 | |
My lack of enthusiasm for AMD
Hardware Chips Processor, cache, memory chips, etc. (comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#11
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: My lack of enthusiasm for AMD -
01-30-2007
, 08:57 PM
|
Robert Myers wrote: On Jan 30, 11:55 am, Del Cecchi <cecchinos... (AT) us (DOT) 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, |
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 |
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.
#12
| |||
| |||
|
|
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 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 |
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 |
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.
#13
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Jan 30, 7:07 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote: Robert Myers wrote: On Jan 30, 11:55 am, Del Cecchi <cecchinos... (AT) us (DOT) 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 |
So both had papers and both became news on the day the embargo is lifted?
del
#14
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Jan 30, 6:52 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb... (AT) yahoo (DOT) 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 |
guys that came up with the Itanium plan.
del
#15
| |||
| |||
|
|
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. |
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. |
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. |
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
#16
| |||
| |||
|
|
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. |
anti-competitive? Seems like quite-fair brand-marketing, to me...
Quote:
|
And without "Intel Inside" threats and coercion, |
description of a marketing campaign as "threats and coercion".
Quote:
|
we've seen Intel go from a 90%+ marketshare company to a 75% marketshare company (so far). |
the cessation of the "Intel Inside" marketing campaign? Or that it
coincided with the instigation of the anti-trust lawsuits? Because I
believe that to be entirely false, in either case. Has not AMD been
around 20% for some years, now?
#17
| |||
| |||
|
|
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 |
inductor is proportional to the voltage across it. The article cites
*design wins*, not sales to Best Buy and CompUSA.
Quote:
|
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 |
Fall IDF, that P4 was a lame duck. 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.
Quote:
|
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 |
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. Itanium, not x86, was intel's next-gen processor. If you
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.
#18
| |||
| |||
|
|
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. |
sound way to decide between an MCM and a single chip quad-core design
that I know of is the difference in margin. If you know of arguments
to the contrary, I'd love to hear them, if you can say.
I'll agree that the memory controller on the die is a balance of
technical and business considerations. One question is: do the watts
you free up by moving the memory controller off the die compensate for
the added latency you incur in doing so?
One the other hand, there are powerful business reasons for keeping
the CPU and memory controller separate, one of them being that Intel
has said it really doesn't want to be in the memory controller
business, another being that memory controllers can be engineered,
changed, and specialized separately from the CPU. I've always
assumed, correctly or not, that flexibility in operations has been the
powerful driver for Intel to keep the memory controller off the die.
That Intel has gotten away with it (sort of) constantly astonishes me.
In any case, I'd rather be talking about supercomputer designs based
on Cell.
Robert.
#19
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Jan 30, 6:52 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb... (AT) yahoo (DOT) 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". |
do a pissing match?
Quote:
|
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. |
curious comment given your opening post in this thread:
<"I now have a machine with AMD processor: 4600+, dual core,
2.4GHz. No smoke coming out of the back yet. ...
This article
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/stor...FCF10DCBDDC%7D
does a reasonably good job of explaining my chronic lack
of enthusiasm for AMD:"> <snip>
given that you finally own an AMD CPU/mobo (after
decades of Intel?), i find it deeply curious that
you seem to have taken the side of Intel in this
thread that *you* started.
i mean... LOL!
to my mind, the consumer is the one that wins when
competition like this takes place (so long as at
least 2 of the players survive (preferably more)
correct me if i'm wrong.
i mean, the AMD setup that you got...
(put together by yourself?)
*is/was* a better value than what you could
find with Intel when you did this at some
point prior to your opening Jan.12 post, right?
if not, then why did you buy AMD??
surely not just because you could say
you're now an owner of an AMD CPU/mobo?
all ears
also, why did you buy a single dual AMD CPU?
i mean, why not buy a true dualie mobo
with two singles on it?
bill
#20
| |||
| |||
|
|
Actually I believe the timing has to do with the ISSCC and its rules as to pre-release of papers. So both had papers and both became news on the day the embargo is lifted? |
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01...tel_ibm_highk/
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.