Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 10th Sep 2007 15:54 UTC, submitted by Josh Graham
AMD AMD has unveiled its first set of quad-core processors, three months after its original launch date. This 'complicated' design that resulted in the delay and puts the chip maker a full generation behind its archrival in terms of chip manufacturing processes.
Thread beginning with comment 270126
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: amd
by aliquis on Tue 11th Sep 2007 03:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: amd"
aliquis
Member since:
2005-07-23

Microsoft really didn't jumped on AMD64, they seemed to pretty much ignore it until Intel went in and started using the instructions aswell. Sucks for AMD and pretty bad by Microsoft but it's what happened.

I hate when people say "omg AMD are so dead now, Intel rules!", wtf, Intel just have the lead for a short while, it's not that big of a deal. Also AMD have been in way worse positions earlier considering the started from nothing, didn't they? So sure it might not be as good of a position as it was 1-2 years ago but it's still better than what they started with. This is not the end of the world as we know it.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: amd
by smitty on Tue 11th Sep 2007 04:31 in reply to "RE[3]: amd"
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

That's not really true. Although MS didn't really put out a product until there was quite a bit of hardware out, Intel's original plan after seeing AMD64 was to create their own alternative like they did with SSE vs 3DNow. MS basically told them that they were only going to support 1 64-bit extension to x86, and that since they had already started on AMD64 that Intel could either use that or go without support from MS. Intel caved.

Edited 2007-09-11 04:34

Reply Parent Score: 3