Print 62 comment(s) - last by JackPack.. on Mar 2 at 2:02 PM

Skype's decision to release Intel-only features on its newest software refresh may have been a poor idea

Last month we wrote a small piece about the upcoming Skype 2.0 features that are only enabled for Intel processors.  AMD is hoping to add another spear to its ranks by demanding Skype documents that prove or disprove Intel provided incentives to Skype for this favor.  Intel denies the allegations

A Skype executive declined to comment earlier this month when asked whether the company had tested the performance of its software on both Intel's and AMD's dual-core chips. An Intel representative confirmed that there are no instructions that specifically enhance the performance of voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) software like Skype's in Intel's dual-core chips.

This is not the first time this year for an AMD-Intel legal battle.  AMD has been building anti-trust cases against Intel in Japan, the US and Korea for over a year, claiming that Intel leverages its buyers and distributors to not carry AMD products.  Of course, AMD's 21.4% marketshare is looking pretty good to the company right now, monopoly or not. 

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

AMD should have a bigger marketshare than 21%
By 5150Joker on 3/1/2006 5:32:31 AM , Rating: 2
AMD should have a much bigger share than 21% right now given how good their chips are. Of course I'm sure they're limited by their production capability but I doubt they're still selling chips faster than they can make.

By Griswold on 3/1/2006 6:29:42 AM , Rating: 2
That is why AMD wants to drag Intel to court for anti-trust claims.

Plus, AMD's marketing still blows donkeynuts.

RE: AMD should have a bigger marketshare than 21%
By SunAngel on 3/1/2006 6:45:54 AM , Rating: 1
21% marketshare for AMD? Wow, I would have never guessed Intel would have let that happen. Goes to show you, again, I am the last to learn of anything.

Are AMD processors that good? A decade ago they were used in low-grade machines. I'm having a hard time believing media hype. I feel the same way with the iPod. I just can't image people are spending as much as $500US on an mp3 player.

Hardware costs to music costs, a decade ago, were Walkmans were as much as $50 and musical cassette tapes were $10, or 5:1. Today, they are $500 for iPod and $20 for cd. That is 25:1. No matter how much I read in the news you can not make me believe these things are being bought.

By 5150Joker on 3/1/2006 6:51:06 AM , Rating: 2
ipods are bought only because it's trendy, not because they're that much better than alternative much cheaper mp3 players. To answer your question, yes AMD chips really are that much better than current Intel chips, especially their dual core solutions.

By Mudvillager on 3/1/2006 6:56:34 AM , Rating: 1
imo you're wrong. i've bought the three latest generations of the "real" ipod and the reason is most certainly not because i wanna feel trendy. all other mp3 players that i've tried has a ui that simply cannot compare with the ipod's ui.

however i second your amd statement :)

RE: AMD should have a bigger marketshare than 21%
By Zoomer on 3/1/2006 8:36:07 AM , Rating: 1
Who cares about UI, if it works, that's enough. :p

Features would be like better DACs, better battery life, etc.

RE: AMD should have a bigger marketshare than 21%
By jamori on 3/1/2006 1:48:03 PM , Rating: 2
Offtopic, but I absolutely loathe the iPod UI / music management. I already have all my music organized by folder -- I don't want to have to go through and create a 'playlist' for each folder if I want to easily find all my music by X artist. Just let me drag-and-drop my folders of music, and play one folder at a time like many other players do.

I only have an iPod because I got one free during that whole 'freeipods' craze :)

By michael2k on 3/1/2006 2:43:32 PM , Rating: 2
Why do you need to create playlists, if you already have them sorted?

On an iPod you need only navigate Music->Artist and you have all the songs by each artist.

The strength of the music management, which you aren't taking advantage of, is that iTunes will by default organize your music (by album, artist, and genre), exactly the same way that your OS manages your harddrive.

You don't go out of your way to organize inodes, sectors, tracks, and file fragments, right? You let the OS handle it.

Another strength you don't seem to want to take advantage of is Smart Playlists, in which all it takes to create a playlist of X artist is to create a rule in a filter "music by Artist X".

And a weakness you do want to take advantage of is to manually manage your music. In this day and age you want to go through all your folders, one by one, and drag and drop, instead of letting iTunes autosync (whether it be by playlist, artist, genre, album, playcount, or rating, since you get to decide).

For example if by playlist you can do the following:
All songs in the following two playlists:
All songs unrated
All songs rated 3 or higher

By Zoomer on 3/2/2006 3:12:27 AM , Rating: 2
The only problem is that they try to pollute music folders with some files.

RE: AMD should have a bigger marketshare than 21%
By Bonrock on 3/1/2006 12:34:32 PM , Rating: 3
You're right. A decade ago, AMD processors were used only in low-grade machines. Hell, even five or six years ago, AMD systems did not offer the kind of reliability and flawless operation that Intel systems did (largely because of the crappy chipsets available for AMD processors).

I used to quietly root for AMD because they were the underdog, but I knew Intel was better in every measurable way except price. Well, times have changed. AMD's Athlon 64 and Opteron processors are outstanding, and their dual-core processors can't be touched by Intel's. Intel is still ahead in the laptop market, but AMD rules the desktop -- not just on price, but performance too. If you're skeptical, I strongly suggest you check out some benchmarks yourself.

There's a big difference between the "media hype" around AMD and the media hype around the iPod. The media has long been favorable towards Apple's products, so I can understand your skepticism there. However, bear in mind that until relatively recently, the media (especially the hardcore tech mags like Maximum PC) had a tendency to be quite punishing towards AMD. I don't think there's any hype there.

By michael2k on 3/1/2006 7:22:34 PM , Rating: 2
How long ago was it that Apple bore similar dislike?

When they were perpetually beleaguered, insolvent, and ridiculed for being the other computer manufacturer?

The rise of Apple, recently, is that unlike AMD, with both being the underdog that made an incredible turnaround.

By michael2k on 3/1/2006 6:59:13 PM , Rating: 2
Regarding the iPod:
If you have, say, 400 CDs that you bought, worth roughly $10 each, that's $4k of music.

You can think of an iPod as an archive and backup; you lose the iPod, or damage the iPod, and your collection is still safe. Unlike a folder of burned CDs, you also have the capability of carrying an iPod in your pocket.

So if you compare the value of a Walkman:Tape as 5:1, the value of your entire collection to an iPod is 1:8; in that light, it's actually worth much more than a Walkman, don't you think? That was the original value proposition of the 5 gb iPods in 2001; now you can get 4gb Nanos for $249, much cheaper and smaller and cooler, and instead of a 1:8 value, it is 1:16.

"I mean, if you wanna break down someone's door, why don't you start with AT&T, for God sakes? They make your amazing phone unusable as a phone!" -- Jon Stewart on Apple and the iPhone

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki