|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Robert Myers
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 11:57 pm Post subject: My lack of enthusiasm for AMD |
 |
|
I now have a machine with AMD processor: 4600+, dual core, 2.4GHz. No
smoke coming out of the back yet.
I bought it because it had the features I needed at a price that was
too attractive to resist. No other reason.
When I turn this into a Linux box, I'll have to figure out what Intel
has done to make life miserable for people who use its compiler with
AMD processors. Until then, I doubt I'll notice any difference, except
on csiphc, where no one will be able to accuse me of never having
bought AMD.
This article
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/amd-may-wilting-heat-applied/story.aspx?guid=%7BB6EB10FD-4578-4B54-96FE-5FCF10DCBDDC%7D
does a reasonably good job of explaining my chronic lack of enthusiasm
for AMD:
<quote>
Still, AMD's warning is not necessarily good news for Intel.
Both companies have been ramping up production of PC chips, which has
led to record-high inventory levels in the PC-chip sector, according to
iSuppli, a technology research firm.
Intel has been pushing its new Core 2 Duo chips into the market in
large volumes, hoping to reclaim market share it lost to AMD.
In 2006, AMD boosted factory production between 30% to 35% from 2005
levels, company executives indicated at a Wall Street analyst meeting
on Dec. 14.
High inventory levels and falling chip prices will hurt both companies,
said Hickey, who had been a longtime backer of AMD until March of last
year.
"It's a war no one wins," Hickey said.
</quote>
AMD pulled a trick play and changed the direction of the industry. The
very nature of trick plays means that they are a one shot deal. You
use them to win a game, because you'll never get another shot at the
same trick again. AMD wounded Intel. That's all. It didn't gain
permanent market share (as I predict, and as the logic of the article I
cite confirms).
I'm not interested in more of the same at lower prices, which is what
the current competitive standoff has created. I want something new,
and companies have to be financially healthy to do that (even if AMD
got a one-time exception with its trick play). I'd rather see IBM,
Microsoft, and Intel battling one another. If AMD has weakened Intel,
that only leaves the real monopolist, Microsoft, in an even stronger
position, something that *still* doesn't seem to have sunk in on
management at IBM.
Robert. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fix your Windows Problems - FAST.
FREE Safe Scan Registry Check. Locate & Fix Errors in Minutes!
|
|
Robert Myers
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 3:40 am Post subject: Re: My lack of enthusiasm for AMD |
|
|
Yousuf Khan wrote:
| Quote: |
You seem to have read a different article than the one you quoted.
|
<quote>
"ThinkEquity Partners analyst Eric Ross said major PC makers are
"disillusioned" with AMD's technology roadmap and are likely to give
longer-term design wins back to Intel."
</quote>
<quote>
This has put AMD in a precarious - and familiar - position.
"Intel has always bombed them in price. The only time it didn't work is
when AMD had a big lead" in technology, Hickey added.
</quote>
| Quote: |
Intel has simply executed its own little trick shot here. So far it
hasn't gained one iota of marketshare from Core 2.
Not a trick play. A two minute drill to regain the lead, with the odds |
at this moment being that it will probably for good. Or maybe AMD will
be back to trying another bet-the-franchise onsides kick.
As I've commented before, the commercial airline business went through
this same kind of ruinous competition, and now there is just *one*
commercially-viable maker of long-haul commercial airplanes. The
competition is Europe, Inc., not Lockheed or McDonnell Douglas. There
is competition for military aircraft, but that's because the Pentagon
wants it that way, not because a true market that would support the
level of competition actually exists.
Robert. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gaffo
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:02 am Post subject: Re: My lack of enthusiasm for AMD |
|
|
Robert Myers wrote:
| Quote: | Yousuf Khan wrote:
You seem to have read a different article than the one you quoted.
quote
"ThinkEquity Partners analyst Eric Ross said major PC makers are
"disillusioned" with AMD's technology roadmap and are likely to give
longer-term design wins back to Intel."
/quote
quote
This has put AMD in a precarious - and familiar - position.
"Intel has always bombed them in price. The only time it didn't work
is when AMD had a big lead" in technology, Hickey added.
/quote
Intel has simply executed its own little trick shot here. So far it
hasn't gained one iota of marketshare from Core 2.
Not a trick play. A two minute drill to regain the lead, with the
odds at this moment being that it will probably for good. Or maybe
AMD will be back to trying another bet-the-franchise onsides kick.
As I've commented before, the commercial airline business went through
this same kind of ruinous competition, and now there is just one
commercially-viable maker of long-haul commercial airplanes. The
competition is Europe, Inc., not Lockheed or McDonnell Douglas.
|
McDonnell Douglas ceased to exist nearly 8 yrs ago. It "merged" with
Boeing.
| Quote: | There
is competition for military aircraft, but that's because the Pentagon
wants it that way, not because a true market that would support the
level of competition actually exists.
Robert.
|
I think the days of massive new speeds and architectures are over (at
least using Si).
AMD will come out with their K8L (or whatever it is called) - which is
basically a souped up k8 (like the core is a souped up Pentium-3) - and
that chip will be on par with Intel's core.
i think at that point we will get a .45 die shrink and maybe one more.
I doubt that we will see any new architectures for many years. just
more cores for the core/k8l and smaller sized chips.
-- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Myers
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:08 am Post subject: Re: My lack of enthusiasm for AMD |
|
|
gaffo wrote:
| Quote: |
McDonnell Douglas ceased to exist nearly 8 yrs ago. It "merged" with
Boeing.
Just as DEC "merged" with Compaq, which "Merged" with HP. Lockheed, |
McDonnell Douglas (MacDAC), and Boeing were the three players in the
jumbo jet wars of the 80's.
Robert. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Myers
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:06 am Post subject: Re: My lack of enthusiasm for AMD |
|
|
On Jan 30, 11:55 am, Del Cecchi <cecchinos...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
I would wonder if either of you have been involved on the inside of the
industry.
And in the Windows compatible business it doesn't seem that market share
is in any way a permanant thing, contrary to the beliefs of each side.
There is no real reason for customers to care much which company's
processor is in the box, right?
It's actually not a belief of mine, and I don't know where you got |
the idea that it is. I was citing the opinions expressed in the
article. The logic is that, when AMD has a big technical lead, it can
hold its own. When it doesn't, Intel "bombs them on price." You can
disagree with that if you like, but whether it's what the article says
or not or whether it's correct or not has nothing to do with whether
I've been inside the industry. The people whose opinions are cited
bet their careers and the money of investors on their opinions.
Following the logic of the article, the only question now is whether
there is another way for AMD to gain a big lead. The "Itanium-buster"
strategy was out there for a long time. Intel has taken its lumps,
and AMD's big lead has evaporated. What's AMD going to do for an
encore, call it a trick play or not?
As to whether customers care what's inside the box or not, Intel has
poured an awful lot of money into "Intel Inside" and "Centrino"
branding. Everything that I've read gives Intel high marks for the
money it has spent on those efforts. It didn't do any good though,
when it started to be obvious that Opteron was the clearly superior
processor. Now it isn't. Given two products that are
indistinguishable, customers buy on price and perception, a battle
that Intel has historically won.
Robert.
Robert. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fix your Windows Problems - FAST.
FREE Safe Scan Registry Check. Locate & Fix Errors in Minutes!
|
|
Yousuf Khan
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:52 am Post subject: Re: My lack of enthusiasm for AMD |
|
|
Robert Myers wrote:
| Quote: | The logic of the article agrees with my prediction that AMD didn't
gain permanent market market share. They got a one time boost. I
chose to call it a trick play. What you choose to call it is a matter
of your writing skills. The words "trick play" were not enclosed in
quotes, and I nowhere implied that it was a quotation. I assumed that
you wouldn't set up such a silly straw man only to knock it down.
Apparently, you did. I'm not interested in csiphc AMD/Intel pissing
matches.
|
No, of course you're not interested in a pissing match, that's entirely
evident from your choice of subject title, "My lack of enthusiasm for AMD".
| Quote: | Intel has simply executed its own little trick shot here. So far it
hasn't gained one iota of marketshare from Core 2.
Not a trick play. A two minute drill to regain the lead, with the odds
at this moment being that it will probably for good. Or maybe AMD will
be back to trying another bet-the-franchise onsides kick.Unfortunately, that's an interesting theory, but that's all it will
remain, a theory. That's because Intel has once again lost some
marketshare this past quarter, despite their "longer-term design wins".
http://img71.imageshack.us/my.php?image=q4mste6.jpg
Intel is now down to 74% marketshare (from 76% last Q), and AMD is upto
25%, with almost nothing left for VIA or Transmeta now. It's a true
two-horse race now.
