LOL
Sorry but thats just funny, smack B
Sorry but thats just funny, smack B
1 - 20 of 72 Posts
2
Quote:
![]()
What does Matrox have to do with x86?
AMD already knew Intel would attempt to block their split and probably had lawyers/game plan ready months ago. This is probably an intended move by AMD. What's so dire about it?
Originally Posted by Weedvender Intel didn't see this comming? AMD didn't see this comming? Matrox didn't see this comming??? Lol This is turning into a rather dire situation. |
What does Matrox have to do with x86?
AMD already knew Intel would attempt to block their split and probably had lawyers/game plan ready months ago. This is probably an intended move by AMD. What's so dire about it?
2
now the whole world will know how evil really intel is.
![]()
kidding. of course intel wants to have as much as money as this time of situation. but i wish they'd care more for the money of the people. and fight fair and square, like a real man!
![]()
kidding. of course intel wants to have as much as money as this time of situation. but i wish they'd care more for the money of the people. and fight fair and square, like a real man!
Companies feel the pinch as much as we do...
They get berated for laying of thousands of workers, and they get berated for resorting to business practices that might keep them from laying off thousands more.
Not defending Intel per say, just saying - damned if they do, and damned if they don't.
Class warfare is becoming common... sigh.
![]()
They get berated for laying of thousands of workers, and they get berated for resorting to business practices that might keep them from laying off thousands more.
Not defending Intel per say, just saying - damned if they do, and damned if they don't.
Class warfare is becoming common... sigh.
2
Quote:
Been looking at matrox recently, a lot. Wanted to get it out.
Back on topic.
I said dire before I gave it enough though. I gave AMD too little credit. I too believe they planned/prepared for this.
Originally Posted by DuckieHo
What does Matrox have to do with x86? AMD already knew Intel would attempt to block their split and probably had lawyers/game plan ready months ago. This is probably an intended move by AMD. What's so dire about it? |
Back on topic.
I said dire before I gave it enough though. I gave AMD too little credit. I too believe they planned/prepared for this.
3
AMD knows they've already won
![]()
Quote:
X64 (or AMD64/x86_64) isn't a separate architecture, its an extension of x86, which is intel's IP.
Back when 64 bit processors were just starting intel tried going full 64bit, with the Itanium, but that failed hard so they came to an agreement with AMD to use their 64bit extension, which still allowed 32bit. Of course, intel claims that they just happened to invent their own 64bit extension that just so happens to be identical to AMD's. Thats why when you run CPU-Z on an intel processor you see EM64T instead of AMD64
![]()
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuntz AMD owns X64 entirely, they can just drop X86 and move forward into the future. Intel would be screwed. |
Back when 64 bit processors were just starting intel tried going full 64bit, with the Itanium, but that failed hard so they came to an agreement with AMD to use their 64bit extension, which still allowed 32bit. Of course, intel claims that they just happened to invent their own 64bit extension that just so happens to be identical to AMD's. Thats why when you run CPU-Z on an intel processor you see EM64T instead of AMD64
Quote:
Not true. 86 would be hard to move from. At the time being 64.
Originally Posted by Kuntz AMD owns X64 entirely, they can just drop X86 and move forward into the future. Intel would be screwed. |
2
Quote:
I think Itanium failed because it was super-expensive and there were no 64bit software adaption from the market except for few linux flavors (no real apps)
Moreover, Intel reverse-engineered AMD64, fully legal, no?
Originally Posted by nathris Back when 64 bit processors were just starting intel tried going full 64bit, with the Itanium, but that failed hard so they came to an agreement with AMD to use their 64bit extension, which still allowed 32bit. Of course, intel claims that they just happened to invent their own 64bit extension that just so happens to be identical to AMD's. Thats why when you run CPU-Z on an intel processor you see EM64T instead of AMD64
|
Moreover, Intel reverse-engineered AMD64, fully legal, no?
Quote:
no.
i doubt windows can run on a 64-bit processor completely independent of any x86 hardware etc. and do you think that OEM's would stick with a 64-bit processor when they find out their consumers have found they cannot run their apps and then start returning?
i know this argument is largely hypothetical and unfounded but give it a thought nonetheless - look at Linux on netbooks as an abstract example. look at how many linux netbooks have been returned simply because their users don't want to learn how to use linux or find it inapplicable for their needs
x86 is STILL needed. backwards compatibility, and don't forget it. and don't say the end user simply needs to learn how to use it - they don't want to learn
Originally Posted by Kuntz AMD owns X64 entirely, they can just drop X86 and move forward into the future. Intel would be screwed. |
i doubt windows can run on a 64-bit processor completely independent of any x86 hardware etc. and do you think that OEM's would stick with a 64-bit processor when they find out their consumers have found they cannot run their apps and then start returning?
i know this argument is largely hypothetical and unfounded but give it a thought nonetheless - look at Linux on netbooks as an abstract example. look at how many linux netbooks have been returned simply because their users don't want to learn how to use linux or find it inapplicable for their needs
x86 is STILL needed. backwards compatibility, and don't forget it. and don't say the end user simply needs to learn how to use it - they don't want to learn
1 - 20 of 72 Posts
