Elmer: I can't help but think that if this was an artice on AMD you would say Q4, but seeing as it's Intel you say end of the year...
A discussion has truly degenerated into worthlessness when a party resorts to accusations of what they think the other party *might* do.
Another interesting point is that you are quick to believe that Prescott and 90nm are delayed until the end of 2003 based on rumors from what you consider "a reputable source", yet you reject this rumor on the same page from the same "reputable source".
Now *your* imagination is running away again. I never "rejected" 3.4GHz on 130nm. Actually, I even referred to that possibility. I just stated that I found it unlikely. My opinion only, and completely different. But you knew that.
It would seem that you are very selective when it comes to believing your "reputable sources". If it makes Intel look bad you believe it. If it makes Intel look good you don't.
Yeah, OK. Believe what you want. However, it is a bit ballsy of you in particular to call me biased. LOL. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. For the record, I admit to a pro-AMD and sometimes anti-Intel bias. You are just now figuring that out? However, I try to be balanced and open-minded, although I am not always successful. A lot depends on how fun the argument is. You will usually engage in an intelligent discussion. I have to say, though, that your contributions tonight have been obtuse and jejune. You disappoint me.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
