Rafe Mc
Plus they make a faster CPU :) What more can you ask for?
| Plus they make a faster CPU :) What more can you ask for?
| >Yea cuz AMD is a lot cheaper verses Intel, thats all!!
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.262 / Virus Database: 132 - Release Date: 6/12/2001
Tom
The smart ones are busy scurrying to their brokers and telling them to
quietly dump their "founders stock" in small pieces.......because they know
when they are finally forced to sell their product at reasonable
prices....there will be major-league hell to pay with their
"bottom-line".....and that means they'll draw the wrath of the stockholder's
board....and Wall Street!
Intel has a very "short memory".....they don't remember how "BIG" the name
IBM was in the computer industry several years (eons) ago......and how fast
that company (who was bigger than Intel .....in its heyday).....was brought
to their knees. "Price gouging" was one of the downfalls of IBM. One very
real and powerful characteristic of the computer industry.......now and
always was..........is that the "top of the heap has little if any
**foundation**........the distance of the fall is the only thing that
separates the giants from the little guys!" Microsoft just got a
sniff.....at the vulnerability of thinking you are "invincible." Intel is
about to get put to their test!
Tom
Plus a hefty price hit for some RDRAM, makes for alot of people
looking to AMD servers instead of the traditional Intel.
I can't see Intel heading down the same road as IBM personally,
doesn't Intel hold a significant amount of AMD shares? But the
competition is the best thing since sliced bread.
Rafe Mc
I think AMD have a much different approach to their "price war" than you
think (based on the IBM comparison).
Lets look at a few well known facts.
1) AMD can actually SUPPLY that demand (they have manufacturing plants ready
to "step up" production upon demand)... whereas... Intel is woefully short
to even accomadate current demand... pathetically actually.
2) Dell and the others actually have a problem with #1. Meaning... they have
chips already on order... yet unsupplied (their current cache is strained
but not to an unsuppliable level... but very disconcerting nonetheless)
3) The AMD simply outperforms the Intel... unbiased view... really.
4) AMD is set to start implementing multi-processor configurations (at
64-bit no less).... something DEC ALPHA (now discontinued by Compaq), and
Intel (their 64-bit configs are still 'pending') have had their open-take
(server markets).
5) AMD implementation take advantage of new BUS designs/optimizations... not
"program specific speed increases inherit to processor type' designs... such
as Intel are hopelessly pursuing (just to keep up with AMD performance at
face value).
6) AMD are betting on new SDRAM-hybrid (DDR-RAM which is global design
acceptance) optimizations, as opposed to Intel who are betting on teh rogue
RAMBUS chip design (can you recall the OS2 fiasco of IBM parallel?)
7) As an end user..... I have these 3 subsets to look at:
7a) The AMD is simply faster at face value (lesser MHz outperforms Intels
higher MHz offerings... whoops! intel)
7b) Woohoo... it is cheaper
7c) Less overall program changes needed to implement new designs since it is
more hardware/OS level support more than anything (sub topic chat on this
original post above this comes to mind)
Bottonline for 'me' is:
Intel's hayday is done. They are slower... cannot meet demand... and seem
woefully content (lest I say 'complacent') in throwing their eggs in one
basket (RAMBUS RAM, etc.) whereas AMD are shamefully outperforming them with
little/no optimizations required, and making VAST headway on strategic
alliances with sub-set hardware manufacturers to fully support their
technology.
BIAS: I have ALWAYS disliked Intel for many reasons (it has grown over the
years):
1) When they put pressure on sub-hardware manufacturers to NOT support AMD
or lose strategic alliances with them (this from a few horses' mouths
directly)
2) When they pushed their market position to force ridiculous hardware
prices on the end-user (PII bullshit)
3) When they had the audacity to push the MHz meter as the 'benchmark for
performance globally' as they did with the PII (when were they going to
address bus-speed?)
4) When they decided that a complete rewrite of how optimizations for
performance for their processor would rest on teh programmers of software to
comply wholeheartedly with their direction (hello! hardware is trying to
keep up with software... not the other way around morons-Intel)
Anyways... that is my 50 bucks I couldn't help but contribute... but that's
just my take... not necessarily something that should alter a buying
decision by the guys/gals here.
Cheers,
Schumi
| No...they are certainly "not sitting back on their dupas".......
|
| The smart ones are busy scurrying to their brokers and telling them to
| quietly dump their "founders stock" in small pieces.......because they
know
| when they are finally forced to sell their product at reasonable
| prices....there will be major-league hell to pay with their
| "bottom-line".....and that means they'll draw the wrath of the
stockholder's
| board....and Wall Street!
|
| Intel has a very "short memory".....they don't remember how "BIG" the name
| IBM was in the computer industry several years (eons) ago......and how
fast
| that company (who was bigger than Intel .....in its heyday).....was
brought
| to their knees. "Price gouging" was one of the downfalls of IBM. One
very
| real and powerful characteristic of the computer industry.......now and
| always was..........is that the "top of the heap has little if any
| **foundation**........the distance of the fall is the only thing that
| separates the giants from the little guys!" Microsoft just got a
| sniff.....at the vulnerability of thinking you are "invincible." Intel is
| about to get put to their test!
|
| Tom
|
|
quick question.
i don't have any insight into this, but my impression is that IBM
still is bigger than INTEL as a company.
