backtop

Gadgets Mitsubishi LaserVue HDTV Now Available
Shane McGlaun (Blog) - October 30, 2008 3:12 PM
Print 62 comment(s) - last by tastyratz.. on Nov 4 at 11:36 PM

Mitsubishi 65-inch LaserVue HDTV  (Source: Electronic House)
LaserVue promises more color with less power demand

Behold the power of the laser. Humanity can do all sorts of cool things with lasers from mounting them on the heads of sharks to shining them into the eyes of an attacker to induce temporary blindness. We can now also buy HDTV's that use lasers.

Dr. Evil will be truly proud to hear that Mitsubishi is now selling its 65-inch LaserVue TV. Laser TV was hailed as the successor to LCD and Plasma technology when first announced in 2007. The TV uses laser beams to generate the picture and promises two times the color of the typical HDTV while using less power. The green brigade will like that last part.

Mitsubishi claims that the LaserVue HDTV uses  only 135W which is claimed to be 1/3 of the energy needed by the average LCD TV and 1/4 the power needed by the average plasma TV. The LaserVue set also has a 120Hz refresh rate, x.v. Color and a full 1080p HD image. The set is in a cabinet that is 10-inches thick. That is more in line with the profile of a projection TV than the plasma and LCD sets we are used too. One other cool feature is that the TV is that it is 3D ready. The dawn of 3D TV is coming and from 3D game demos, previewed so far 3D TV will be huge.

Frank DeMartin, VP Marketing for Mitsubishi told Electronic House, "The consumer demand for LaserVue has simply exceeded our expectations and the product is a terrific example of Mitsubishi’s technology leadership within the home entertainment market. Bringing laser TV to market is a significant industry accomplishment and we’re very proud to be the only TV manufacturer to date that has delivered on the promise of a laser-driven TV."

DeMartin continued, “With operating power at approximately 135W, LaserVue is environmentally friendly, consuming approximately one-third the power of today’s LCD TVs, and one-fourth of plasma TVs. Living in today’s green-conscious environment, consumers can enjoy this color-brilliant, ground-breaking home entertainment product while being mindful of energy consumption at the same time.”

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Ack!
By Motoman on 10/30/2008 3:21:39 PM , Rating: 2
...the retail price is $7,000. Hope it comes with the hot chick for that price.

In all seriousness, I'm sure it's better in every way than my Mitsubishi Diamond-series projection TV, which is practically a dinosaur by today's standards. But I only paid like $1,800 for it (55") on closeout. And I love it. I *wish* I had all my finances in such order that I could spend $7,000 on something like this...people in hell want iced tea too.




RE: Ack!
By 3DoubleD on 10/30/2008 3:24:56 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, the price is too much, but this is Gen 1 technology so it is expected. I'm excited to see this technology one or two generations from now. I don't doubt these TVs will become nearly as thin as the thicker/regular LCD/Plasma offerings, just give them some time. 10" isn't all bad though. I'm excited to read some reviews!


RE: Ack!
By jkresh on 10/30/2008 3:33:46 PM , Rating: 3
Price will come down, but I would not expect these to be as thin as plasma/lcd at any point in the near future (probably similar thickness to the thinnest dlp's) as I am pretty sure this is a projection technology. What I am interested in is seeing front projectors using this and how they compare to dlp/lcos/lcd in terms of price/features/brightness...


RE: Ack!
By 3DoubleD on 10/30/2008 4:56:17 PM , Rating: 2
I'd expect that when working with laser light, much of the bulk of traditional DLP screens would not be needed. I argue this because the lasers basically replace the need for a lamp and laser light can be easily routed via mirrors or fiber optic cables. Thus you can squeeze the lasers into the TV casing, oriented in whatever direction makes the unit most compact. As the lasers themselves are improved (eg, more efficient, smaller designs, ect) we could see the screens shrink in thickness. Who knows though!

I agree with another poster about this technology making its way into projectors, it would be perfect (although perhaps a bit heavier).


RE: Ack!
By mcnabney on 11/1/2008 9:10:01 PM , Rating: 2
You would be wrong. It is just a DLP rear projection TV with a laser lightsource as opposed. It is very much like the current LED DLP TVs that Samsung is selling. All of the problems that the current Samsung and Mits DLP RP TVs have this will have too. The LaserVue might have a little better black rendition, but the added color depth is pointless since even the most advanced media available today, BluRay, does not support the increased color bit depth.
This RP TV is way overpriced. It should be about half that amount, or maybe even less. Now front projection Laser should make a much bigger splash. Increased brightness and the elimination of the bulb-replacement cycle is just what the projector market needs. Sadly, we will have to wait a little longer for that.


RE: Ack!
By Oregonian2 on 10/30/2008 8:41:57 PM , Rating: 3
AFAIK this is just a projection TV with the traditional lightbox (with big hot lamp and a rotating color wheel) replaced with laser LEDs that "electronically" rotate the colors (why the rate can be much higher). This was demonstrated a couple years ago by an Australian company (in conjunction with a U.S. silicon valley one I think).


RE: Ack!
By vapore0n on 10/30/2008 3:26:30 PM , Rating: 5
I remember when 42" plasma TVs were $10k

If it really is the dlp successor and hits the spot, price will come down in a couple of years.


RE: Ack!
By FITCamaro on 10/30/2008 11:34:26 PM , Rating: 2
Looks like I might have found the technology of my next TV. I love my current DLP. This looks even better.


RE: Ack!
By inighthawki on 10/30/2008 3:43:48 PM , Rating: 2
keep in mind it's not only the newest technology available, its also 65" in size. Last time I checked, TVs this size were quite expensive even for lcd/plasma.


RE: Ack!
By Mitch101 on 10/30/2008 4:51:15 PM , Rating: 3
When my wife gave me the approval for a big screen HDTV I went for the largest practically priced unit. At the time that was 65" The gap was insane to get to 73"

If I had to do it all over again today I would buy a projector. Some very nice 1080P units out there today you could buy 3 of them for the price of this HDTV.


RE: Ack!
By Jasio on 10/30/2008 4:22:21 PM , Rating: 3
What's the matter with the price?

The Pioneer Kuro Elite 60" 1080p is $7000 at Best Buy.
(http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8982... -- and Panasonic's flagships are only a bit less.

Considering this LaserVue is "new" technology, this isn't all that expensive/over priced.


RE: Ack!
By 3DoubleD on 10/30/2008 4:46:56 PM , Rating: 2
You raise a good point. For the Pioneer you are paying a premium for best-in-class picture. Since the laser TV is new and "untested" technology (eg. hasn't earned a name/brand for itself among customers), one would have to suspect that you are paying the early adopter fee. Admittedly, it is hard to know for sure until we see a review.


RE: Ack!
By Chernobyl68 on 10/30/2008 5:49:14 PM , Rating: 2
originally this was touted as a much less expensive technology, when it was estimated to be released 2 years ago. They need to make up that R&D, and are pricing it with other premium sets. hopefully in 4-5 years it will have come down significantly.


RE: Ack!
By adiposity on 10/30/2008 6:41:37 PM , Rating: 2
Pioneer may be overpriced, but the price difference from 60 to 65 should also be considered here. It's usually quite significant.

The Panasonics are usually considered more reasonable in price:

http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-tvs/panasonic-v...

This is the most common 65" Panasonic display on cnet, and it goes for $6800 at amazon. Yes, there are a couple places selling it lower, but MSRP looks to be about 7K. So this price is eminently reasonable.

The question is, how does the quality compare? Most TV buyers care about that first. A more expensive TV that takes less power but looks worse is not going to sell.

-Dan


RE: Ack!
By hr824 on 10/30/2008 8:28:36 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.dailytech.com/Laser+TV+to+Take+On+Plasm...

How dose Half the production cost translate into a 7k dlp tv? If anyone buys this tv at that price a will find you and slap you in the face. :)


RE: Ack!
By tastyratz on 11/4/2008 11:22:29 PM , Rating: 2
How does it translate? Easily.
Consider this: how does someone spend 7k on a new lcd/plasma screen in that class when you can get something with a superior picture for the same cost?

Right now its the top dog. Why sell for less when yours is the best?


RE: Ack!
By TimberJon on 11/4/2008 11:56:48 AM , Rating: 2
Is the diamond series you speak of the same as the WD-60735 and WD-65736 and probably that other 73" model they have?

