Elmer: Sure, sure. You want to exclude about 2/3s of Intel's chip output yet still include all their fabs space! Then you want to use that to compare the output of the 2 companies!
Elmer, now you're just being plain silly. No, I don't want to include AMD's flash output. No, I don't want to include AMD's chipset output. No, I don't want to include Intel's StrongArm output.
But I sure as h*ll don't want to include ALL of Intel's fabs, either!
I think you are so accustomed to people trying to twist things, that you automatically assume everyone is out to deceive, cheat and manipulate :/
I assume that it is known, more or less publicly, how many fabs Intel uses for x86 processors. At least a lower bound, since I've seen comments from Paul and Tench that this or that fab was dedicated to PIII (at the time) production.
In trying to compare apples to apples, we need to look at x86 processors only - preferably, Intel's Xeon processors (the "real" Xeons) should be discounted as well, since these are targeted at a completely different price point.
You just don't like the obvious.
Like? What's your problem here? This is not a matter of what I like or dislike. *sigh* Why do you assume everyone is h*ll-bent on making AMD look better than it is? I'm certainly not.
-fyo |