I've always understood that because of the diversity of the products
they sell combined with the massive R&D department(maybe in the past),
that they own lots of patents and technologies and are therefore still
quite big.
Has things changed that much for big blue?
Regards all,
istoff
"Its easy to get lost in thought
if you don't go there often" - Me, 1993
How many Athlons can you put in a multiprocessor system? How many
vendors market a multiprocessor Athlon?
Cheers,
Rod.
General statement, depends on the application of the chip.
Since when has the Alpha been discontinued?
Intel and Compaq are merging their chip technology, hence their design
and implementation has already had 10 years of proven design and
performance. I'd be inclined to believe that AMD are behind the 8 ball
if you're going to compare the two.
Cheers,
Rod.
| No...they are certainly "not sitting back on their dupas".......
|
| The smart ones are busy scurrying to their brokers and telling them to
| quietly dump their "founders stock" in small pieces.......because they
know
| when they are finally forced to sell their product at reasonable
| prices....there will be major-league hell to pay with their
| "bottom-line".....and that means they'll draw the wrath of the
stockholder's
| board....and Wall Street!
|
| Intel has a very "short memory".....they don't remember how "BIG" the name
| IBM was in the computer industry several years (eons) ago......and how
fast
| that company (who was bigger than Intel .....in its heyday).....was
brought
| to their knees. "Price gouging" was one of the downfalls of IBM. One
very
| real and powerful characteristic of the computer industry.......now and
| always was..........is that the "top of the heap has little if any
| **foundation**........the distance of the fall is the only thing that
| separates the giants from the little guys!" Microsoft just got a
| sniff.....at the vulnerability of thinking you are "invincible." Intel is
| about to get put to their test!
|
| Tom
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.262 / Virus Database: 132 - Release Date: 6/12/2001
>> 3) The AMD simply outperforms the Intel... unbiased view... really.
>General statement, depends on the application of the chip.
AMD have only just entered the server market, so yes they are behind
currently. But the 64 bit CPUs have been in design for a long while,
and the 1.2 ghz multi-processor systems already beat 1.7ghz Xeon
systems, at way under half price. That's not too shabby, and the
roadmap looks pretty good IMO.
Rafe Mc
>How many Athlons can you put in a multiprocessor system? How many
>vendors market a multiprocessor Athlon?
Yes you can run 4 Xeons in an Intel system, but they all share the
same fsb bandwidth. Each CPU on an AMD board gets its own dedicated
fsb channel, so when support for further processors is implemented,
the performance gap will be pushed further in AMD's favour.
And why would you want to pay for 3 Xeons at 1.7ghz, simply to match 2
1.2 ghz Athlons? Ridiculous!
Rafe Mc
That's where I heard it first (Alpha discontinuation). I was always a fan of
the Alpha technology (which was 10 years ahead of its time). Also note that
the article states that it is a discontinuation by Compaq, and that Compaq
are going to embrace the Itanium chipset in the future (because of existing
multi-processor capabilities). But I suspect that Compaq will be looking at
AMD shortly, when they see the new architectures in action.
AMD is just now enterring teh Server Market, but the glowing difference is
that the AMD chipsets utilize seperate busses int heir architecture. As
ooposed to a single bus in teh Intel implementations.
So you'll have 2 64-bit buses running in tandem, and thus removing many of
the bottlenecks.
It's not the "first" seperate bus architecture to hit the market, but up
until now it has been a costly solution reserved only for Enterprise Servers
and specialized manufacturers for that market. AMD is going the blow the
doors off of that, and make it quasi-mainstream, for which I applaud.
I'm not too worried about AMD being behind the 8-ball... they are making
great headway with peripheral manufacturers, and adopting solutions that
simply make sense, and are forward thinking.
AMD are also going to be announcing a smaller dye size as well in the very
near future... further boosting the performance capabilities again.... with
room to spare. Whereas the Intel technology is already at it's peak, and
they are now scrambling to find the solutions to keep up with AMD (Itanium
specs do not look all that promising either when you compare them to the new
AMD specs that will be released at the same time).
AMD aren't in the 4-32 multi-processor range yet.... but I think we'll start
to see those soon as AMD's strategic alliances with peripheral Mans. start
to take shape, and they stretch their legs. In fact, I've always liked the
"do it right... before you do it big" approach of AMD in the past.
Personally... I haven't bought an Intel ship in years, its been AMD all the
way for a while, and my bang for the buck has always left me feeling that I
made the correct buying decision.
Of course, some Intel fans may disagree, but I guess that is their
prerogative and rightly so.
Cheers,
Schumi
| says...
|
| > 3) The AMD simply outperforms the Intel... unbiased view... really.
|
| General statement, depends on the application of the chip.
|
| > 4) AMD is set to start implementing multi-processor configurations (at
| > 64-bit no less).... something DEC ALPHA (now discontinued by Compaq),
and
| > Intel (their 64-bit configs are still 'pending') have had their
open-take
| > (server markets).
|
| Since when has the Alpha been discontinued?
|
| Intel and Compaq are merging their chip technology, hence their design
| and implementation has already had 10 years of proven design and
| performance. I'd be inclined to believe that AMD are behind the 8 ball
| if you're going to compare the two.
|
| Cheers,
| Rod.
|
