AMD finds it amusing that on a day when the EU dropped a record €1.06 billion fine on Intel, Intel is still calling the shots. "Obviously, we've done more than a few interviews today, and most of the interviews that we've done have involved us responding to what [Intel CEO] Paul Otellini had to say," AMD spokesman John Taylor …
"Otellini steered clear of such suggestions this morning, saying 'prices will continue to go down. Quality goes up. Performance goes up. There's nothing in this ruling that reverses Moore's Law.'"
Moore's Law says literally nothing about price, quality, or performance. Only idiots imply that it does. But then, there are a lot of idiots out there misquoting and misinterpreting it as well. SInce Otellini obviously can't grasp a very simple quotation from the company's co-founder, perhaps it's time for him to resign.
Moore's Law Does Mean Prices Fall
If the number of transistors on a chip double every 18 months or so and the cost of producing a chip does not double, the cost per transistor drops. In a competitive market, the other guy can use this to drop his price per chip so you have to drop yours, unless you have a monopoly. Intel made sure they retained their monopoly, illegally.
Moore's Law permitted going to larger wafers and multi-core chips. More transistors per mm^2 increases the incentive to put more on a chip/wafer. It does lower costs/prices per chip.
Did anyone else notice that when AMD temporarily created a monopoly in AMD64 chips that the prices for their top processors were a bit high? That was a legitimate monopoly. They innovated. Intel innovates but also bribes folks to retain monopoly. There's the rub. If Intel's products were better than AMDs Intel would not have had to do that. No one would want to sell AMD chips.
Moore was wrong over and over again.
Not only was his original prediction wrong, but his subsequent "tweaking" was also wrong.
He took Turings [genius] ideas (from the 50s) made it look like he thought of it and tried to predict the growth numerically, he was wrong originally and then wrong again when he tried to retrospectively change what he originally said (I'm a great at predicting last weeks lottery numbers once I look them up).
Actually he did mention cost in his original quote "The number of components per integrated circuit for minimum cost" does that make you one more idiot misquoting and misinterpreting it?
Moores law is a big white elephant as nobody really knows what it is (including Moore).
If you had bothered to read anything relating to this situation, you wouldn't have posted such a foolish opinion.
Intel forced OEMs to: not stock AMD products, put out products late, or hide/limit their AMD products. All of which is illegal.
As for the A64s, are you joking?
While AMD was putting out a superior product (the A64), Intel still held 80% of the market. Yes, that sounds like an AMD monopoly!
Nobody is disputing that you can price whatever you want for your products (see Intel and i7!), but you can't blackmail/bribe your way to a monopoly.
AMD's using lower prices as a smoke screen IMO. AMD can't make money on processor prices with as low as they are now. What makes them think that they would make MORE money if they got LESS money for each chip?
Doesn't make sense.
If Intel hadn't attempted to retain their monopoly illegally, perhaps AMD would be making money instead of losing it.
- Product round-up Ten excellent FREE PC apps to brighten your Windows
- Analysis Pity the poor Windows developer: The tools for desktop development are in disarray
- Chromecast video on UK, Euro TVs hertz so badly it makes us judder – but Google 'won't fix'
- Product round-up Ten Mac freeware apps for your new Apple baby
- Product round-up The Glorious Resolution: Feast your eyes on 5 HiDPI laptops