AMD; Down On It's Luck Again

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

A readable explanation to what keeps AMD out of markets--without Intel
skullduggery:

http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1365

And a nod to forums like this, where the participants just can't
believe that anybody would buy anything other than AMD.

RM
13 answers Last reply
More about luck again
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1118179409.845108.23420@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    >A readable explanation to what keeps AMD out of markets--without Intel
    > skullduggery:
    >
    > http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1365
    >
    > And a nod to forums like this, where the participants just can't
    > believe that anybody would buy anything other than AMD.
    >
    > RM
    >
    And if you think that is the truth, I've got some pets.com stock to sell
    you. You really think major oems make decisions without Intel
    involvement? They would be remiss not to negotiate with Intel.

    del cecchi.
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    rbmyersusa@gmail.com wrote:
    > A readable explanation to what keeps AMD out of markets--without Intel
    > skullduggery:
    >
    > http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1365
    >
    > And a nod to forums like this, where the participants just can't
    > believe that anybody would buy anything other than AMD.

    Congratulations Robert, you've found your soul-mate. Never again will
    you be the only Intel apologist on the forums. Now you and Gundeep can
    compare notes. :-)

    At 17% marketshare of a 200 mn market, it's producing at least 35 mn
    processors. On its existing production line, it can supposedly produce
    upto 50 mn processors (90nm @ 200mm wafers), if necessary. On its next
    production line, that'll likely increase some more (65nm @ 300mm),
    probably somewhere in the vicinity of 75-100 mn. Plus, it's production
    line is entirely devoted to producing CPUs, nothing else like chipsets.
    I don't think it's asking to become the sole supplier of chips for any
    one company, so why does it matter to them whether they have the
    capacity to supply their entire production line completely? If this was
    truly just because of AMD's production capacity then why don't they buy
    from AMD as a second source, whenever Intel can't produce enough chips?
    That's happened quite often in the past, Intel couldn't produce enough
    chips, but the manufacturers still wouldn't go to AMD.

    Yousuf Khan
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On 7 Jun 2005 14:23:29 -0700, rbmyersusa@gmail.com wrote:

    >A readable explanation to what keeps AMD out of markets--without Intel
    >skullduggery:
    >
    >http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1365
    >
    >And a nod to forums like this, where the participants just can't
    >believe that anybody would buy anything other than AMD.

    Hmph - same old FUD... more holes than a sieve.

    --
    Rgds, George Macdonald
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 20:44:59 -0400, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:

    >rbmyersusa@gmail.com wrote:
    >> A readable explanation to what keeps AMD out of markets--without Intel
    >> skullduggery:
    >>
    >> http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1365
    >>
    >> And a nod to forums like this, where the participants just can't
    >> believe that anybody would buy anything other than AMD.
    >
    >Congratulations Robert, you've found your soul-mate. Never again will
    >you be the only Intel apologist on the forums. Now you and Gundeep can
    >compare notes. :-)
    >
    >At 17% marketshare of a 200 mn market, it's producing at least 35 mn
    >processors. On its existing production line, it can supposedly produce
    >upto 50 mn processors (90nm @ 200mm wafers), if necessary. On its next
    >production line, that'll likely increase some more (65nm @ 300mm),
    >probably somewhere in the vicinity of 75-100 mn. Plus, it's production
    >line is entirely devoted to producing CPUs, nothing else like chipsets.
    >I don't think it's asking to become the sole supplier of chips for any
    >one company, so why does it matter to them whether they have the
    >capacity to supply their entire production line completely? If this was
    >truly just because of AMD's production capacity then why don't they buy
    >from AMD as a second source, whenever Intel can't produce enough chips?
    >That's happened quite often in the past, Intel couldn't produce enough
    >chips, but the manufacturers still wouldn't go to AMD.
    >
    > Yousuf Khan


    Intel has a lot more to offer then just a CPU, which is about all Apple
    would get from AMD. The Intel TV ad jingle alone is worth a few million
    units.

    Ed
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 18:52:43 -0500, "Del Cecchi"
    <dcecchi.nospam@att.net> wrote:

    >
    ><rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote in message
    >news:1118179409.845108.23420@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    >>A readable explanation to what keeps AMD out of markets--without Intel
    >> skullduggery:
    >>
    >> http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1365
    >>
    >> And a nod to forums like this, where the participants just can't
    >> believe that anybody would buy anything other than AMD.
    >>
    >>
    >And if you think that is the truth, I've got some pets.com stock to sell
    >you. You really think major oems make decisions without Intel
    >involvement? They would be remiss not to negotiate with Intel.
    >
    I'm not sure what you think I believe. I wouldn't be at all surprised
    if Intel expressed its unhappiness to IBM, to HP, and to Sun for their
    building servers around AMD chips, and, as you suggest, I'd be amazed
    if IBM, HP, and Sun didn't use the fact that they are negotiating with
    AMD as leverage with Intel. That's just business.

    If you're suggesting further that Intel first sweeps the room for
    listening devices and then works out some kind of anticompetitive
    arrangement, it could be happening, but, contrary to what some here
    believe, it doesn't have to be happening to explain Intel's continuing
    market dominance.

    It's relatively easy to see why server OEM's are building around AMD
    chips. It's relatively easy to see why an OEM targeting game players
    would build around AMD chips. For anybody else, it's a much tougher
    proposition because AMD just can't provide the one-stop shopping and
    the volume that Intel can. And the reason AMD can't do those things
    has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with investment
    capital.

    RM
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 20:44:59 -0400, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
    wrote:

    >rbmyersusa@gmail.com wrote:
    >> A readable explanation to what keeps AMD out of markets--without Intel
    >> skullduggery:
    >>
    >> http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1365
    >>
    >> And a nod to forums like this, where the participants just can't
    >> believe that anybody would buy anything other than AMD.
    >
    >Congratulations Robert, you've found your soul-mate. Never again will
    >you be the only Intel apologist on the forums. Now you and Gundeep can
    >compare notes. :-)
    >

    "The forums"? Does that include comp.sys.intel?

    >At 17% marketshare of a 200 mn market, it's producing at least 35 mn
    >processors. On its existing production line, it can supposedly produce
    >upto 50 mn processors (90nm @ 200mm wafers), if necessary. On its next
    >production line, that'll likely increase some more (65nm @ 300mm),
    >probably somewhere in the vicinity of 75-100 mn. Plus, it's production
    >line is entirely devoted to producing CPUs, nothing else like chipsets.
    >I don't think it's asking to become the sole supplier of chips for any
    >one company, so why does it matter to them whether they have the
    >capacity to supply their entire production line completely? If this was
    >truly just because of AMD's production capacity then why don't they buy
    >from AMD as a second source, whenever Intel can't produce enough chips?
    >That's happened quite often in the past, Intel couldn't produce enough
    >chips, but the manufacturers still wouldn't go to AMD.
    >
    The Apple-Intel deal tells the story, and a post in the comp.arch
    thread about the Apple-Intel deal summarizes the problem nicely: one
    processor just isn't enough. You need a whole family of processors
    and chipsets tweaked to fit into lots of market segments. AMD *still*
    doesn't have a presence in the notebook market, AFAIK. AMD was
    probably interviewed, they probably said they were working on it, and
    Apple said, "Yeah, right."

    The benefit of huge volume is that can make all those different tweaks
    and flavors. It just didn't make economic sense for IBM to try to
    fulfull Apple's wish list. The volume was too small. It might make
    sense for AMD to try, but their promises apparently aren't credible.
    Intel's promises aren't always credible either, but when Intel fails
    to deliver, you're no worse off than everybody else, and Intel will
    eventually deliver something.

    RM
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Ed wrote:
    > Intel has a lot more to offer then just a CPU, which is about all Apple
    > would get from AMD. The Intel TV ad jingle alone is worth a few million
    > units.

    Exactly, they offer music too. Might be the deciding factor in choosing
    iTunes over someone else, whether they offer the Intel jingle for
    download. :-)

    Yousuf Khan
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Robert Myers wrote:
    > >Congratulations Robert, you've found your soul-mate. Never again will
    > >you be the only Intel apologist on the forums. Now you and Gundeep can
    > >compare notes. :-)
    > >
    >
    > "The forums"? Does that include comp.sys.intel?

    You'll have to ask Gundeep, he's the one that brought it up. :-)

    > The Apple-Intel deal tells the story, and a post in the comp.arch
    > thread about the Apple-Intel deal summarizes the problem nicely: one
    > processor just isn't enough. You need a whole family of processors
    > and chipsets tweaked to fit into lots of market segments. AMD *still*
    > doesn't have a presence in the notebook market, AFAIK. AMD was
    > probably interviewed, they probably said they were working on it, and
    > Apple said, "Yeah, right."

    Well, what happens when you offer all of that and still nobody picks up
    your product? You just have to look back at AMD's early Opteron
    experience. It engineered a complete barebones server platform (through
    Newisys), and manufacturers were still balking until their customers
    forced them to accept it (IBM, for example was forced to accept it by a
    group of its Japanese customers looking to buy a supercomputer). AMD
    actually went beyond just offering an accompanying chipset, it offered
    the whole platform to manufacturers, all they would have to do is add
    hard disks and a logo. Now the ball has gotten going, but it took a
    while for it get started rolling.

    Well, the Turion platforms are coming out now. By the time Apple is
    ready to offer its first x86 machine (in one year), that platform will
    already be mature and probably already on its second or third
    generation. It's not as if Apple would be manufacturing its own laptops
    anyways, those are always done by the Taiwanese laptop houses.

    One company in particular comes to mind which is offering AMD64
    laptops, which is Acer; Acer produces probably five times as many
    systems as Apple, it's now the second or third largest laptop brand in
    the world. And it's seen fit to produce Athlon 64, Sempron, and Turion
    laptops. Of course, AMD was in a rare power position with respect to
    Acer: it sponsors the Ferrari F1 team, and Acer wanted to produce
    Ferrari-logo'ed laptops, it's only choice was to do it with AMD
    processors. When AMD forces them to try its processors, they usually
    tend become loyal. But the fact that AMD has to force these
    manufacturers to use its processors is highly suspicious.

    >
    > The benefit of huge volume is that can make all those different tweaks
    > and flavors. It just didn't make economic sense for IBM to try to
    > fulfull Apple's wish list. The volume was too small. It might make
    > sense for AMD to try, but their promises apparently aren't credible.
    > Intel's promises aren't always credible either, but when Intel fails
    > to deliver, you're no worse off than everybody else, and Intel will
    > eventually deliver something.

    As I said, Apple is not even expecting to introduce anything until one
    or two years out. AMD's credibility has been a lot more than Intel's in
    the past three years. But it's not really the manufacturing or platform
    credibility that matters here, it's the advertising credibility. Apple
    can now advertise its Macs on TV for cheap.

    Yousuf Khan
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    "Robert Myers" <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:1rcda1l04oba96llj7m9q9fa5onhk9i3qa@4ax.com...
    > On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 18:52:43 -0500, "Del Cecchi"
    > <dcecchi.nospam@att.net> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >><rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote in message
    >>news:1118179409.845108.23420@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    >>>A readable explanation to what keeps AMD out of markets--without Intel
    >>> skullduggery:
    >>>
    >>> http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1365
    >>>
    >>> And a nod to forums like this, where the participants just can't
    >>> believe that anybody would buy anything other than AMD.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>And if you think that is the truth, I've got some pets.com stock to
    >>sell
    >>you. You really think major oems make decisions without Intel
    >>involvement? They would be remiss not to negotiate with Intel.
    >>
    > I'm not sure what you think I believe. I wouldn't be at all surprised
    > if Intel expressed its unhappiness to IBM, to HP, and to Sun for their
    > building servers around AMD chips, and, as you suggest, I'd be amazed
    > if IBM, HP, and Sun didn't use the fact that they are negotiating with
    > AMD as leverage with Intel. That's just business.
    >
    > If you're suggesting further that Intel first sweeps the room for
    > listening devices and then works out some kind of anticompetitive
    > arrangement, it could be happening, but, contrary to what some here
    > believe, it doesn't have to be happening to explain Intel's continuing
    > market dominance.
    >
    > It's relatively easy to see why server OEM's are building around AMD
    > chips. It's relatively easy to see why an OEM targeting game players
    > would build around AMD chips. For anybody else, it's a much tougher
    > proposition because AMD just can't provide the one-stop shopping and
    > the volume that Intel can. And the reason AMD can't do those things
    > has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with investment
    > capital.
    >
    > RM
    I was referring to the thesis of the article at the above link.
    >
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Del Cecchi wrote:
    > "Robert Myers" <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > news:1rcda1l04oba96llj7m9q9fa5onhk9i3qa@4ax.com...
    > > On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 18:52:43 -0500, "Del Cecchi"
    > > <dcecchi.nospam@att.net> wrote:
    > >
    > >>
    > >><rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote in message
    > >>news:1118179409.845108.23420@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > >>>A readable explanation to what keeps AMD out of markets--without Intel
    > >>> skullduggery:
    > >>>
    > >>> http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1365
    > >>>
    > >>> And a nod to forums like this, where the participants just can't
    > >>> believe that anybody would buy anything other than AMD.
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>And if you think that is the truth, I've got some pets.com stock to
    > >>sell
    > >>you. You really think major oems make decisions without Intel
    > >>involvement? They would be remiss not to negotiate with Intel.
    > >>

    > I was referring to the thesis of the article at the above link.
    > >

    If by the thesis of the article you mean that AMD supposedly can't
    supply the volume, I agree that, as worded, the thesis is
    unsupportable. Maybe I'm giving the guy too much slack (After all, his
    conclusion agrees with mine. Don't we all give more slack to people
    who agree with us?).

    It's like Yousuf haggling about whether AMD will have a notebook chip
    or not. The answer is oh, probably, and that's the same as the answer
    as to whether AMD can meet volume demand. No one is going to test the
    thesis, especially not Apple, which has experienced delivery problems
    with, um, a different supplier. Intel doesn't always deliver, either,
    but if Intel's not making deliveries, almost everybody else is in the
    same boat, and you're not losing out. The high volume supplier has the
    advantage. I don't understand why this is even controversial.

    RM
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    rbmyers...@gmail.com wrote:
    > Intel doesn't always deliver, either,
    > but if Intel's not making deliveries, almost everybody else is in the
    > same boat, and you're not losing out. The high volume supplier has the
    > advantage. I don't understand why this is even controversial.

    Actually, it's been sometimes said that Intel's supply problems affect
    everybody equally, but Dell. Dell always seems to have supplies.

    Yousuf Khan
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    YKhan wrote:
    > rbmyers...@gmail.com wrote:
    > > Intel doesn't always deliver, either,
    > > but if Intel's not making deliveries, almost everybody else is in the
    > > same boat, and you're not losing out. The high volume supplier has the
    > > advantage. I don't understand why this is even controversial.
    >
    > Actually, it's been sometimes said that Intel's supply problems affect
    > everybody equally, but Dell. Dell always seems to have supplies.
    >

    I did say *almost* everybody else. ;-).

    Can't you just imagine the screaming matches Intel and Dell must have
    over who owes who and who's going to regret whatever it is more? It
    must feel more confining than marriage at times.

    RM
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 05:48:14 -0400, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    >On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 20:44:59 -0400, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>rbmyersusa@gmail.com wrote:
    >>> A readable explanation to what keeps AMD out of markets--without Intel
    >>> skullduggery:
    >>>
    >>> http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1365
    >>>
    >>> And a nod to forums like this, where the participants just can't
    >>> believe that anybody would buy anything other than AMD.
    >>
    >>Congratulations Robert, you've found your soul-mate. Never again will
    >>you be the only Intel apologist on the forums. Now you and Gundeep can
    >>compare notes. :-)
    >>
    >
    >"The forums"? Does that include comp.sys.intel?
    >
    >>At 17% marketshare of a 200 mn market, it's producing at least 35 mn
    >>processors. On its existing production line, it can supposedly produce
    >>upto 50 mn processors (90nm @ 200mm wafers), if necessary. On its next
    >>production line, that'll likely increase some more (65nm @ 300mm),
    >>probably somewhere in the vicinity of 75-100 mn. Plus, it's production
    >>line is entirely devoted to producing CPUs, nothing else like chipsets.
    >>I don't think it's asking to become the sole supplier of chips for any
    >>one company, so why does it matter to them whether they have the
    >>capacity to supply their entire production line completely? If this was
    >>truly just because of AMD's production capacity then why don't they buy
    >>from AMD as a second source, whenever Intel can't produce enough chips?
    >>That's happened quite often in the past, Intel couldn't produce enough
    >>chips, but the manufacturers still wouldn't go to AMD.
    >>
    >The Apple-Intel deal tells the story, and a post in the comp.arch
    >thread about the Apple-Intel deal summarizes the problem nicely: one
    >processor just isn't enough. You need a whole family of processors
    >and chipsets tweaked to fit into lots of market segments. AMD *still*
    >doesn't have a presence in the notebook market, AFAIK. AMD was
    >probably interviewed, they probably said they were working on it, and
    >Apple said, "Yeah, right."

    "AFAIK" from you becomes *fact* and "probably" this and "apparently" that
    just amounts to another pile of presumptious dung.... PURE FFUD. Why don't
    you just admit you are utterly clueless about what AMD and their partner
    chipset suppliers have to offer. The fact is that you have never
    bought/built an Athlon64 system and wouldn't know where to start so all
    your prognostications are based on presumptious misinformation.

    --
    Rgds, George Macdonald
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Hardware AMD IBM