Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 13th May 2009 10:23 UTC
Permalink for comment 363456
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-10-09
A few years ago you couldn't get away from all the "AMD rocks, Intel is teh sux0rz" comments, whining about Intel's monopoly. Then came the Core 2, and everybody jumped ship for faster speed (plus Intel did a massive ad campaign). And yes, it's always been suspicious / annoying that so many OEMs don't sell enough (or any) AMD chips (ahem, Dell).
I guess the really dumb question is whether Intel would ever consider buying AMD (if the latter dies), letting their engineers work on a separate fork of a cpu "for comparison". Hey, internal competition, better than nothing, right? But there's probably too much personal animosity to let that happen. Still, we all admit "friendly" competition is good ... but not getting along helps nobody.
P.S. Anybody else tired of the SSSE3 / SSE4.1 / 4.2 / 4a / SSE5 / AVX crapola? God forbid they work together to develop a single standard!