To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (46948 ) 1/21/1999 8:39:00 PM From: Cirruslvr Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 1571903
Tench - Since you are an Intel employee I can see how you were quick to retaliate. ;) RE: "So AMD is going to screw the customer by forcing everyone onto the new Slot A bus with K7, right?" Lets see, how long has the socket 7 infastructure been around??? Quite a few years, and it was started by Intel. By sticking with Intel's socket for such a long time, AMD PCs have become more affordable. Since socket 7 has been around for such a long time, motherboard manufacturers have been able to drive down the cost of motherboards. I think AMD has given socket 7 a pretty good life, much longer than Intel expected it to. AMD is in no way screwing the consumer by moving to Slot A. If you think AMD is screwing the consurer with Slot A, I can retaliate and say Intel screwed the customer with Slot 1. Since this isn't true, what you posted is obviously false. RE: "And AMD screwed buyers of the K6-2 400 by lowering its price from $250 to $150 in the space of a few months, making those who bought one of the first K6-2 400 CPU's feel shafted, right?" You are again not seeing the obvious. AMD lowered prices by a great margin because Intel did . Intel is the reason the prices dropped so much. Again, if you want to stick with what you said, you have to agree that Intel screwed the consumer by lowering prices of the Celeron 300 and 333 twice , and lowering the price of the Celeron 366 and 400 by more than was expected. Since you probably won't, you are 0-2. RE: "And AMD is going to screw their existing customers again by going to a K6-3, since the existing owners of the K6-2 will end up with old technology, right?" In what I initially wrote, I stated that Intel released their new technology processors within a few months of their old technology processors. The K6-2 came out around May 28, 1998 . The K6-3 will come out on either Feb. 14 or 24, 1999 . That leaves a 8 1/2 MONTH gap between the K6-2 and K6-3, much less than the time between the Intel processors I am talking about. I don't remember the the exact dates of the release of those processors, so why don't you post them for me. Or do you not want to fortify my point? RE: "And AMD screwed customers over by quietly marking some K6-2's with the AFR66 tag, thus making those AFR66 chips slower than the equivalently-clocked non-AFR66 chips? Compaq buyers aren't going to know that they have an AFR66 chip unless they void their warranty by opening up their computers." This is the closest thing you have against AMD. Those AFR66 K6-2 are mainly 300 and 333MHz. Right now, those speeds are old technology in the retail world. Since they won't go into a top of the line system, they will go into cheapo e-machines. Those PCs are made with cost in mind, and the AFR66 will help reduce the cost of those PCs because it won't require more expensive RAM. Again, you have this one on me. RE: "And AMD screwed customers by going to the Super 7 platform, right? Now existing owners of the Socket 7 platform have old technology." Again, how long was socket 7 out before super 7 became the standard for AMD PCs? Quite a bit of time. Much longer than the time between the FX and LX chipset and the BX and Camino chipset. RE: "Mr. Paul Engel, please handle this." Remember, I stated how Intel screwed the customer, not the shareholder. Tench, I think I have a VERY solid basis for saying what I have said. Continue to post reasons against AMD. I will try to shoot them down as easily as I did these. ;))