"Skype said the limitation was due to limitations with AMD technology, a claim AMD disputes."

Hello? Can we say BULLs***?

You can look at almost ANY Intel VS AMD World Benchmark and see that AMD is USUALLY the clear winner.

the FX-60 VS the Pentium D EE FX-60 Wins
the x2 3800+ VS Pentium D 3.6 3800 Wins
Turion ML-24 vs Duo T2600 Tie
^^ML-24 is about $300 cheaper^^

But your telling me, that the Intel chip can handle 5 more calls than an AMD Chip? ....Yeah and my Quaker Parrot can build a computer better and faster Than I can.

i like amd products so much that i will buy gfx card,mainboard chipset and other stuff if they will sell this stuff in future, if Intel can do it then i don't know what is stopping amd .......................
waiting for news about new stuff amd is making

Do you guys really believe that AMD processors are limited to that type of application?

I find it hard to believe though.

I knew this move wasn't go to go smothly, yea the features you want in a program depends on the CPU you have. Although i think it may be the same as when game companies make ATI or Nvidia grphics cards perform better on one game then the other brand.

Yeah..

-.^

I hate it when there are only 5 levels in DOOM 3 on my ATI box instead of the 10 levels I get on my nVidia box.

"A user running an Intel chip can include up to 10 other individuals on a conference call, while those with an AMD process can only connect with 5 people. Skype said the limitation was due to limitations with AMD technology, a claim AMD disputes.

Personally, I'd let 'em go ahead and shoot themselves. That's basically what they'd be doing with this. All the kids out there with HP AMD laptops are going to start looking elsewhere.

Idiots.

Anyone else notice the sky is just a beautiful #0099FF today?

well, im amd supporter.
im scared that Intel has many cool product line which they are going to launch soon, but there is no news about what amd is doing, no news about new technology or product at the same time their mobile processor continues to lag behind Pentium m, and the last time i checked more notebooks are sold these days compared to desktops. what the hell is amd is doing about that.

At the same time im happy about the fact that amd is going to make a lot of money from this lawsuit.

The only area that mobile AMD 64-bit processors lag behind in is battery life. As for performance, AMD 64-bit processors easily beat the Pentium M.

i love amd products(i use one), but sadly i will have to disagree with you.

athlon64 mobile/ turion is bad at not only battery life, it also lags behind in benchmarks when compared to Pentium m (if u don't agree then post a link to benchmark which proves my post wrong).

I have not seen any benchmarks that show the Pentium M being faster than the mobile Athlon64 processor. Have you been looking at benchmarks posted on Intel's website?

then where is the link ??
i too want turion to beat pentium m.
i have seen many benchmarks and i found pentium m doing a good job(few months back).

You have to admit that Amd is doing excellent ever since the lawsuit was filed. That makes you think now, is intel stopping the illegal practices such as these? Are the customers saying oh Amd filed a lawsuit they must be better lets go with them now? Could it be some kind of coincidence? I would go with option 1. I have no doubt that in a few years Amd will have won the lawsuit and will by then have 30 percent market share and still beating Intel in almost every category. I guess we will see then. But the simple fact is, Amd has better products that perform better and are cheaper, yet intel continues to make billions in profits every quater and Amd makes a few million if not at a loss. I would say there is something wrong there.

Aside from people that are actually interested computers and computer news, the average person had no idea there were *different kinds* of processors, let alone similar kinds made by different companies.

I don't know if that changed or if an increased awareness had any effect, but I know that now about 60% of computer builders in our town build only AMD systems. That adds up to about 1000 AMD computers a year.

Skype just eneterd my personal s***list for screwing AMD users over like that.

yeah I agree, however if Intel is offering them money and your a growing company looking for money wherever you can get it. Why not? Yeah in a perfect world money wouldn't mean anything when your a business but, that is why Intel is being sued by Amd in the first place. Getting companies to endorse your product and only yours by offering performance advantages, yeah its wrong but in a cut throat market like I.T. it happends all the time, probably more often then we all know about. In every arena hardware, software, communications.

I like my AMD Athlon64 4000+ on my HP Laptop...

>> It said through its own complaint that AMD is attempting to "shield itself from competition" by preventing Intel from lowering prices on its processors. Thus, Intel says, AMD could charge higher prices and reap the benefits.

The funniest line ever. When a company has 80% marketshare, and another has 20%, if they both raise their prices then who gets the most revenue? Who gets the most profits? Who continues to expand faster?

They could at least have said something like, "AMD is attempting to shield itself from competition by providing high quality and low cost processors, and Intel has to undercut them to combat this."

That'd actually be a sort of true statement...I mean, AMD is still around despite the undercutting.

lol, this is a lawsuit, they aren't looking for the nice way to say things! they are looking for the most damaging way to phrase it.

erm..that's true, but the problem is Intel is lowering prices (not raising), forcing AMD to lower with them. I think you missed the point here. Intel said AMD's goal was to raise prices, not that they raised them already.
And if they both started raising prices, you can bet the DOJ is going to start looking into it like the DRAM price fixing a few years back.

And...I dont see anything funny about that line. according to your logic, since Intel is forcing prices lower, they are losing the most revenue, getting much less profits, etc.

I think you read that wrong or took it the wrong way. I'm a strong AMD supporter, but I always get bashed to death when I mention them, so I figured this time I'd just point out flaws in how Intel worded things.

I do see something funny about that line. According to my logic, Intel would gain the most money by raising/not-lowering prices, while lowering then has done tons of harm to AMD.

I got it the first time.