Why intel sux so badly.

[The_Techie]

Volkswagen was even worse than Daimmler in WW2. So if he's supporting MB as opposed to VW, he's on the side of angels.

Actually he's choosing the lesser of two evils. Why not support Rolls Royce who produced aircraft engines used in, amongst others, the Spitfire?

But let's not derail the thread, shall we?

EDIT: In closing (this isn't really going anywhere is it?), you most certainly made your point regarding Intel's history. However, taking the moral high ground in one situation and not applying it in another is a bit hypocritical. It is, however, your prerogative as hardware buyer to support whichever company you please, for whichever reason you choose. But if you choose AMD for superior architecture then your reasoning is flawed, as I have shown you (which is all I really wanted to accomplish)

Now we can stop with the car analogies

 

[Rouxenator]

The point is that it was war - companies/individuals/animals/plants have little to no control over what they are forced to do when it is war. So I ask again, what World War made intel do the unethical things they did ?

 

[The_Techie]

The point is that it was war - companies/individuals/animals/plants have little to no control over what they are forced to do when it is war. So I ask again, what World War made intel do the unethical things they did ?

You're missing the point I was trying to make.

Do I have to get more examples of Mercedes-Benz' dodgy history? Off the top of my head I remember an incident where they tried to steal Ferrari's Formula 1 patented, classified technology. Or how about where they concealed information from the race stewards at one of the Formula 1 races last year (I think it was last year )?

If you look at any company you are sure to find unflattering details. That is part of the point I was trying to make, which I thought I made quite clear in my last post.

Or are we going to keep up this useless argument?

 

[d0b33]

Nazi Germany?

Man... this thread turned Godwin rather quickly.

 

[The_Techie]

Nazi Germany?

Man... this thread turned Godwin rather quickly.

I hoped an analogy would help get my point across. Apparently not

 

[TheRift]

 

[The_Techie]

http://mybroadband.co.za/photos/showphoto.php/photo/1988/ppuser/23262

Though the thread was actually not derailed (yet), I kept within the theme of bad company histories

EDIT: I made my point in post #61 and expanded on it on post #63. If you want to argue about cars send me a PM, otherwise let's give it a rest I think

 

[killadoob]

Yea well this thread was doomed the minute intel sucks so badly had to do with the past .

 

[Rouxenator]

Sure, there are always failures and shady goings on in the past of many companies. It is up to you to decide what you are going to do with that information and how does that affect the companies track record.

AMD has made a few blunders of their own but if you look at what they did in terms of the topic at had, the x86 architecture, then they have added a great deal of effort to it.

Intel on the other hand tried to kill x86 twice, tries to get rid of the competition numerous times (even more than M$ for that matter) and copies a lot more from other companies - such as AMD.

So I guess their shady practices is directly focused on the topic at hand.

 

[d0b33]

ARM will take over anyway.

 

[Rouxenator]

ARM will take over anyway.

A very valid point. ARM is a far superior and much more focused (read less legacy bound) architecture than x86.

 

[Necuno]

I see a lot of you are comparing the latest intels against the latest AMDs and thereby trying to justify that intel does not sux.

It is a fact that the new intels perform better than AMD. You cannot argue with those facts.

There it another type of fact that you can also not argue against and that is facts of history. My whole post'n'half is entirely based on happenings in the past. It aims to educate the uneducated about intels history and highlight the amount of failures and shady practices they pursue. I did not even mention the EU antitrust law suit against them - there is so much more I can add if I wanted to.

So to summaries...
Fact : intel is king of x86 performance at the moment.
Fact : intel has a history clouded in failure and unethical behavouir.

If only performance matters to you - buy intel. If care about ethics and fair trade, read up on the history of things.

Should anyone want to comment/add/correct any of the historical statements cover in my story on why intel suxs, please feel free. But leave the benchmarks out of this because we all know currently is performs the best.

P.S. thanks for the signature typo you guys picked up

interesting op, and post; intel seems to be nvidia in cpu marked, after all its nv who gobbled up the competition (just think 3dfx and now physx) or just legalized them away.

 

[ponder]

(read less legacy bound) architecture than x86.

And therein lies the biggest failure of all risc based cpu's to date, not being able to run the gazillion or so x86 (win/dos) legacy applications. It's a nasty catch-22 situation.

The above is much less of a problem for unix/linux.

We would have been much better off today had we dumped the x86 arch years ago and started with a clean slate.

 

[Rouxenator]

Perhaps if intel sucked less in its attempts to do so (maybe play open cards with the competition) then we could have had something much better than x86 now. But they are too greedy and stupid so we are stuck with x86 and the innovations AMD makes to x86.

 

[Rouxenator]

The reason I used the world "kill" is because they did not play open cards with the other stake holders in the x86 arena. Sure, HP were in bed with them for IA-64, but the smug statement they made about the competition closing their doors really was not the smartest thing to do.

Intel should realize what they sux at and then partner with the right companies and develop a new platform. That is, if they want to do something right for change....

 

[BravoDrie]

I see a lot of you are comparing the latest intels against the latest AMDs and thereby trying to justify that intel does not sux.

It is a fact that the new intels perform better than AMD. You cannot argue with those facts.

There it another type of fact that you can also not argue against and that is facts of history. My whole post'n'half is entirely based on happenings in the past. It aims to educate the uneducated about intels history and highlight the amount of failures and shady practices they pursue. I did not even mention the EU antitrust law suit against them - there is so much more I can add if I wanted to.

So to summaries...
Fact : intel is king of x86 performance at the moment.
Fact : intel has a history clouded in failure and unethical behavouir.

If only performance matters to you - buy intel. If care about ethics and fair trade, read up on the history of things.

Should anyone want to comment/add/correct any of the historical statements cover in my story on why intel suxs, please feel free. But leave the benchmarks out of this because we all know currently is performs the best.

P.S. thanks for the signature typo you guys picked up

What multi-billion dollar company has ethics? And what company does not have failures? Most companies have multiple failures for every success.

 

[Sheepbot]

I'm sorry, but if I want to buy a cpu, I sure as hell don't include the companies ethics or history in my purchase.

The company with the best price vs performance cpu at the time gets my cash.

 

[Rouxenator]

Just keep in mind that what you buy today can affect the buying choices you have tomorrow or two years from now.

 

[killadoob]

Yup and i am glad people kept buying intel because they have just made some mad cpu's in the last few years compared to AMD.

 

[Rouxenator]

Yup and i am glad people kept buying intel because they have just made some mad cpu's in the last few years [-]compared[/-] stealing [-]to[/-] from AMD.

fixed.