If not.. You could always go pickup the 60" WD-60735 from Rentacenter or any other TV store that has it. Theyre super cheap.


By Creig on 10/30/2008 3:35:05 PM , Rating: 2
I know that "thin is in", but after Samsung released their LED DLP based televisions, I knew that RP was staging a comeback. From what I've read, these new laser TVs offer a substantial increase in color quality over LCD, Plasma and standard/LED DLP, especially reds which can be problematic.

Eventually these sets should be even cheaper than LCD or Plasma televisions as they are simply three lasers (red, blue, green) aimed at a Texas Instruments DLP chip. No moving parts (other than cooling fans) and no image degradation over the life of the set). But for now, they'll be only for the wealthy or hard-core television/movie aficionado.




By Oregonian2 on 10/30/2008 8:44:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No moving parts (other than cooling fans)


Well... technically the DLP has a LOT of moving parts, it's just that they don't move all that far. :-)


By gramboh on 10/30/2008 9:15:20 PM , Rating: 2
That's the problem, consumer preference is LCD/Plasma because of the thin factor. You barely see any DLP sets on display at retail outlets.


By grath on 10/30/2008 9:43:03 PM , Rating: 2
The question is how thick does the thin factor actually extend? Its not so much a matter of inches as one of sleekness, how close vents and connectors allow it to be placed against a wall, and mounting capability which is largely dictated by structure and weight. Panels are heavier but flat backed which makes for sturdy mounting. Projection sets while lighter are bottom heavy and improperly structured for a typical flat wall mount, requiring a surface a surface. Even flat against the wall a typical projection sets 16" or so of protrusion is outside the limit of the thin factor, but the 10" of this laser set probably isnt, and if it can use panel wall mounting then I bet the factor would apply.


By killerroach on 10/31/2008 9:10:19 AM , Rating: 2
The thing is, most newer DLPs aren't that thick... heck, a Samsung Series 7 DLP is only an inch or two thicker than the 46" Vizio LCD that I have...

Not sure where they're getting their power consumption numbers from, though. 1/3 of the power of an LCD of similar size wouldn't be 135W... casual perusal of the Energy Star listings would show that (some LCD and DLP sets are already in the 140-160W range). Sounds like more marketing speak for very little benefit.


By William Gaatjes on 10/31/2008 9:28:50 AM , Rating: 2
Measure the power consumption when the light output is at full output power.
Most lcd's(with dynamic lighting) and plasma's are not running at full power unless you have a totally white screen. Full power numbers and average power numbers are to be compared here.


By tastyratz on 11/4/2008 11:36:07 PM , Rating: 2
To clarify:

Plasmas are at full power when white.

LCD's are full power when black.

A white LCDscreen uses little to no energy to just let the white light through. LCD's will "twist" to block light when it comes time to display blacks - The reason you see gray/black tones is the light will leak past the panel. The better the panels ability to shut out light, the better the blacks.


By mcnabney on 11/1/2008 9:25:57 PM , Rating: 2
I have a Samsung 61A750 and is over a foot deep. My 52" LCD is 4" thick. Not even close. The LaserVue is not thin. It is not hanging on the wall. It is not going to generate any sales besides the Mits fanboys with more money than sense. Rear projection cannot be more than half the price of comparable LVD/plasma in order to compete.
Remember, this will have the usual RP problems with off-axis viewing.


"Sitting Too Close will burn your eye out."
By snownpaint on 10/30/2008 3:53:56 PM , Rating: 5
I like it.. Longer life.. brighter colors, bigger screen, sharper pictures.. It all about lasers.. Everything will be lasers in the future. Laser knifes, laser headlights, laser computing, Laser Lasers. maybe Laser Ice Cream?

Ahhhh...First buyers pay for R&D...




By Clauzii on 10/30/2008 8:23:55 PM , Rating: 2
I can already see the posters: Star Wars - Now more real than ever! You'll drop dead from the total realism of Lukes sword and the Yoga powers!


RE: "Sitting Too Close will burn your eye out."
By grath on 10/30/2008 9:09:22 PM , Rating: 5
I give it three months till a lawsuit from a drunk idiot who accidentally chucked a wiimote through the screen and got a face full of laser.


By GlassHouse69 on 10/31/2008 12:59:58 AM , Rating: 2
best post so far :)


By Raidin on 10/31/2008 1:47:41 PM , Rating: 2
I can just see Danny Glover standing on top of a predator hunter's corpse with his laser gun and going, "Who wants a face fulla laser?"


utility friendly
By headbox on 10/30/2008 3:23:04 PM , Rating: 4
When they say "environmentally friendly" it appeals to people, but if they would instead say "utility bill friendly" it would appeal to even more.

10" thick for a TV is still very reasonable too.




RE: utility friendly
By jp7189 on 10/30/2008 3:51:05 PM , Rating: 2
utility bill friendly? I supposed, but the ROI is 10.4 years (assuming non-stop use).


RE: utility friendly
By Mojo the Monkey on 10/30/2008 6:22:36 PM , Rating: 3
My god, you're right. However did I survive without viewing a television set purchase as an "investment".... I think the power savings are an added bonus, not the main draw.


RE: utility friendly
By gramboh on 10/30/2008 9:11:52 PM , Rating: 2
It's a valid point, unless you assign additional utility/value to the "green" factor (energy conservation as a purpose rather than just saving money) you should not pay more than the expected savings (assuming the quality of the set is the same). No idea why that was voted down.


RE: utility friendly
By Raidin on 10/31/2008 1:52:15 PM , Rating: 2
Remember that an ROI wouldn't apply here. You are paying $7K for a TV that has competition priced at the same amount, more or less.

They don't provide you with the same power savings, which makes this a bonus. If the TV cost $3K more than other TVs in it's class, then we can talk about ROI, imo.

So by spending $7K on this one, rather than on another 65" TV, you are going to spend less per month on electricity, and you didn't have to pay more for this added benefit.


Dirt Cheap!
By SiliconJon on 10/30/2008 4:53:23 PM , Rating: 2
Not that I have $7k for a TV, but that seems incredibly cheap for such a large market launch model considering the first generation of an item is often more expensive both to help recover R&D costs quicker and because it often simply can demand more if it's a superior or unique product which it certainly seems to be. If this price has not been lowered due to market conditions this TV should be a steal when we break the decade mark so long as adoption isn't too slow and the discounts of recovered R&D, product refinement, and mass production kick in.




RE: Dirt Cheap!
By TerranMagistrate on 10/30/2008 6:21:23 PM , Rating: 2
I couldn't agree more.

I think Sony has like a 73" LCD Bravia TV with LED backlighting for like $32,000 if I remember right. In regards to that, this Mitsubishi LaserVue TV is a steal and probably demolishes that Bravia in most if not all specs.

This laser technology will definitely supplant all DLP TVs in the higher end market soon.


RE: Dirt Cheap!
By William Gaatjes on 10/31/2008 9:01:41 AM , Rating: 2
It is dirt cheap for a first generation.
If i remember correctly the first lcd and plasma display's where in the >20.000 euro/25000 dollar (at current ratio) range with that in the back of our minds, this is a bargin.
But i have to say, that mitsubishi did not do the R&D.
That was done by arasol and necsel. I assume that mitsubishi has done the research for mass production. But i am sure part of the price goes to the bank account of arasol.


RE: Dirt Cheap!
By mcnabney on 11/1/2008 9:29:42 PM , Rating: 2
First generation doesn't matter. What can this TV do that existing technology can't? It can do 1080p. Wow. It can't hang on the wall. When Samsung jumped from lamp to LED the price premium was only a few hundred dollars for the same size. This is no different. Mark my words now. If this TV is still being produced in the summer, it will be selling for half the price or less. Again, this is not new technology. This is just a new light source.


RE: Dirt Cheap!
By William Gaatjes on 11/2/2008 6:51:03 AM , Rating: 2
The light source still could use some improvements. I don't see why there should not be improvements made when possible to get the best from the best.

And first generation lcd's where horrible, look at where lcd's are now. It is still bad for moving pictures but not as bad as the 1st gen technology. Same goes for plasma's. Same goes for anything else. You build, you sell , you have more money for R&D, you can improve. New improved versions of components come out which can improve the next gen product you are designing.

And lcd manufacturers are happy now. Some techcompany found a way to build solar cells the same way as lcd's are manufactured. This means that factories do not get outdated but can be used to produce solarcells. No, I do think there is a future for this television technology.


