that AMD needs to be selling their high-end chips at a higher price like the $500 range.


Regarding Deneb, Puma, and ATI, I simply see these as three areas where AMD has a good chance to have success. I never suggested that they were in any way connected. You're reading too much into it. I just mean that if all three are successful then the collective revenue may be enough to push AMD into the black for the quarter.

I'm not 100% sure that Dirk's AMD is going to be able to launch Deneb. I can't see this 45 nm shrink happening successfully with all the crap AMD has had to put up with lately. 4850/70 might be a success, but the CPU dept. hasn't had a home run in almost three years now.

45 nm sempron, man i've completely forgotten about amd since conroe e6600 came out...

AMD? Who's that? Don't they make the VIA C3 Nehemiah C5P CPU? Nehemiah... Nehalem... I always get those confused!

According to the press conference Dirk Meyer held a couple of days ago AMD has had 45nm in production for months and Deneb is currently sampling. Volume shipments are planned for early Q4 of this year. There was even a preview published on a site that claimed to have received on of the samples. I don't see how you can claim that Deneb is vaporware.

Whether or not Deneb will be a success or not remains to be seen but claiming that it won't even reach launch is just retarded.

I have already gave the money to you AMD (I purchased a 9600 BE when it was the same price as the Q6600 )

So, don't die AMD!!!

^

Can any AMD employee step up, and give this person a free t-shirt or somthin?

Dirk Meyers seems to be new hope for AMD. This might be the turning point for the company?

Nope. It's about the same as reshuffling a stacked deck.

dasickninja could well have a point.

Especially if he is as good at tech politics as he is at researching thermal interface material.

That was a damn good article mate ... very helpful.

We need more of that sort of stuff on this site.

Have you done any more recent tests ??

Ya... I remember getting into a big argument with a guy at work who had just put $10K into AMD at $26. He told me I was stupid too. Samples are a long way from a successful channel product launch, dude. Time will tell. My personal confidence in AMD is ZERO.

Sorry =P,
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] %2bt-shirt

Regardless of the value of AMD stock, a die shrink of a successful channel product is not vaporware. Deneb won't bring that much to the table. If B3 Phenom is 17% faster per core than X2 and Deneb is 10% faster than B3, then it will still find a market.

The numbers I remember from reviews of B3 and from previews of Deneb. All AMD has to do is better their current product. Their market share should creep up a bit, they should be able to get ATI paid for and they can then work on Swift -- where the real money is (i.e. Swift plus 780/880 chipsets in notebooks).

Me, I'm really old fashioned and stubborn. I'll buy AMD on the desktop. The only way I'd buy Intel is if they were the only CPU manufacturer on the planet, which isn't going to happen; they do need AMD to stave off regulators.

Plus, I like pins on the CPU's and not the motherboard. It was enough for me to get used to buying CPU's and motherboards separately. Boy do I miss the days when my budget CPU's were soldered onto my budget motherboards. If I'd had to rely on Intel back then, I couldn't have afforded to build a PC to play Star Control II.

Except for the 3 forays into P4 CPU's on the same motherboard, I've stuck with AMD since the 386SX days (well, one PC had a Cyrix 486DLC and an old Compuadd notebook had a 486SLC...plus I went Pentium instead of K5, but I went back to AMD for K62).

I'm not AMD for life. I'm AMD for budget. Go AMD!

And I prefer Radeon graphics too.