3 posts • joined Friday 12th June 2009 00:24 GMT
Depends on your view.
At that time, the AMD chips did lead the performance on single threaded applications. However, when it came to multitasking, the AMD was far behind the comparable Intel processor. For more home users and gamers this had no influence on their purchasing decision, however for the business user this lack of multitasking horse power could easily be a deal breaker.
How can it be anti-competitive with no one to compete
This is a complete farce of the legal system. The deals that Intel offered were accepted by companies. This was not a one sided deal. These companies chose to accept the deals knowing that they couldn't sell the AMD procs in the first place. If they had thought they could sell the AMD procs over the Intel procs don't you think they would have gone for the bigger seller in a heart beat?
So far, all I can tell about the EU is that it would suck to be the best in any single market. Regardless of it if it is a foreign or an native European company, if you are the best or top in a market they are gunning for you. They seem to under the false notion that every market should have equal competitors and that it is only illegal practices that may make one company shine over another. Reality check, all companies are not created equal. What is next? Intel can only come out with chips on AMD's pace?
18 Versions is stretching things a bit
This includes all the possible combinations, most you or I will never see... These include things Like Ultimate, OEM Ultimate, Ultimate E (Only in EU), OEM Ultimate E (Again only in EU)... so right there you have four versions for the same thing... if you live in the EU you will only see Ultimate E on the shelf, not the other three versions of the same thing. So to call this a bit deceptive on the reporting side is to be generous.