Why DLP?
By HumbleOpiner on 10/31/2008 7:49:46 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I do not see the need of a DLP in a Laser TV. It is supossed that the lasers serve only to light the DLP?. Cannot deflect by themselves? I also see difficult for a single laser to light the entire surface of a DLP with no previous deflection.




RE: Why DLP?
By William Gaatjes on 10/31/2008 9:26:23 AM , Rating: 2
You need to bend the light. This is done by dlp. DLP is nothing more then a brand name for an electroniccaly controlled mirror. See this site for explanation. http://www.dlp.com/tech/what.aspx

I am not sure they use the same type of mirror. With a narrow beam of light like a laser, you do not need millions of mirrors. Just 2 will do (x and y) for 1 color with enough movement to hit the entire screen. That would be 6 mirrors for 3 colors. The contrast and brightness would be controlled by modulating the output of the laser. That way this television would be more like the good old crt.

But it is possible they use the same type of chips as for the dlp projector. Where the laser is at an semi-constant power output( the darker the screen, the less power the lasers output, similair to dynamic contrast with lcd screens.) and let the mirror chips control the light output through pwm. Pwm is a way to control a signal by changing it's duty cycle. Explanation from wiki :

Duty cycle is the proportion of time during which a component, device, mirror or system is operated. Suppose a disk drive operates for 1 second, and is shut off for 99 seconds, then is run for 1 second again, and so on. The drive runs for one out of 100 seconds, or 1/100 of the time, and its duty cycle is therefore 1/100, or 1 percent.


RE: Why DLP?
By mcnabney on 11/1/2008 9:22:27 PM , Rating: 2
This is not a scanning laser. The laser 'beam' is spread out to cover the entire DLP chip and the reflected light from there is widened with prisms out to the the full screen. I don't know if this TV is wobulated to double the DLP chip's resolution from 960x1080 to 1920x1080. The only difference between this TV and the current Samsung LED DLPs is that the R G & B LED lights are replaced by R G & B laser diodes.


RE: Why DLP?
By William Gaatjes on 11/2/2008 6:41:20 AM , Rating: 2
Really ? That is a personal setback for me.

A scanning laser could have been better on condition that the diameter of the laser spot could be made small enough. Plus you don't need pre processing only synchronisation. No artefacting would be present. That is to bad.

6 to 5 years ago i saw the projection feed of a dlp projector from barco that could do 1920x1080 HD on a 8meter by 6meter (24 feet by 18 feet) screen. The resolution was high enough even on that screen size. That should not be a problem. But the electronics inside where lightning fast and thus expensive. Coming back to the artifacts i see with lcd screens and in lesser extent with plasma screens.

O well, if the colors are better and the contrast is really higher without dynamic background lighting tricks i don't mind it cannot hang from the wall. I prefer standing on solid round anyway.


RE: Why DLP?
By mcnabney on 11/2/2008 11:48:32 PM , Rating: 2
Only a computer running Deep Color will receive the full benefit of this display. BluRay does not support Deep Color and I don't anticipate another generation of media for a while.
It hasn't been mentioned, but I imagine that the "dot pitch" would be superior with the laser versus a lamp or LED lightsource. That may allow a sharper image, but I could be wrong.


Cheaper to make...
By Zorlac on 10/30/2008 4:58:33 PM , Rating: 2
When I first read about these amazing displays, it was said that they are cheaper to manufacturer than current display technology.

I also like the fact that the lasers are either on or off for the life of the display....no fading back light after several years. Also, the individual laser guns can be replaced (supposedly) if you have the display long enough for one to fail in the first place.

This is definitely the future. Just wait for a few generations for a better price like those above have already stated. :)

Next up - LASER PC MONITORS!!!1




Nice.
By homernoy on 10/30/2008 10:35:25 PM , Rating: 2
Well, if the tech doesn't make the cut, the adverts certainly do. I took one look at that TV and said: "I have to have that!" I mean, didn't you?




More info, pictures and commersial
By cane on 10/31/2008 2:07:12 AM , Rating: 2
Have a look at this page:
http://www.oled-display.info/mitsubishi-laser-tv-l...

It also has a small comparison between Pioneer's Kuro and Mitsubishi’s LaserVue.




