<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_06_2331212</id>
	<title>AMD Graphics Chip Shortage Hits PC Vendors</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1257509400000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>CWmike writes <i>"An offshore AMD foundry is <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9140453/AMD\_graphics\_chip\_shortage\_hitting\_PC\_vendors">having trouble ramping up production of a new 40-nanometer GPU</a>, forcing PC makers to delay shipments of desktop and laptop computers, AMD confirmed today. TSMC is struggling to get up to speed manufacturing AMD's 5800 series, 40-nm GPUs, according to Jim McGregor, an analyst at In-Stat. He added that the foundry is in full production, but so far yields are below expectation. Matt Davis, a spokesman for AMD, confirmed that TSMC is having issues with production of the chips. He added that it's not clear how far behind the foundry is on production expectations. 'The design is sound. It's just a matter of trying to get TSMC to a point where they can yield. They're feeling the manufacturing crunch,' said Davis. 'We're a little bit under yield but we're working back into a manufacturing schedule we want for these parts. TSMC can only kick them out so fast at this point.' He said that PC vendors are being affected but declined to say how many vendors are feeling the pinch or which ones. 'It's the end of the whip,' he added. '[The vendors] are going to have a hard time.'"</i>
A post at Anandtech suggests <a href="http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=654">we'll see price hikes for the 5800-series Radeons</a> until this situation sorts itself out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>CWmike writes " An offshore AMD foundry is having trouble ramping up production of a new 40-nanometer GPU , forcing PC makers to delay shipments of desktop and laptop computers , AMD confirmed today .
TSMC is struggling to get up to speed manufacturing AMD 's 5800 series , 40-nm GPUs , according to Jim McGregor , an analyst at In-Stat .
He added that the foundry is in full production , but so far yields are below expectation .
Matt Davis , a spokesman for AMD , confirmed that TSMC is having issues with production of the chips .
He added that it 's not clear how far behind the foundry is on production expectations .
'The design is sound .
It 's just a matter of trying to get TSMC to a point where they can yield .
They 're feeling the manufacturing crunch, ' said Davis .
'We 're a little bit under yield but we 're working back into a manufacturing schedule we want for these parts .
TSMC can only kick them out so fast at this point .
' He said that PC vendors are being affected but declined to say how many vendors are feeling the pinch or which ones .
'It 's the end of the whip, ' he added .
' [ The vendors ] are going to have a hard time .
' " A post at Anandtech suggests we 'll see price hikes for the 5800-series Radeons until this situation sorts itself out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CWmike writes "An offshore AMD foundry is having trouble ramping up production of a new 40-nanometer GPU, forcing PC makers to delay shipments of desktop and laptop computers, AMD confirmed today.
TSMC is struggling to get up to speed manufacturing AMD's 5800 series, 40-nm GPUs, according to Jim McGregor, an analyst at In-Stat.
He added that the foundry is in full production, but so far yields are below expectation.
Matt Davis, a spokesman for AMD, confirmed that TSMC is having issues with production of the chips.
He added that it's not clear how far behind the foundry is on production expectations.
'The design is sound.
It's just a matter of trying to get TSMC to a point where they can yield.
They're feeling the manufacturing crunch,' said Davis.
'We're a little bit under yield but we're working back into a manufacturing schedule we want for these parts.
TSMC can only kick them out so fast at this point.
' He said that PC vendors are being affected but declined to say how many vendors are feeling the pinch or which ones.
'It's the end of the whip,' he added.
'[The vendors] are going to have a hard time.
'"
A post at Anandtech suggests we'll see price hikes for the 5800-series Radeons until this situation sorts itself out.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011726</id>
	<title>Notebook chips?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257516840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry if this is a little off-topic, but...</p><p>Does anyone know when AMD/ATI will be releasing <i>notebook</i> version of its 5000-line chips, and how they're expected to compare to chips currently on the market from them and from nVidia?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry if this is a little off-topic , but...Does anyone know when AMD/ATI will be releasing notebook version of its 5000-line chips , and how they 're expected to compare to chips currently on the market from them and from nVidia ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry if this is a little off-topic, but...Does anyone know when AMD/ATI will be releasing notebook version of its 5000-line chips, and how they're expected to compare to chips currently on the market from them and from nVidia?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30014580</id>
	<title>Re:This is where Intel rules</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257613680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>40nm the problem?  FAIL!  10nm of overlay margin between level?  Well there's ya problem!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>40nm the problem ?
FAIL ! 10nm of overlay margin between level ?
Well there 's ya problem !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>40nm the problem?
FAIL!  10nm of overlay margin between level?
Well there's ya problem!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30012610</id>
	<title>AMD having yield problems? Didn't see THAT coming!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257532740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Honestly.  Fab problems when pushing technology forward has been a hallmark of AMD's business for nearly a decade now.  Why should this surprise anyone?</p><p>Yeah.  The new series of graphics controllers may be the bees' knees, and may make nVidia cry for mommy, but until people can...y'know...OBTAIN THEM, it's all just smoke and mirrors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly .
Fab problems when pushing technology forward has been a hallmark of AMD 's business for nearly a decade now .
Why should this surprise anyone ? Yeah .
The new series of graphics controllers may be the bees ' knees , and may make nVidia cry for mommy , but until people can...y'know...OBTAIN THEM , it 's all just smoke and mirrors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly.
Fab problems when pushing technology forward has been a hallmark of AMD's business for nearly a decade now.
Why should this surprise anyone?Yeah.
The new series of graphics controllers may be the bees' knees, and may make nVidia cry for mommy, but until people can...y'know...OBTAIN THEM, it's all just smoke and mirrors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011486</id>
	<title>Still has a lead on nVidia</title>
	<author>Singularity42</author>
	<datestamp>1257513720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>From a faked board to rumors about really bad yields, nVidia won't show up until next year.  Sure, it'll probably be faster, but they clearly had to sacrifice something to focus on high-end computing with features like ECC and double-precision.  My 4890 is serving me pretty well for now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From a faked board to rumors about really bad yields , nVidia wo n't show up until next year .
Sure , it 'll probably be faster , but they clearly had to sacrifice something to focus on high-end computing with features like ECC and double-precision .
My 4890 is serving me pretty well for now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From a faked board to rumors about really bad yields, nVidia won't show up until next year.
Sure, it'll probably be faster, but they clearly had to sacrifice something to focus on high-end computing with features like ECC and double-precision.
My 4890 is serving me pretty well for now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30015498</id>
	<title>In Slashdot speak</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1257620880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Monopolist = Company I don't like that sells more hardware/software than company I do like.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Monopolist = Company I do n't like that sells more hardware/software than company I do like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Monopolist = Company I don't like that sells more hardware/software than company I do like.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30013540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011462</id>
	<title>TSMC</title>
	<author>cheesybagel</author>
	<datestamp>1257513480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>NVIDIA also manufactures their GPUs at TSMC. TSMC is the largest foundry, but it has competitors like UMC, Chartered and SMIC. TSMC probably has more revenue than all those combined however...</htmltext>
<tokenext>NVIDIA also manufactures their GPUs at TSMC .
TSMC is the largest foundry , but it has competitors like UMC , Chartered and SMIC .
TSMC probably has more revenue than all those combined however.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NVIDIA also manufactures their GPUs at TSMC.
TSMC is the largest foundry, but it has competitors like UMC, Chartered and SMIC.
TSMC probably has more revenue than all those combined however...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30013104</id>
	<title>Consumers suck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257587340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a stock owner of AMD I say screw over the consumer as much as possible. The consumer sure as hell didn't help us out when we were up on the ropes when Intel was dumping rebates all over the place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a stock owner of AMD I say screw over the consumer as much as possible .
The consumer sure as hell did n't help us out when we were up on the ropes when Intel was dumping rebates all over the place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a stock owner of AMD I say screw over the consumer as much as possible.
The consumer sure as hell didn't help us out when we were up on the ropes when Intel was dumping rebates all over the place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011700</id>
	<title>Re:This is where Intel rules</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257516480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Part of the problem in particular with this one seems to be the process. TSMC has decided to blaze their own trail as it were and is going outside the ITRS roadmap. You'll note it says 40nm chips and that's not a typo. They have a 40nm process, whereas pretty much everything else (like Intel and AMD CPUs) are 45nm currently and working on moving to 32nm.</p><p>Ok well this roadmap with set nodes isn't for nothing. You don't semiconductor manufacturing in a vacuum, the foundries buy hardware from a number of companies to be able to make their fab work. As such it is useful if everyone has a common goal to work on. If machines for one step are for one process and machines for another are for a different process, you have problems.</p><p>Well TSMC has decided to go ahead and make their own process, not something part of the ITRS standard. Ok well that means they are buying some custom equipment or modifying the procedure or the like.</p><p>The result? Well it seems to be poor yields. They had a lot of trouble bringing it online, took longer than they planned, and now it doesn't work as well as they'd hoped.</p><p>This isn't isn't entirely surprising. How well it works out for them in the long run remains to be seen. They do have the smallest process on the market now as far as I'm aware and both nVidia and ATi are placing orders using it. However I wonder if they'll be shopping elsewhere for future cards, given the problems this is having. They can't change what they've got now (a design for one process doesn't work on another as is) but they can change what they do in the future.</p><p>You are also correct, Intel rocks at fabs. They generally beat just about everyone to market with on a new node and they seem to be able to keep yields high enough to meet demand and keep prices at whatever level they like.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Part of the problem in particular with this one seems to be the process .
TSMC has decided to blaze their own trail as it were and is going outside the ITRS roadmap .
You 'll note it says 40nm chips and that 's not a typo .
They have a 40nm process , whereas pretty much everything else ( like Intel and AMD CPUs ) are 45nm currently and working on moving to 32nm.Ok well this roadmap with set nodes is n't for nothing .
You do n't semiconductor manufacturing in a vacuum , the foundries buy hardware from a number of companies to be able to make their fab work .
As such it is useful if everyone has a common goal to work on .
If machines for one step are for one process and machines for another are for a different process , you have problems.Well TSMC has decided to go ahead and make their own process , not something part of the ITRS standard .
Ok well that means they are buying some custom equipment or modifying the procedure or the like.The result ?
Well it seems to be poor yields .
They had a lot of trouble bringing it online , took longer than they planned , and now it does n't work as well as they 'd hoped.This is n't is n't entirely surprising .
How well it works out for them in the long run remains to be seen .
They do have the smallest process on the market now as far as I 'm aware and both nVidia and ATi are placing orders using it .
However I wonder if they 'll be shopping elsewhere for future cards , given the problems this is having .
They ca n't change what they 've got now ( a design for one process does n't work on another as is ) but they can change what they do in the future.You are also correct , Intel rocks at fabs .
They generally beat just about everyone to market with on a new node and they seem to be able to keep yields high enough to meet demand and keep prices at whatever level they like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Part of the problem in particular with this one seems to be the process.
TSMC has decided to blaze their own trail as it were and is going outside the ITRS roadmap.
You'll note it says 40nm chips and that's not a typo.
They have a 40nm process, whereas pretty much everything else (like Intel and AMD CPUs) are 45nm currently and working on moving to 32nm.Ok well this roadmap with set nodes isn't for nothing.
You don't semiconductor manufacturing in a vacuum, the foundries buy hardware from a number of companies to be able to make their fab work.
As such it is useful if everyone has a common goal to work on.
If machines for one step are for one process and machines for another are for a different process, you have problems.Well TSMC has decided to go ahead and make their own process, not something part of the ITRS standard.
Ok well that means they are buying some custom equipment or modifying the procedure or the like.The result?
Well it seems to be poor yields.
They had a lot of trouble bringing it online, took longer than they planned, and now it doesn't work as well as they'd hoped.This isn't isn't entirely surprising.
How well it works out for them in the long run remains to be seen.
They do have the smallest process on the market now as far as I'm aware and both nVidia and ATi are placing orders using it.
However I wonder if they'll be shopping elsewhere for future cards, given the problems this is having.
They can't change what they've got now (a design for one process doesn't work on another as is) but they can change what they do in the future.You are also correct, Intel rocks at fabs.
They generally beat just about everyone to market with on a new node and they seem to be able to keep yields high enough to meet demand and keep prices at whatever level they like.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30012414</id>
	<title>Re:Price hikes?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257527640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wouldn't be so sure.  They were already about $40 over MSRP on average the last time they were in stock.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't be so sure .
They were already about $ 40 over MSRP on average the last time they were in stock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't be so sure.
They were already about $40 over MSRP on average the last time they were in stock.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30012362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011962</id>
	<title>Typical AMD bullshit</title>
	<author>SpinningIntoNoFuture</author>
	<datestamp>1257520020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Blaming their suppliers (TSMC) or otherwise is typical M.O. for AMD.  I should know, I worked there almost 5 years.  That's why they can't be a successful company because they don't take responsibility for themselves.  Blame suppliers.  Blame competitors.  Blame customers.  How about take a good hard look at your company that's losing money out the ass and fire and all the moronic windbags in upper management who are too busy cutting insider trading deals to actually instill some fucking leadership in the company.  The place is a fucking goat rodeo.  This does not surprise me.

I work at another semiconductor company that partners with TSMC quite a bit.  We've never had problems with yields, and if we did we'd take responsibility for it instead of just blaming TSMC.  If I were TSMC I'd be pretty pissed.  It's no way to treat a business partner.

I don't think I've posted a comment on slashdot since 2002, this just got me so pissed off I had to create an account and say something.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Blaming their suppliers ( TSMC ) or otherwise is typical M.O .
for AMD .
I should know , I worked there almost 5 years .
That 's why they ca n't be a successful company because they do n't take responsibility for themselves .
Blame suppliers .
Blame competitors .
Blame customers .
How about take a good hard look at your company that 's losing money out the ass and fire and all the moronic windbags in upper management who are too busy cutting insider trading deals to actually instill some fucking leadership in the company .
The place is a fucking goat rodeo .
This does not surprise me .
I work at another semiconductor company that partners with TSMC quite a bit .
We 've never had problems with yields , and if we did we 'd take responsibility for it instead of just blaming TSMC .
If I were TSMC I 'd be pretty pissed .
It 's no way to treat a business partner .
I do n't think I 've posted a comment on slashdot since 2002 , this just got me so pissed off I had to create an account and say something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blaming their suppliers (TSMC) or otherwise is typical M.O.
for AMD.
I should know, I worked there almost 5 years.
That's why they can't be a successful company because they don't take responsibility for themselves.
Blame suppliers.
Blame competitors.
Blame customers.
How about take a good hard look at your company that's losing money out the ass and fire and all the moronic windbags in upper management who are too busy cutting insider trading deals to actually instill some fucking leadership in the company.
The place is a fucking goat rodeo.
This does not surprise me.
