backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 151 comment(s) - last by Oregonian2.. on Apr 30 at 8:12 PM
Intel picks up 6% marketshare during one quarter in the overall PC market

The price war that is waging between Intel and AMD paid off handsomely for Intel in the first quarter, according to the latest numbers from Mercury Research. Intel managed to capture 80.5 percent of the PC processor market for Q1 2007.

The strong performance by Intel in Q1 represents a whopping six percentage point increase from the 74.4 percent share that the company held during Q4 2006. The increases per segment come in at eight percent for the desktop market, four percent for the notebook market and seven percent for the server market.

Last year, AMD was quick to point out its strong growth in all computing segments. For the third quarter, AMD's share of the desktop, notebook and server markets stood at 26.5 percent, 18.3 percent and 24.4 percent respectively. The company's overall marketshare for Q3 2006 came in at 23.3 percent. For Q4 2006, that share rose to 25.3 percent.

Intel erased all of AMD's 2006 gains and pushed the company back under the 20 percent threshold. Analysts for JP Morgan reported that "Intel's superior products and aggressive pricing took their toll on AMD. We expect AMD to lose additional share during (the second quarter)."

AMD has responded to the best of its ability to Intel's strong Core 2-based product family and the company's steady stream of price cuts. By going toe-to-toe with Intel, however, AMD has seen its average selling prices (ASPs) fall along with unit sales.

The company also made a critical error by oversupplying OEMs with processors when they couldn't deliver on sales forecasts while at the same time leaving channel partners out to dry with processor supply. "We made a strategic risk on how we shifted our capacity to serve our customers and unfortunately some of our customers were not able to meet those very aggressive growth areas that they had so when we shifted that, we were not able to recover as fast this quarter as we would have liked," said AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in early March.

The increased pricing pressure, disappointing sales from OEM and the strong performance of dual-core and quad-core processors from Intel has taken its toll on AMD. The company posted a $611 million USD net loss in Q1 2007 and announced that it would restructure its business to cut costs.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Scarey
By Kaleid on 4/24/2007 8:33:14 PM , Rating: 5
I'll be going back to AMD to support the underdog, no matter how foolish it may seem.
We absolutely need the competition.




RE: Scarey
By Oregonian2 on 4/24/2007 8:35:03 PM , Rating: 3
Even if you have to pay more for less performance?


RE: Scarey
By Heinrich on 4/24/2007 8:49:27 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, absolutely. Sometimes buying something shouldn't be all about what's good for ME but should be a statement about what's good for the community.

After Exxon tried to get out of paying for the Valdez disaster I still don't stop at Exxon stations, and I remind my friends regularly.

Buying something can be more than just ego satisfaction, it can be a political statement.


RE: Scarey
By GaryJohnson on 4/24/2007 9:07:17 PM , Rating: 5
I'm confused. So basically you're paying more to get less now to avoid paying more to get less later?


RE: Scarey
By Bonrock on 4/24/2007 9:51:19 PM , Rating: 5
I believe his logic is more along the lines of "pay more to get less now to avoid paying a hell of a lot more to get less later."

Incidentally, last time I checked, AMD is still very competitive with Intel in terms of price-to-performance ratio. That's not a good place for them to be as a business, but as a consumer, buying AMD doesn't necessarily mean you're paying more to get less. It's more like you're paying less to get less, which sounds reasonable to me.


RE: Scarey
By Kaleid on 4/24/2007 10:22:51 PM , Rating: 3
I'll never pay a lot for hardware so it's more like "pay little and get a little less". I do not need extreme performance since I'm less and less interested in games and other applications that require extreme performance.

There's always a possibility that AMD/Ati will go belly up (Sega for instance used to be a large company) and I'd hate to see the only CPUs available for purchase coming from Intel, who, when they never had any real competition from AMD could in their almost monopoly rule of the market decide when to release a new CPU, motherboard and also charge bucketloads of money for their silicon. AMD did well with K7 and K8 and deserved greater marketshares. Had they received that then my guess is that the company would be in better shape now.


RE: Scarey
By arswihart on 4/25/2007 8:11:26 AM , Rating: 2
I'm more of a "pay a little now, get a little or a lot, and then pay again on top of that, or maybe not" kind of guy.


RE: Scarey
By GoatMonkey on 4/25/2007 10:13:31 AM , Rating: 2
Even if AMD were to go out of business, which I don't think is very likely at this point, some other company would take their place.

If Intel were to be a CPU monopoly and overcharged for a stagnant product, someone would step in to give them some competition. As prices went up on CPUs the market would become more attractive to new competition.


RE: Scarey
By Axbattler on 4/25/2007 10:37:49 AM , Rating: 2
Then again, it depends how much they 'overcharge' by: economy of scale works in their favour - the new underdog will be burdened with start-up costs, and unless they come up with a magic product straight off the bat (or one which tackles a niche market Intel neglected - which is large enough for them to sustain until they get both feet on the ground), they would end up being in AMD's current position, but even worse.

That said, I do not think that AMD is going to go belly up either, although it seems that they've not only lost their momentum in the past few years, but are also losing the ground they've gained. I wonder who are the main constituents of the 6% though. I am sure quite a number of enthusiasts have gone Core2 in the past few months, but I've never been quite sure how significant is the enthusiast market.


RE: Scarey
By CollegeTechGuy on 4/25/2007 10:48:43 AM , Rating: 2
I think if AMD would go out of buisiness they wouldn't just disapear off the face of the earth. Someone would buy them out, and I think the best candidate to do something like that would be IBM. IBM has the money and the engineers to to take over a processor company...and video card. Its funny how many people today forget about IBM, mainly the average Joe that just knows alittle about the computer industry. Because IBM doesn't sell to the average Joe as much as they used to and they are more Buisiness based...plus a portion of their profits come from Patends.


RE: Scarey
By mrteddyears on 4/25/2007 11:32:32 AM , Rating: 2
IBM are going to make a fortune selling Cell CPU for all those PS3 why do they need AMD

"Snigger"


RE: Scarey
By MrBungle123 on 4/25/2007 11:19:37 AM , Rating: 2
Something as complex as A cutting edge CPU is not something that just anyone (or corporation) can just pull out of their ass and start manufacturing tomorrow. If AMD goes belly up the only way that anyone would have a chance at catching up with Intel would be to buy out whats left of AMD and invest Billions into more fabs and engineers.


RE: Scarey
By PrezWeezy on 4/25/2007 2:23:45 PM , Rating: 3
Just because AMD and Intel are the only ones you hear of making chips doesn't mean they are the only ones making chips. There are a lot of microchip manufactures out there and any one of them could start making CPU's if they so chose. Right now it would be very difficult to establish oneself as a CPU manufacture, however if Intel were a monopoly, Samsung, or IBM, or Sony, or Foxconn, or one of a handful of others could start making and distributing chips. They wouldn't have the performance lead to start, just like AMD didn't; but there are a lot of very bright engineers out there that don't wear an Intel badge to work.


RE: Scarey
By emboss on 4/25/2007 8:14:53 PM , Rating: 3
Unfortunately, there's very few companies that can compete in the x86 processor market as the x86 instruction set has half a zillion patents on it. Intel, AMD, and Via can due to cross-licencing agreements, and IIRC there's a couple others out there that are allowed to some degree. If AMD went bust (and AMD's license would almost certainly die with the company), then you'd almost certainly see Intel refuse to license out it's x86 patents and take nearly the whole market for itself (with Via eking out it's existance in it's own little niche as now).

And like it or not, x86 is here to stay for a long time. Intel has thrown billions of dollars (in the form of Itanium) at probably the most easy to convert market segment, and they haven't had a whole lot of success. So it's not like a new competitor can compete with a different architecture either.


RE: Scarey
By Oregonian2 on 4/30/2007 7:47:12 PM , Rating: 2
No, someone would buy out AMD's assets, which would include their IP related things. Wouldn't be IBM, they're trying to get out of hardware sales completely to become a 'services company'. AMD's estate agents wouldn't just throw away those rights, else I'll buy them for ten bucks.

Would be someone more like Samsung, Toshiba, or Sony. Etc. Somebody who already has big fabs going and funded.

But still, I think Intel would like to keep AMD around. If Intel
is a total monopoly as would be the case if AMD folded, their business practices would really be under government spotlights a lot stronger I think. They'd get class action lawsuits for ripping governments and other people off in one direction, and class action lawsuits from investors for not ripping people off sufficiently.


RE: Scarey
By Ryanman on 4/27/2007 12:32:10 AM , Rating: 1
Theres a difference between say Toys and Processors.
You have to invest HUGE amounts of money to start making Procs, you can't start in your backyard. The only way there would be competition after AMD would be from an already established electionics place like Sony or perhaps Mitsubishi?!?


RE: Scarey
By Calin on 4/26/2007 2:22:39 AM , Rating: 3
Intel launched the 386 processor for about $1,000. At the end of life, one could have bought one for $8.
Intel launched the 486 at about the same price point. At end of life, it was some $25.
Intel launched the Pentium at similar prices ($800+). I don't know how much it was costing at end of life.
And for as long as AMD held the performance crown, the prices all across the board in Intel's camp fell greatly.

One can not compare current processors with old processors, but I have the feeling that processor prices fell a lot since the Athlon (Slot A) days


RE: Scarey
By FITCamaro on 4/24/2007 9:38:42 PM , Rating: 3
I don't shop at Citgo for similar reasons (being that they're effectively owned by Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez and he has known ties to the terrorist group Hamas).


RE: Scarey
By Kaleid on 4/24/2007 10:14:00 PM , Rating: 3
Well, if you begin to investigate a bit you'll find out that many of the elites in Washington has more ties to Al Qaeda than Iraq ever did before the invastion.

Research PNAC:
"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality--judiciously, as you will--we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

I don't mind if this get's voted down, this isen't really a place for politics...


RE: Scarey
By poohbear on 4/24/2007 10:56:28 PM , Rating: 1
inccidentally hamas has never attacked americans or any other foreigners, its fight is w/ israelis and israelis have killed thousands of innocent palestinians so they really have no moral high ground. its not a black and white arguement.


RE: Scarey
By Ringold on 4/24/2007 11:30:28 PM , Rating: 3
Factually correct, but they've indicated they have terror cells within the US that they'd be willing to use if pushed to do so, and our counter-terror agencies confirm that.

How one post can say "I dont shop at Exxon" because of environmental reasons and not get voted down and another can say "I dont shop at Citgo" because Chavez is a self-avowed socialist/communist who in fact has sponsored Hamas who has in fact warned that they have cells inside our country, a dictator who is nationalizing industries right and left which has already started to slam his economy and hurt the citizens that have entrusted him, and a dictator who we know has given training sessions to people on how to illegaly enter the United States, and that post gets knocked down to -1?

WTF? They can both have valid arguments brought against them for being unethical, but Camaro didn't say anything worth -1 for. For christ sake, people.


RE: Scarey
By Ringold on 4/24/2007 11:34:16 PM , Rating: 2
And before the super-lib of the day reminds me he was freely elected, yes, he was freely elected, yes he has a majority (it helps when the opposition boycott the election), but yes I'll still call any President who gets their congress/parliament/etc to cede him the absolute power to rule by decree a dictator.


RE: Scarey
By mlittl3 on 4/24/2007 11:45:31 PM , Rating: 2
Sort of like our president "King George" and the rubber stamp republican congress which was finally displaced last November.


RE: Scarey
By MrBungle123 on 4/25/2007 11:27:26 AM , Rating: 2
don't you mean "Vicente Bush"?


RE: Scarey
By derwin on 4/25/2007 1:56:13 AM , Rating: 2
I know this is not the place for politics, but if this is voted down, then so should its provocation. If Chavez does good things for his people with their best interest at mind, that would do better for his country than the government of the US has done in a long time.

P.S. if you disagree with my point, before you flame me (after you do this, you are of course welcome to), please tell me three significant undertakings our government has done in the interest of all its citizens, not just redistributing power or wealth from one sector to another.

However,
I believe both points are good examples of making a statment with your wallets in the interest of the greater good, and here, if Intel is a dominant chip maker (like MS is to OSes), the quality of the product vs price will drop significantly.

Its not AMD going belly up that has me concerned, its that its market share will become so marginalized that Intel can begin developing many "Intel-Only" features that will become household and buisness standards (via our desire for intels currently supperior product), then regardless of the quality of AMD, we would be more or less forced into buying Intel.

As far as having chip quality competition, it is also useful for AMD to have similar sales figures, as the RD cost per chip obviously decreases each chip sold, so the more they sell, the more RD, the more they can stay quality vs price cometitive with Intel. I do not see this scenario hitting too hard any time soon however, as I am sure AMD's RD budget was miniscule compared to Intel when K7 and K8 were released.


RE: Scarey
By Volrath06660 on 4/25/2007 2:23:51 AM , Rating: 1
......Isnt giving refunds to the people WHO ACTUALLY PAID TAXES IN ENOUGH OF A HELP TO THEM?!!! Redistribution my a$&!! With tax refunds, you get back proportionally what you pay in, and since the richest 10% of Americans pay 90% of the taxes, it would stand to reason that they would get more back wouldn't it?

So, tax refunds, unification of CIA and FBI into one department so that the miscommunication and screwups of the pre911 intellingence does not occur again, the destruction of the Soviet Union and the threat it posed to us and our way of life, the entering and providing the forces and material needed to win the First and Second World Wars. I can go on, but that is four. So, I think you need to rethink your position.

While I do admit that I find the dictatorial path to be one I would enjoy aspiring to, I must admit that it is fraught with peril as you will always wind up with a man, like good ol' Chavez, that is an abomination and an embarassment to the office he holds and the power that it can wield.

While Chavez may do good things for his people, realize this: Hitler was very popular with his people too. He did things with the interests of his people at mind as well;such as setting their economy back on the road (one of the fastest, biggest, and most impressive economical about-faces of the century), stabalizing their political system, infusing a sense of worth and pride back into a beaten people all while he was gassing Jews at the same time. Just because his people loved him it did not make him any less of a monster. The same is true for Chavez.


RE: Scarey
By derwin on 4/25/2007 3:49:15 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with your argument is that the tax refunds were not scaled based on the amount of taxes paid (ie everyone got 10% of their taxes back). What the refunds did is scale down the bracketed taxes. In other words, the ultra wealthy pay about 28% of their total income in taxes prerefund, but now pay 25%; meanwhile the poorest pay about 12% of their income in taxes prerefund, but now only pay 11%. I am not saying this will happen, but to analyize the impact, follow the trend further to see what this did. If we keep this up, (continuing these same style tax reductions) the mega wealthy (MW) will pay 10% while the ulta poor (UP) pay 5%, or even further, the MW will pay 3% and the UP pays 3%.

This is a redistribution, no matter how you look at it. Where do these refunds come from? Either cuts in spendings or the government takes our a foreign loan (bonds, etc) to pay for the programs these refunded taxes used to pay for. What does most government spending benefit? Either every citizen equally (things like the military, paying for the FBI, police fundings, etc) or the more disadvantaged citizens (after school programs, welfare, etc). So by reducing the MW's tax burden more than the UP, meanwhile cutting services to the UP more than the MW, wealth has been redistributed from the UP to the MW.

P.S... WWII was a LONG time ago. Yeah, George Washington was a great guy too, but that argument doesn't make a difference in regards to the state of our government now-adays.

And the soviet union posed much less of a threat to us than we were made to belive. The threat was almost entierly economic, not miltarily as many believe. (Albeit they had the military to contend with us, their goal was never to fight us on our soil, rather to defend themselves if neccisary). Communism (in prinicple) works on economies of scale. The larger the socialist economy, the easier it is to have specializations, and the less damaging a slip in any particluar place would be, as there are more economic areas to cover the losses. Communism was trying to expand itself to a sustainable size.

The problem is capitalism requires similar sizes. The more markets, the more a corporation can sell. The more a corporation sells, the more money it makes. There is only a limited number of economies around the world, and both capitalism and communism needed a large portion of them to be sustainable. Hence the feirce competition over economic areas.

Your final point sums up my argument very well though. Yes, as you admit, chavez may do good things for his people. And yes, dictators can be dangerous, as Hitler was (as you pointed out). However, as you said, Hitler did a lot of good for germany, but also commited the Holocaust, which really negates the good he did. However, I don't see Chavez commiting any sort of holocaust at the time being, and have no reason to believe he will do such a thing in the future, so your argument about the downside of this situation is rather moot, leaving only the positive aspects.


RE: Scarey
By Spivonious on 4/25/2007 4:26:56 PM , Rating: 2
Nothing personal here, but when you're trying to appear knowledgeable, each mistake in spelling or grammar takes away from your accountability.

As far as tax brackets go, where did you get your data? 68% of all statistics are made up.


RE: Scarey
By derwin on 4/26/2007 11:10:29 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm

The statistics were made up, they were intended to reflect the effect the tax cuts will have. If you wish to check my numbers, take the average tax break provided divided by the average income earned.

Also, I need not mention the effect the decrease in corporate gains and estate taxes will have on the MW vs the UP.

As for nothing personal, I doubt you have brought to attention other's grammatical mistakes. And please, for my sake, don't just say I have them, point them out.

P.S. this sounded rather argumentative, my intention is only to have a logical discussion.


RE: Scarey
By Volrath06660 on 4/25/2007 8:07:58 PM , Rating: 1
-You said name 3 things.......and I did. If you want to redefine rules after you start the game, than I think you need to find a new place to play.

-And actually, you are incorrect; the only one I can think of off the top of my head right now is Fox News a%$ Bill ORielly, and he paid $0.66 on every dollar he made to Uncle Sam, before he had to pay out the state he lives in. That is the burden the higher classes are under. And if you want to get technical, people who got the most back were actually the ones who pissed and moaned about not getting a refund......because they put nothing in.

-Also, the refund comes almost totally from the IRS collecting too much in taxes. The smaller part comes from the govt cutting spending (they do not really like to do that.......). IRS dosnt care about collecting too much...its either spent or returned, and its no skin off their nose.

-And on the Soviet Union thing....you need to take U.S. History 101, or even World History 101. The problem with the Communist program is that people are there to take advantage of the fact that all are 'equal'ly dirt beneath the priveledged few. There is NO way up the ladder, as in capitalism.

-And yes, they were a very very very real threat....they had just as many nukes as we did.....they had a military that may not have been engaging us in battle, but was fighting us from behind the scenes in every conflict we got involved in (Iran/Iraq war, Vietnam, etc., the Cold War...).

-And no, they were trying to fight us as far away from their homeland as possible, not merely trying to defend themselves (*cough*Berlin blockade*cough*). We had a treaty line that they agreed to beforehand, and they just wanted that side of Berlin too.

-A real problem with the Soviet system was that it was inefficient....when big projects failed, they were covered up so nobody would see the failure, and so every project based on said failed project went under as well.....to be covered up. Also, the big issue was that the Communist Soviet system was horrendously inefficient in its ability to generate and spend capital....with only a few higher ups and no answerability to the masses, corruption was much much more ramapnt (*cough* missing suitcase nukes sold for personal profit *cough*). Not saying that our system is the perfect one, it just works towards idealistic goals better in a real world than the alternative did.

-Furthermore, know this: the maniacal dictators are usually not found out about their darker sides until it is far too late. Hitler's death camps were not really known to the average German for quite a while after WWII started....Saddams torture chambers were whispered about, but never proven.....Slobodan Milosovic and his death squads.....Stalins prisons and Gulags were suspected, but not admitted to until after the USSR fell (millions were kidnapped and sentenced here, and millions died for the sake of the 'motherland' you think was so grand too). So dont say to me that just because he isnt doing anything bad right now with his absolute power that he either wont or isnt already.

So derwin, if you want to debate these issues, go to your library and do a little research before buying the party line. Do a little research on the other absolute dictators of history (I am talking about ones that have siezed power or been voted it by a legislature; if I see a GWB anywhere I will be taking a very quick roadtrip) and see that many of them commited some very nasty human rights violations. There may have been some good ones, but on the whole, each good one is overshadowed by three or four purely evil dictators. So no, you are wrong; It is definitely not worth the risk.


RE: Scarey
By derwin on 4/26/2007 11:28:32 AM , Rating: 1
What party line am I quoting?

Secondly, my point about WWII being a long time ago should have been explicit via my reference to George Washington.

You are right, the soviet system did not work. Does that mean another attempt at it would fail?

They existed as a threat in that they COULD fight us. My point is that I have sincere doubts that the WOULD. Vietnam, Afganistan, Iraq-Iran, etc, none of which were initiated by us, yet we intervened against the USSR. I do not see one event here where they initated a fight against us. Secondly, all of the battles were fought over areas which we did not control. IE were not really communist nor capitalist, but more agrarian or nomadic (with the exception of Iran/Iraq, but that was not initiated by either side).


RE: Scarey
By derwin on 4/26/2007 1:54:20 PM , Rating: 2
Oh yeah, and PS, as long as the internet remains uncensored in Columbia, there is a much greater chance of the world finding out about any sort of attrocities Chavez would commit than we could have 80 years ago.


RE: Scarey
By Volrath06660 on 4/27/2007 1:17:18 AM , Rating: 1
PPS:

Guess what stuff dictators censor first? Media and communications outlets........

Look at China and the limitations that they are starting to place on gaming time.......on television......on media.......Kinda harkens back to the old USSR doesn't it? When reading the wrong thing could get you vanished?

There is always a time after a tyrant comes to power where things seem great....then he starts cracking down on some little things....then some other things closely related to the first thing....then a few more things.....after a few years of little things, suddenly the safeguards vanish and viola, you have no way to get him out.

That was how the USSR went as well derwin. Started out great, but with the excuse of making it "better" things were taken away and limited. Why start out again on the same path when you know where the path leads?

Are you an art major? Because I am an engineer, albeit a barely graduating one, and in the engineering field we look at how stuff behaves in the past and if it has followed a clear pattern, we are safe in making the assumption that it will continue to follow this pattern in the future. My sister is an art major, and quantum leaps like this one are just beyond her.......

Also, WWII is VERY relevant.....That was what got us out of the Great Depression....It got us to the econimic might that we have today.....It got us the superpower status that allowed us to oppose the Soviet Union and make it so that all of Europe didnt fall under Stalin's sway the moment Nazi Germany fell (*cough* again, look at the Berlin blockade *cough*). They were quite aggressive there, for NO reason, and in many other situations, so dont give me the whole "but communists are great because they are all equal and peaceful" party line (this is the one I was referring to by the way).

And also, we intervened to try and keep the spread of communism contained. If it was so great, than how come the nations that communism was exported to are failing economically? Cuba was a well to do nation before Castro. China was an econonomic boom town.....and now that they have a capitalistic economy, they are again (and yes, the do have a capitalistic economy now, they just have communist government, so they are just losing their gains to corruption instead). Europe has been trying socialism, and look at where it has gotten them? Airbus is hemorrhaging cash and customers....they have banded together to keep their currency worth something (which now that they are combined, it finally is)......they are paying the union strongarmed fees for a full weeks pay for 1/2 a weeks work.......So yeah, the whole 'if you dont succeed, try try try again' addage doesnt work here if the same mistakes are repeatedly made. The problem muust be addressed, and since the problem is the system, it can not be addressed, so burn the system and go with the only one that has been somewhat stable for the past few centuries.

Capitalism ftw.


RE: Scarey
By derwin on 4/27/2007 1:18:43 PM , Rating: 2
Cuba mind you also has one of the strongest healthcare systems in the world. It is also economically failing because we have placed massive trade embargos against them.

The other difference is Chavez is not a dictator. His term is limited. If I remember correctly it is like 4 years, and after that, the parliment has an option to extend it for another 4 years, and then it is over.

My point about the internet is that we would see that happening, it is not something he could slip under the table. Until he does, we cannot complain about it.


RE: Scarey
By Volrath06660 on 4/28/2007 6:42:19 PM , Rating: 2
And before the Castro era, they were actually a very clean, content, and bustling economical nation. My father toured through there and said it was a great place before it decended into the chaos it is in now. And they have one man and one man only to thank for it. And if it is such a great place, with such great 'care' for its people, then why is it seeming like every time you turn around there is another raft filled to sinking washing up on Florida's shores full of people wanting a better life?


RE: Scarey
By rcc on 4/26/2007 2:43:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You are right, the soviet system did not work. Does that mean another attempt at it would fail?


Hopefully we'll never know.

However, one of the classic definitions of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

The conflicts during the "Cold" war were all by proxy. "They" wanted to expand, in influence or territory, "We" didn't want them to. Neither of the superpowers wanted a direct confrontation because, as has been noted once or twice, no one wins a nuclear war. However, had "we" not stood up to "them" time and time again, they'd have kept pushing until they thought we were weak enough to take that risk.

I lived through it, yes, I believe it. Revisionist histories to the contrary.


RE: Scarey
By derwin on 4/26/2007 10:17:18 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
However, one of the classic definitions of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.


Have you ever heard of practice? I think your definition of "insanity" is a very weak argument. The first attempts at democracy (ala The French Revolution) failed misserably as well. But alas, we tried and tried again.

To allude to your inept argument - one of the saddest states to see to see a human being in is one in which they are so despondent that they refuse to try something again after they have failed.

Have you ever offered a person a hand after they have fallen? What if they said "No, last time I tried standing up, I fell down. It just isn't worth it."

Us not wanting them to expand is not exactly a direct threat to us, but a perceived one. Have you ever walked past a squirel? It is in such a state of self presevation that you merely walking past it causes it to flee in fear. I am not attempting to revise history, I am merely saying that the fear you felt then does not by neccisity imply the fear was a rational one.

For an example. I am sure you are familiar with Exxon-Mobil's buying of patents for alternative energy solutions. Those solutions pose a threat to Exxon-Mobil's oil income. Of course, this example implies one solution (alternatives to oil) as being inatley superior to the status quo (oil), however, it is hard to argue that socialism is a worse or better idea than capitalism, when in fact, we have yet to see a working socialist nation. But wait, we have. Look at two of the top three countries as rated by the UN for quality of life. Sweeden and Norway, both extreemely socialist countries.

I am not saying capitalism is a bad idea, but I also belive it is ignorant to say it is the be all and end all of economic models.

Is socalism a good idea? It has worked and it has failed, so the jury is still out.

Chavez is not doomed to failer ala Stalin's misdeeds, nor is he garunteed sucecess. Only time will tell. To state that you know otherwise lands your comments into everyone's disregard, just as those of anyone else who claims to know the future.


RE: Scarey
By Volrath06660 on 4/27/2007 3:50:42 AM , Rating: 1
Dude, go get some real world experience and then come back to this place we all call reality.

Socialism is not an answer; it has only blown hideous amounts of money, and then been reined in. Communism is also not an answer, as it has failed every time it was tried, and always in the same way. The previous poster is more than correct in saying that insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Your motto of try try try again is valid......ONLY if you realize where you messed up and try to fix the issue. Well dude, Communism and Socialism ARE the issue that needs to be fixed. To fix it is to not use them. PERIOD.