Fascinating. Whenever mention what the markets are saying, you find
some piece of data that fits your preconceptions, even if it's a one-
day move in share price. My piece of data is that AMD lost 60% of its
market value over the last year. The pipeline is full of AMD
designs. The *design wins*, according to the article, are going to
Intel.
|
Yeah, I'm sorry that facts and data are getting in the way of your
hypothesis. Do you have any data points on how much of *design wins* are
going Intel's way, to back up your case?
| Quote: | BTW, if it took Intel a two-minute drill to regain the lead, why did it
take them 3 years to start the drill?
Assign that to your MBA case studies class, or take such a class and
do it for yourself. I'm not interested in a fanboy pissing match.
|
What's an MBA gotta do with it? That's a technical question. It took
Intel 3 years to come up with an answer to AMD's products, not two-minutes.
Yousuf Khan
--
There is no failure, only delayed success |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yousuf Khan
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:07 am Post subject: Re: My lack of enthusiasm for AMD |
|
|
Robert Myers wrote:
| Quote: | On Jan 30, 11:55 am, Del Cecchi <cecchinos...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
I would wonder if either of you have been involved on the inside of the
industry.
And in the Windows compatible business it doesn't seem that market share
is in any way a permanant thing, contrary to the beliefs of each side.
There is no real reason for customers to care much which company's
processor is in the box, right?
It's actually not a belief of mine, and I don't know where you got
the idea that it is.
|
Where do we get the idea that you were looking for a permanent market
share increase? How about when you said:
| Quote: | AMD pulled a trick play and changed the direction of the industry. The
very nature of trick plays means that they are a one shot deal. You
use them to win a game, because you'll never get another shot at the
same trick again. AMD wounded Intel. That's all. It didn't gain
permanent market share (as I predict, and as the logic of the article I
cite confirms).
|
It sure sounds like you were looking to see whether AMD gained
"permanent marketshare" in that quote above.
| Quote: | As to whether customers care what's inside the box or not, Intel has
poured an awful lot of money into "Intel Inside" and "Centrino"
branding. Everything that I've read gives Intel high marks for the
money it has spent on those efforts. It didn't do any good though,
when it started to be obvious that Opteron was the clearly superior
processor. Now it isn't. Given two products that are
indistinguishable, customers buy on price and perception, a battle
that Intel has historically won.
|
The "Intel Inside" strategy is precisely what the anti-trust lawsuit is
about, and precisely what Intel won't be allowed to use anymore
afterwards. In fact, Intel has already abandoned it. And without "Intel
Inside" threats and coercion, we've seen Intel go from a 90%+
marketshare company to a 75% marketshare company (so far). And that's
happening even with some of their most advanced and innovative
technologies in years.
Yousuf Khan
--
There is no failure, only delayed success |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Myers
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:57 am Post subject: Re: My lack of enthusiasm for AMD |
|
|
On Jan 30, 7:07 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Robert Myers wrote:
On Jan 30, 11:55 am, Del Cecchi <cecchinos...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
I would wonder if either of you have been involved on the inside of the
industry.
And in the Windows compatible business it doesn't seem that market share
is in any way a permanant thing, contrary to the beliefs of each side.
There is no real reason for customers to care much which company's
processor is in the box, right?
It's actually not a belief of mine, and I don't know where you got
the idea that it is.
Where do we get the idea that you were looking for a permanent market
share increase? How about when you said:
AMD pulled a trick play and changed the direction of the industry. The
very nature of trick plays means that they are a one shot deal. You
use them to win a game, because you'll never get another shot at the
same trick again. AMD wounded Intel. That's all. It didn't gain
permanent market share (as I predict, and as the logic of the article I
cite confirms).
It sure sounds like you were looking to see whether AMD gained
"permanent marketshare" in that quote above.
In that sense, yes. What position will AMD find itself in (and, |
indeed, is in already)? Pretty much the same position it found itself
in pre-Opteron: ruinous price competition with Intel. Whether the
analysts quoted in the article got it right or not, they agree with my
perception of the playing field: if AMD can't pull another ace out of
its sleeve, Intel will simply grind it into the ground. Nobody has
"permanent" market share, but companies and products have positions
that are hard to attack. AMD had such a position. The temporary (and
significant) advantage that AMD got from its Itanium-killer strategy
has evaporated, thus putting the game back on rules by which Intel
will win.
| Quote: |
The "Intel Inside" strategy is precisely what the anti-trust lawsuit is
about, and precisely what Intel won't be allowed to use anymore
afterwards. In fact, Intel has already abandoned it. And without "Intel
Inside" threats and coercion, we've seen Intel go from a 90%+
marketshare company to a 75% marketshare company (so far). And that's
happening even with some of their most advanced and innovative
technologies in years.
