9950 AMD Overclocked it not what you think - Page 4

According to an Intel engineer posting on another website whose name I shouldn't mention here on Toms , he has "seen reports" that AMD currently has "abysmal yields" at 45 nm - in the range of 25 - 30%. Probably just some FUD but if true, then it may be a fairly long time before Shanghai's are widely available. But AMD will go with their planned launch anyway to keep the investors from revolting. Guess we'll find out in a few days/weeks/months how easily people can buy them.

Quite being argumentitive. I never said anyone could make AMD or Intel anything other than what theyre really are. Youd have to eliminate alot of history and alot of the english language to actually believe in what youre hyping/arguing. Theres litigious terms: slander. In your argument, it wouldnt matter, and slander couldnt exist. In history, Hitler painted certain peoples as he wanted to, and bad things happened to them because of public opinion, which was spurred by Hitlers comments. Words like :slander, bad mouthing , undermining, etc would all have no meaning by your terms.

Now, as it seems the current partners of AMD have more money, more influence than Intel, making statements such as

"And how did this happen? Anything to do with AMD failing to deliver on its claims? Or buying ATI? Or shorting the channel to supply the OEMs, who have been slowly turning away from AMD. Or disenfranching customers when they cut the 939s life early? I can go on...

Or was it just 'evil' Intel? "
And :

" The plant in Saratoga hasnt been built yet (and still not a 'done' deal) and AMDs 45nm isnt in retail yet. Additionally, producing chips is one thing. Producing chips that function to design spec is another, and AMD has demonstrated problems with this at 65nm, so there is no reason to beilieve they will not encounter difficulties at 45nm."

These statements currently have no more meaning than AMDs next cpu. And, as Ive said, puts them in a bad light, as the partners of AMD has more money than Intel, has more pull than Intel, and are very committed in this endeavor.

Its actually more to question Intels ability to build another fab, as Ive pointed out, AMDs partners have much more resources than Intel does, and to make such a statement doubting AMD and its partners is just pure slander, as it would be if said about Intel. Remember, everything people say reflects on them as well, and if someone came here and said these things about Intel, well we all know how thatd play out.

Again, Im not saying AMD will shake the world with their new partners, nor am I saying AMD will even compete at the top of cpus, but what I am saying is, that alot of what was thought before, and alot of what weve seen in the past is no longer relevant because of this new situation with AMD and its new partners.

Having said all that, I still say, show us AMD, dont tell us

Who's being argumentative? I simply answered your question, and you go on a rant?
Slander? No. It would be considered libel, but only if it wasn't true. Tell us, jaydeejohn....where is the libel again?

Is there a plant in Saratoga? True or untrue? Do you know how long it takes to build a fab? I do.
Is there an AMD 45nm for sale at retail outlets? Yes or no?
Did AMD have issues transitioning from 90nm to 65nm? Yes or no?

You seem to believe that just because AMD has an injection of cash from an investor, that it's history should be forgotten. Nope. Doesn't work that way. Tell us, is AMD making these CPUs or the investors? If it's still AMD making them, then wouldn't AMD's recent history show how reliable or unreliable it would be in producing and making those same CPUs available?

So, how exactly does having an investor make a company better again? Will those same investors just go buy CPUs to sell them under the AMD brand? Are they going to buy a better process? Or better silicon?

You can cry all day long about how people are "bashing" or now, slandering, AMD and "its partners". And quit the whole "if people said that about Intel, we'd know how that would play out" bullsh*t.

You want to make another "AMD lovefest" thread, go ahead. The simple fact is, nothing listed or asked here is libel (or slander). Speculating about possible manufacturing issues at the 45nm node, is not libel, either. It's speculating.

Oh, and the Hitler thing didn't work. Hitler said racist and antisemitic things about a group of people. And Hitler did not "painted certain peoples as he wanted to", he was using the same racist, antisemitic stereotype that was around before he came into power. So, you're Hitler reference doesn't hold any water.

You can keep playing the same record over and over. Doesn't change the fact that AMD is still being ran by the same people who brought it to where it is NOW.

As for Intel's Sandy Bridge and Westmere...yes, no one knows for sure if they will ever be released, but they have already shown an 80 Core Teraflop prototype CPU working. Not a wafer, but chip. I believe that would give them a better chance of introducing Westmere and Sandy Bridge, than not. Also, Intel has not missed a tick or tock, since they started that campaign, that I know of.

Have you seen an AMD 45nm CPU? Anywhere? Trade show? Cebit? Computex? Why not? So, you can say what you want about Deneb and Shanghai. The simple fact is, no one, outside of AMD or it's testers, have seen heads or tails of AMD's 45nm CPU. Until AMD does show or provide a 45nm, then they still DON'T have a 45nm CPU.

Again, what does Abu Dhabi's money have to do with anything competitive? They will take over the manufacturing side, but guess what...SAME TOOLS, SAME PROCESS. Oh, more R&D money? At what R&D center? Most R&D is done in fabs. Guess what AMD won't have access to, very easily? Hmmm. I'm not concerned about Abu Dhabi's money, since they already dropped $700M a year ago, and it did...nothing. Do you believe that Abu Dhabi will just have coffers of money for AMD to squander, expecting nothing in return? I think those Abu Dhabi guys are much smarter than that.

Again, your Hitler reference is not needed and does not prove anything. Hitler and his group did what they did, on their own. Are you claiming that every German person was 100% behind Nazism and knew what Hitler was doing? He did what he did, only because he used fear and intimidation, to prevent people from challenging or questioning him. Point of view is one thing, being a racist and bigot is another.

LMAO.

Jay.....I am NOT a politician. In my 'world', I and my 'co workers' have to admit each and every one of our mistakes, and in our 'world', if Barak Obama went on TV and said any one of us was "a fool, didnt know anything, exposed some questionable choices youve made in the past, no ALL of your poor choices, then according to you, he wouldnt be making you look bad, because only YOU can do that" before any of us 'fessed up", then you could add "trying to hide our failures" to that list of failures.


Now, based on your reasoning, anyone stating that the Ford Pinto was prone to explosions in the event of a rear end collision would "just be trying to make Ford look bad", and Consumer reports or CNN advising of dangerous lead paint on chinese manufactured childrens toys would "just be trying to make China look bad". And as long as you're going to accuse me of 'just trying to make XXX look bad', you can throw Intel in to the mix as I have not now nor have ever had any quams telling anyone what a miserable chunk of fail netbust was.


So, if stating facts equates to "just trying to make some one look bad" in your book....so be it. Thats your problem, not mine and its no skin off my behind.

On the potential of AMD and their "new partner".

After 2 years of failure and falsery, what makes you think selling off the controling interest in their manufacturing capability is going to change anything? Phenom was not late because of manufacturing. Phenom did not experiance TLB because of manufacturing. Phenom did not phail because of lack of money. Those were design problems and management descisions.

AMD did short the channel because of manufacturing. AMD didnt get 65nm to 3GHz because of manufacturing processes -OR- SOI....your choice. How exactly does someone else paying for the factories change any of that one little bit? It doesnt. People caused these problems, not money. Is this partnership going to bring AMD any 'new' people to help avoid making any of their recent mistakes? No. In fact, they are laying off another 500 people now....just in time for the holidays.

[url=http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/apwire/e349e8544ea88aba46e199c1b5fee633.htm][/url]

How many of those 2100 people layed off this year were responsible for AMD being where it is now? Maybe a few, but Id be willing to bet it wasnt the majority, and of those people who were responsible, Id be willing to bet they are still with AMD or moved on of their own accord, but were not layed off or fired.


Does it bring AMD more money? Yes. Is that money going into manufacturing or R&D? A small amount perhaps, but 2012 is coming just as fast now as it was before AMD announced the "foundy" and with the arrival of 2012 comes the arrival of AMDs Senior notes "payment due" notice. Considering that Mubadalas last $622 million investment is now worth only $170 million, AMD has to think about putting a fair chunk of the "foundry" sell off profit money aside to pay off those senior notes. That in addition to the rest of their debt.



I hate to be the one to tell you this Jay, as its pretty self evident, but cutting your staff and cutting your capabilities is notthe way you solve either design problems or manufacturing problems....its the way you cut overhead i.e. the way you reduce costs to lower them towards your gross revenue. Cutting staff and selling itself off piece by piece does not address resolving any of the issues that put AMD where it is now, it only address adapting to the results of those problems. Dont kid yourself..."asset smart" is really just "desperate money grab #3" no matter how 'positive' they try to sound about it, and it is only a short term band aid, not a long term cure.

AMDs design and manufacturing problems were not staff problems, but management problems. And guess what...The foundry deal didnt displace any of the management that has lead AMD to the fail column over the past few years. Most of them are still there, just in higher paying positions than before while AMDs honest labor is getting canxed to reduce overhead. Honestly, its just pathetic and frankley not very promising.


And thats assuming the deal is approved by the gov. While the current crisis makes this look probable on the outside, considering what AMD makes does not favor the government allowing the deal to go through.

Personally, I think it will go through, as our goverment is well experainced at stating one thing and doing something else, but only time will tell.

Im not trying to rewrite the past, and whats that got to do with AMDs aprtners potential in the future to helping AMD achieving once again? You act like the fab isnt going to happen in 1 sentence, and admit it will in another. Im not attacking you, but your comments werent the best when you said or implied the fab wouldnt be built.

Like Ive said several times, show us AMD, as theyre only as good as their next cpu, again, whats thast have to do with the past? The current people at AMD are the same ones that brought K8, are we to discount that, and not look towards the future as possibly good? I know their track record, I also pointed out Intels disdain for IMCs as well. No one mentions that. Thats just left out, as if it didnt happen. Isnt that the past as well? Am I to judge Intel as a bunch of hypocrits because of this? And assume it to continue, like how Intel claims the gpu as dead, when theyre making Larrabee?

Like I said, your words werent the best chosen, and were influential in making AMD look bad, and werent exactly on the mark. A contibuted bashing, and its simply not needed. What is? Show me AMD

Have you ever been in business? You know what a partner is? Self interests are involved, not only monetarily, but ideally and legally as well, so yes, in this fact, AMD gets alot of perks from their partners. Or, dont you actually believe that AMD was better off without them? Or, do some people prefer to see AMD not meet THEIR scheduled releases? Rush out cpus that arent ready? Have less monies for R&D? Quit acting like this is akin to nVidia at TSMC with less access, thats ridiculous, like they wont have access to the fab at all, for R&D or anything else they want, when theyre partners in it. I wish it were done differently, and AMD had been able to retain their fabs at the old scenarion, but that didnt happen.

As for their partners never have made a cpu before, you do know how movies are made dont you? The investors never have made a movie before either, but once theyre partners, the movie making can begin. Now, if the movie was going to be made one way or another, one without any monies, a bad "B" flick, or with partners, a star as the main charactor has been added, the special effects are added etc. It doesnt mean that the movie wont flop, but its sure better than where they were before their partners came aboard.

Investors are fickle though jaydee. It isnt often that a wealthy investor gives their partner access to their finances beyond what is initially agreed upon unless they see a reason to believe its going to turn into positive cash flow.
Or to use your analogy, If the movie investor has to watch too much of their investment go straight to home video because of inability to meet deadlines, good actors with poor scripts, etc they will either write it off as a loss or take over. Wouldnt you?
Not implying this isnt going to work out for AMD. This could be their turning point but there are risks associated with it. It is only a little scarey because they dont seem to be as sharp and shrewd as they once were. If they bring another white elephant in the room with Deneb it could be really bad.

^ I reckon that not his usual posting style, jimmy...

He normally makes more sense than that.

I'm understand tho, if he meant that AMD can't stimulate Intel but...

jimmy, in the end, no one, even AMD would have chosen this path. I dont really like it either, not because of who the partners are, but AMD just having to do this is bad.

As for the "investor" tag, I guess Im guilty of that, because I likened it all to making a movie, but the "investor part, wasnt the main point, which was that having investors allows for a better movie

These arent just investors, everyones read that down the road, if allowed and chosen to do, that Abu Dhabi may want a research facility in country as well, and thats something a true "investor would never ask/want/need nor desire. Earlier post, I tried showing how the roil rich Arab states are, in many ways, similar to native Americans, in what Ive seen, if they build a successful casino, they branch out, and invest in other companies as well. These investments are a source of pride, a notch on the mantle if you will, and as John Peddie said, Abu Dhabi are excellent partners. So this isnt "just" a normal "investor" scenario, its greater than that, as Abu Dhabi would want their people to learn about this, get involved, go to university for this etc, and that makes a huge difference over an investor, wholl only be looking at the bottom line. Just wanting to have the research facility in UAE should be enough for some people to understand the difference between an investor, and AMDs new partners

The ONLY reason I mentioned Intel and its high cost platform was because it could, and has been construed as not needed right now for DT, doesnt show great promise in gaming etc, that was only to say Intel isnt spotless, nor infallible, but to kick them for these things is pointless, just like kicking AMDs partners saying the new fab may not happen.

" My worry is that the (IMO) already marginal tech will turn into substandard production quality or a new price premium for AMD's chips from the overhead of the new company, at least for a few years while we speculate on Foundry Co.'s R&D expansion and ability to secure others' business. " I agree with you here, but theres one thing wrong in all your postulating. AMD owns the fabs too. That means special usage. That means, if the fabs make money, so does AMD etc.

To disregard yourself (as AMD is part owner) and let others come first before you, it would have to mean high profit for you anyways. I wasnt putting Intel down, didnt mean to, I mentioned these only to show that its unnecessary, and doubting things just because youve never seen them doesnt really mean squat. It all sounds like bashing.

Now comes the real question : was the doubting/bashing worthy? Take all of AMDs failures, and yes, they havnt done much since the FX60, lol, and thats sad, but this is a whole new ballgame, and whether they turn the corner, or do as you said, time will tell, and thats why I say show me, even tho theyre in a better position than theyve been in for awhile, or at least potentially, but to jump on them and their new partners now isnt wise, as we really DONT know how thisll turn out, no one does, and to say its business as usual just doesnt cut it from here on out

LOL yea, gotta love Hector, and the stock mocket too, and no, thats not a Boston slur

When Barcy came out, I was disappointed like most everyone else, couldnt believe that AMD said a few things that were just wrong, and alot of things that were taken out of proportion, and blew up in their face. Thats why I made the OP of how I was surprised that a Barcy (Phenom) could even max out a G280, because the performance wasnt and still isnt considered that good.

Again, the only reason I bring the IMC, the GPU etc things up is because, if I did this all the time, then itd point to me as downing Intel, which alot of comments in thread had done, just only about AMD, which, again, like I said, is pointless, and irrelevant. Theres some truth to what everyones said about AMD, more than most want to admit, but to keep hearing it, over and over, is getting old. And it doesnt apply like it did before.

As to the silence coming out of AMD now, its several things. One, Im thinking all the sites want AMD to succeed, and arent pressuring them for info, and are hoping for the best, and allowing AMD to handle it this time, without any hype from the sites. As for AMD, I think theyre playing low prfoile to hopefully surprise somewhat, maybe not great, but a nice surprise. Maybe they learned something from the ATI 4xxx series launch, but again, just to steal the bashers thunder, it could also mean that theyre having many troubles with 45nm, tlbs or anything else that could possibly happen, and the product will have to be delayed. If someone had said that, instead of doubting whether a fab would be built, to me itd make more sense, as delays do happen, and theyve been hyping this release as coming supposedly earlier than theyd planned, tho its still later than old roadmaps

I act like the fab isnt going to happen in one sentence, then admit it will in another????

Jay, clearly you havent been reading Marine Corps Times, Navy Times, Army Times, Air Force Times or Defense Weekly. My "acting" is merely pre-digested reguritation of events within certain segments of the US government, The DOD, that could impact the transaction .

Had you been reading those, you would have known this without me ever 'reguritating' it. You do know there is more to whats going on in the computing world than AMD's press releases and Thundy's Troll posts, yes?

As for me "admiting" anything will happen, how could I possibly do that? I have no connection other than being an observer. This is not like Hector 'admiting' AMD screwed up the Phenom release, in so many words or otherwise. I dont work for AMD. I cant "admit" anything. All I can do is have an opinion, and I do, and I posted it. Allow me to simplify: In spite of potential roadblocks I beleive the transaction will occur as outlined. Thats an admision of nothing, just an opinion the same as it was the first time I posted it in diferent words.

As for

I beleive you are unintentionally misquoting an old business saying:

Note the use of the word LAST, not the word NEXT

Here are some examples of proper usage for you:

[url=http://business-success22.blogspot.com/2008/05/only-as-good-as-last-success.html][/url]
[url=http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/102524628/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0][/url]
[url=http://books.google.com/books?id=P0Mccblm6eUC&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=only+as+good+as+their+last+success.&source=web&ots=329DlS2NrV&sig=uWY-D0yROGrLBttWJih1kEV1Hco&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result][/url]
[url=http://kcubbin.tripod.com/id36.html][/url]

If you dont beleive me, go google "only as good as their next success" and see how many returns you get.

Now, think about what you are saying. AMD is only as good as their next CPU.

AMD is only as good as their next CPU???

That means that back in aught 6, when AM2 was the latest and greatest AMD CPU, AMD was only as good as phenom, since phenom would be their then 'next CPU'. Phenom wasnt even a twinkle in Henri Richards press releases yet. That can only mean AMD was in deep do do back then. As far as being as good as their next CPU, how do you, I or anyone else know how good or bad their next CPU is? Do you have an ES? I know I dont. All Ive seen are a few leaks, some Colaler tests, several poorly photoshoped fake pix and several BS 'secret test results' from no mame chinese blog sites. If AMD is only as good as their next CPU, they had best get their behinds in gear and get it out as based on their last 'next' CPU, they aint-a doin to good.

Honestly Jay, when you think about your misquote and try to apply it, it works out to be like something from Dr. Dan Streetmentioner's Time Traveler's Handbook of 1001 Tense Formations. 'AMD is only as good as it wioll haven be'. Either way you try to apply the saying Jay, 'AMD habeenwillingonbefor in some hot water.'

As for the current people, yes Dirk Meyer did bring K8, but remember K8 didnt start off as 'uber' chip, it matured into that., But unlike Phenom, it did not have to mature from a starting point of 'uber' fail. And presuming that one success means a history of success is a false assumption. Based on that theory, we should all be speaking german (here comes the verboten Hitler reference) since Hilters series of successes early and well into WWII is documented fact. Sure, he had a few failures later in the war, but just look what he did before that. With a track record like he had early in the war, surely he will prevail again and win! Right?

As for Intel "disdining IMC" and no one mentioning it.....cmon Jay, now your pulling a whats-his-name. There has been plenty of talk on this forum (Yes!!! Right here at THGF!!) about Intel and IMC. And not just on the forums, but at TGD AND TGH. You do know Intel tried IMC well before i7 and failed, yes? almost 9 years ago.

Heres a fast link:

[url=http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Timna/][/url]

[url=http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/02/06/forgotten_tech_intel_timna/][/url]

And guess what Jay. Timna has been mentioned many times in the forums here at THGF, but some people seem either to have selective memories, or simply didnt want to read the forums. Do a forum search for "timna" and see how many hits you get BEFORE you claim no one has talked about it.


On the note of IMC, do we really need to go down this route? Again? Hasent this dead horse been beaten enough? No? OK, then go for it and tell me just how much of a failure has having an off die MC has been? Explain to me just how much faster in DT is phenom than C2Q.

On the server side, there is a difference. Gee, seems Ive said that before. Guess you didnt see that either.

And once again I say, I did not make AMD "look bad". Reciting actual occurances is not making anyone "look bad", its simply reciting occurances. I did not promo 'multi core for dummies", AMD did, I did not cut 939s life short, AMD did, I did hype Phenom, AMD did, I not design or manufacture Phenom, AMD did.

Basically, what this comes down to, is that youre saying anyone who points out AMDs mistakes is "just trying to make AMD look bad". Sorry, but it taint' so friend. AMD makes AMD look bad, not me.

Jay, optimism is great, but its not reality. Just as Intel had to prove C2D wasnt another Netburst, so to doe AMD have to prove Denab isnt another Phenom.

Why? Simple. They ar asking the consumer to give them thier money based on a promise of performance. Just as Intel lied about Netbiurst, so to di AMD lie about Phenom. You can be as optimistic as you want. Trust that AMD isnt lying, this time. Spend your money. I hope its not wasted.

On the foundry. AMD is and has been bleeding cash for 8 consecutive quarters now. Only this last quarter did they show signs of life. Before the wall street melt down. With the past 2 days drops in the dow, AMDs stock is moving back to the 2 dollar range. They owe hard money due in 2012. If they cant profit enough to pay off that debt, they will have to find another creditor, sell off more control, or sell more common shares. If their stock doesnt rebound, theres not much hope in another public offering. If they cant show a profict, they wont get another creditor. Leaving them only the option of trading more of themselves. You can be as optimistic as you want, but the reality is that their situation is not promising, and has not been.

AMDs new "partners" are not "partners" yet, and even when they are, they cant "cut their throat" read the articles giving details of the press releases. AMD has garruntees. Regardless, the $5.7billion "partenership" deal isnt very much money. Its not much more than AMD paid for ATI. AMDs current value is less than half the combined value of AMD/ATI the day before the aquisition. And if AMDs stock value continues on its current trend, by this time next year, AMD will not have enough money to pay off the senior notes. They will be going CH 11 unless they can turn things around, and thats not sharimoron fanboyistic tardings, its just simple honest math.

Once again, you call stating facts trying to make someone look bad, but its not. By your logic (here comes another verboten refernece) Hilter should be given the benefit of the doubt. I dont think so.

Doesn't Intel have a history of offering us high cost platforms? AMD too, at some point. But those are non-exclusionary offers... we can still buy their budget devices and usually at lower cost - especially you as a mainstream (non-SLI) gamer. I believe you're well aware of the SLI tests pointing to even high end single GPU bottlenecks on Penryn, so why blame i7 for being faster than the GPUs can accomodate?

Certainly a strange scenario, but I think that can happen on a much more subtle level than you portray. Semiconductor manufacturing is not simply feeding a blueprint and getting functional chips off the line. A fab can't produce any arbitrary design, and it's a given that different fabs encounter varying difficulty when trying to manufacture a known workable design. I expect AMD to get preferential treatment, but how far Foundry will go to accommodate AMD alongside better competing designs, I can't predict.

I went through Intel's remarks about IMC, as journalled here - http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-6047412-7.html. They seemed completely rational. Lots of fanpeople have paraphrased those remarks into straw arguments. Would you read the originals and tell me they're without merit?

AMD would be happy to start off with business as usual - minus the debts. I believe AMD has long had loose integration between design and manufacturing; splitting those into two closely linked business entities thus seems innocuous rather than destructive. It is Intel who boasts of tight integration, basically aiming for the right design on the first try; AMD prides itself on fast turnaround when a flaw is discovered during manufacturing... necessary if designs are expected to contain incompatibilities.

I brought up heatburst to C2D in the context of heatburst being a mistake that allowed for such a jump to C2D. Why won't AMD make such a jump with Deneb? Because:

1) Deneb is a die shrink, not a completely different chip from its predecessor

2) K10 isn't as big a mistake as the P4

3) AMD doesn't have an existing processor line that rocks the K10. It was starting from scratch that created the P4.

Note that Intel, with its vast funding, fab resources, and numerous design teams, recovered from its build-from-scratch P4 by replacing the core with one based on a proven design - its own Pentium M line. This is not to say AMD can't by chance produce a stellar design from scratch. It's that the risk for another flop like the P4 is rather high. Money can't replace years of refinement.

I really like the pro-US rhetoric but face it ... the US is bankrupt !!

The economy is shot and anyone with any money isn't spending it in the US.

Just about anything American of value isn't owned by Americans any more.

You spent 10 times what you had on a war on unwinnable terms.

You loaned tons of money that you didn't have to people who couldn't afford it.

It is clear the US might be good at designing CPU's (thanks also to help fron others) but your not good at basic accounting, or managing your budget.

The US is nearly a third world country by today's standards - no basic heathcare, no social security net, high crime rates, homelessness, poor sanitation and regulatory processes for electrical trades as well as substandard building codes.

I love the US for trying to care for the world but it is doing a bad job at home.

I'd like an i7 though ...

I apologise If I came across a bit negative - I am not critical of American people as such ...

We live in a country full of cowboys, bringing their own diplomacy, but our leaders dont let us use cowboy diplomacy against those who break the laws, so it escalates. It didnt use to be this way, but the same ones who curtail our ability to stop the crimes, are the same ones that allow the crimes to happen. They shifted from the now very old conservatism, which even the liberals of that era would oppose such a shift. Today, John F Kenedy wouldnt be elected because hed be too conservative

I personally believe, that U.S. Americans, are unable to do so, because some, people out there, in our nation don’t have maps.
I believe that our education like such as in South Africa, and the Iraq, everywhere like such as. And, I believe they should our education over here, in the U.S. should help the U.S. or should help South Africa, and should help the Iraq and Asian countries so we will be able to build up our future, for us.



(^Miss South Carolina transcript^)

Of course I was stretching the facts. And making mountains out of mole hills by using the gpu/Larrabee thing, but I see similar things going on here as well about AMD, and thats my point. It may be to a lessor degree, but it exists.

If AMD does manage a decent cpu this round, these things will calm down, this I also know, just like everyone harping on netburst, but it stopped when Intel actually made good, so to it may if AMD does as well, tho theres still harping about heatburst, and to me, the only reason to bring those up is for comparisons only, as in back in the day.

Im not excluding thwe possibility of failure here. AMD could do the pooch again, but its unlikely. I really dont want to hear from AMD, just like I didnt want to see all the leaks about i7, because as we understand, its still somewhat unknown, even after reviews To me, speculation should be limited to positive things, and Ive seen very little positive coming from alot of people here concerning Deneb, theres some, tho its brief. I wont, and dont have to defend my position as to what I like or think, and Im thinking some people are too gaurded regarding Deneb, in case theyre wrong, and theres always someone there to spout negative speculation, which like Ive said, really isnt helpful.

Having said that, if this place turned into a AMD zone, Id be the loudest Bxxxxxxx about it, or a Intel lovefest as well. I understand theres more to things that Im letting on here, and thats ok, I just hope others do as well

The fact that there is zero sentence structure, to me, means that she was definitely very nervous.

And High School GPA, at least where I live (Iowa) means nothing. Really, nothing.

But it sure was funny.

I miss that station! G4 is no where near as good. Was it Tech TV that had the C-Net show?

Maybe 4% overall ... maybe.

Increased clockspeed yes.

It all depends on whether the cache latency problems are sorted.

Still .. that leaves it just a tad slower than the current 45nm Penryn.

If it is priced well people will buy it I spose.

i7 doesn't look a good jump for me going from an overclocked Kenty.

So I won't be wasting money on it till some decent gamins software starts to make good use of the extra cores ... that are currently just sitting there doing stuff all add to the power bill.

Now a decent optimised dual core 45nm upgrade ofthe Turion Ultra might be a good next step for AMD.

Look how well the 45nm Intel Dual cores run most stuff now ... good value if you ask me.

Good on power ... good on performance.

AMD needs a decent dual core first.

Maybe another die shrink for those poor k8s... might break it by raw clockspeed then,