The difference between our attempt at democracy and the French Revolution was that we actually had a plan fairly quickly after gaining our independence.....the first one stunk, but we wanted to move forward, so we tried something new, learning from our previous mistake.......the French on the other hand were far more interested in killing the people who had suppressed them....not in securing freedoms. That is why they just foundered for years until a TYRANT came along and suplanted the government, declaring himself Emperor and starting a major war, which inevitably he lost.

World History 101 pal. The Rise of Napoleon. The only real way that a tyrant can keep his people under control is to be waging a perpetual war.....this creats jobs for an army, and for the infastructure needed to maintain it. If this industry dies, the tyrant loses power because his people see how bad he is and they do not have a war to distract them anymore. Communism suffers from the exact same flaw.

Are you also going to have to take a class in Logic 101 too? If you wait for an enemy that you know exists and wants to do you harm (*cough* actions in Berlin after the end of WWII PROVED THEIR INTENTIONS *cough*) to get strong enough to fight you on your home territory, then you not only have lost, but you are a fool. We KNEW they were a military threat......they had proven this in Berlin and in several other instances around the world. To NOT challenge their attempts at expansion would have been the HEIGHT of idiocy. PERIOD. This means that we were doing a little bit of proactive defense........and it worked.

And you mention SWEDEN and Norway as good quality of life, you only mention the quality of life issue......NOW look at their business front.....and you will see that they are not exactly doing booming business to boost their economies. Quality of life is only something if your government is not hand feeding you everything. With no reward for personal effort that said 'quality of life' is garbage.

And what preytell is the third country.......? Not the nasty ol' Unisted States is it? Because that would just be horrible......

(And do not get me started on the 'alternatives to oil' bs argument. If you just jump into a new idea with no plan, then you are going to fail.....I am an unapologetic engineer, and that is the only logic that makes any sense to me anymore.)

And I am not saying I know what will happen.....I am saying that you can always look at the previous patterns that have been established and tested, and see how things unwound in past similar situations. With the wealth of data that history provides, it is easy to see patterns and it is logical to draw conclusions from them and make educated predictions about how situations currently running or soon to occur may turn out. I am just saying that he has a lot of proving to do before he breaks that rather long streak of tyrants from the historical record before him.

Educated guesses are all we can do in any situation, so the predictions I have drawn, based on a rather large stack of data, is the only logical position to take. I am not saying anything concrete....I am just saying the historical record is vastly against his success as anything but a tyrant.


RE: Scarey
By derwin on 4/27/2007 1:15:27 PM , Rating: 2
No, we are number 7 and sinking.

P.S. you are interely too infatuated with your own opinions to continue this line of discusion with any rationality.

"Communism" is not bad. Soviet Communism was horrible. You could hardly even call it communism, except that in 1918 the peasants revolted and tried to set up a communist government, but by 10 years later, that was through with.

Economic ability is not the be all and end all of life. Like a staving ghost, we gouge ourselves until there is nothing left to eat, and then what? Yes, you need money to do things, but it is not as if those economies are in the dumps, they just are not thriving like they are here. But what has that done to the people whose backs we lift our economy up on?


RE: Scarey
By Volrath06660 on 4/28/2007 6:38:50 PM , Rating: 2
And you just proved my point completely. Communism may start out great, but IT JUST FALLS APART DUE TO THE HUMAN ELEMNT TAKING ADVANTAGE. 10 years and the glorious Bolshevik Revolution had lost its way, and stayed on that path for about 60 years. And we are actually rewarding the people who boost our economy.....they get paid well and they have rights. If you want to try that liberal 'we don't appreciate the people who build our economy up' bs, go and live in the Chinese workforce for a week......that will show you that we actually give a da*( about our workers, and that they do not have it bad by any means.

And I was actually going to say that you are entirely too infatuated with keeping your head in the sand and not looking at the real world to continue this discussion at all. I speak based on historical evidence as I read it....I do not know where you get your ammunition from, but it isnt from anything based in reality.


RE: Scarey
By Oregonian2 on 4/30/2007 8:12:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Chavez is not doomed to failer ala Stalin's misdeeds, nor is he garunteed sucecess. Only time will tell. To state that you know otherwise lands your comments into everyone's disregard, just as those of anyone else who claims to know the future.


I'm sure surveys done by Stalin showed quality of life there to be the highest in the world. Those kind of surveys tend to be good, but somewhat iffy if you look to see how the rankings were done. Depends a lot on what's thought to be important, how to weigh those things, and what's sufficient (meaning perhaps there are important things not on the criteria list). Not to say any of them are necessarily wrong, but they may be not right at the same time. Somewhat a value-judgment thing. Kind of like elections, why doesn't every election a total 100% vs zero landslide for the better candidate? Same kind of idea, more or less.


RE: Scarey
By snakeInTheGrass on 4/25/2007 8:50:08 PM , Rating: 2
On the AMD vs. Intel side, having the competition is really a very good thing. When you look back at how long CPUs were sitting around 200-300 MHz... then suddenly AMD released cheaper, faster ones and amazingly it turned out that Intel COULD get the P-II to run faster. Wow, who would have thought? For years, AMD has kept the monopoly in line.

Unfortunately, AMD seems to have lost their momentum. For me, while I'd in principal like to buy AMD, I'm so tired of running Windows that I moved to Apple - which locks you into the hardware. I'll take that over running Windows at home any day, sadly for AMD - I've used & developed for Windows for years, and it's just painful to be exposed to. :/

Now to off-topic politics, If your income is largely long-term capital gains, you'll do just fine with the cuts dropping your rate to 15%, and if you're low-income you can expect to get child tax credits back and I assume some other things. If you're in between (married, making from about 100K and up), you'll lose the child credits, dependent deductions, other deductions, and finally hit AMT which will screw you in any case.

http://www.house.gov/jct/x-45-00.pdf

From a voting perspective, it makes great sense- pander to enough people to buy the vote (what's democracy for, right?), and those with enough money to buy influence can create loopholes for themselves at the very top end to not pay as much either. That leaves - well, the middle and upper-middle class. Bonus!

It (un)amusingly enough fits what I've joked I'd run on as a platform - define 'rich' as makeing over $1 a year, so that everyone is finally rich. Quiet a campaign promise, huh? With enough years of not touching the AMT, that's effectively what you can do...

Now, looking into what drew the US into the first and second world wars, it seems to have been as much the huge loans the US had made (and allowed the banks to make, war materiel to be sold on loans, etc.), which it didn't want defaulted on. Wilson was a big pacifist until it looked like the money might disappear and suddenly whatever the Kaiser was up to was really really bad! Freedom! Need to protect the freedom of, ummm, the subjects of the British Empire, or something. Yadda yadda. Come WWII, the noble intentions of a nation that was busy rounding up citizens with Japanese ancestry, drafting into its segregated military, segregating its own society, and whose own colonial interests in the Far East conflicted with those of Japan leading to friction are at least... shades of gray. (Imagine if the our oil-sources TODAY declared a oil-embargo while we're at war - would we act? Japan did when the US did that to it... so, not that Japan was exactly up to do-gooding in China, but if other countries did the same today citing our invasion of Iraq as a reason, would we not act too?)

Note that I do think that the world was better off with the U.S. winning than the alternatives (neither Japan nor Germany were exactly warm and fuzzy in their expansions), I just don't think the involvement is as altruistic as all that... (U.S. light gray, others fairly dark gray?) For all the rounding up or segregation, the U.S. wasn't busy then killing the people in its camps (unlike Hitler - or our ally Stalin).

And as a final off topic - I think some people loved Hitler, many didn't, and when you fear for your family or yourself if you speak out, it turns out that it doesn't take a whole lot of love to be in power - a lot of fear will work really well too. Picture your own wife / kids / parents threatened if you say something or act - most people will just shut up. Especially after the first set of neighbors disappears... a relative of mine once commented to another one 'of course people knew there were people being killed in the camps' (he lived near one as a boy and heard gunshots). The other relative said 'no, people didn't know. who did you tell?'. 'Well, nobody, we would all have been shot.' Not that the economic about-face and all weren't impressive, but I don't think so many people went to the Eastern front to die out of enthusiasm too far into that mess.


RE: Scarey
By Oregonian2 on 4/30/2007 8:05:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
not just redistributing power or wealth from one sector to another


Unless wealth is created by a government (be in business itself manufacturing, selling, etc making a profit with which to spend) then all it CAN do is to get wealth from somebody to spend it on whomever it wants to do things for (in effect distributing it in their direction).

I think redistribution of wealth to the NASA employee families was a good thing, for instance.


RE: Scarey
By Volrath06660 on 4/25/2007 2:12:44 AM , Rating: 1
Innocent?!!

The Palestinian terror groups are anything but. Palestine has LOST its two wars for the annihilation of the state of Isreal. The entire Arab world has attacked Isreal twice and failed to destroy it. Isreal, by all rights, has the ONLY legitimate claim to that land as it WON it in the 6 Days War. And it was attacked FIRST!!! It won the right to exist, and every civilized country around the world has recognized Isreal as a legitimate state. All except the Arab states, who attack Isreali WOMEN AND CHILDREN WITH ROCKETS AND HOMICIDE BOMBERS LIKE THE COWARDS THAT THEY ARE! If anyone out there says that they are anything but cowards, I say then why the heck do they always cover their faces whenever they appear in public? Might it be so that they can not be recognized and punished for what they do?

If you win wars to exist, you should not have to be subjected to daily homicide bombings hitting your civilians. If you want to deal with things in a violent manner, grow some stones and fight the military in civilized combat.....or might it be that they are deathly afraid of getting whooped again like they were in the 60's and 70's? So, in response to your comment, it is a rather black and white issue......unless you side with the arabs, then it suddenly develops other colors......funny huh?!

So dude, next time you think about atrocities, think about mortar rounds being lobbed by a group of cowards who are members of a state that is run by an internationally recognized terrorist organization. Black and white dude. (And the Palestinians have butchered more Isrealis in times of peace than the other way around, so go check some facts.) In short, I guess I would like to quote somebody in saying that 'You can only push grey so far until black and white have no meaning.'

Sorry for the long post, but people who always cry foul against Isreal because they 'kill innocent Palestinian babies' piss me off because those innocent Palestinians put an international terrorist group in control of their 'state' and they still want everyone to recognize them as legitimate. I call foul on that.


RE: Scarey
By Emryse on 4/25/2007 2:39:29 AM , Rating: 3
First of all: you are ignorant. I hope our distinguished readers have the decency of rating your comment to the appropriate level it deserves.

Second of all: If you think the only reason "Arabs" cover their faces in cowardice - you are sadly mistaken. It is a sign of propriety and most women who do so now in the Middle East choose to do so. Your entire post clearly shows that you have no concept of whom an "Arab" person would be.

Thirdly: With regards to your accusing them of being cowards due to their "guerrilla-style" fighting, why don't you go look up "Bosnia" or "Hiroshima"? Are you actually trying to tell me that the United States has never mass-murdered innocent civilians during a war? So then I guess your next logical step would be to say Americans are cowards too?

Finally - if you knew your history correctly, you would know that a.) Israel took the land from the people who lived there first in Biblical times, b.) the Romans wiped them out in the early A.D. and Israel ceased to exist as a nation, c.) when Israel again became a nation after WWII, they again took the land from the people inhabiting it (Palestinians), and d.) they forced those Palestinians to exile in places like Jordan (where they were considered aliens and refused immigration status).

Now - both sides have committed acts that make it very difficult to find a peaceful solution to the problem. But be that as it may, unfortunately the main problem is this:

Both Israelis and Palestinians believe they are entitled to the SAME area of land. Choosing to simply relocate (for EITHER side) is simply OUT of the question! That is why the conflict is on-going, and will remain as such.


RE: Scarey
By mrteddyears on 4/25/2007 11:40:19 AM , Rating: 2
Hi I may be wrong but did the british give the land to israel ?


RE: Scarey
By derwin on 4/25/2007 3:33:42 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah


RE: Scarey
By OrSin on 4/25/2007 4:25:23 PM , Rating: 2
NO. THe british gave the land to Jiont Gov formed for both Jews and Arabs. The Jews didn't want to share start terrorist attacks ont he new goverment and the remaining british troops. This was done during WWII. Britian didnt have th resources to stop the fighting. After WWII the UN gave the land to teh Jews becasue the Holocast. If not for the Holocast the UN would have been fighting the Jewish forces thier. So in the end everyone was is wrong.
Jews for the orginial fighting and the Arabs for vowing never to give up fighting.


RE: Scarey
By Dactyl on 4/25/2007 10:48:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
NO. THe british gave the land to Jiont Gov formed for both Jews and Arabs. The Jews didn't want to share start terrorist attacks ont he new goverment and the remaining british troops. This was done during WWII. Britian didnt have th resources to stop the fighting. After WWII the UN gave the land to teh Jews becasue the Holocast. If not for the Holocast the UN would have been fighting the Jewish forces thier. So in the end everyone was is wrong.
Jews for the orginial fighting and the Arabs for vowing never to give up fighting.
The Jews agreed to the United Nations partition plan that would have split "Palestine" into two equal parts, a Jewish half and an Arab half. The Jews agreed to this split and the Arabs rejected it. That was in 1948, AFTER WWII, not "during WWII."

The Arabs then went to war with Israel (the 1948 war) intending to destroy Israel and kill all of the Jews (to "drive them into the sea").

The Arabs lost (and again in 1953, and again in 1967, and again in 1973). Not because they were outnumbered (Arabs of course outnumbered the Jews) but because Arabs are terrible at running military operations. The most famous Muslim general ever was Saladin, a Kurd--not an Arab!

Arabs have tried for decades to exterminate the Jews of Israel so they could take the whole thing for themselves. Jews have since day 1 been willing to share.

The Jews agreed to the U.N. partition plan. The Jews agreed to the Oslo peace plan. Each time, the Jews had no "partners for peace" on the Arab side. The Israelis tried to make peace work, but their neighbors only wanted war. That is why there is war. It takes two to dance but it only takes one side to start a war.


RE: Scarey
By derwin on 4/26/2007 1:51:34 PM , Rating: 2
You also have to remember that since Isreal agreed to split Plaestine, they have since taken the entierty of it and refused to return the other half. That and all the wars they won against the Arabs were more because they had far superior equipment (via US and Europe) than the arabs did.
Now they even have a nuke complements of the US.

If Columbia was arming Mexico to the teeth with better weapons than we had, don't you think we would start getting mad at Columbia?


RE: Scarey
By Volrath06660 on 4/27/2007 11:19:57 AM , Rating: 1
Yet again I find myself correcting you derwin.

The reason they refuse to give it back is the THE ARAB STATES AND PALESTINE ATTACKED THEM FOUR TIMES OVER THAT LAND!!!

If you were awarded a settlement and agreed to split it with another person, and shortly thereafter they attacked you in an unprovoked sneak attack, and you beat them back FOUR TIMES, would you be willing to give them back what they had when it is obvious they are going to try and take it ALL again?!

And the Arabs have the same opportunities to get advanced equipment as everyone else, they just chose not to. They have tons of cash due to oil production in a few of their states, so their alliances should have brought cash. They just underestimated the Isreali forces each time, and they paid for it. Hence the reason they are not fighting the Isrealis honorably anymore......they know they will lose again.

Again though; the Isrealis may have been put in a bad place by the UN, and I am not disputing that. It was terrible planning. However, they reached a share agreement with the Palestinians, and they signed said document in good faith. They were willing to give peace a chance. However on FOUR SEPERATE OCCASIONS, they were unprovokedly attacked, and they were victorious each and every time. That right there earns them the right to decide how they are going to parcel out ALL of that land in my book. If they want to give the Palestinians a state, that is their business, and the Palestinians should be grateful for ANYTHING that they get, as their backstabbing should have lost them all rights to that land. Isreal proved they had the right to exist four times over, and they were not the aggressors any of those times.

Remember that. They have paid for the right to live on that land with the blood of their people in wars that they should not have had to fight. End of Discussion.


RE: Scarey
By Volrath06660 on 4/27/2007 4:05:58 AM , Rating: 1
And guy....I was referring to the pussies who cover their faces while making threats to people and beheading them (any terror group committing an act of violence on tape or internet video proves my point). And no, they are not women, so read what I said and understand it before snap responding. UBL and his higher ups do not cover their faces, so I have much more respect for them.

And I am accusing them of being cowards because they hide behind their populace while attacking another populace. In wars, the innocent die. That is why responsible, honorable military men attempt to minimize casualties by keeping away from populated centers, not building a terror infastructure in the middle of them. The Palestinians use their civilians as human shields while attacking other civilians, and I see that as cowardice. They da^& themselves in my eyes by attacking those other civilians, claiming it is justified, and then when their human shield takes hits because they are hunkered down behind it, they cry foul BECAUSE THE PEOPLE THEY PUT IN HARMS WAY GOT HURT!!!! This situation burns me up.

And YOU should check YOUR history.....the modern day Palestinians were NOT from that region initially....they were a people who were kicked out of Jordan...they have as much claim to that land as the Isrealis do now; and besides the fact, they fought repeatedly over it AND LOST EACH TIME. They attacked first with the entire Arab world and the STILL LOST.

I am not saying that this was a situation that should have occurred. It was not a good place to relocate the Jewish exiles after the Holocaust, but the fact of the matter is that the Isrealis have won three wars for their existance, and that buys them legitimacy in my book. They have every right to exist as we did when we fought England for independence.


RE: Scarey
By encryptkeeper on 4/25/2007 10:27:24 AM , Rating: 1
Half the reason Israel is hated in the middle east is because the US unquestionably backs them up. Israel and Palestine are both equally guilty of atrocities, and anyone who thinks one side is guilty and the other innocent is out of their minds.

The US has gone to several countries in the middle east and asked them to make concessions to stop fighting with Israel. But Israel is NEVER pressured by the US to stop bullying the Middle East in return. Their soldiers kill Palestinian soldiers in "border fighting," but those actions aren't investigated to see if there was any wrongdoing.

Thus the essence of the religious war in the middle east. The arab world is heavily prosecuted and pressured by the west to change their way of life. Several countries like Iraq and Afghanistan are in such turmoil, that it's understandable (but in NO way excusable) that (extremeists) should believe blowing themselves up to kill infidels will guarantee them a place in heaven.


RE: Scarey
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 4/25/07, Rating: 0
RE: Scarey
By Volrath06660 on 4/27/2007 4:11:55 AM , Rating: 1
Six Days War people.....Isreali troops had taken the Golan Heights, were marching into Syria, inflicting total casualties on every Arab army in the region, and were in sight of Cairo Egypt.....when the US called them off.

Yet we never put pressure on them to stop, huh?

And the US backs Isreal because they are a major supplier of US defense dept contracts, and they have much more in common with the US and its interests than the Arab states around them currently do.

And I understand the Isreali position far more than I can the Palestinian one because the Isrealis arent hiding behind their civilians all the while hocking rockets over the border into civilian centers and preaching death to their enemy because they call their god by another name. Yes, both sides have committed atrocities, but the Arab terrorist side is not allowing the conflict to close by continuing to murder to bystanders.


RE: Scarey
By Ryanman on 4/27/2007 12:36:33 AM , Rating: 1
ahh I vote Israel on this one.
Did they start it? yeah. Do the Arabs break EVERY SINGLE CEASCEFIRE that's engineered? ummhmm.
I consider stabbing people in the back worse than defending a country. And the Palistinians have killed wayyy more civillians than the israelites have.


RE: Scarey
By Volrath06660 on 4/28/2007 6:45:13 PM , Rating: 2
Ryanman, I greet you Brother......

You said it better than I could have.

Hail to a kindred spirit with views like mine.


RE: Scarey
By EarthsDM on 4/24/2007 11:09:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't shop at Citgo for similar reasons (being that they're effectively owned by Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez and he has known ties to the terrorist group Hamas).


I'm sorry, but your comment has no basis in reality.


RE: Scarey
By jarman on 4/24/2007 11:38:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm sorry, but your comment has no basis in reality.


I'm not sure that your logic has a basis in reality...


RE: Scarey
By PandaBear on 4/24/2007 9:45:07 PM , Rating: 2
I am in the same boat, trying to buy a S939 since I already have PC3200 ram, but I can't find a damn 939 board to go with that is not known for reliability problems.

Damn it, what is going on?


RE: Scarey
By shabby on 4/24/2007 10:00:17 PM , Rating: 2
Were you supporting intel and buying p4's when the opty was slaughtering it?


