Ethic-wise, has AMD done anything wrong?

Please explain what this means?


You're starting to sound like that Gammelhat dude who argues that physical address space is handled by the Windows Physical Memory Manager and other strange things. lol ...nvm

Oh btw - newbieflash...the GHz Wars ended early last decade with Intel proving once and for all that clock speed is less important than architecture.

Anyway cud u please expalin ur post?

 

Answer the last part? What exactly would be the point? There's nothing in the last part that's relevant...

Intel could easily push a processor to 5ghz. The problem is, with ever shrinking processes, electron migration becomes a bigger problem as does temperature and power consumption. Fact is, Intel isn't concerned with frequency because it's meaningless. At 1ghz, a simple 200mhz (20%) increase in frequency is far less substantial than a 20% increase in IPC.

AMD has already released a processor capable of running at 5ghz without being overclocked.

Mark your words? Why? So I can laugh later?

 

:heh:

You claim you've been around since the Quake 2 days, yet you think Intel has always been on top? If you've really been in the industry since then, you just have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

 

This guy is a total idiot..

 

Apparently that guy forgot everything before Conroe.

 

He said he was pwning n00bs...and that Netburst owned or some crap idk..

 

You sure about that. I had many amd chips and many perfoormed better at much lower clockspeeds. Netburst google it

 

The OP of this thread asked a question. I answered it. I never once argued performance or benchmarks or anything. You guys did. The question was because obviously you can't seem to remember:

"So I'm curious, has AMD pulled any publicly-known shenanigans?"

Performance+ is 100 percent an AMD shenanigan!

 

Exactly...they can't release because of heat yada, yada, bla, bla. I read this along time ago that 3GHz to 4GHz was more or less the max limit with the current technology. This is why in part more cores came to being. It was the way to get around being stuck in the 3GHz range for years but still increasing performance. You all think I am an idiot but I am not...

AMD and Intel will never release CPU's that burn up in a few months. That would kill them both literally. So until such day they can release a true 4GHz CPU that can run all day all night at a decent temp we will be stuck in the 3GHz barrier. What is Intel's best right now? 3.9GHz? I think, and it is there most extreme version correct? What is AMD's fastest right now that the public can actually buy? Sure, we are all overclocked past that. This was never my point. Hell I have been sitting at 4GHz for 2 years now...

 

For example, Deus Ex: Human Revolution (which is "AMD gaming evolved" title) has anti-aliasing mode ML - Morphological Anti-Aliasing - AMD only mode on the moment of game start - which looked like **** on NVidia.

Edit: By the way, anybody knows a title with both "AMD gaming evolved" and "NVidia the way it's meant to be played" ?

 

Yes Intel has--with the overall cycle speed title with 1 exception. AMD beat Intel to 1GHz. After that Intel has never looked back. And this is fact!

 

AMD already has a processor that's clocked at 4.7GHz by default.

Learn your history please. If you really think Netburst was faster/better than Athlon/Athlon 64, you have downs.

 

You are seriously full of shlt.

 

AMD64 were great chips, pentium 4 was horrible cpu besides few tasks it was easily killed by the much superior Athlon 64. AMD lost the ground vs intel when intel released the C2D which were HUGE success and HUGE improvments over athlon 64, from then to now intel is dominating and quite frankly, my i7 is the best cpu i ever bought and i mostly bought AMD.

 

Man you guys got trolled pretty hard here, wow..
Just ignore him, its a waste of time.

 

He's probably been gaming since Quake 4 in 2006.

 

Guys, stop comparing processors. OP asked about companies behavior.

 

what's this another fan boy bashing thread uke2: