News AMD exec "would never buy" AMD

Maybe it shows why Richards is gone. If I were a shareholder I would want Richard's head on the block for that reckless behavior. His job was to make a competitive product. Regardless of what he said, Intel still strong armed those companies to not use AMD. That is a crime not a performance issue.

The other and much bigger part is that AMD's money maker was the Opteron and in the sever market that was a huge deal at that time and was a serious thorn in Intel's side. The Intel scam hurt Dell significantly in the server market and forced Michael Dell back into the business.

 

Probablt because back then AMD were seen as hardcore gaming CPUs.
You wouldn't buy an 8ltr V12 for going to the shops, same as you wouldn't then have brought an AMD CPU for poking at the calculator, word and paint.

 

Beeing an executive he'd probably be looking at laptops...and they were, then, before then, and alas still are, inferior over centrino / core / core2.
On the desktop market AMD has been at least competitive (if not leading) from the first aluminum Athlon till Athlon64. Including 2004.
After that (till now) they've lost obviously, core / core2 and the i's were / are mostly better value for money.

 

I call smokescreen!

 

At the end of the day, all this is moot. AMD have dropped their suit, and the only case left is between Intel and the US Federal Trade Commission. What employees of AMD said at the time is neither here nor there, unless it directly relates to illegal practices used by Intel. I doubt the USFTC are even giving this news a second glance.

Maybe there's another agenda behind Intel releasing this information. Intel has just released Core i3 and appear to be gaining a foothold in the budget end of the CPU market again, where AMD has been concentrating recently. This could be part of a two-pronged attack to hurt AMD's reputation while they bring in a competing product.

 

<3 the irony of the blind Intel fanboy in this thread

 

Exactly my good man.

 

either the guy is jackass or this quote was taken out of context...

 

Not news, it'd be the same as a high street bank employee forced to take their bank's current account - they'd choose what was best for them in the end regardless of how it looked to the company.

 

Well not so, the AMD K8 in 2004 was storming the gaming market Athlon 64's were leaving Intel in there dust. However the commercial market were still buying intel.

AMD's success in the gaming market can be largely given to Nvidia releasing SLi on the AMD plateform, then DFI giving the nforce 4 chipset a kick in the arse and producing a series of amazing motherboards!

 

Think you missed what he meant mate....

 

I think you missed my sarcasm .

 

That's why I like AMD, they tell the truth. If your making crappy products at least be honest about it then correct the problem. Around that time their products were pretty much non competitive and Intel could do no wrong. (Except bully vendors around like the MOB).

But today I'm sure Henry Richards would buy AMD, they may not be the all around best but they perform and have a better price range.

 

I work for a high street bank (well, the Insurance division of a high street bank, but it's all the same company) and we *are* forced to take out their current accounts. We're told that we have to have this in order to receive wages, and it's apparently some sort of tax thing... You're free to have as many accounts as you please with other banks and move your money where you please, but your wages have to be paid into one of *their* accounts.

Back OT though, whether taken out of context or not it's still a bit of a facepalm for PR; AMD's marketing guys certainly won't be dismissing it quite so quickly... Regardless of how their products stack up against others in terms of performance - now or in the past - AMD's brand power pales in comparison to Intel's, and comments like this really don't help them.

Personally I think they should both be focussing their efforts on more efficient architectures. Sure x86 & x64 are powerful, but there are more efficient ways to shunt instructions through a CPU. Hence why we don't see x86 in mobile phones...

 

He said he wouldn't buy AMD processors. Because at that time, no one did (Yes, you all did, but people who read bit-tech are hardly the masses are they?)

Average Joe was buying Intel, because IT WAS INTEL. And Intel had a bigger name... I didn't buy AMD back then, you know why? cuz the competition was friggin INTEL....


I see his point.

 

yah it's all about context. You can be a clear performance and price leader and still not be a successful or dominant product if you have bad marketing, distribution (which is what the AMD law suit was about) or some other perceived barrier of entry. AMD in that time frame was kicking Intel all over the map, but does anyone remember seeing an AMD commercial? branding was bad, only the hardcore types to this day are really aware of AMD. Everyone wants an "intel" in their computer cause it's good right? this has been the crux of AMD's problem that and the anti-competitive practices intel did.

 

the blue man group XD