AMD's response

[aldamon]

Originally posted by: darkdemyze
Part 2 of 5

Seems like just more speculation as the interview shifts toward the server market.

That's a pretty lame way to release an interview. What's next, splitting it by paragraph?

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: Zebo
AMD2 wont do anything for AMD - as far as fakeing benchmarks I'm with you.. notice I said "assuming these benchmarks are true" before begining? Do I need to spell it out for you? Ok - I don't like these lame reviewers were not allowed to even look inside box, gives me idea someones hiding something... It's also trivial to fake these CPUID's and properties on screen, theres long posts at xtreme about it and with very talented people working the intel they could do it to perfection especially on a major tools like CPUZ as of yet unidetifiable CPU like conroe. Hell they could have had dual opterons or a 3.6 GHZ conroe in the intel box for all know....But again assuming they are true and intel has'nt continued thier dispicable/deperate behavior along the lines alleged in their anti-trust lawsuit - AMD's in big trouble. Happy now?

edit: OH BTW $50 was very good times.. don't hate on it..You could buy a tbred 1700 for $48 and make into a very fast desktop cheap.. call it wishful thinking. Or you like paying $300 for a $20 peice of silicon?

It certainly was nice when the fastest desktop cpu (1.4 ghz tbird) cost under $150.

BTW, according to benchmarks from other people, the 2.8ghz dual core in the test performed about as well as a 2.6ghz X2, so maybe the motherboard choice did limit the score slightly, but it doesn't really change the results. (so AMD gets 200mhz back, they still have to outclock intel significantly now to outperform them.....3.8ghz athlon?)

 

[Stoneburner]

That's not what i'm talking about. Both r480 and r580 crossfire results have not shown as much gain as SLI. It always seemed somewhat less efficient. Besides, I hope you are talking about in terms of crossfire.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
You know, when people look at the r480 board vs whatever intel board was using crossfire, nobody seems to discuss the fact crossfire has not been very efficient so far, or has not shown the same percentage gains as SLI. Part of the gaming performance advantage might just stem from the fact whatever chipset and board intel was using implemented crossfire much better. I think in the end INtel's performance lead even in games will be closer to the media tests the various websites ran.

Intel was using a 975X chipset. So I severely doubt that Intel has come up with a better Crossfire chipset than ATI themselves. Just a hunch.

 

[Zebo]

need about 3200Mhz X2 to equal 2.66Ghz Conroe going with intels "performance advantage of around 20% across all benchmarks" (2.6x1.2 = 3.2).. again, so I don't upset aMD fanbois like anandtechrocks, with all usual caveats which is why I've tried to stay out of these "future" threads...just like I did back with hyped late A64 vs northwood...

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003



Intel was using a 975X chipset. So I severely doubt that Intel has come up with a better Crossfire chipset than ATI themselves. Just a hunch.

Doesn't seem like it would take much so I dont necessarily doubt it. The gains for crossfire are simply not matching SLI despite the fact individual cards are slightly more powerful. The choice to use crossfire was strange anyway, I suppose they wanted to make sure there were no GPU limitations but why not use single card quake 3 test like everybody has been for ever anyway?

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Doesn't seem like it would take much so I dont necessarily doubt it. The gains for crossfire are simply not matching SLI despite the fact individual cards are slightly more powerful. The choice to use crossfire was strange anyway, I suppose they wanted to make sure there were no GPU limitations but why not use single card quake 3 test like everybody has been for ever anyway?

Marketing I say. I'm sure if Nvidia had graced intel with the use of SLI there would have been 2 7900GTXs in each of those boxes. Intel's showing off their improved gaming platform at the same time as they demonstrate Conroe's performance.

 

[anthrax]

Well, from looking at the trends and early reports on the Conroe, AMD will loose its performance leadership for desktop processors.

From observation.
Conroe offers better performance per clock. It also has a deeper pipeline at 14 stages. AMD64 has 12 stage and still can't match the Conroe.

AMD can counter with the following.