I work at another semiconductor company that partners with TSMC quite a bit.
We've never had problems with yields, and if we did we'd take responsibility for it instead of just blaming TSMC.
If I were TSMC I'd be pretty pissed.
It's no way to treat a business partner.
I don't think I've posted a comment on slashdot since 2002, this just got me so pissed off I had to create an account and say something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011494</id>
	<title>Its Intel's  fault.   Help us out Cuomo !</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257513780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its Intel's  fault.   Help us out Cuomo !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its Intel 's fault .
Help us out Cuomo !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its Intel's  fault.
Help us out Cuomo !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30019122</id>
	<title>Re:Still has a lead on nVidia</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1257614100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've not bought an ATI card (intentionally - unless it was bundled with something) since the All In Wonder cards were new, and I've been buying Nvidia since my G400 bit the dust years ago. But they do have their act together in all but the driver department, IMO.</p><p>The biggest thing for me is thermal footprint. In many ways, it demonstrates the overall quality of the design, I think.</p><p>I met a Nvidia engineer in the Denver (I think) airport last winter. We sat and talked for about half an hour while we waited for our late flights. His job was, for the time being, to work the thermal issues out of nvidia's chips and decrease their power use. He agreed that, while they were ahead in terms of raw performance, they were inferior to AMD/ATI chips in performance per watt as well as overall thermal footprint, and that it tended to be quite a problem when trying to run a cool system without much noise - and one big reason they hadn't pursued the whole 'integrated system' with too much effort in the past.</p><p>Hopefully ATI can get their driver situation figured out, and Nvidia the thermal issues... we will see.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've not bought an ATI card ( intentionally - unless it was bundled with something ) since the All In Wonder cards were new , and I 've been buying Nvidia since my G400 bit the dust years ago .
But they do have their act together in all but the driver department , IMO.The biggest thing for me is thermal footprint .
In many ways , it demonstrates the overall quality of the design , I think.I met a Nvidia engineer in the Denver ( I think ) airport last winter .
We sat and talked for about half an hour while we waited for our late flights .
His job was , for the time being , to work the thermal issues out of nvidia 's chips and decrease their power use .
He agreed that , while they were ahead in terms of raw performance , they were inferior to AMD/ATI chips in performance per watt as well as overall thermal footprint , and that it tended to be quite a problem when trying to run a cool system without much noise - and one big reason they had n't pursued the whole 'integrated system ' with too much effort in the past.Hopefully ATI can get their driver situation figured out , and Nvidia the thermal issues... we will see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've not bought an ATI card (intentionally - unless it was bundled with something) since the All In Wonder cards were new, and I've been buying Nvidia since my G400 bit the dust years ago.
But they do have their act together in all but the driver department, IMO.The biggest thing for me is thermal footprint.
In many ways, it demonstrates the overall quality of the design, I think.I met a Nvidia engineer in the Denver (I think) airport last winter.
We sat and talked for about half an hour while we waited for our late flights.
His job was, for the time being, to work the thermal issues out of nvidia's chips and decrease their power use.
He agreed that, while they were ahead in terms of raw performance, they were inferior to AMD/ATI chips in performance per watt as well as overall thermal footprint, and that it tended to be quite a problem when trying to run a cool system without much noise - and one big reason they hadn't pursued the whole 'integrated system' with too much effort in the past.Hopefully ATI can get their driver situation figured out, and Nvidia the thermal issues... we will see.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30012226</id>
	<title>Re:Typical AMD bullshit</title>
	<author>ub3r n3u7r4l1st</author>
	<datestamp>1257524520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I don't think I've posted a comment on slashdot since 2002, this just got me so pissed off I had to create an account and say something."</p><p>Don't they have "accounts" back then? Why don't you come back on the old one?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I do n't think I 've posted a comment on slashdot since 2002 , this just got me so pissed off I had to create an account and say something .
" Do n't they have " accounts " back then ?
Why do n't you come back on the old one ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I don't think I've posted a comment on slashdot since 2002, this just got me so pissed off I had to create an account and say something.
"Don't they have "accounts" back then?
Why don't you come back on the old one?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011652</id>
	<title>Re:This is where Intel rules</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257516060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lies! Intel's ability to have good yields is down to anti-competitive practices, not foresight and investment. I hope the EU gets billions out of them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lies !
Intel 's ability to have good yields is down to anti-competitive practices , not foresight and investment .
I hope the EU gets billions out of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lies!
Intel's ability to have good yields is down to anti-competitive practices, not foresight and investment.
I hope the EU gets billions out of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011620</id>
	<title>Bad Financial News for AMD</title>
	<author>physburn</author>
	<datestamp>1257515640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>  Just as AMD started turning back into profit, and gained the graphics card
they had to run out of chip production. Its a pity really the're using TMC,
I believe global foundaries can do 40nm standard silicon either now or soon,
so AMD should perphaps switch to there part owned foundary. Hope AMD
sort out the problem soon, i'd hate to be on a one cpu maker planet.
<p>
---
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/blogs/Graphics\%20Cards/feed.html" title="feeddistiller.com">Graphics Cards</a> [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ <a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/" title="feeddistiller.com">Feed Distiller</a> [feeddistiller.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just as AMD started turning back into profit , and gained the graphics card they had to run out of chip production .
Its a pity really the 're using TMC , I believe global foundaries can do 40nm standard silicon either now or soon , so AMD should perphaps switch to there part owned foundary .
Hope AMD sort out the problem soon , i 'd hate to be on a one cpu maker planet .
--- Graphics Cards [ feeddistiller.com ] Feed @ Feed Distiller [ feeddistiller.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  Just as AMD started turning back into profit, and gained the graphics card
they had to run out of chip production.
Its a pity really the're using TMC,
I believe global foundaries can do 40nm standard silicon either now or soon,
so AMD should perphaps switch to there part owned foundary.
Hope AMD
sort out the problem soon, i'd hate to be on a one cpu maker planet.
---

Graphics Cards [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30018964</id>
	<title>How far off?</title>
	<author>stonemetal</author>
	<datestamp>1257612180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>An offshore AMD foundry...</p></div><p>How far offshore is that in nautical miles?  I am not surprised they are having troubles with what with all the salt in the air.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>An offshore AMD foundry...How far offshore is that in nautical miles ?
I am not surprised they are having troubles with what with all the salt in the air .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An offshore AMD foundry...How far offshore is that in nautical miles?
I am not surprised they are having troubles with what with all the salt in the air.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30012940</id>
	<title>One word: Drivers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257626520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AMD/ATi's video card drivers suck, have sucked and continue to suck. This is a real shame because ATi's hardware has really picked up (the 9800 was a ground-breaker, the X???? series was pretty lame but 3xxx/4xxx/5xxx is blowing nVidia out of the water which probably serves them right for over capitalising on the high-end scientific computation market).</p><p>The problem with ATi's drivers for me personally are:<br><strong>Windows</strong><br>Problems with OpenGL performance compared to DirectX (annoying)<br>No per application profiles (deal breaker)<br>Catalyst control panel is apparently<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net with 3+ background services (annoying)</p><p><strong>Linux</strong><br>Unstable, slow, don't support the newest kernel releases and are quite slow to add support. They also drop support for old cards too quickly (deal breaker)<br>People who use them complain about graphical glitches and performance slowdowns (deal breaker)<br>The open source drivers suck (So does nouveau but at least the binary driver is decent)</p><p>Basically, I would buy ATi's stuff as the hardware is great but their end-to-end support is awful so I'm stuck with nVidia or not upgrading.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AMD/ATi 's video card drivers suck , have sucked and continue to suck .
