On TV.com: JERSEY SHORE: Saltwater Daffy
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 18 of 22:
Next »
« Previous
it's interesting how little the article mentions about AMD
and so much about Intel's probable reasons. It has nothing to do with AMD announcing dual core before Intel? What about the recent renaming of Intel's product line to mimic AMD's?!? The people in the talkback aren't fooled most of them know it's AMD that's about to take the lead....

Intel is now officially playing catch-up...ZDNET better get there act together and start reporting the news and not what Intel pays them to say.

I quote:

"however, appear to be quite vague at the moment. The representative could not identify code names for the new products. It is also unclear whether the chips will be made using the 90-nanometer manufacturing process or the newer 65-nanometer process."

AND

"The change was also likely prompted by opportunism, said Dean McCarron, an analyst at Mercury Research. "

AND

"Intel engineers probably determined that they could get more benefits, both in terms of performance and power consumption, by using a smaller cache and two cores."

"The company also likely has already figured out many of the problems that come with moving to dual-core chips, anyway, as they plan to bring out a dual-core Itanium in 2005."

come on! never before have I smelt the BS so thickly through an article. key words like "probably" and "likely". And you'll notice the major typo in the 3rd quote? Intel engineers should be AMD engineers....can you say 2+2=5 Pentiums can...

Thanks for the laugh ZDNET.
Posted by: rschror   Posted on: 05/08/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use
Reply to Story Reply to Message

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

This ought to be interesting  bidemytime | 05/07/04
Translation, we got caught with our pants down.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 05/07/04
Curious  PA-ITGuy | 05/07/04
Thanks Intel.  Traveler2 | 05/07/04
The real reason  wackoae | 05/07/04
the real real reason.  JoeMama_z | 05/07/04
New Codenames and Marketing  bidemytime | 05/07/04
Doh!  bidemytime | 05/07/04
Even M$ thinks Intel sucks  MarcB_z | 05/07/04
nothing to do with M$  +-Chris-+ | 05/07/04
I see a connection  Richard Flude | 05/07/04
Do you often discuss such things with Bill Gates?  balsover | 05/10/04
I can see the shift...  +-Chris-+ | 05/07/04
First it was Sun  avilensk1966@... | 05/07/04
The crazy race  michael-t | 05/07/04
Other things to wait for...  Nullifidian | 05/07/04
WinTel???  No_Ax_to_Grind | 05/07/04
it's interesting how little the article mentions about AMD  rschror | 05/08/04
Funny how PowerPC has had SMP in the chip for a few years now  B.O.F.H. | 05/08/04
Lotsa folks in DENIAL !  realitycheck101 | 05/08/04
This is another example of the consumer's...  bjbrock | 05/08/04
The consumer *is* powerful  bidemytime | 05/08/04

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement

SmartPlanet

Click Here