1.)AMD can increase performance of AMD 64' by the following means:
a): Increase CPU clock speed. (shortest time)
b): Increase memory B/W (short term, it has been planned for ages)
c): Increase Cache (short term)
d): Use 65nm (medium term)
e): New archtecture (long term)


2.) However, implmenting the above isn't soo easy.

a.) Increasing Clock speed on the AMD 64 is going to be tricky on a 90nm. The fastest AMD64 is 2.8GHz and those don't seem to o/c past 3.0GHz very well. Its fairly safe to say that 3.0GHz is about the limit for 90nm.

However, even saying that 3.0GHz is the limit, most current AMD top out at 2.6GHz, so its safe to say that 2.6 GHz is about the fastest you will see a 90nm AMD 64 aimed at the mass market.

b.) I don't expect the new AM2 AMD64 to bring huge performance increases.
- DDR2 is unlikely to bring huge performance increases to the A64 platform. (THG did preview of the AM2)
- Just look at the switch from single channel DDR to dual channel DDR on A64. The benifits were very small.
- DDR2 also has increased latency that will detract from the gains from increased memory B/W.

c.) AMD can increase performance by increasing Cache from 1MB per core to 2MB per core. However, this is a very very expensive option for AMD. A dual core AMD64 w/ 2MB per core will have a die size of 300mm2 if made on a 90nm process. Thats 50% more die space over the current one. Here is the comparison

AMD single core 512kb (84mm2)
AMD dual core 1048kb (199mm2) 136% increase over single core.
AMD dual core 2048kb (> 300 mm3) 50% increase over dual core.

This clearly shows in AMD 64 x2 are significantly more costly to manufacture than single core AMD64 for the above reasons and a priced accordingly.

AMD is also haveing some capacitiy issues. If it aggresively pushes Dual-Core CPUs, they will be only shooting themsevles in the foot. Dual core takes 2 the die space but doesn't sell for twice the price. Their competitor will definately exploit this and will heavily push Dual Cores at low prices.(They have more capacity and also use 65nm) So in other words, dont' expect huge drops in prices for dual core AMD 64's.

d.) Well, expect 65nm from AMD in 2007. This will allow them to increase performance with further with more clockspeed and more cache. However, its competitor is ahead.
Also, the competitor's CPU offers better performance per clock than the A64.


e.) AMD can push a new architecture. But thats going to take quite some time. At least late 2008

To sum it up. AMD won't have having a performance lead once its competitor pushes its new chip.

- AMD is actually the one that has more to loose in a huge push to Dual Core. Increase die size will decrease production and reduce revenue unless Dual core chips can be priced 136% that of single core chips. (Its competitor can easily push a new marketing push and educate users to expect "Dual Cores" on their new PC's. That will really cuase AMD some problems.)

- AMD might still retain some advantages in the server market. Xeons don't scale very well when compared to AMD64 expecially past 2 cores. (Hyper Transport vs FSB) However, AMD has very limited time to exploit this weakness. Server market chips typically have higher unit prices too. This can increase revenue. However, it must be noted that most volume servers are still 2 ways and upping the #CPU is normally costly in terms of software licences for products like Oracle, Windows Server etc. etc.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Of course AMD will bounce back. They will most likely copy Intel with a 4 issue wide CPU themselves. Or, AMD could make an "infamous right turn" of their own, repeating Intels Netburst mistake. You never know.

You mention that the desktop market is not the only thing pulling in AMD's revenue. You are very correct, but, Intel is releasing these Core MPU's platform wide. Mobile (Merom), Desktop (Conroe) and Server platforms (WoodCrest and ULV Woodcrest I guess for blade applications).

Anyone who says AMD is going under is just being foolish. However, if Core turns out to be what it seems to be, it is going to hurt AMD's pockets tremendously. If they can't compete in speed, thermals and price, and as of today, is does not look good for them, AMD will have to heavily, and I mean need to HEAVILY cut prices on the order of about 50 to 70%.

We will see in about 4 months. I am anxious to know the facts.

I agree with most you say...

Ofcourse AMD can always count on the blindly loyal users like INtel had during their (AMD) latest dominant run...

Looking at your sig it is evident it could be done....you clearly went with inferior products which were not even at the best price points...

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003



Intel was using a 975X chipset. So I severely doubt that Intel has come up with a better Crossfire chipset than ATI themselves. Just a hunch.