This is a real shame because ATi 's hardware has really picked up ( the 9800 was a ground-breaker , the X ? ? ? ?
series was pretty lame but 3xxx/4xxx/5xxx is blowing nVidia out of the water which probably serves them right for over capitalising on the high-end scientific computation market ) .The problem with ATi 's drivers for me personally are : WindowsProblems with OpenGL performance compared to DirectX ( annoying ) No per application profiles ( deal breaker ) Catalyst control panel is apparently .Net with 3 + background services ( annoying ) LinuxUnstable , slow , do n't support the newest kernel releases and are quite slow to add support .
They also drop support for old cards too quickly ( deal breaker ) People who use them complain about graphical glitches and performance slowdowns ( deal breaker ) The open source drivers suck ( So does nouveau but at least the binary driver is decent ) Basically , I would buy ATi 's stuff as the hardware is great but their end-to-end support is awful so I 'm stuck with nVidia or not upgrading .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AMD/ATi's video card drivers suck, have sucked and continue to suck.
This is a real shame because ATi's hardware has really picked up (the 9800 was a ground-breaker, the X????
series was pretty lame but 3xxx/4xxx/5xxx is blowing nVidia out of the water which probably serves them right for over capitalising on the high-end scientific computation market).The problem with ATi's drivers for me personally are:WindowsProblems with OpenGL performance compared to DirectX (annoying)No per application profiles (deal breaker)Catalyst control panel is apparently .Net with 3+ background services (annoying)LinuxUnstable, slow, don't support the newest kernel releases and are quite slow to add support.
They also drop support for old cards too quickly (deal breaker)People who use them complain about graphical glitches and performance slowdowns (deal breaker)The open source drivers suck (So does nouveau but at least the binary driver is decent)Basically, I would buy ATi's stuff as the hardware is great but their end-to-end support is awful so I'm stuck with nVidia or not upgrading.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30013556</id>
	<title>Re:Bad Financial News for AMD</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1257597960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>They'll probably fix it soon.  One of the reasons for spinning off The Foundry Companies was to make it easier for AMD to use other foundries for production.  I'd imagine that their next chips will be sent to two or more foundries with penalty clauses in the contract if they can't keep up with demand and bonuses if the others can take up the slack when one can't keep up.<p><div class="quote"><p>  i'd hate to be on a one cpu maker planet</p></div><p>You mean one x86 CPU manufacturer.  TI, Samsung, Qualcomm, and a dozen other companies all make ARM chips and these outsell x86 by a large margin.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 'll probably fix it soon .
One of the reasons for spinning off The Foundry Companies was to make it easier for AMD to use other foundries for production .
I 'd imagine that their next chips will be sent to two or more foundries with penalty clauses in the contract if they ca n't keep up with demand and bonuses if the others can take up the slack when one ca n't keep up .
i 'd hate to be on a one cpu maker planetYou mean one x86 CPU manufacturer .
TI , Samsung , Qualcomm , and a dozen other companies all make ARM chips and these outsell x86 by a large margin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They'll probably fix it soon.
One of the reasons for spinning off The Foundry Companies was to make it easier for AMD to use other foundries for production.
I'd imagine that their next chips will be sent to two or more foundries with penalty clauses in the contract if they can't keep up with demand and bonuses if the others can take up the slack when one can't keep up.
i'd hate to be on a one cpu maker planetYou mean one x86 CPU manufacturer.
TI, Samsung, Qualcomm, and a dozen other companies all make ARM chips and these outsell x86 by a large margin.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30012364</id>
	<title>Offshore?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257526560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those Taiwanese bastards. How dare they offer fabrication services!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those Taiwanese bastards .
How dare they offer fabrication services !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those Taiwanese bastards.
How dare they offer fabrication services!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30014396</id>
	<title>Re:This is where Intel rules</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257611220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its too bad that Intel CPUs are inferior to AMD CPUs.  I have 3 computer systems here.  One is a home built system with an  AMD Athelon 1800+ CPU and 512 meg of ram.  Anther has a Compaq with P4 1.83 gig processor and 512 meg ram. The third is a Dell system with the same P4 1.83 gig processor and 512 gig of ram.  All three systems have identical 80 gig Western Digital hard drives, and are running the same version of sidux GNU/Linux.  The home built system with the AND processor is noticeably faster at all times than the P4 systems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its too bad that Intel CPUs are inferior to AMD CPUs .
I have 3 computer systems here .
One is a home built system with an AMD Athelon 1800 + CPU and 512 meg of ram .
Anther has a Compaq with P4 1.83 gig processor and 512 meg ram .
The third is a Dell system with the same P4 1.83 gig processor and 512 gig of ram .
All three systems have identical 80 gig Western Digital hard drives , and are running the same version of sidux GNU/Linux .
The home built system with the AND processor is noticeably faster at all times than the P4 systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its too bad that Intel CPUs are inferior to AMD CPUs.
I have 3 computer systems here.
One is a home built system with an  AMD Athelon 1800+ CPU and 512 meg of ram.
Anther has a Compaq with P4 1.83 gig processor and 512 meg ram.
The third is a Dell system with the same P4 1.83 gig processor and 512 gig of ram.
All three systems have identical 80 gig Western Digital hard drives, and are running the same version of sidux GNU/Linux.
The home built system with the AND processor is noticeably faster at all times than the P4 systems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30019354</id>
	<title>Re:Price hikes?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257617520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, there already have been price hikes.  Most of the 58xx and 57xx graphics cards are being sold for $15-25 more than they were 3 weeks ago.</p><p>I wonder if those "bad" 58xx chips could be used in a hypothetical 5830 that would perform roughly on par with the 5770.  It would be 256-bit but with a lower clock speed.  If this keeps up, maybe AMD would go there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , there already have been price hikes .
Most of the 58xx and 57xx graphics cards are being sold for $ 15-25 more than they were 3 weeks ago.I wonder if those " bad " 58xx chips could be used in a hypothetical 5830 that would perform roughly on par with the 5770 .
It would be 256-bit but with a lower clock speed .
If this keeps up , maybe AMD would go there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, there already have been price hikes.
Most of the 58xx and 57xx graphics cards are being sold for $15-25 more than they were 3 weeks ago.I wonder if those "bad" 58xx chips could be used in a hypothetical 5830 that would perform roughly on par with the 5770.
It would be 256-bit but with a lower clock speed.
If this keeps up, maybe AMD would go there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30012362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011912</id>
	<title>Sign of unreliable chips to come?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257519420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would not want to buy a chip from a company that can't get their new production process to work properly.</p><p>Lets say a cereal company is putting out a new line of product, only to find their new machinery is contaminated with mouse turds.  In the meantime while they figure out how to clean out the machines they look in every box and throw out the ones that have turds visible and ship the rest.  Would you want to eat that cereal?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would not want to buy a chip from a company that ca n't get their new production process to work properly.Lets say a cereal company is putting out a new line of product , only to find their new machinery is contaminated with mouse turds .
In the meantime while they figure out how to clean out the machines they look in every box and throw out the ones that have turds visible and ship the rest .
Would you want to eat that cereal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would not want to buy a chip from a company that can't get their new production process to work properly.Lets say a cereal company is putting out a new line of product, only to find their new machinery is contaminated with mouse turds.
In the meantime while they figure out how to clean out the machines they look in every box and throw out the ones that have turds visible and ship the rest.
Would you want to eat that cereal?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30012872</id>
	<title>Re:Still has a lead on nVidia</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1257625380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>nVidia manages to stay in my systems on the assumption that it will work better in Linux. So far, I have never been wrong about this; ATI has always been an abject nightmare for me, while nVidia has usually worked. Note that I am not the fanboy who will say it "just works" which would be a lie. But, it can be made to work. I've been flip-flopping between ATI and nVidia and back in the day had 3dfx and even Permedia and PowerVR at times and I've spent most of my time with nVidia and never regretted it. I've regretted every moment I spent with ATI, most especially on Linux. I've heard that some people with just the right-generation GPU have great results with the free ati driver; everyone else suffers.</p><p>I don't care if I'm off by five or ten FPS, I care that output is pretty and that I can use my video card.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>nVidia manages to stay in my systems on the assumption that it will work better in Linux .
So far , I have never been wrong about this ; ATI has always been an abject nightmare for me , while nVidia has usually worked .
Note that I am not the fanboy who will say it " just works " which would be a lie .
But , it can be made to work .
I 've been flip-flopping between ATI and nVidia and back in the day had 3dfx and even Permedia and PowerVR at times and I 've spent most of my time with nVidia and never regretted it .
I 've regretted every moment I spent with ATI , most especially on Linux .
I 've heard that some people with just the right-generation GPU have great results with the free ati driver ; everyone else suffers.I do n't care if I 'm off by five or ten FPS , I care that output is pretty and that I can use my video card .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nVidia manages to stay in my systems on the assumption that it will work better in Linux.
So far, I have never been wrong about this; ATI has always been an abject nightmare for me, while nVidia has usually worked.
Note that I am not the fanboy who will say it "just works" which would be a lie.
But, it can be made to work.
I've been flip-flopping between ATI and nVidia and back in the day had 3dfx and even Permedia and PowerVR at times and I've spent most of my time with nVidia and never regretted it.
I've regretted every moment I spent with ATI, most especially on Linux.
I've heard that some people with just the right-generation GPU have great results with the free ati driver; everyone else suffers.I don't care if I'm off by five or ten FPS, I care that output is pretty and that I can use my video card.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011482</id>
	<title>Not so worried</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1257513660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The big vendors who I trust already have built their inventory and this is just a temporary glitch in their manufacturing process. It's hardly something to be concerned about.</p><p>For Joe's Custom PCs and Feed Lot (or Dell), this may be a problem.</p><p>Should you go with an OEM who is well known and sells large volumes? Or should you stick with mom 'n pop PC assembly shops? I think it's like asking whether you should buy American or Chinese. Sure, one is cheaper but is it worth the lead poisoning?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The big vendors who I trust already have built their inventory and this is just a temporary glitch in their manufacturing process .
It 's hardly something to be concerned about.For Joe 's Custom PCs and Feed Lot ( or Dell ) , this may be a problem.Should you go with an OEM who is well known and sells large volumes ?
Or should you stick with mom 'n pop PC assembly shops ?
I think it 's like asking whether you should buy American or Chinese .
Sure , one is cheaper but is it worth the lead poisoning ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The big vendors who I trust already have built their inventory and this is just a temporary glitch in their manufacturing process.
It's hardly something to be concerned about.For Joe's Custom PCs and Feed Lot (or Dell), this may be a problem.Should you go with an OEM who is well known and sells large volumes?
Or should you stick with mom 'n pop PC assembly shops?
I think it's like asking whether you should buy American or Chinese.
Sure, one is cheaper but is it worth the lead poisoning?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011978</id>
	<title>Re:Bad Financial News for AMD</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1257520140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I believe global foundaries can do 40nm standard silicon either now or soon, so AMD should perphaps switch to there part owned foundary.</i></p><p>No, they can't.  Global Foundries can do 45nm, and soon 32nm, but not 40.  Also, Global Foundries uses SOI while TSMC is bulk.</p><p>I'm sure AMD will use GF eventually for their graphics chips, but for right now, I'm also sure it will take less time for TSMC to sort themselves out than it would to modify the design for a very different process.</p><p>Also, don't expect graphics by itself to make or break AMD.  It helps being on top their, but it's a small portion of their overall revenue.  To stay afloat, AMD has to compete with Intel and that's all there is to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe global foundaries can do 40nm standard silicon either now or soon , so AMD should perphaps switch to there part owned foundary.No , they ca n't .
Global Foundries can do 45nm , and soon 32nm , but not 40 .
Also , Global Foundries uses SOI while TSMC is bulk.I 'm sure AMD will use GF eventually for their graphics chips , but for right now , I 'm also sure it will take less time for TSMC to sort themselves out than it would to modify the design for a very different process.Also , do n't expect graphics by itself to make or break AMD .
It helps being on top their , but it 's a small portion of their overall revenue .
To stay afloat , AMD has to compete with Intel and that 's all there is to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe global foundaries can do 40nm standard silicon either now or soon, so AMD should perphaps switch to there part owned foundary.No, they can't.
Global Foundries can do 45nm, and soon 32nm, but not 40.
Also, Global Foundries uses SOI while TSMC is bulk.I'm sure AMD will use GF eventually for their graphics chips, but for right now, I'm also sure it will take less time for TSMC to sort themselves out than it would to modify the design for a very different process.Also, don't expect graphics by itself to make or break AMD.
It helps being on top their, but it's a small portion of their overall revenue.
To stay afloat, AMD has to compete with Intel and that's all there is to it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30023844</id>
	<title>Re:This is where Intel rules</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1257708780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I can't remember the last time Intel had poor yields ( or were admitting to it)<br>but this has been an issue for pretty much everyone else for years, particularly AMD.</p></div></blockquote><p>This is utter nonsense.  Intel has chip shortages *almost* every year.  They are WORSE than AMD and others in this regard.</p><p>September 2005<br><a href="http://www.tomshardware.com/news/manufacturers-report-intel-chipset-shortage,1410.html" title="tomshardware.com">http://www.tomshardware.com/news/manufacturers-report-intel-chipset-shortage,1410.html</a> [tomshardware.com]</p><p>May 2008<br><a href="http://www.slashgear.com/intel-atom-demand-prompts-chipset-shortages-0111422/" title="slashgear.com">http://www.slashgear.com/intel-atom-demand-prompts-chipset-shortages-0111422/</a> [slashgear.com]</p><p>Sep 2009<br><a href="http://en.newspeg.com/Intel-G31-chipset-shortages-to-get-worse-in-4Q09-as-Intel-cuts-back-supply-43419056.html" title="newspeg.com">http://en.newspeg.com/Intel-G31-chipset-shortages-to-get-worse-in-4Q09-as-Intel-cuts-back-supply-43419056.html</a> [newspeg.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't remember the last time Intel had poor yields ( or were admitting to it ) but this has been an issue for pretty much everyone else for years , particularly AMD.This is utter nonsense .
Intel has chip shortages * almost * every year .
They are WORSE than AMD and others in this regard.September 2005http : //www.tomshardware.com/news/manufacturers-report-intel-chipset-shortage,1410.html [ tomshardware.com ] May 2008http : //www.slashgear.com/intel-atom-demand-prompts-chipset-shortages-0111422/ [ slashgear.com ] Sep 2009http : //en.newspeg.com/Intel-G31-chipset-shortages-to-get-worse-in-4Q09-as-Intel-cuts-back-supply-43419056.html [ newspeg.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't remember the last time Intel had poor yields ( or were admitting to it)but this has been an issue for pretty much everyone else for years, particularly AMD.This is utter nonsense.
Intel has chip shortages *almost* every year.
They are WORSE than AMD and others in this regard.September 2005http://www.tomshardware.com/news/manufacturers-report-intel-chipset-shortage,1410.html [tomshardware.com]May 2008http://www.slashgear.com/intel-atom-demand-prompts-chipset-shortages-0111422/ [slashgear.com]Sep 2009http://en.newspeg.com/Intel-G31-chipset-shortages-to-get-worse-in-4Q09-as-Intel-cuts-back-supply-43419056.html [newspeg.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011940</id>
	<title>Re:Not so worried</title>
	<author>obarthelemy</author>
	<datestamp>1257519660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're talking graphics card. There's no really big vendor, and no reason to stockpile, on the contrary, the newer stuff commands a premium and is to be sold asap, before it becomes last month's news.Prices are already rising at retail, and OEMs will surely raise them too, even if they have plenty of parts.</p><p>Regarding the mom n' pop vs large OEM comment... I rather think the contrary: would you rather eat at a chain restaurant, or at a mom n' pop one ? Do you always buy standard, chain-made stuff assuming it's better than more individual, more hand-crafted stuff ? From my experience, Dell's failure rate is higher than that of the stuff I build myself (mostly because I know to put money for quality where it counts, Dell is just chasing checkmarks for reviews done over 1 week tops, a few hours more likely), and repairs are harder since some parts are nonstandard. Also, my mom's sweaters are definitely nicer than anything you can buy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-p</p><p>Mass-produced != good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're talking graphics card .
There 's no really big vendor , and no reason to stockpile , on the contrary , the newer stuff commands a premium and is to be sold asap , before it becomes last month 's news.Prices are already rising at retail , and OEMs will surely raise them too , even if they have plenty of parts.Regarding the mom n ' pop vs large OEM comment... I rather think the contrary : would you rather eat at a chain restaurant , or at a mom n ' pop one ?
Do you always buy standard , chain-made stuff assuming it 's better than more individual , more hand-crafted stuff ?
From my experience , Dell 's failure rate is higher than that of the stuff I build myself ( mostly because I know to put money for quality where it counts , Dell is just chasing checkmarks for reviews done over 1 week tops , a few hours more likely ) , and repairs are harder since some parts are nonstandard .
Also , my mom 's sweaters are definitely nicer than anything you can buy : -pMass-produced ! = good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're talking graphics card.
There's no really big vendor, and no reason to stockpile, on the contrary, the newer stuff commands a premium and is to be sold asap, before it becomes last month's news.Prices are already rising at retail, and OEMs will surely raise them too, even if they have plenty of parts.Regarding the mom n' pop vs large OEM comment... I rather think the contrary: would you rather eat at a chain restaurant, or at a mom n' pop one ?
Do you always buy standard, chain-made stuff assuming it's better than more individual, more hand-crafted stuff ?
From my experience, Dell's failure rate is higher than that of the stuff I build myself (mostly because I know to put money for quality where it counts, Dell is just chasing checkmarks for reviews done over 1 week tops, a few hours more likely), and repairs are harder since some parts are nonstandard.
Also, my mom's sweaters are definitely nicer than anything you can buy :-pMass-produced != good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30013532</id>
	<title>This is why AMD/Foundry needs more fabs</title>
	<author>Targon</author>
	<datestamp>1257597480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AMD has needed new fabs to increase capacity for a long time now.   After AMD purchased ATI, I always found it odd that there wasn't more of a push to build more fabs and bring their GPU production in-house.    At the least, NVIDIA should also be suffering from TSMC having problems, even though they may not be feeling the crunch at the moment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AMD has needed new fabs to increase capacity for a long time now .
After AMD purchased ATI , I always found it odd that there was n't more of a push to build more fabs and bring their GPU production in-house .
At the least , NVIDIA should also be suffering from TSMC having problems , even though they may not be feeling the crunch at the moment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AMD has needed new fabs to increase capacity for a long time now.
After AMD purchased ATI, I always found it odd that there wasn't more of a push to build more fabs and bring their GPU production in-house.
At the least, NVIDIA should also be suffering from TSMC having problems, even though they may not be feeling the crunch at the moment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30012362</id>
	<title>Price hikes?</title>
	<author>John Pfeiffer</author>
	<datestamp>1257526560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>A post at Anandtech suggests we'll see price hikes for the 5800-series Radeons until this situation sorts itself out.</p></div></blockquote><p>Price hikes?  No.  Probably not.  They were already sold out pretty much everywhere.  So it's more likely we just won't see any until this is worked out.  I'm not saying there won't be assholes selling 5870s for $800 on eBay, I mean, there ALWAYS are.  I'm just saying it's not like Newegg is suddenly going to have them back in stock but for a hundred bucks more.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A post at Anandtech suggests we 'll see price hikes for the 5800-series Radeons until this situation sorts itself out.Price hikes ?
No. Probably not .
They were already sold out pretty much everywhere .
So it 's more likely we just wo n't see any until this is worked out .
I 'm not saying there wo n't be assholes selling 5870s for $ 800 on eBay , I mean , there ALWAYS are .
I 'm just saying it 's not like Newegg is suddenly going to have them back in stock but for a hundred bucks more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A post at Anandtech suggests we'll see price hikes for the 5800-series Radeons until this situation sorts itself out.Price hikes?
No.  Probably not.
They were already sold out pretty much everywhere.
So it's more likely we just won't see any until this is worked out.
I'm not saying there won't be assholes selling 5870s for $800 on eBay, I mean, there ALWAYS are.
I'm just saying it's not like Newegg is suddenly going to have them back in stock but for a hundred bucks more.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30013144</id>
	<title>Re:TSMC</title>
	<author>dontmakemethink</author>
	<datestamp>1257588480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>foundry  -noun, plural -ries.
<br>1. 	an establishment for producing castings in molten metal.
<br>2. 	the act or process of founding or casting metal.
<br>3. 	the category of metal objects made by founding; castings.</p><p>Maybe they should get out of the bronze age and at least try some point-to-point wiring... might speed things up a bit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>foundry -noun , plural -ries .
1. an establishment for producing castings in molten metal .
2. the act or process of founding or casting metal .
3. the category of metal objects made by founding ; castings.Maybe they should get out of the bronze age and at least try some point-to-point wiring... might speed things up a bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>foundry  -noun, plural -ries.
1. 	an establishment for producing castings in molten metal.
2. 	the act or process of founding or casting metal.
3. 	the category of metal objects made by founding; castings.Maybe they should get out of the bronze age and at least try some point-to-point wiring... might speed things up a bit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011920</id>
	<title>Re:This is where Intel rules</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1257519420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>They're not called Chipzilla for nothing. I can't remember the last time Intel had poor yields ( or were admitting to it)<br>but this has been an issue for pretty much everyone else for years, particularly AMD.</i></p><p>Oh, they've had poor yields at times.  But they can often make up for it -- a big part of being 'zilla -- with their sheer manufacturing capacity.  Low yields just means their costs are higher, not that they can't supply customers.  It has happened though that they had to "paper launch" products in the past.  Though saying they've had poor yields should not be taken to imply that their fab tech isn't absolutely top notch -- low yields happens to everyone.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)   But it's that fab tech times their fab <i>size</i> that makes them chipzilla.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're not called Chipzilla for nothing .
I ca n't remember the last time Intel had poor yields ( or were admitting to it ) but this has been an issue for pretty much everyone else for years , particularly AMD.Oh , they 've had poor yields at times .
But they can often make up for it -- a big part of being 'zilla -- with their sheer manufacturing capacity .
Low yields just means their costs are higher , not that they ca n't supply customers .
It has happened though that they had to " paper launch " products in the past .
Though saying they 've had poor yields should not be taken to imply that their fab tech is n't absolutely top notch -- low yields happens to everyone .
; ) But it 's that fab tech times their fab size that makes them chipzilla .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're not called Chipzilla for nothing.
I can't remember the last time Intel had poor yields ( or were admitting to it)but this has been an issue for pretty much everyone else for years, particularly AMD.Oh, they've had poor yields at times.
But they can often make up for it -- a big part of being 'zilla -- with their sheer manufacturing capacity.
Low yields just means their costs are higher, not that they can't supply customers.
It has happened though that they had to "paper launch" products in the past.
Though saying they've had poor yields should not be taken to imply that their fab tech isn't absolutely top notch -- low yields happens to everyone.
;)   But it's that fab tech times their fab size that makes them chipzilla.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011478</id>
	<title>This is where Intel rules</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257513660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're not called Chipzilla for nothing. I can't remember the last time Intel had poor yields ( or were admitting to it)<br>but this has been an issue for pretty much everyone else for years, particularly AMD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're not called Chipzilla for nothing .
I ca n't remember the last time Intel had poor yields ( or were admitting to it ) but this has been an issue for pretty much everyone else for years , particularly AMD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're not called Chipzilla for nothing.
I can't remember the last time Intel had poor yields ( or were admitting to it)but this has been an issue for pretty much everyone else for years, particularly AMD.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30013540</id>
	<title>Re:Still has a lead on nVidia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257597720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> They always manage to stay on top because they are a monopolist in the gfx industry</p></div><p>Market share numbers from Q2 2009:
</p><ul>
<li>Intel:	51.20\%</li>
<li>nVidia: 29.2\%</li>
<li>AMD:	18.14\%</li>
</ul><p>
Sure, nVidia is an evil monopolist, what with having a market share slightly more than half of the company with the majority market share and a third larger than their nearest competitor.  </p><p>
I know it's fashionable to call everyone a monopolist on Slashdot, but the term has real meanings in both law and economics.  Neither definition can apply to a company that has both a market share under 50\% and a competitor with a larger market share.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They always manage to stay on top because they are a monopolist in the gfx industryMarket share numbers from Q2 2009 : Intel : 51.20 \ % nVidia : 29.2 \ % AMD : 18.14 \ % Sure , nVidia is an evil monopolist , what with having a market share slightly more than half of the company with the majority market share and a third larger than their nearest competitor .
I know it 's fashionable to call everyone a monopolist on Slashdot , but the term has real meanings in both law and economics .
Neither definition can apply to a company that has both a market share under 50 \ % and a competitor with a larger market share .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> They always manage to stay on top because they are a monopolist in the gfx industryMarket share numbers from Q2 2009:

Intel:	51.20\%
nVidia: 29.2\%
AMD:	18.14\%

Sure, nVidia is an evil monopolist, what with having a market share slightly more than half of the company with the majority market share and a third larger than their nearest competitor.
I know it's fashionable to call everyone a monopolist on Slashdot, but the term has real meanings in both law and economics.
Neither definition can apply to a company that has both a market share under 50\% and a competitor with a larger market share.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30013576</id>
	<title>Re:AMD having yield problems? Didn't see THAT comi</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1257598200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>AMD is not having yield problems because, since spinning off The Foundry Company, AMD does not have any fabs.  The company that AMD contracted to produce their chips is having yield problems.  Still not entirely unexpected (they are using a very ambitious technique), but being able to switch suppliers when this kind of thing happened was part of the reason for spinning off TFC...</htmltext>
<tokenext>AMD is not having yield problems because , since spinning off The Foundry Company , AMD does not have any fabs .
The company that AMD contracted to produce their chips is having yield problems .
Still not entirely unexpected ( they are using a very ambitious technique ) , but being able to switch suppliers when this kind of thing happened was part of the reason for spinning off TFC.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AMD is not having yield problems because, since spinning off The Foundry Company, AMD does not have any fabs.
The company that AMD contracted to produce their chips is having yield problems.
Still not entirely unexpected (they are using a very ambitious technique), but being able to switch suppliers when this kind of thing happened was part of the reason for spinning off TFC...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30012610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011706</id>
	<title>Engineers Wanted</title>
	<author>Rainbird98</author>
	<datestamp>1257516540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In years past TSMC would be on the phone to the Semiconductor Equipment Manufactures requesting their engineers on the next jet to help resolve the problem. Alas, there is no money for travel anymore and most of the engineers have been laid off. A sign of the times is guess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In years past TSMC would be on the phone to the Semiconductor Equipment Manufactures requesting their engineers on the next jet to help resolve the problem .
Alas , there is no money for travel anymore and most of the engineers have been laid off .
A sign of the times is guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In years past TSMC would be on the phone to the Semiconductor Equipment Manufactures requesting their engineers on the next jet to help resolve the problem.
Alas, there is no money for travel anymore and most of the engineers have been laid off.
A sign of the times is guess.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011636</id>
	<title>Re:Still has a lead on nVidia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257515760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is how nVidia always manages to stay on top: assumption.<br> <br>

I don't know why, but people always assume that nVidia parts are at the least equal, and for the most part better than ATi. Granted they have been in the past, but anyone savvy enough to know about graphics cards should also know how much things can change with every next generation.<br> <br>

I've heard people actually say "It's safe to say that the HD 3800 was pretty much a failure". That had to be one of the dumbest comments I've ever heard from a so-called "true gamer".</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is how nVidia always manages to stay on top : assumption .
I do n't know why , but people always assume that nVidia parts are at the least equal , and for the most part better than ATi .
Granted they have been in the past , but anyone savvy enough to know about graphics cards should also know how much things can change with every next generation .
I 've heard people actually say " It 's safe to say that the HD 3800 was pretty much a failure " .
That had to be one of the dumbest comments I 've ever heard from a so-called " true gamer " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is how nVidia always manages to stay on top: assumption.
I don't know why, but people always assume that nVidia parts are at the least equal, and for the most part better than ATi.
Granted they have been in the past, but anyone savvy enough to know about graphics cards should also know how much things can change with every next generation.
I've heard people actually say "It's safe to say that the HD 3800 was pretty much a failure".
That had to be one of the dumbest comments I've ever heard from a so-called "true gamer".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011836</id>
	<title>Re:Still has a lead on nVidia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257518220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The less than 2\% yield of the GT300 is not a rumor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The less than 2 \ % yield of the GT300 is not a rumor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The less than 2\% yield of the GT300 is not a rumor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30014644</id>
	<title>Re:This is where Intel rules</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257614460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are also correct, Intel rocks at fabs. They generally beat just about everyone to market with on a new node and they seem to be able to keep yields high enough to meet demand and keep prices at whatever level they like.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Actually historically speaking, memory manufactures are on the bleeding edge of the technology.  Course this is because of those large arrays of repeating patterns are "easier" to print then other types.  But, none the less they print smaller first.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are also correct , Intel rocks at fabs .
They generally beat just about everyone to market with on a new node and they seem to be able to keep yields high enough to meet demand and keep prices at whatever level they like.Actually historically speaking , memory manufactures are on the bleeding edge of the technology .
Course this is because of those large arrays of repeating patterns are " easier " to print then other types .
But , none the less they print smaller first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are also correct, Intel rocks at fabs.
They generally beat just about everyone to market with on a new node and they seem to be able to keep yields high enough to meet demand and keep prices at whatever level they like.Actually historically speaking, memory manufactures are on the bleeding edge of the technology.
Course this is because of those large arrays of repeating patterns are "easier" to print then other types.
But, none the less they print smaller first.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011970</id>
	<title>Re:Still has a lead on nVidia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257520140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They always manage to stay on top because they are a monopolist in the gfx industry. They are the Inte&pound;/Micro$oft of their respective industry.</p><p>Remember the partial precision era (5800)? They just happened to continue using PP well up to the 8 series...</p><p>3Dmark? They threatened to leave the sponsors group when things didn't go their way, a few years back.</p><p>They have PhysX in 3Dmark, when no one else has it in hardware to artificially boost benchmark scores (which basically sells hardware to 99\% of non-enthusiasts).</p><p>Remember when 3Dmark ran on rails? The biggest cheat that the public found out about....</p><p>They have a very long history of dirty tricks, anti-competitive and anti-consumer behavior. The latest one is the disabling of physx when not paired with an $vidia card as the renderer. The customers already bought the right to use physx with their ati cards but $vidia disabled it and then gave a complete bull$hit answer as to why.</p><p>That and lots more over the years.</p><p>They are a scum company, which is why i have been $vidia-free for 7 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They always manage to stay on top because they are a monopolist in the gfx industry .
They are the Inte   /Micro $ oft of their respective industry.Remember the partial precision era ( 5800 ) ?
They just happened to continue using PP well up to the 8 series...3Dmark ?
They threatened to leave the sponsors group when things did n't go their way , a few years back.They have PhysX in 3Dmark , when no one else has it in hardware to artificially boost benchmark scores ( which basically sells hardware to 99 \ % of non-enthusiasts ) .Remember when 3Dmark ran on rails ?
The biggest cheat that the public found out about....They have a very long history of dirty tricks , anti-competitive and anti-consumer behavior .
The latest one is the disabling of physx when not paired with an $ vidia card as the renderer .
The customers already bought the right to use physx with their ati cards but $ vidia disabled it and then gave a complete bull $ hit answer as to why.That and lots more over the years.They are a scum company , which is why i have been $ vidia-free for 7 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They always manage to stay on top because they are a monopolist in the gfx industry.
They are the Inte£/Micro$oft of their respective industry.Remember the partial precision era (5800)?
They just happened to continue using PP well up to the 8 series...3Dmark?
They threatened to leave the sponsors group when things didn't go their way, a few years back.They have PhysX in 3Dmark, when no one else has it in hardware to artificially boost benchmark scores (which basically sells hardware to 99\% of non-enthusiasts).Remember when 3Dmark ran on rails?
The biggest cheat that the public found out about....They have a very long history of dirty tricks, anti-competitive and anti-consumer behavior.
The latest one is the disabling of physx when not paired with an $vidia card as the renderer.
The customers already bought the right to use physx with their ati cards but $vidia disabled it and then gave a complete bull$hit answer as to why.That and lots more over the years.They are a scum company, which is why i have been $vidia-free for 7 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30013216</id>
	<title>Re:Sign of unreliable chips to come?</title>
	<author>Arker</author>
	<datestamp>1257590940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sign of unreliable chips to come? (Score:0, Troll)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/me cannot decide whether to mod troll or funny as both apply.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sign of unreliable chips to come ?
( Score : 0 , Troll ) /me can not decide whether to mod troll or funny as both apply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sign of unreliable chips to come?
(Score:0, Troll) /me cannot decide whether to mod troll or funny as both apply.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30012428</id>
	<title>Re:Its Intel's fault.  Help us out Cuomo !</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257527880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AMD looks to government and says, "We could have sold 2X the product. It Intels fault"<br>AMD looks to customers who want product and says, "We don't have product, Its Tawain fabs fault"</p><p>AMD, let me introduce you to DEC, GM, and SCO.<br>They can help guide you through the path you have chosen for your government lawsuit death dance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AMD looks to government and says , " We could have sold 2X the product .
It Intels fault " AMD looks to customers who want product and says , " We do n't have product , Its Tawain fabs fault " AMD , let me introduce you to DEC , GM , and SCO.They can help guide you through the path you have chosen for your government lawsuit death dance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AMD looks to government and says, "We could have sold 2X the product.
It Intels fault"AMD looks to customers who want product and says, "We don't have product, Its Tawain fabs fault"AMD, let me introduce you to DEC, GM, and SCO.They can help guide you through the path you have chosen for your government lawsuit death dance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011586</id>
	<title>AMD is Dying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257515100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just like *BSD . . . dead dying dead.
<br> <br>
Buh-bye!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like * BSD .
. .
dead dying dead .
Buh-bye !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like *BSD .
. .
dead dying dead.
Buh-bye!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30012454</id>
	<title>Re:This is where Intel rules</title>
	<author>Pulzar</author>
	<datestamp>1257528360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just three years ago, they had a major shortage of single-channel chipsets and had to buy a boatload of them from ATI for Intel-branded motherboards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just three years ago , they had a major shortage of single-channel chipsets and had to buy a boatload of them from ATI for Intel-branded motherboards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just three years ago, they had a major shortage of single-channel chipsets and had to buy a boatload of them from ATI for Intel-branded motherboards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30013014</id>
	<title>Background info on Telenor</title>
	<author>Sheen</author>
	<datestamp>1257584640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would like to add some information about Telenor.

Telenor is state owned, 54\% of the shares belong to the people/Norwegian state.

They have close to 200 million customers worldwide. So this is a big operator in the Telecom world. They have about 43 000 employees.

Today, I am proud to be Norwegian.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would like to add some information about Telenor .
Telenor is state owned , 54 \ % of the shares belong to the people/Norwegian state .
They have close to 200 million customers worldwide .
So this is a big operator in the Telecom world .
They have about 43 000 employees .
Today , I am proud to be Norwegian .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would like to add some information about Telenor.
Telenor is state owned, 54\% of the shares belong to the people/Norwegian state.
They have close to 200 million customers worldwide.
So this is a big operator in the Telecom world.
They have about 43 000 employees.
Today, I am proud to be Norwegian.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_2331212_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30013144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_2331212_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30023844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_2331212_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30012428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_2331212_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_2331212_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30019354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30012362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_2331212_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_2331212_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30014580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_2331212_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30012872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_2331212_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_2331212_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30015498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30013540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_2331212_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30012940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_2331212_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_2331212_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30013216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_2331212_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30012226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_2331212_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30014644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_2331212_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30014396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_2331212_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30012414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30012362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_2331212_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30012454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_2331212_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30013556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_2331212_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_2331212_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30019122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_2331212_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30013576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30012610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_2331212.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30012362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30012414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30019354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_2331212.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30013216
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_2331212.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011636
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30012872
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30019122
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30012940
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011970
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30013540
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30015498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011836
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_2331212.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30013556
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_2331212.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30012226
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_2331212.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011726
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_2331212.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30013144
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_2331212.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30012428
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_2331212.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_2331212.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30013014
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_2331212.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30013532
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_2331212.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011940
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_2331212.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30012454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30014396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30023844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30011700
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30014580
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30014644
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_2331212.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30012610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_2331212.30013576
</commentlist>
</conversation>
