Intel has done more than enough to help AMD. Before the release of the C2D they tried to assist AMD, AMD came back and said that they were fine and wouldn't need any of Intels help.
I don't blame AMD for being in the position they are in right now, they purchased ATI, in my opinion, at the wrong time. They should have had all of their funds allocated to their new CPU line to combat Intels C2D launch. I think it's safe to say no one expected the C2D to be so good, including myself.

Korea, the EU, Japan, now the FTC... finally people are noticing that Intel is a cheat.

that AMD puts out cheaper and inferior product.

People want performance and Intel is giving it to them.

Why does everyone seem to forget that this series of lawsuits relates to practices that are years old now? The current state of the market is irrelevant - it all goes back to Intel paying off its customers to not purchase AMD products at a time when AMD had the superior product line (Athlon 64 v. Pentium 4 and Athlon X2 v. Pentium D). Core 2 came after Intel got caught being naughty.

who's this moron?

When and how did Intel try to assist AMD? That's the most ridiculous comment I've read in a while. Intel's goal is to crush AMD and all others, it has always been and always will be, and don't give me that tired line of Intel needs AMD so the gov't won't call it a monopoly junk either. There's plenty of chip competition out there. If AMD fails it will be because they got big heads from the Opteron and thought Intel wasn't gonna come up with anything better. Well guess what? They did and now AMD cries.

c2q vs phenom.. tell me who's inferior?

A few years ago intel gave amd some money so that amd can survive. I think it was something like 1-5 billion $.

But this is in intel god because if amd would disapere then intel have to split into 2 company because of the monopoly they would have.

I think; When AMD acquired ATI their plan was to move into a "stand alone" market. With good 3D desktop graphics (not gaming). Then Intel jumps ahead, and AMD isn't quite ready (remember that for years AMD was everyone's choice *yes even you in the back*).

AMD was looking to marry the GPU to the CPU.

also, uNF to inferior product, must have been thinking K6 and earlier or else that's just a biased statement.

Where do you get this info? Intel Never gave AMD money!!!! I really think some people that post here just make stuff up to rile people up and obviously it works because I'm riled up!!!

athlon VS P4

who's inferior now?


Oh, and don't give me the "c2d are 4534253453 better than the phenoms" crap

because the difference between the top end phenoms and the high-mainstream c2d's is very marginal and the only people who would feel the extra 1% power are... well.... no one could unless they run benchmarks 24/7 and sit there watching every single benchmark processed


I don't get this whole elitism crap. Your average gamer (no, gamers, you don't need a c2d extreme to play games. Invest your money on a better GPU or even two GPU's, or omg.. how about spending your money on a holiday or something) and average PC user could make do with a simple athlon 4000x2 (or even a single core processor would do, as long as there's a good GPU to back it up)

"hey I spent $6000 more on this car because it can go 3mph faster than the other one and if I went full speed with the other car I would be 50mph over the speed limit but I want to be able to go 53mph over the speed limit even though I never will!"

Read this article:
www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008...b3_cpus/8

And then look at the price of an E8400. It beats the Phenom 9850 Black Edition in most benches (the ones that matter) and costs 20% less. In what world would I buy an AMD? I don't think so.

Oh, you want more cores? That Q6600 also beats the aforementioned AMD CPU in the benches that matter and costs 11% less.

AMD fanbois are like Hillary supporters. They never seem to grasp the reality of the situation. It's *over*. The competiton beat you. Go home already.

it's retarded to compare a dual core processor to a quad core processor

obviously the dual core processor will beat it out because there's a lot more room on the processor for other stuff to make it faster

make a specialized program for quad core processors and one for dual core processors

guess what gets beat out?


and as for the q6600 being cheaper
add other costs in, like the motherboard (yes, the motherboard counts a lot towards the price)
the price difference is $0 or -$50

(and fyi I'm getting a q6600 as my next CPU)

Here's the problem with AMD: they can't seem to make a good business decision. They bought ATI before they were stable enough on their own. Intel continued to innovate while AMD stood around congratulating themselves on their X2...hence, we have the phenom, which would almost compete with a Q6600, only problem is it's about 1.5 years late.
I remember literally laughing out loud when I heard AMD bought ATI... what a perfect match--two underachievers who can't seem to get it right. Don't get me wrong, ATI makes some good hardware--too bad they've never been able to write drivers that make it work right. I bought an ATI radeon card back in 2001 or so and the drivers never worked, no matter how many revisions they put out. I spent more time trying to fix that card than I ever spent using it. Seven years later, and nothing's changed. Suffice it to say I won't ever own either AMD or ATI products...because why bother?