AMD Trashtalks Intel Big Time, Claims All Innovation

[Draconian Guppy]

I can't help but notice that all of the AMD supporters seem to have spelling errors in their comments...

AMD can't complain about this call anyway - it wasn't their decision. Microsoft are the ones to take aim at. I do remember them saying "We will not change the X64 standard if Intel decides to go against AMD". Thus, Intel was forced to use the AMD X64 extensions.

(Correct me if I'm wrong on that) But it seems that innovation isn't made by Intel or AMD, but the software companies that use the processors!

:blush:

[Phalesafe]

I have never seen an AMD ad, but I have seen the AMD logo on a couple of Dell and DP commercials.

Here is the first one K6-2 With 3D Now! which at any frequency underperformed the Pentium II. Although it was cool to run Quake with Anti Aliasing without having a Voodoo inside your PC at the time. :laugh: (via 3d Now!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGnhgH_TPCQ

This was the only other one I have seen since the K6-2 commercial, since then I don't think there has been one aside from the next link.

This must be a fairly recent one.

On a side note this is my favorite computer related commercial from the K6-2 Days :rofl:

Ohh and as far as Ruiz is concerned. He is the ****ing Hugo Chavez of CEOs and he should drink a nice hot cup of shut the **** up and resign as I don't think he can drive AMD and ATI any further into the ground. Which really ****es me off as I was AMD all the way till I could finally afford Intel CPUs, aside from my 486 DX4 100Mhz back in 94'.

Edited December 3, 2007 by Bosaka

[shakey_snake]

You can have a better R&D department and still be far behind in the area of production.

This is in fact the case here.

[sonicspike41]

Hypothetically, it would be interesting if AMD and Intel merged a bit. AMD's R&D and their innovation for future ideas along with Intel's greater refinement and speed enhances of AMD's ideas.

[Draconian Guppy]

Hypothetically, it would be interesting if AMD and Intel merged a bit. AMD's R&D and their innovation for future ideas along with Intel's greater refinement and speed enhances of AMD's ideas.

Core 2 Phenom :p ? Quad Phenom? :wacko:

[zivan56]

Someone is forgetting that over 90% of buses, controllers, and PICs that are in a modern computer were developed by Intel. How about that IA-32 instruction set which virtually every single consumer PC supports? PCI bus? The list is miles long...virtually every single computer on the planet, no matter what the purpose, is using at least 1 technology that Intel invented. So AMD should be thankful that it didn't need to invent these...they have a common license allowing both companies to use some technologies developed by both either one of them.

[shakey_snake]

^

If that's the case then both companies are indebted to Texas Instruments...

...Oh yeah, they are.

We can widen the scope of this argument even further, but I think it's clear Ruiz was focusing on advances made in the last 5-10 years or so.

[jamend]

I kind of sympathize with him... Here are a few technologies that AMD introduced before Intel:

- x64

- HyperTransport

- Integrated memory controllers

- Multi-core

Intel has already adopted multi-core and x64. With Intel's next chip (after Penryn, codenamed Nehalem), Intel will use CSI/QuickPath (HyperTransport) and integrated memory controllers.

Intel's technological development has been a bit lacking over the past decade. I think the last "big thing" that they did was designing the Pentium Pro in 1995, a RISC processor with CISC interpreters to overcome x86's limitations. Since then they've triued and failed with 2 architectural overhauls: Itanium (a server processor that was supposed to eventually be adopted by consumers) and Netburst (Pentium 4). I think a lot of people forget that Intel's Core/Core 2 architecture is just the continuation of what started with the Pentium Pro, since Intel back-peddled after giving up on the Pentim 4.

AMD's problem is that they spend too much money on R&D and not enough on manufacturing and marketing. Their designs are ahead of Intel's (well they used to be, now they're lagging), but it costs them too much, leaving them with limited resources for manufactoring technology and marketing.

[Pc_Madness]

The only thing I can think of Intel bringing in in the last 5 years is hyperthreading. AMD has what Cephas mentioned above.

Still, no excuse for AMD to be bragging, they're not exactly in a good position atm.

[satishsays.com]

Yes, i don't see any advertising on the telly about AMD. You sure do see them in the mags and stuff, but who will reach out. The man on the street knows more about Intel than AMD.

No matter how good a product is, it needs advertising, and that is where AMD loses out to Intel.

[MightyJordan]

I think the processor wars are gonna go in a pattern here. AMD dominate the single core market, but Intel dominate the dual-core market. My prediction is that AMD will dominate the quad-core market, then Intel will dominate whatever comes next, and so on.

