Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Building The Linux Kernel In 60 Seconds

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    I was under the impression that AMD recently announced that, for now, it gives up trying to compete with Intel since they can't touch Intel's performance:

    http://www.techspot.com/news/46479-a...ed-to-x86.html

    So what exactly is the discussion in this thread about?

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by RealNC View Post
      I was under the impression that AMD recently announced that, for now, it gives up trying to compete with Intel since they can't touch Intel's performance:

      http://www.techspot.com/news/46479-a...ed-to-x86.html

      So what exactly is the discussion in this thread about?
      Could you please add some more FUD to your interpretation of that?

      The only thing AMD said was that x86 is a proprietary Intel architecture, and that they'd be willing to consider focusing on ways to beat Intel, rather than a never ending battle to out-clone Intel on x86, considering Intel adds new patents to the architecture every year to prevent anybody from catching up too fast.

      Besides, AMD has been competitive on price/performance for 30 years running, and there's no reason to think they won't be anytime soon. What exactly are you talking about?

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by leeenux View Post
        Besides, AMD has been competitive on price/performance for 30 years running, and there's no reason to think they won't be anytime soon. What exactly are you talking about?
        "Although AMD says they are still committed to x86, at the very least it would seem they are done trying to go head to head with Intel at the top end. They haven't been able to produce a high-end processor to match Intel's enthusiast offerings for quite a while, and though many had hoped to see AMD back in the game after the company revived its much-ballyhooed FX brand, that clearly wasn't the case."

        There's really not many ways I can interpret the above. Unless you go to great lengths in order to beat your own meaning into it using a sledgehammer.
        Last edited by RealNC; 18 December 2011, 08:16 PM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by RealNC View Post
          "Although AMD says they are still committed to x86, at the very least it would seem they are done trying to go head to head with Intel at the top end. They haven't been able to produce a high-end processor to match Intel's enthusiast offerings for quite a while, and though many had hoped to see AMD back in the game after the company revived its much-ballyhooed FX brand, that clearly wasn't the case."

          There's really not many ways I can interpret the above. Unless you go to great lengths in order to beat your own meaning into it using a sledgehammer.
          Jeez man, you need help. You are not quoting anything that AMD said, you're quoting some journalist's interpretation.

          You're interpreting the author of the articles interpretation of the AMD rep's statement, and then you're suggesting that I'm trying to shoehorn my own thoughts into the article by directly interpreting AMD's statement instead of interpreting your interpretation of the author's intrepretation of the AMD rep's statement. Just wow... I'll draw this out:

          ________AMD reps statement
          ________/______________ \
          My Interpretation ___Author''s Interpretation
          _______________________|
          __________________RealNC's interpretation


          Yup, there's no doubt about it, they definitely said what somebody else thinks they said that you believe knows what he's talking about.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by leeenux View Post
            Jeez man, you need help. You are not quoting anything that AMD said, you're quoting some journalist's interpretation.

            You're interpreting the author of the articles interpretation of the AMD rep's statement, and then you're suggesting that I'm trying to shoehorn my own thoughts into the article by directly interpreting AMD's statement instead of interpreting your interpretation of the author's intrepretation of the AMD rep's statement. Just wow... I'll draw this out:

            ________AMD reps statement
            ________/______________ \
            My Interpretation ___Author''s Interpretation
            _______________________|
            __________________RealNC's interpretation


            Yup, there's no doubt about it, they definitely said what somebody else thinks they said that you believe knows what he's talking about.
            Just love fanboyism. Even though it's in black and white in front of you, you refuse to see it. As if AMD would admit themselves that they currently can't offer the same performance. Man, nobody does that. A corporation doesn't admit defeat. They always word it carefully and in a generic way.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by RealNC View Post
              Just love fanboyism. Even though it's in black and white in front of you, you refuse to see it. As if AMD would admit themselves that they currently can't offer the same performance. Man, nobody does that. A corporation doesn't admit defeat. They always word it carefully and in a generic way.
              Dude, you are a piece of work. Now you're saying that "we all know what they really meant", which means that you interpreting what they said to suit your own fanboyism == truth, and me taking what they say at face value and cross-referencing it with real world facts == fanboyism.

              Pot.. kettle.. black.. etc... but with an extra handful of hypocrisy thrown in.

              Comment

              Working...
              X