RE: Scarey
By exanimas on 4/24/2007 11:35:08 PM , Rating: 3
Just because AMD was performing better than Intel at that time, doesn't mean it was the underdog. Even at its peak, Intel still had well over double the market share AMD had, mainly due to the fact that several of the major OEMs sold Intel exclusively.


RE: Scarey
By Ringold on 4/24/2007 11:39:39 PM , Rating: 4
Has Intel ever been an underdog? For the entire time that AMD has the performance crown, Intel was still dominating the market, and thus not deserving, or even in need of, the enthusiast market giving them pity purchases.

I for one will make any new builds Barcelona based later this year. The performance delta isn't massive anyway, so the hit to my epeen will be minimal. :P


RE: Scarey
By encryptkeeper on 4/25/2007 10:09:34 AM , Rating: 2
This is true. Unfortunate but true. If Intel crushes AMD and no one takes their place be prepared for processor technologies to almost stop moving altogether and for prices to skyrocket. Intel wants to do the same thing that Microsoft does, where it is the main provider for it's product so they can manipulate the market at will.


RE: Scarey
By cheburashka on 4/25/2007 3:20:36 PM , Rating: 1
I'm suprised you know exactly what Intel would do if ever in such a position. Pure baseless speculation on your part.


RE: Scarey
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 4/25/2007 4:47:24 PM , Rating: 3
Intel is the main provider of the product, Microsoft has 92% of it's market and Intel has 80%. A mere 12% difference. Intel can manipulate the market in any way it wants, don't think for a second that AMD was ever in any position to prevent them from doing so. (Notice AMD is currently suing for anti-trust practices) Intel (pending outcome of this trial) did to one degree or another manipulate the market and AMD is arguing that in court.

In any case, Intel can't just stand still, the demand for technological advancement grows each year and Intel has to meet that demand or come under fire. The microprocessor market is too large a playing field for Intel to become complacent, their last CEO sucked we know this. The new CEO knows exactly how to grip the market, and that is technological advancement, and Intel does that very well.


RE: Scarey
By Lugaidster on 4/24/2007 9:08:30 PM , Rating: 2
Unless you actually overclock, which I don't. Your comment, at least for now, isn't accurate. At least this case, makes AMD provide more bang for the buck:

quote:
AMD has reduced the AMD A64 X2 5600+ price by 42%, which makes it a heck of a bargain. The 5600+ out performs the Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 Processor in price performance, thanks to its new lower price.


http://www.legitreviews.com/article/490/1/

I repeat, that's for now. It can change...


RE: Scarey
By irev210 on 4/24/2007 9:23:15 PM , Rating: 2
that legitreviews.com review is completely flawed

They did that review a week after AMD lowered their price and 2 days before intel lowered theirs.

They should be comparing a $199 core 2 duo E6600 or a $179 E6320

http://shop4.outpost.com/product/4893660
With the new price drops, 199 shipped for E6600 is awesome

Both price changes where known months ahead in advance.

Shit like this really pisses me off. I dont care who is better than who, I just want fair/balanced reporting.


RE: Scarey
By Lugaidster on 4/24/2007 10:14:43 PM , Rating: 2
It could be, but at least be fair while comparing prices:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...

In which case, I would say legit have a point. Of course, if you wish to pay a few bucks more you'd probably end up with a much faster E6600. But to be fair, compare both processors that are at the same price point.


RE: Scarey
By Lugaidster on 4/24/2007 10:49:09 PM , Rating: 3
On a side note, last I heard, Intel's price drop for E6600 was from $316 to $224 so I find the $199 price you quoted to be unrealistic.

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=38...

And at that price it would compete with X2 6000+. Anyway, don't be so quick to bash others people work without reading it completely. Legit did clearly say it would review their article once Intel launched it's new processors and dropped their prices.

In the current context, I would say that (worst case scenario) if you buy a mid-range gaming PC, you wouldn't be wasting money by going with AMD. And even gain a little bang for your money, but that's debatable.


RE: Scarey
By irev210 on 4/24/2007 11:15:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
On a side note, last I heard, Intel's price drop for E6600 was from $316 to $224 so I find the $199 price you quoted to be unrealistic.


I didnt decide the price, that was a promotion that fry's/outpost.com was running.

They appeared to have run out of stock and removed the E6600 retail box from their website.


RE: Scarey
By Crank the Planet on 4/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: Scarey
By spartan014 on 4/24/2007 10:50:18 PM , Rating: 3
I can be described as a mild AMD fan, not a fanatic and the recent performance of AMD leaves much to be desired..

But it is nothing compared to the ignorant babble in this post. I suggest you check what you are saying before posting.


RE: Scarey
By Shintai on 4/25/2007 3:23:35 AM , Rating: 1
You do know AMD didn´t innovate with either fusion or the memory controller on die?

The first chip with an ondie memory controller was 386Sl followed by 486SL. 20 years too late for "innovation".


RE: Scarey
By theapparition on 4/25/2007 10:36:52 AM , Rating: 2
I'll add to the already posted comments.

There is no denying the benefits of an on-die controller. However, as enthusiasts, you can sometimes have tunnel-vision. Intel chose not to go with the IMC, simply because it offers more platform flexibility. At the time, it was more important in their roadmap, to offer flexible bussing and memory configurations. Next year, you'll see the IMC back in the Intel designs.

HT - Intel has CSI, although from the specs I've seen, HT is still superior.

Actual hardware Dual core - Dubious performance benefits today, all while allowing Intel to increase yeilds, while lowering manufacturing costs. So the price cuts don't hurt them as bad as it does AMD. Since I love car analogies: Does it matter if you have a high tech DOHC engine or a low tech push-rod, if the pushrod makes more power and has better fuel economy. Do you care about the technology, or the end result?

I'm hoping Barcelona will perform competitively, we need the competition. However, facts are facts, and you just spewed garbage.


RE: Scarey
By dandres87 on 4/25/2007 12:56:33 AM , Rating: 1
'less ur an uber nerd who spends more than 250 on your CPU AMD has better price/performance. You dont give someone a hard time because they buy a "lesser performing" Camry when the could have got an Accord. It's really a matter of preference. I say go AMD to keep prices competitive. A competive market is best for the consumers, not one where someone gets creamed.


RE: Scarey
By tekzor on 4/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: Scarey
By CheesePoofs on 4/24/2007 9:52:43 PM , Rating: 5
Even multimillion dollar corporations go bankrupt. Just because they're huge doesn't make them invulnerable.


RE: Scarey
By mlittl3 on 4/24/2007 11:52:32 PM , Rating: 2
Dude are you an idiot. AMD just lost 611 million dollars last quarter. That means after they paid all their accoutants, engineers, janitors, etc. and bought all their toilet paper and office supplies from the money they made, they still lost 611 million dollars. That makes them a negative multimillion dollar company. Do you not understand this?