A few questions
By SlyNine on 10/31/2008 5:27:25 PM , Rating: 2
Is this a lot more accurate then CRT's. Does this suffer from covergance problems?

How does it compare to OLED as far as color reproduction?

Can I plug my computer in to this and get an actual 120 fps in Unreal. If so I'd love a 24inch version as a computer monitor.




10" deep... total non-issue
By gochichi on 10/31/2008 10:14:47 PM , Rating: 2
You know, while we noted such a great benefit from LCD monitors in terms of space saving... and we were mesmerized by the whole "hanging the TV on the wall thing". TV depth is way overated as an issue.

The truth is hanging a TV on a wall is alright... but hardly a "must have". I have among others a 36" SONY TRINITRON HDTV... the weight is a deal breaker, the depth is a non-issue. Matter of fact, if the TV had no depth, it would look smaller by about 5 to 10 inches. That, and/or there would be empty space to showcase the tremendous amount of cables coming from and to the TV. So anyhow, 10 inches of depth is negligible and will only translate into a "bigger image" in the end.

It's really kind of silly to me, that we want to have super thin and then double the price (going from 50" to 60" for example seems to about double the price)to make up for the foot or two further that we had to get away fromt the TV in "actual experience size".

This new technology is really quite exciting, I hope it's actually all that and a bag of chips. I definitely look forward to seeing something like this at Circuit City or whatever. LCD projection TVs BTW (got mine for $300.00... which is outrageous but a true story) are alright, the depth isn't the issue with mine at all... nor the weight, the weight is awesome... but rather the rather dim picture in the day time.

I've always wanted a plasma, but it's never made it to the final selection. I have zero experience with plasma.

Now, one final note: My 24" computer LCD monitor is fine, it doesn't emmit much heat at all (though some). But the 32" LCD TV is a monster heater (I use it as a monitor) to the point where it's not that good to have in front of you. So what they don't mention with the 135W deal is that it's also going to run really nice and cool.

I am a little bit curious about the weight, though like most I'm not buying a $7,000.00 TV ... probably ever. It would take FOREVER for me to have that kind of money... b/c I'd give it away a bunch, donate it to charity, invest it etc etc. so I'd have to have it many many times over before spending it on a TV. Maybe if I made $14,000 a month after tax... I think I probably would then. (Not happening unfortunately). :( Now i'm sad.

Now the "energy savings" in terms of bills, well... that clearly would never be worthwhile $ wise.




By Jawadali on 11/1/2008 4:42:40 PM , Rating: 2
This TV looks pretty good, but the quoted price is 3 times higher than the the 67" Samsung HL67A750, which IMHO is the most comparable TV to this one currently on the market: http://www.samsung.com/us/consumer/detail/spec.do?...

(the set is currently on sale at Amazon.com for ~$2000: http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-HL67A750-67-Inch-108...

The Samsung seems to be comparable in size/depth and power consumption, and it also has the other features mentioned like 120hz refresh rate and 3D.

The only reason I point this out is because I was looking to purchase a new TV in the 55"-70" range within the next year or so, and at these sizes, plasma and LCD offerings are much more expensive (2-3x) than the DLP models.




We have learned already that LCD, Plasma is trash
By on 10/30/08, Rating: -1
RE: We have learned already that LCD, Plasma is trash
By Spuke on 10/30/2008 7:19:47 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, your average comment rating is -.28! ROFLMAO!!!


RE: We have learned already that LCD, Plasma is trash
By Clauzii on 10/30/2008 8:00:56 PM , Rating: 3
In the meantime ... -0.34 :D

Some weird game You have going, PLAYSTATION THREE???

You need some total ordinary Race Grid, NFS or something to calm down a bit ;)


RE: We have learned already that LCD, Plasma is trash
By on 10/30/08, Rating: -1
RE: We have learned already that LCD, Plasma is trash
By Clauzii on 10/30/2008 8:26:54 PM , Rating: 3
When You stop calling the PS3 God!


By flyingrooster on 10/31/2008 1:19:53 PM , Rating: 1
You're just mad because you can't afford anything else than a 13" CRT.


RE: We have learned already that LCD, Plasma is trash
By on 10/31/08, Rating: -1
By omnicronx on 10/31/2008 8:26:11 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
(loved it for its thickness)
Thats probably not the only thing you love for its thickness...


"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki