I thought I’ll check out the roadmap of both AMD and Intel.

http://www.amdcompare.com/prodoutlook/
http://www.intel.com/products/roadmap/index.htm

To my surprise, there is not much going on with AMD. Or is there? Is that what AMD calls a roadmap?

Now, we all know that both companies keep a "wild card" as a surprise just in case if one of them steps ahead. We all heard rumors for quad and neither AMD or Intel even mention that for the near future. So, are both companies venting technology BS for new unexperienced fans?

In time we'll see what happens. Since I don't trust marketing people working in the high tech, I'm not betting on either company because I like to read the small print myself.

Hey Heero, do you really think AMD is the only one working on 48 nm chips? It looks like you only read AMD news.
By the way it's 45 nm chips that your are ref to and not 48. And also, most of AMD chips are in 90 nm and they are getting ready for 65 nm. 45 nm are due next year for AMD.
On the other hand, Intel makes 65 nm and will start rolling 45 nm this year. I'm not trying to spoil your illusion Heero, but don't be bias with a chip company because it's not worth it. Any good geek (not amateurs) knows that 2006 is a trifecta year for Intel, and funny enough AMD was caught offguard just like Intel 2 years ago. There is stupidity on both sides of the camp, and that's why history repeats itself.

Besides Heeros' comments, it looks like IBM and AMD are having a marriage of convenience. IBM has a grudge against Intel because of Apple. At the same time IBM is happy that AMD is plunging more into debt by borrowing money for a speedy roadmap implementation (?) and ATI. The banks are very happy with AMD because they know they are going to get their money back one way or another. The more AMD goes into debt, the more attractive they'll be for a corporate takeover. It happened before in 2000 when HP was very tempted to buy AMD out. Thanx to stupid AMD management it looks like IBM could be next in line. A sign of things to come is when you see IBM as a major sales distributor for AMD. Is AMD that incompetent for not having their own sales offices? Or is there a game being played out behind doors? The next few years should be interesting for AMD as we'll see who is pulling the strings.
Personally I think that AMD is a good company. But their management is full of egos and they are very self-absorbed. Anyone remember when AMD recalled 3000 Opterons and do you know how AMD responded to initial complains? Their impolite responses came form the higher management orders, which means the present AMD needs a change of management. Just because you are a chip company, you can't offend the IT dept of another company.
Another problem that AMD now has is "integrity". It took a while for tomshardware, anadtech,hexus, extremetech to realize that the left hand (marketing) of AMD doesn't know what the right hand (engineering) is doing. Can AMD afford to ignore harware review web sites? Ruiz and his executive buddies couldn't care less. Ruiz is just a nut that was an engineer and has no idea what he's doing in running a multi billion dollar company.

The price war between AMD and Intel is only good for the consumer. Both AMD and Intel are going to loose big time. The only difference is that Intel has cash reserves while AMD has a credit card. AMD is almost giving away Opterons just to claim server market. I wished they would give me a couple of them, but since I'm not a corporation, that's just a wishful thinking. No comments about IBM.

It's a pitty that some good companies go down the tube (regardless of product) because of stupid management.

"It's a pitty that some good companies go down the tube (regardless of product) because of stupid management. "

I agree there, but I don't see AMD being bought out. I think they are positioning themselves with the ATI buy-out to compete againts Intel. Now that AMD will be able to create full system, not just CPUs, they will be in a better place to gain more market share.

At the end of the day, everyone has a favourite, and the two companies are always going to be going back and forth and continue to out-do one another.

Though, I heard some really cool info about Intel working with particle rotation with the Canadian government to increase Microcomputer speeds by using particles as resistor, which if true, could totaly re-define the microprocessor.

I'm not here to make enimies, just here to have a good conversation, and domino360, you seem like your a really smart and good guy. =)

Cheers.

You are a good man Heero. =)

By the way, this info is for The Man - Conroe was the nickname of the chip before release. It's now called Core 2 Duo and it comes as standard or extreme versions. If you a hardcore gamer, then most likely you'll know that even if you overclock an Athlon 64 FX-62, the Core 2 Duo will make you fly. The primo gaming machine (VoodooPC) which only used AMD chips for the past 5 years, now as the Core 2 Duo Extreme version. Gaming PC manufacturers are not loyal to chip manufacturers and neither AMD or Intel likes that.

I don't buy a PC just because of the chip inside. The question of the chip is very easy to answer - who has the best available chip wins my business. If I had the money and since I'm into performace workstations, I would buy a new PC every 6 months. Like that I would keep up with the latest technology, and that would make both AMD and Intel happy. But our reality is different than technological innovation, and that's why we can never keep up with the latest.

Cheers.

where's conroe?

Where's Waldo?

Intel can try, but AMD is working on 48 Nanometer chips, while Intel just got into the 65 Nano market. AMD has been waiting to release their new chips...

and besides, why would someone want to spend so much more money for a chip that isn't really all that much of an improvement over what they can have with AMD.

Sweet. Getting ever closer to 50/50. Exactly what we need to be seeing.

Now is we can just get Apple to drop their hardware division and sell MacOS for PCs so we can get a 50/40/10 OS split (Windows/OSX/crap).

And yes, I included that other 10% just to fire some of you up. I'll let you figure out who on your own. I'm just evil that way. ;)

I've never heard of an OS named "PC". Nice try.

There. Fixed that for ya. ;)

I rather liked Solaris. =)

Full 64 Bit suport, on 64 Bit processor in 1998, that was awesome! If only Windows or OSX could get even close to such a wonderfull OS.

Though, I highly doubt we'll be seeing OSX for PC. And if we do, it will probebly be under some sort of liscence deal with say Samsung Laptops only, or something along those lines. Apple wouldn't be ablt to garantee the stability of the OS if they have to suport all hardware.

Sure they would. If they dropped their hardware division, they'd have all kinds of funds for hardware support and OS development.

Besides, most of the 'hardware support' onus could be foisted upon the hardware / driver manufacturers. (kinda like Windows, savvy?)

Sorry, just got back from yet another showing of PoC:DMC.

"Apple wouldn't be ablt to garantee the stability of the OS if they have to suport all hardware"

So that would make Windows and Linux superior to Mac OS. Since both run on practically any system especially Linux ;-)