Nickname: Woody007

Review: Intel and their co-hort, Micro$oft, are both monopolistic dinosaurs. I have a Dell PC and wonder if they will ever offer an AMD powered unit. Intel must have given Apple a good deal to beat out AMD. I would buy an Apple if it had an AMD and could run OS X, Linux and that lousy Windows. Hasta la Vista! Micro$oft and Intel probably employ more lawyers than programmers now.

Date reviewed: Apr 26, 2006 3:02 PM

Nickname: Intel

Review: Intel should just give up and fold. They spend eight times what AMD spends on processor research and can't even keep up. Pathetic.

Date reviewed: Mar 24, 2006 8:30 PM

Nickname: rg2006

Review: I'm responding to this comment here just because I think it deserves one. Nickname: Super BA Review: My AMD computer does not work very good. I should have got one with Centrino mobile technology. I was a fool. Don't be like me! Date reviewed: Mar 6, 2006 5:23 PM - AMD processors are just as reliable as Intel processors and vice versa. Centrino offers nothing special that AMD has to offer. Turion (Centrino rival) outperforms Centrino, but Centrino generally has better battery life. For those who want unbiased reviews and information about AMD and Intel processors, go to Anandtech.com. Don't rely on random statements like this to make a decision.

Date reviewed: Mar 15, 2006 11:16 PM

Nickname: earp

Review: Once all of Apple's computers make the move to Intel chips, Intel's market share should increase 3.5% from Apple sales. I almost feel like Moore's Law is starting to meet its limit for the "normal" computing market. This not only has sales implications for Intel but the whole market.

Date reviewed: Mar 13, 2006 6:47 AM

Nickname: fteo

Review: Intel has a lot of catching up, if they were to play the game of efficiency. Based on what they have delivered so far, I doubt if they can make significant inroads without some sort of breakthroughs in power and heat output. My AMD3200+ runs with less watts at 1.25 volts than a Dothan 1.73Ghz chip. Oh, the Dothan is also 30% slower to boot. Consumers are getting very wise these days and it shows in corporates demanding Opteron chips. These chips are just great performers period. You get a company like Sun building quality and performance Opteron servers and very soon 50% market share by AMD will be just a given.

Date reviewed: Mar 13, 2006 5:33 AM

Nickname: Anthony

Review: The 64 bit core does not give you a lot more if your OS is not a 64 bit one. Think about it: the data bus is 64 bits vs. 32 bits, implying a doubled peak rate.

Date reviewed: Mar 7, 2006 9:09 AM

Nickname: Realist

Review: It's nice that AMD is shipping a mobile dual-core solution in two to three months, TJ. But Intel has been shipping one for over a month now. The most compelling reason to get a 64-bit chip still is being able to use more than 4 GB of memory. But tell me, have you priced 2 GB SO-DIMMs lately? Are there any 4 DIMM slot notebook designs on the drawing board? Be honest, a dual-core 32-bit solution is far more interesting than a single-core 64-bit solution in a notebook, all else being equal. And as the article suggests, Intel is shipping a 64-bit dual-core maybe a couple of months after AMD. That's the full story.

Date reviewed: Mar 6, 2006 8:57 PM

Nickname: JROCK

Review: It seems that analysts have been more an influence on the share price than actual market share and performance. With the introduction of the Intel chip in Macintosh machines, it is clear that Intel has cornered the overall market.

Date reviewed: Mar 6, 2006 6:41 PM

Nickname: Super BA

Review: My AMD computer does not work very good. I should have got Centrino mobile technology. I was a fool. Don't be like me!

Date reviewed: Mar 6, 2006 5:23 PM

Nickname: PORFY

Review: Thanks for the heads up information. I'll be looking foward to the end of '06 and the start of 2007. Looking forword to more AMD-Intel head to head.

Date reviewed: Mar 6, 2006 4:53 PM