[NOS2Go4Me]

http://techreport.com/

If this is true, it upsets YEARS of benchmarking tests and results between AMD and Intel. I mean, HOLY CRAP.

I feel very dirty having all Intel servers and workstations in here at the office now, moreso than before.

That's just... wrong. That's like giving two kids bicycles, and then cutting one pedal off one bicycle because you're afraid the kid you don't like will win a race between the two. Worst yet, said race results in revenue and profit for your company if your favourite kid wins.

Sad.

[darkpuppet]

NOS2Go4Me,Jul 13 2005, 01:37 PM Wrote:http://techreport.com/

If this is true, it upsets YEARS of benchmarking tests and results between AMD and Intel. I mean, HOLY CRAP.

I feel very dirty having all Intel servers and workstations in here at the office now, moreso than before.

That's just... wrong. That's like giving two kids bicycles, and then cutting one pedal off one bicycle because you're afraid the kid you don't like will win a race between the two. Worst yet, said race results in revenue and profit for your company if your favourite kid wins.

Sad.
[right][snapback]121811[/snapback][/right]

benchmarks have always been skewed, and yet, AMD still holds up to Intel.

i personally don't really get the BIG deal behind this, because everyone isn't forced to use the Intel compilers... get a better compiler than the crap intel supplies or patch it, and you'll be fine. It's intel branded compiler, so they can do whatever they want with it.

While it's another piece of the puzzle in the antitrust case, this is far from an unusual business tactic.

this has been the case for a LONG time... developers worth their salt usually find these problems and account for it in their development... and that's why nobody notices the problem until they want to do something like fortran with an intel compiler.

just a sec, I'm going to fire up my rs6000 cobol compiler and see if it optimizes code paths for intel...

[Aka]

This has been around for years IIRC. Though I don't think Intel should break things for competitors, they certianly don't have to support AMDs extensions or test with AMDs.

[NOS2Go4Me]

Aka,Jul 13 2005, 02:03 PM Wrote:This has been around for years IIRC. Though I don't think Intel should break things for competitors, they certianly don't have to support AMDs extensions or test with AMDs.
[right][snapback]121824[/snapback][/right]

You guys are missing the point. It's about letting AMD run instructions that they've engineered for. They have cross-licensing to support the SSE/SSE2/SSE3 instruction sets. Obviously AMD would test with M's compiler in this case to ensure their chips support the instruction set fully before releasing it to the general public.
Intel's playing dirty pool and only allowing the SSE-related codepaths to be enabled if the CPUID registers show a "GenuineIntel" product.

It's exactly the same as AMD and X86-64. AMD developed the code, Intel cross-licensed it, changed a few instructions and modified it for Hyper-Threading instructions. They then called it EM64T and demanded MS support it in addition to AMD X86-64. MS caved and even delayed the full final test release of the XP Pro 64-bit to accomodate the launch of the Intel EM64T-enabled P4s.

It's disgusting. There's no other word for it.

[Aka]

I didn't miss the point at all. I strung two thoughts together that I probably shouldn't have.

[darkpuppet]

the point is that intel is 80% of the desktop market and is trying it's darndest to hold it's lead in the face of inadequate technology.

it's their compiler, they can do whatever they want to it. You think AMD's own benchmarks were designed to run favourably on Intel? They aren't. It's the same as all the Mac benchmarks that show performance gains over Intel... Intel is fully in their right, to disable features, cross licensed or not, that they don't want to run on anything other then their own hardware.

The fact alone that they did this would make no difference in an anti-trust lawsuit, however, piled on top of other things, it further demonstrates an active strategy to cripple AMD's growth.

i'm more concerned that Intel made policy to hurt vendors that didn't deal with them exclusively.. that's a more damning accusation than an intel-branded product being designed to not work on a competitor's product.

Any developer worth their salt wouldn't develop solely on intel's compiler as-is.

The whole antitrust lawsuit against intel may actually do more damage to AMD in the long run than it's worth. A settlement or ruling of a few hundred million dollars isn't going to make a very big difference in the market where the two main competitors are worth tens of billions.

AMD seems to be clueless as far as marketing strategy goes, since they're spending zero time actually building a brand name that is recognizeable by the mass market. How many people take notice of the AMD sticker on the Ferrari Formula 1 cars, and go buy AMD becuase of that?

AMD isn't like intel where everyone knows them immediately... and even Intel has mainstream tv commercials and ads to actively build their brand.

AMD has lost the pulse of what matters in the market right now, and are trying to bully a way into the lead, when a bit more finese would have been a lot more effective.

[Kool_ZX3]

This is why i told intel to suck my balls long ago and will buy nothing but amd till the day i die, intel flat out sucks horse nuts and can drop off a cliff :lol: Pricks :angry: Almost every computer builder/computer nerd i know use amd, and most people are using amd processor's now and not intel's. My brother bought a laptop and it had a pos intel 4, he wanted a amd the most but couldn't find one.

[Aka]

darkpuppet,Jul 13 2005, 03:10 PM Wrote:How many people take notice of the AMD sticker on the Ferrari Formula 1 cars, and go buy AMD becuase of that?
[right][snapback]121853[/snapback][/right]

I take notice of it every race. I love how AMD is part of the Ferrari team.

Also, AMD DOES have ads, I've seen a few, mostly in computer magazines though.

[darkpuppet]

Aka,Jul 13 2005, 03:34 PM Wrote:

darkpuppet,Jul 13 2005, 03:10 PM Wrote:How many people take notice of the AMD sticker on the Ferrari Formula 1 cars, and go buy AMD becuase of that?
[right][snapback]121853[/snapback][/right]

I take notice of it every race. I love how AMD is part of the Ferrari team.

Also, AMD DOES have ads, I've seen a few, mostly in computer magazines though.
[right][snapback]121858[/snapback][/right]

But that's NOT enough... intel just has a better brand identity, and it's going to hurt AMD. The market for hardcore computer enthusiasts is about 5% of the total market. Any product that makes itself accessible to the general public will do better. People have to want AMD, and knowing how things work for computer stores, people generally come in and ask for Intel, not AMD.

I've been around normal people too long to know that XP is loved because "it's pretty", the iPod is popular because, "it looks cool and is easy to use", that Intel is preferred because, "they make ALL the chips"... AMD will never gain market presence if they just focus on the computer nerds. Even IBM realizes that with the new cell processor.

[Aka]

I'm not sure IBM realizes it, but the people they're partnered with on it, certainly do.

I'm not sure how to get people to want AMD though. Telling them benchmarks etc usually glazes them over. The only thing I can think of is like, price performance. "This chip is cheaper but will do as much as this intel chip which costs this much money." But then people think you're BSing them.