Doesn't seem like it would take much so I dont necessarily doubt it. The gains for crossfire are simply not matching SLI despite the fact individual cards are slightly more powerful. The choice to use crossfire was strange anyway, I suppose they wanted to make sure there were no GPU limitations but why not use single card quake 3 test like everybody has been for ever anyway?

But all they had to do to remove the GPU as a bottle neck is bench everything at 640x480. They really did not need to use Crossfire if there intention was to bench CPU power alone. Or do I have this backwards? I don't think I do.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Of course AMD will bounce back. They will most likely copy Intel with a 4 issue wide CPU themselves. Or, AMD could make an "infamous right turn" of their own, repeating Intels Netburst mistake. You never know.

You mention that the desktop market is not the only thing pulling in AMD's revenue. You are very correct, but, Intel is releasing these Core MPU's platform wide. Mobile (Merom), Desktop (Conroe) and Server platforms (WoodCrest and ULV Woodcrest I guess for blade applications).

Anyone who says AMD is going under is just being foolish. However, if Core turns out to be what it seems to be, it is going to hurt AMD's pockets tremendously. If they can't compete in speed, thermals and price, and as of today, is does not look good for them, AMD will have to heavily, and I mean need to HEAVILY cut prices on the order of about 50 to 70%.

We will see in about 4 months. I am anxious to know the facts.

I agree with most you say...

Ofcourse AMD can always count on the blindly loyal users like INtel had during their (AMD) latest dominant run...

Looking at your sig it is evident it could be done....you clearly went with inferior products which were not even at the best price points...

You may think my next statement is kind of childish, and it may well be, but a large part of the reason I did not go AMD was because of the zealots. Sure, ther are zealots on both sides but I was already an established Intel user since 1990. To me, they are weird in a way I cannot explain. Like Linux users when it first became popular (yet inferior in many many ways) and they would swear by it. It's people like that who generally turn my eardrums off. I like forming my own opinions and make my own choices. For what I use/used my PC's for so far in my life, Intel has not let me down. So, I stuck with them and noticed not a single limitation in my computing capabilities.

Except this last year when AMD was really conquering in the gaming area, I was considering an NForce 4 SLI platform. I decided to wait for Conroe to give Intel one last chance to impress. Funny thing is, I have given up gaming. Just sold off my 7800GTX and now using a laptop for everything. I guess I have lost the "will" to game.

Anyways, my sig will change in a few minutes as that PC is out of commision without any other PCI-e cards in my possesion to replace the GTX.

hehe anyone interested in the rig in my sig? PM me. (Short of the GTX, cause thats gone).

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Of course AMD will bounce back. They will most likely copy Intel with a 4 issue wide CPU themselves. Or, AMD could make an "infamous right turn" of their own, repeating Intels Netburst mistake. You never know.

You mention that the desktop market is not the only thing pulling in AMD's revenue. You are very correct, but, Intel is releasing these Core MPU's platform wide. Mobile (Merom), Desktop (Conroe) and Server platforms (WoodCrest and ULV Woodcrest I guess for blade applications).

Anyone who says AMD is going under is just being foolish. However, if Core turns out to be what it seems to be, it is going to hurt AMD's pockets tremendously. If they can't compete in speed, thermals and price, and as of today, is does not look good for them, AMD will have to heavily, and I mean need to HEAVILY cut prices on the order of about 50 to 70%.

We will see in about 4 months. I am anxious to know the facts.

I agree with most you say...

Ofcourse AMD can always count on the blindly loyal users like INtel had during their (AMD) latest dominant run...

Looking at your sig it is evident it could be done....you clearly went with inferior products which were not even at the best price points...

You may think my next statement is kind of childish, and it may well be, but a large part of the reason I did not go AMD was because of the zealots. Sure, ther are zealots on both sides but I was already an established Intel user since 1990. To me, they are weird in a way I cannot explain. Like Linux users when it first became popular (yet inferior in many many ways) and they would swear by it. It's people like that who generally turn my eardrums off. I like forming my own opinions and make my own choices. For what I use/used my PC's for so far in my life, Intel has not let me down. So, I stuck with them and noticed not a single limitation in my computing capabilities.

Except this last year when AMD was really conquering in the gaming area, I was considering an NForce 4 SLI platform. I decided to wait for Conroe to give Intel one last chance to impress. Funny thing is, I have given up gaming. Just sold off my 7800GTX and now using a laptop for everything. I guess I have lost the "will" to game.

Anyways, my sig will change in a few minutes as that PC is out of commision without any other PCI-e cards in my possesion to replace the GTX.

hehe anyone interested in the rig in my sig? PM me. (Short of the GTX, cause thats gone).

I like my centrino laptop except for the DELL virus in it....needs to go to the shop...has bad stick of memory...

I will be getting a conroe cause I believ it will be the best at the time of my next scheulded upgrade (this summer)...I upgraded last summer so I am even starting to slow down on PCs...

I still want the fastest CAD performer I can have and i need AGP so I will stay with AMD on that front...INtel has no competitive answer there and the new stuff will likely be all pci-express...

 

[SubtleIntelFreak]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Of course AMD will bounce back. They will most likely copy Intel with a 4 issue wide CPU themselves. Or, AMD could make an "infamous right turn" of their own, repeating Intels Netburst mistake. You never know.

You mention that the desktop market is not the only thing pulling in AMD's revenue. You are very correct, but, Intel is releasing these Core MPU's platform wide. Mobile (Merom), Desktop (Conroe) and Server platforms (WoodCrest and ULV Woodcrest I guess for blade applications).

Anyone who says AMD is going under is just being foolish. However, if Core turns out to be what it seems to be, it is going to hurt AMD's pockets tremendously. If they can't compete in speed, thermals and price, and as of today, is does not look good for them, AMD will have to heavily, and I mean need to HEAVILY cut prices on the order of about 50 to 70%.

We will see in about 4 months. I am anxious to know the facts.

I agree with most you say...

Ofcourse AMD can always count on the blindly loyal users like INtel had during their (AMD) latest dominant run...

Looking at your sig it is evident it could be done....you clearly went with inferior products which were not even at the best price points...

You may think my next statement is kind of childish, and it may well be, but a large part of the reason I did not go AMD was because of the zealots. Sure, ther are zealots on both sides but I was already an established Intel user since 1990. To me, they are weird in a way I cannot explain. Like Linux users when it first became popular (yet inferior in many many ways) and they would swear by it. It's people like that who generally turn my eardrums off. I like forming my own opinions and make my own choices. For what I use/used my PC's for so far in my life, Intel has not let me down. So, I stuck with them and noticed not a single limitation in my computing capabilities.

Except this last year when AMD was really conquering in the gaming area, I was considering an NForce 4 SLI platform. I decided to wait for Conroe to give Intel one last chance to impress. Funny thing is, I have given up gaming. Just sold off my 7800GTX and now using a laptop for everything. I guess I have lost the "will" to game.

Anyways, my sig will change in a few minutes as that PC is out of commision without any other PCI-e cards in my possesion to replace the GTX.

hehe anyone interested in the rig in my sig? PM me. (Short of the GTX, cause thats gone).

Dont worry, you'll get your "will to game" back once intel regains the capability to run something more complicated than pong. But its great you sold off your 7800gtx, just wait for an integrated Intel video chipset mobo and conroe and you'll be in gaming heaven.

Anyway I'm glad you haven't noticed any limitations on your computing. I like to drive with my lights off at night so I dont notice any limitations (read pedestrians) on the road.

 

[Zebo]

Hey keys, buy what you want I personally can't wait for intel to get back in lead so intel guys like THUGS will come back... really miss his performance compros... and have I mentioned price war yet? These $300+++ CPU's is for the birds.. I mean a graphics card with board, processor, higher tech memory (fast DDR3) costs that. One part, a CPU should'nt.

I am shorting a bunch of AMD stock so I have intrest in seeing Conroe succeed and AMD slash prices. Both on a potfolio level and well I like those $50 chips back in the day...You could slam them and no worries. That was fun...

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: Zebo


Hey keys, buy what you want I personally can't wait for intel to get back in lead so intel guys like THUGS will come back... really miss his performance compros... and have I mentioned price war yet? These $300+++ CPU's is for the birds.. I mean a graphics card with board, processor, higher tech memory (fast DDR3) costs that. One part, a CPU should'nt.

I am shorting a bunch of AMD stock so I have intrest in seeing Conroe succeed and AMD slash prices. Both on a potfolio level and well I like those $50 chips back in the day...You could slam them and no worries. That was fun...

Yeah, I remember back in the day if an Athlon XP chip died or you happened to smash it with a hammer, no biggie, pick up another 2000+ for $40.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

arketing ****** is all this is.
it was the same with the intell benches and the same with this
2 points.
amd won't die.. they did not in thje time nobody knew about them and they won't now.
i'll belive when anand tech does the actual setup of the benches.

 

[Hard Ball]

From the latest batch of news, it looks like that K8L (or whatever it's called, it can't really be K8L, since AMD has stopped using Kryponite notations since 2004; so more likely rev G of K8) is supposed to be due 1H07. I guess it's possible that they will be able to pull it into 06. It is supposed to have much better FP performance, but int performanc will remain the same; which won't help consumer products very much.

AMD's True NGMA isn't slated until at earliest Q1 of 08; and if history of AMD is any indication, there will be significant delays. So realistically, we are looking at 2H08 or 1H09 before AMD leaps ahead of Intel again in consumer products. In the mean time, Conroe and its 45nm successors will be doing some major damage on AMD's desktop chips.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Hard Ball
From the latest batch of news, it looks like that K8L (or whatever it's called, it can't really be K8L, since AMD has stopped using Kryponite notations since 2004; so more likely rev G of K8) is supposed to be due 1H07. I guess it's possible that they will be able to pull it into 06. It is supposed to have much better FP performance, but int performanc will remain the same; which won't help consumer products very much.

AMD's True NGMA isn't slated until at earliest Q1 of 08; and if history of AMD is any indication, there will be significant delays. So realistically, we are looking at 2H08 or 1H09 before AMD leaps ahead of Intel again in consumer products. In the mean time, Conroe and its 45nm successors will be doing some major damage on AMD's desktop chips.

What do you mean history???

History of recent showed AMD come to market faster with the desktop dual core then early roadmaps had shown it...Wouldn't this be precedent they can ramp things up when needed???

Just asking....

 

[Hard Ball]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: Hard Ball
From the latest batch of news, it looks like that K8L (or whatever it's called, it can't really be K8L, since AMD has stopped using Kryponite notations since 2004; so more likely rev G of K8) is supposed to be due 1H07. I guess it's possible that they will be able to pull it into 06. It is supposed to have much better FP performance, but int performanc will remain the same; which won't help consumer products very much.

AMD's True NGMA isn't slated until at earliest Q1 of 08; and if history of AMD is any indication, there will be significant delays. So realistically, we are looking at 2H08 or 1H09 before AMD leaps ahead of Intel again in consumer products. In the mean time, Conroe and its 45nm successors will be doing some major damage on AMD's desktop chips.

What do you mean history???

History of recent showed AMD come to market faster with the desktop dual core then early roadmaps had shown it...Wouldn't this be precedent they can ramp things up when needed???

Just asking....

What I meant was that there were significant delays in each of the last three architectural shifts in AMD, K6, K7, and K8; especially with K8, it came to the market about 18 months later than original plan.

the X2s did make it to market earlier; but that was because AMD originally planned to put all of the DC production into Opterons, and then take care of the consumer market later when the volume ramped up during 2H05. But because of the pressure from Intel PD, they pushed up the schedule of X2 launch; which was simply a S939 version of the DC Opterons that they already had. And such relatively minor revisions do not really compare with the complexity of releasing a new uarchitecture, which take years of R&D to complete, and pushing up shedule on a short notice would be very difficult. So realisitically, I can only see delays in AMD's next gen; but pushing up the schedule is pretty much out of the question.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Hard Ball

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: Hard Ball
From the latest batch of news, it looks like that K8L (or whatever it's called, it can't really be K8L, since AMD has stopped using Kryponite notations since 2004; so more likely rev G of K8) is supposed to be due 1H07. I guess it's possible that they will be able to pull it into 06. It is supposed to have much better FP performance, but int performanc will remain the same; which won't help consumer products very much.

AMD's True NGMA isn't slated until at earliest Q1 of 08; and if history of AMD is any indication, there will be significant delays. So realistically, we are looking at 2H08 or 1H09 before AMD leaps ahead of Intel again in consumer products. In the mean time, Conroe and its 45nm successors will be doing some major damage on AMD's desktop chips.

What do you mean history???

History of recent showed AMD come to market faster with the desktop dual core then early roadmaps had shown it...Wouldn't this be precedent they can ramp things up when needed???

Just asking....

What I meant was that there were significant delays in each of the last three architectural shifts in AMD, K6, K7, and K8; especially with K8, it came to the market about 18 months later than original plan.

the X2s did make it to market earlier; but that was because AMD originally planned to put all of the DC production into Opterons, and then take care of the consumer market later when the volume ramped up during 2H05. But because of the pressure from Intel PD, they pushed up the schedule of X2 launch; which was simply a S939 version of the DC Opterons that they already had. And such relatively minor revisions do not really compare with the complexity of releasing a new uarchitecture, which take years of R&D to complete, and pushing up shedule on a short notice would be very difficult. So realisitically, I can only see delays in AMD's next gen; but pushing up the schedule is pretty much out of the question.

Couldn't it be argued do to how technologically advanced as well as superioir the A64 was compared to northwoods that 18 months early may have been not the best market move?? getting 64bit adoption that far ahead of rumored Win64 launch would hav ebeen a hard sell without just removing it...

I didn't rmember it being 18 months late to the dance...i was following cpus heavily even though I had a screamer of a northwood at the time...

targets dates that far out may be hard to hit, but AMD has highlighted in the recent articles seems to be really trying to hit market upgrade time points by its customers...seems like a different approach to supply then I have heard in the past...

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: Hard Ball

especially with K8, it came to the market about 18 months later than original plan.

In an AT article dated Feb 25th 2002, during Intel's spring IDF AMD representatives show working Hammer silicon and promise to have a processor in production by the end of the year. That is presumably Dec 31 2002, the opteron launched sometime between The end of 2002 and mid-April 2003 where AT's opteron coverage begins. That's hardly 18 months...

 

[darkdemyze]

Next article added to first post

 

[Dadofamunky]

Originally posted by: Duvie
I think this part gives me even more of an idea that in fact quad cores may come sooner and be the response...What is more evolutionary to the current A64/opteron design then scalability of cores...i think it may help further to sum up why ther has been so many rumors of increased memory controller speeds...DDR2-667 to DDR2-800 to DDR2 1066...especially when we all know the AMD is not bandwidth limited now...it only goes to assume they would only increase bandwidth if and when it is needed....

Now that being said it is not certain listening to hi response on performance crown and how that translates into all the market segement. They may concede a victory in desktop while they stay ahead on the server and enterprise market...so why I say quad cores, more cache, increases memory controllers...it may very well be an opteron only market...

Yep, while the X2s/M2s may be exceeded by Conroe (for which fact Intel should be congratulated and appreciated) the last thing I want is to toss my painstakingly rebuilt system out again a year from now. I'm more inclined to do another CPU upgrade by then when presumably high-end Socket 939 parts will be cheaper....

When Intel irons out the inevitable bugs in the new chipset/CPU combo I may wind up jumping over.

 

[darkdemyze]

Last section of the interview added to first post. Quite an interesting, yet long [broken up day to day] interview. Granted it might seem that Richard might seem like AMD's "spokesman drone" if you will, but we will see how much is true in the next few months. Theories don't count when it comes to marketting, so it doesn't really matter if Conroe is great now, or if AM2 is junk atm. We will just have to wait and see what both AMD and Intel have to offer come product release times.
-

 

[Markfw]

This quote sums up the attitude that I don't like about Intel, and its fanboys for that matter:

I think that the biggest problem Intel has is not the color of its logo or its byline but its culture. I think that Intel executives refusing to attend a meeting, for example, if AMD is on the menu, or on stage, is just simply pathetic, but it happens time and time again. I don?t think that a company that?s worth US$120 billion or more, that?s one of the top Fortune 500 companies, should ever condone that kind of behavior, and I don?t understand why Intel is not welcoming free and open competition, especially from a much smaller competitor.