Maybe one of these days we'll know the real story: how much of AMD's |
market share was Intel being more cautious about sales tactics and how
much was because AMD simply had the better product. I tend to believe
that it is the latter.
I didn't state my own opinion here so much as find someone else whose
opinion roughly agreed with mine. Feel free to state your own opinion
and, should you care to, supporting opinion from elsewhere. As I've
stated, the fact that Intel's profits are under pressure because it is
in a price war is no surprise and doesn't invalidate what the article
I cited says.
As to Intel marketing, I continue to be impressed by its
aggressiveness. Core 2 Duo is everywhere you look right now. AMD
just doesn't have the resources.
For the IBM'ers here who don't think that marketing and perception are
important, consider IBM falling all over itself to rush out news of
its own high-K dielectric on exactly the same day as Intel. Marketing
and perception are important, independent of technical details. That
is to say: name brands *do* matter. Every computer I've seen
advertised recently is very explicit about what kind of processor is
inside.
Robert. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Myers
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:19 am Post subject: Re: My lack of enthusiasm for AMD |
|
|
On Jan 30, 6:52 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
No, of course you're not interested in a pissing match, that's entirely
evident from your choice of subject title, "My lack of enthusiasm for AMD".
I found an article that succinctly described why I have a position |
that has been described as being a shill for intel. I don't claim
that it should be everyone's position, and I don't think it will ever
be yours, but I don't want to spend forever arguing about it. If you
feel that your position vis a vis Intel or AMD needs clarification,
please to tell us.
..
| Quote: |
Yeah, I'm sorry that facts and data are getting in the way of your
hypothesis. Do you have any data points on how much of *design wins* are
going Intel's way, to back up your case?
I don't claim to be an industry insider. I only know what I read in |
the newspapers, to coin a phrase. I read something and reported it
and my reaction to it. That's not an invitation to you or anyone else
to get into a pissing match. If you don't like the evidence I
presented, find some of your own. Telling me that Intel's profits are
down doesn't tell me a thing.
| Quote: |
What's an MBA gotta do with it? That's a technical question. It took
Intel 3 years to come up with an answer to AMD's products, not two-minutes.
Intel's problems have been the result of bad strategy, so far as I can |
tell. Intel was counting on pushing the edge of the frequency
envelope. AMD didn't have to. For intel, hitting the frequency wall
first, because of its high frequency strategy, was a killer. Intel
also thought it could force Itanium into the market. To the extent
that Itanium survives, it will never be what Intel expected it to be.
What AMD did was, in a sense obvious, at least for someone in a
competitive position: put the memory controller on the die, focus on
performance and not frequency, and use the extension to 64-bits to
provide some relief to the architectural register starved x86
architecture.
Intel stubbornly stuck to it's NetBurst/Itanium strategy, and it has
paid a price. The decision to pursue such a course is a *business*
decision, not a technical decision. That intel was taking a huge risk
in banking on always being able to operate at a higher frequency is
obvious in retrospect. How intel made those decisions and how it
should have made those decisions is studied at places like the Sloan
School, not in EE/CS departments.
Intel's decision to make a quad core out of two dual core chips is a
business decision, as is Intel's decision to keep the memory
controller off the die. The pluses and minuses are pretty well
known. The details and the dollars and cents are not. I'd love it if
someone knowledgeable would talk about how such decisions are made.
The only way I know to engage in such a discussion is to go to a first
rate school of management.
Robert. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Del Cecchi
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:13 am Post subject: Re: My lack of enthusiasm for AMD |
|
|
"Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1170208635.917050.168730@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | On Jan 30, 7:07 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Robert Myers wrote:
On Jan 30, 11:55 am, Del Cecchi <cecchinos...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
I would wonder if either of you have been involved on the inside of
the
industry.
And in the Windows compatible business it doesn't seem that market
share
is in any way a permanant thing, contrary to the beliefs of each
side.
There is no real reason for customers to care much which company's
processor is in the box, right?
It's actually not a belief of mine, and I don't know where you got
the idea that it is.
Where do we get the idea that you were looking for a permanent market
share increase? How about when you said:
AMD pulled a trick play and changed the direction of the industry.
The
very nature of trick plays means that they are a one shot deal. You
use them to win a game, because you'll never get another shot at the
same trick again. AMD wounded Intel. That's all. It didn't gain
permanent market share (as I predict, and as the logic of the
article I
cite confirms).
It sure sounds like you were looking to see whether AMD gained
"permanent marketshare" in that quote above.
In that sense, yes. What position will AMD find itself in (and,
indeed, is in already)? Pretty much the same position it found itself
in pre-Opteron: ruinous price competition with Intel. Whether the
analysts quoted in the article got it right or not, they agree with my
perception of the playing field: if AMD can't pull another ace out of
its sleeve, Intel will simply grind it into the ground. Nobody has
"permanent" market share, but companies and products have positions
that are hard to attack. AMD had such a position. The temporary (and
significant) advantage that AMD got from its Itanium-killer strategy
has evaporated, thus putting the game back on rules by which Intel
will win.
The "Intel Inside" strategy is precisely what the anti-trust lawsuit
is
about, and precisely what Intel won't be allowed to use anymore
afterwards. In fact, Intel has already abandoned it. And without
"Intel
Inside" threats and coercion, we've seen Intel go from a 90%+
marketshare company to a 75% marketshare company (so far). And that's
happening even with some of their most advanced and innovative
technologies in years.
Maybe one of these days we'll know the real story: how much of AMD's
market share was Intel being more cautious about sales tactics and how
much was because AMD simply had the better product. I tend to believe
that it is the latter.
I didn't state my own opinion here so much as find someone else whose
opinion roughly agreed with mine. Feel free to state your own opinion
and, should you care to, supporting opinion from elsewhere. As I've
stated, the fact that Intel's profits are under pressure because it is
in a price war is no surprise and doesn't invalidate what the article
I cited says.
As to Intel marketing, I continue to be impressed by its
aggressiveness. Core 2 Duo is everywhere you look right now. AMD
just doesn't have the resources.
For the IBM'ers here who don't think that marketing and perception are
important, consider IBM falling all over itself to rush out news of
its own high-K dielectric on exactly the same day as Intel. Marketing
and perception are important, independent of technical details. That
is to say: name brands *do* matter. Every computer I've seen
advertised recently is very explicit about what kind of processor is
inside.
Robert.
Actually I believe the timing has to do with the ISSCC and its rules as |
to prerelease of papers.
So both had papers and both became news on the day the embargo is lifted?
del |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Del Cecchi
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:15 am Post subject: Re: My lack of enthusiasm for AMD |
|
|
"Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1170209949.398546.173700@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | On Jan 30, 6:52 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
No, of course you're not interested in a pissing match, that's
entirely
evident from your choice of subject title, "My lack of enthusiasm for
AMD".
I found an article that succinctly described why I have a position
that has been described as being a shill for intel. I don't claim
that it should be everyone's position, and I don't think it will ever
be yours, but I don't want to spend forever arguing about it. If you
feel that your position vis a vis Intel or AMD needs clarification,
please to tell us.
.
Yeah, I'm sorry that facts and data are getting in the way of your
hypothesis. Do you have any data points on how much of *design wins*
are
going Intel's way, to back up your case?
I don't claim to be an industry insider. I only know what I read in
the newspapers, to coin a phrase. I read something and reported it
and my reaction to it. That's not an invitation to you or anyone else
to get into a pissing match. If you don't like the evidence I
presented, find some of your own. Telling me that Intel's profits are
down doesn't tell me a thing.
What's an MBA gotta do with it? That's a technical question. It took
Intel 3 years to come up with an answer to AMD's products, not
two-minutes.
Intel's problems have been the result of bad strategy, so far as I can
tell. Intel was counting on pushing the edge of the frequency
envelope. AMD didn't have to. For intel, hitting the frequency wall
first, because of its high frequency strategy, was a killer. Intel
also thought it could force Itanium into the market. To the extent
that Itanium survives, it will never be what Intel expected it to be.
What AMD did was, in a sense obvious, at least for someone in a
competitive position: put the memory controller on the die, focus on
performance and not frequency, and use the extension to 64-bits to
provide some relief to the architectural register starved x86
architecture.
Intel stubbornly stuck to it's NetBurst/Itanium strategy, and it has
paid a price. The decision to pursue such a course is a *business*
decision, not a technical decision. That intel was taking a huge risk
in banking on always being able to operate at a higher frequency is
obvious in retrospect. How intel made those decisions and how it
should have made those decisions is studied at places like the Sloan
School, not in EE/CS departments.
Intel's decision to make a quad core out of two dual core chips is a
business decision, as is Intel's decision to keep the memory
controller off the die. The pluses and minuses are pretty well
known. The details and the dollars and cents are not. I'd love it if
someone knowledgeable would talk about how such decisions are made.
The only way I know to engage in such a discussion is to go to a first
rate school of management.
Robert.
Actually it is also a technical decision. And the way Intel makes such |
decisions probably has not much to do with Harvard MBAs. Those are the
guys that came up with the Itanium plan.
del |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yousuf Khan
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 12:17 pm Post subject: Re: My lack of enthusiasm for AMD |
|
|
Robert Myers wrote:
| Quote: | Yeah, I'm sorry that facts and data are getting in the way of your
hypothesis. Do you have any data points on how much of *design wins* are
going Intel's way, to back up your case?
I don't claim to be an industry insider. I only know what I read in
the newspapers, to coin a phrase. I read something and reported it
and my reaction to it. That's not an invitation to you or anyone else
to get into a pissing match. If you don't like the evidence I
presented, find some of your own. Telling me that Intel's profits are
down doesn't tell me a thing.
|
I didn't give you a table that showed Intel's profits are down (though
they are, quite obviously), I gave you a table that showed Intel's
market share is down, while AMD's is up. I thought that's what your
whole argument was against AMD? As for fighting against evidence
presented, we're not the ones fighting the market share numbers.
| Quote: | What's an MBA gotta do with it? That's a technical question. It took
Intel 3 years to come up with an answer to AMD's products, not two-minutes.
Intel's problems have been the result of bad strategy, so far as I can
tell. Intel was counting on pushing the edge of the frequency
envelope. AMD didn't have to. For intel, hitting the frequency wall
first, because of its high frequency strategy, was a killer. Intel
also thought it could force Itanium into the market. To the extent
that Itanium survives, it will never be what Intel expected it to be.
|
The only problem Intel had was that Core 2's predecessors (Pentium M,
followed by Core 1) weren't ready for the non-laptop market, so Intel
had no choice but to push the Pentium 4 for the last 3 years. It needed
the last 3 years to design Core 2 to be more than just a laptop chip.
| Quote: | What AMD did was, in a sense obvious, at least for someone in a
competitive position: put the memory controller on the die, focus on
performance and not frequency, and use the extension to 64-bits to
provide some relief to the architectural register starved x86
architecture.
|
How was any of that an obvious path? They've only been the obvious path
since AMD did it that way. But even if they implemented only half of
those features, it would still be considered "next-generation".
Yousuf Khan
--
There is no failure, only delayed success |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gaffo
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 7:46 am Post subject: Re: My lack of enthusiasm for AMD |
|
|
Yousuf Khan wrote:
| Quote: | Robert Myers wrote:
On Jan 30, 7:07 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Robert Myers wrote:
It's actually not a belief of mine, and I don't know where you
got the idea that it is.
Where do we get the idea that you were looking for a permanent
market share increase? How about when you said:
AMD pulled a trick play and changed the direction of the
industry. The very nature of trick plays means that they are a
one shot deal. You use them to win a game, because you'll
never get another shot at the same trick again. AMD wounded
Intel. That's all. It didn't gain permanent market share (as
I predict, and as the logic of the article I cite confirms).
It sure sounds like you were looking to see whether AMD gained
"permanent marketshare" in that quote above.
In that sense, yes. What position will AMD find itself in (and,
indeed, is in already)? Pretty much the same position it found
itself in pre-Opteron: ruinous price competition with Intel.
Whether the analysts quoted in the article got it right or not,
they agree with my perception of the playing field: if AMD can't
pull another ace out of its sleeve, Intel will simply grind it
into the ground. Nobody has "permanent" market share, but
companies and products have positions that are hard to attack.
AMD had such a position. The temporary (and significant)
advantage that AMD got from its Itanium-killer strategy has
evaporated, thus putting the game back on rules by which Intel
will win.
AMD's strategy was never about being an "Itanium-killer".
|
Yes it was!!
that is why they promoted 64-bit extension, while Intel publically
stated they had no intention to offer 64-bit extension initially, and
only reluctantly offered their own version 2-yrs later when Itanic did
not meraculously replace all the x86 desktop boxes all over the world.
By 2007 (now) Itanic was to be as fully entrenched as x86 is and in
fact its total replacement!! Remember Merced project has been around
since 1993 or so.
conjecture below:
I suspect that is why the p-II/p-III was the last decent x86 offered by
Intel until the Core (which is essentially a p-III), and why the p-IV
had such a *** x87 fpu. It was to be a "stopgap" chip until Itanic
could replace it. (this is all just conjecture).
| Quote: | Itanium
pretty much killed itself.
|
Well, yes. but not really relivant. Since the Athlon-64 was indeed
buildt to offer an alternative to the Itanic and so in effect compete
against it.
I general terms AMD offered to prevent x86 extinction by offering a
good chip that ran 64-bit software for servers.
Intel wanted the opposite since any extension to x86 would cut into
their plans for Itanic total takover of all PCs.
Itanic ended up being so doggy and impractial for most uses (and no
software)............that it was non-viable as an x86 replacement for
general use.
MS had similar plans to replace DOS-based Windows95/98 with NT: which
2000/XP/Vista is. So MS did it, Intel did not.
| Quote: | AMD's strategy was simply "the next
generation of x86".
|
no - much more than that. The original Athlon which came out in 99 sure
- back then the p-3 was the competitor. But with the Athlon-64 the plan
was to prevent x86 extinction by opening up a future for x86 in the
server space now and the desktop in years to come.
Intel wanted desperately to KILL OFF x86 and have Itanic take its place.
Core is the first REAL attempt by Intel to offer a quality x86 chip.
Looks like they finally except that Itanic was a money pit and a
failure. I expect that chip to utterly dissapear in a couple more years.
| Quote: | As for AMD having to compete in a ruinous price competition against
Intel, yes it's having to do that right now. But that's simply
because Intel got its next-generation products out the door just a
little ahead of AMD. It took Intel at least 3 years to come up with
the design of Core 2 that it could compete against K8, and it caught
AMD just before its own next-generation products came out. It takes 3
years to design a new architecture, so having a gap of only a few
months between the competitors' introductions of new products is not
a big deal.
|
one full year ahead.
| Quote: | What was really ruinous was to Intel where it had to wait
those 3 years for Core 2 to finally be ready. Intel had to stop major
development on Netburst products, and start from scratch.
|
Core is not from the ground up design. Intel did not work on this one
for 3-yrs. they wasted 2 yrs in denail over Itanic. The Core is
basically an improved p-3/p-m (mobile). They lucked out in that the
Israeli team was working on modile pentium-3 dez.
Had they not had that base to work from - Core would not be out yet.
(IMO).
| Quote: | AMD is not
going to have to wait that long for its own answer back to Core 2 to
be ready.
|
The AMD chip is only a tweaked Athlon, it will maybe be on par with
Core.
All this talk about a better fpu is silly (some irrelivant SSE-3/4 crap
I'm sure), Athlon already has a powerful classic fpu. it needs work on
its integer speed.maybe a better branch predictor?
| Quote: |
The "Intel Inside" strategy is precisely what the anti-trust
lawsuit is about, and precisely what Intel won't be allowed to
use anymore afterwards. In fact, Intel has already abandoned it.
And without "Intel Inside" threats and coercion, we've seen Intel
go from a 90%+ marketshare company to a 75% marketshare company
(so far). And that's happening even with some of their most
advanced and innovative technologies in years.
Maybe one of these days we'll know the real story: how much of
AMD's market share was Intel being more cautious about sales
tactics and how much was because AMD simply had the better
product. I tend to believe that it is the latter.
The answer is already pretty evident. K8 came out in 2003, where it
got very little attention for at least a year. Then in March 2005,
AMD launched its anti-trust lawsuit against Intel (after AMD got a
favorable ruling from the Japanese anti-trust authorities), and
within one quarter its market share was going up, starting a string
of consistently up quarters which continued to the present day, this
past quarter.
Basically the major technological improvements were all introduced in
2003, but the market share only started going up after the lawsuit
was filed. Basically the lawsuit felt pretty airtight to AMD and
Intel's OEM customers, that they no longer feared Intel, while Intel
feared getting caught. The lawsuit opened the doorway, not the
technology. Now that Intel's monetary threats are neutralized, it now
just competes on technological merits.
As to Intel marketing, I continue to be impressed by its
aggressiveness. Core 2 Duo is everywhere you look right now. AMD
just doesn't have the resources.
Intel has always advertised, and it has always advertised more than
AMD. But now it can't use its advertising money as a threat against
OEMs, to not use AMD anymore.
