Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Tim S, 21 May 2009.
Then it's your fault for not doing the research, not AMD's fault.
go back to 2003
AMD had a superior product, but Intel said to oem/retailers buy 80% of our chips only, delay amd chips to market and only buy 20% amd chips, even when amd had a better product in Athlon 64, it wasnt until 2006 intel got a faster cpu
AMD even offered 1 million free cpus to a oem, but they didnt accept it, go figure
and for me, i chouldnt find any amd cpu in stores in 2003 here, only online retailers sold athlon 64 chips
how would you react?
That statement just doesn't make any sense. You must not have done your research very
well. SOME AMD processors are better than SOME Intel processors and some
are not, Both companies make very good products.
The reason I went for Intel over AMD in my latest PC was the fact that everything I've read (especially on BT buyer's guides) said that the E5200 offers way better value for money than anything else in the same price range and good OC performance, even from stock. So far, I've not been disappointed (although I haven't attempted to clock this beastie yet - may invest in some better cooling first).
I've been "out of the game" for a while, so this is the first I've heard of what Intel have done; it's a pretty crappy, and illegal, way to do business - glad the courts stepped in here.
simply put. AMD the smarter choice
Just to clear this up:
Intel had a turnover of 37 billion. This is not profit!!! The profit was about 400 million for the same period.
Turnover is when any money comes in "over the counter" before any costs are subtracted. Cost like: manufacturing, advertising oh and that big one that made the entire comeback for Intel in the first place R & D!!! These all cost money, this money cost out of the TURNOVER (37bil.)
Now for people who think monopolies are good:
In the beginning the company under sells (Like airliners for transatlantic flights, see Star Alliance when Virgin Atlantic started).
Then when there is little or know competition left they:
A) Slow development of new products (holding back new releases, less R&D ect.)
B) Price fix
C)Raise prices as much as they can get away with.
D)Use sub-standard parts (exploding batteries any one?)
So yeah at the moment "we" the consumers are benefiting at the moment, but that will change if Intel, Star, Microsoft and Shell Oil are allowed to continue to use there monopoly positions in the future. Any one who thinks Electric cars are new has fallen for monopoly tactics. There was a company 10 years ago who made NiMH Batteries which did power EVs in ranges over 140 miles per charge. Then Shell Oil bought the company that held the patents and liquidated it and held the patents. This is why there are no NiMH battery packs for EVs. I guess no one thought it was strange when there where lead acid powerred EVs and then straight to Lithium Ion EVs.
Are Monopolies good for the consumer?
Are monopolies good for the Environment?
Are monopolies good for our Scientific development?
As a consumer I will always choose open market and open standards.
Like USB, Android, Linux (all versions), these are all things that make life better for the consumer.
If only all phones used mini-USB and 3.5 jacks.
This may be coming to Europe - if not for connectivity then for charging your phone at least. The EU want a standardised connector for charging laptops, mp3 players, phones, etc; mini-USB seems the most likely solution, as it's already so ubiquitous.
Plus I ditched even 3.5mm jacks a while ago - bluetooth headphones Cheesecake. Even if the sound quality can't quite yet match up to standard wired headphones, the lack of cables trailing everywhere more than makes up for it.
Separate names with a comma.