[chconline Veteran]

Hypothetically, it would be interesting if AMD and Intel merged a bit. AMD's R&D and their innovation for future ideas along with Intel's greater refinement and speed enhances of AMD's ideas.

Do you think a monopoly would bother with anything? Even if they will, you'd be choking down $600 processors as base price as what the AMD Athlon 64 X2 began as.

I think the processor wars are gonna go in a pattern here. AMD dominate the single core market, but Intel dominate the dual-core market. My prediction is that AMD will dominate the quad-core market, then Intel will dominate whatever comes next, and so on.

Not really, Intel first started out dominating the single core, then the Athlon 64 came along, and they continued to dominate in the dual core market until July 2007 as the Core 2 Duos were rolled out. Intel then continued with their quad cores, etc. AMD's current quad cores are a joke as far as I am concerned, so it's not working out well for AMD regardless. :p

[Miuku.]

The list is miles long...virtually every single computer on the planet, no matter what the purpose, is using at least 1 technology that Intel invented.

Ah we're ever so thankful for the excellent x86 design that has plagued us for the past decades.

Thank you Intel for the amazing memory mapping on x86, thank you for the PCI inefficiency and shared bus, thank you for all the truly retarded and shortsighted design decisions made in the past.

And most of all - thank you for the excellent Intel assembler. Sense no sarcasm.

[meningitis]

intel is evil for making core 2 duo amd is king all hail amd

[WelshBluebird]

Hypothetically, it would be interesting if AMD and Intel merged a bit. AMD's R&D and their innovation for future ideas along with Intel's greater refinement and speed enhances of AMD's ideas.

and along with the exponential increase in CPU prices, and the following investigation for being a monopoly.

[itsnotabigtruck]

amd is king they invented core 2 duo

quoted for teh lulz.

I really hope AMD doesn't completely fail, as competition is the only thing keeping Intel's and nVidia's prices in check.

[Andre S. Veteran]

its somewhat true though...

everything new i hear about is coming from AMD, all i hear from intel is "hey we made it a bit smaller".

Well, "making it a bit smaller" is at least 90% of the reason processors have increased in performance since the invention of the transistor. Now that we're reaching quantum limits, yeah we need new ways of improving performance, but "making it a bit smaller" is even greater innovation when it happens, from the fact that's its getting harder and harder. Making a 45nm transistor is no small feat, aligning millions on a tiny wafer of silicon with a reliable manufacturing process even less. I find that much more impressive than dual-quad-octo-mega-cores. Parallel processing also puts an additionnal burden on the programmer whereas simply making the chip faster alleviates it.

[Deactivated Account]

I just made a Poll.. - https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=604582

Do you think AMD should run World wide TV ads?

(YES) or (NO)

Please No Chat Only Cast your Vote

[meningitis]

i made ppl mad :(

[Trong]

i made ppl mad :(

What do you think happens when a troll starts posting?

[ViperAFK]

I hope AMD can make a comeback, imagine what cpu prices would be without AMD

[shakey_snake]

I hope AMD can make a comeback, imagine what cpu prices would be without AMD

About the same, if not cheaper.

But innovation would slow way down, since Intel would have little reason to make better chips.

[SnowRanger13]

Ah we're ever so thankful for the excellent x86 design that has plagued us for the past decades.

Thank you Intel for the amazing memory mapping on x86, thank you for the PCI inefficiency and shared bus, thank you for all the truly retarded and shortsighted design decisions made in the past.

And most of all - thank you for the excellent Intel assembler. Sense no sarcasm.

You nailed it :p

[1Frothy]

About the same, if not cheaper.

But innovation would slow way down, since Intel would have little reason to make better chips.

:D right, it's not like AMD has anything that can compete with Intel's C2D ... Still!

[zivan56]

Ah we're ever so thankful for the excellent x86 design that has plagued us for the past decades.

Thank you Intel for the amazing memory mapping on x86, thank you for the PCI inefficiency and shared bus, thank you for all the truly retarded and shortsighted design decisions made in the past.

And most of all - thank you for the excellent Intel assembler. Sense no sarcasm.

I would say for the backwards compatibility that the x86 instruction set/mode offers, I am quite thankful. Everything is backwards compatible...which is a great accomplishment considering the huge architectural changes that took place (try running/compiling old ASM based software on x64 by any chance?).

I would say PCI, especially since it was invented in 1990, was quite ahead of it's time then. Perhaps you would like to bash the ISA bus as well? It's like saying the Ford Model T was a crappy car and inefficient...I guess that design was shortsighted as well? Keep in mind the requirement of the past and the requirements today, they couldn't have even predicted what is happening today in the late 1980's when they developed it...especially considering the technology back then.