Intel's ads didn't seem to prevent AMD from taking over 50% of the
retail desktop and laptop markets this past year. People aren't
impressed with the Intel ads anymore, they just buy on price nowadays.
For the IBM'ers here who don't think that marketing and perception
are important, consider IBM falling all over itself to rush out
news of its own high-K dielectric on exactly the same day as
Intel. Marketing and perception are important, independent of
technical details. That is to say: name brands do matter. Every
computer I've seen advertised recently is very explicit about what
kind of processor is inside.
I think that IBM announcement had more to do with AMD than IBM
itself. Normally, IBM could care less what Intel is announcing, since
its chips don't usually compete against Intel all that directly. I
think the frantic scramble to announce as soon as possible after
Intel announced was because IBM now has technology partners that do
directly compete against Intel.
|
yep, my thoughts too.
| Quote: | Intel decided to announce on Friday
night. In the past, I'm sure IBM would've been content to wait till
Monday morning (or even afternoon) to put out its own press-release
-- if it was doing this on its own. But it got it out later Friday
night. It was a soon enough afterwards announcement that by Monday
morning the usual headlines that would've only been talking about
Intel, all had to be corrected to also mention IBM's breakthrough.
AMD got mentioned prominently alongside IBM -- thus my feeling is
that the mad scramble by IBM was all AMD's making.
Yousuf Khan
|
-- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gaffo
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 7:57 am Post subject: Re: My lack of enthusiasm for AMD |
|
|
Robert Myers wrote:
| Quote: | On Jan 31, 1:38 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I didn't give you a table that showed Intel's profits are down
(though they are, quite obviously), I gave you a table that showed
Intel's market share is down, while AMD's is up. I thought that's
what your whole argument was against AMD? As for fighting against
evidence presented, we're not the ones fighting the market share
numbers.
You assume that market share numbers reflect acceptance of current
designs. That's like assuming that the current through a capacitor or
inductor is proportional to the voltage across it. The article cites
*design wins*, not sales to Best Buy and CompUSA.
The only problem Intel had was that Core 2's predecessors (Pentium
M, followed by Core 1) weren't ready for the non-laptop market, so
Intel had no choice but to push the Pentium 4 for the last 3 years.
It needed the last 3 years to design Core 2 to be more than just a
laptop chip.
Who knows when Intel threw in the towel on Pentium 4, or knew that it
would have to. Your assumption is that Intel decided, say around 2003
Fall IDF, that P4 was a lame duck.
|
I think 2004 or 2005 even.
| Quote: | Many of us might have agreed, but
there is just no way to know what Intel thought or planned
internally. I sure wish I knew, but I don't.
How was any of that an obvious path? They've only been the obvious
path since AMD did it that way. But even if they implemented only
half of those features, it would still be considered
"next-generation".
Alpha had the controller on the die. Somewhere I have an email from
an alpha advocate about alpha's low latency...something like 75 ns, if
I recall correctly. That email is at least six years old. The
downside of the low IPC of NetBurst was known, as it is known that
frequency as the overriding consideration was a marketing ploy. Intel
could have changed the x86 architecture any time and knew the
advantages but didn't because it wanted Itanium to take over the 64-
bit market.
|
Exactly!!
| Quote: | Itanium, not x86, was intel's next-gen processor.
|
yep. Merced. billions and billions down the drain.
If you
| Quote: | want to argue that Itanium was a big mistake, you'd find many, even in
the corner offices of intel, who'd agree with you.
Robert.
|
-- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chrisv
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:25 pm Post subject: Re: My lack of enthusiasm for AMD |
|
|
gaffo wrote:
| Quote: | Core is not from the ground up design. Intel did not work on this one
for 3-yrs. they wasted 2 yrs in denail over Itanic. The Core is
basically an improved p-3/p-m (mobile). They lucked out in that the
Israeli team was working on modile pentium-3 dez.
Had they not had that base to work from - Core would not be out yet.
(IMO).
|
Agree with pretty much everything you said, except I'd say that "luck"
has nothing to do with any of this. I think even the most dull-witted
Intel manager realized that the Netburst design wasn't right for
mobile applications. Thus the more-efficient Pentium M was
commissioned. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fix your Windows Problems - FAST.
FREE Safe Scan Registry Check. Locate & Fix Errors in Minutes!
|
|
|
|
| |
Watched Topics
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Profile
Log in
Memberlist
Usergroups