"AMD Breaks Free: Q&A With Henri Richard"

[9-inch]

http://digitimes.com/bits_chips/a20060621VL201.html

Q: Industry observers seem to agree that Intel's latest processor cores, originally codenamed Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest, now generically branded Core 2 Duo, will provide AMD with plenty of performance competition. Even so, it seems as though Intel is remaining content with basically legacy technology, staying with a front-side bus architecture and so on. Increasingly, it seems, a once-innovative company has entered the managerial and technology doldrums. What is it in the Intel corporate culture that has allowed them to squander their many opportunities and resources?

A: The problem Intel is wrestling with is certainly one of culture. It’s not that they’re lacking resources, but even so, their entire business model is predicated on locking up solutions and excluding anyone from participating. I find it interesting that recently they’ve been putting on the block quite a few businesses they had acquired, in which they’ve been an immense failure. That’s because in all of these markets where they had acquired capacity, they were not able to establish a monopoly. Culturally, it’s a company that functions well in the monopoly situation.

Basically, their idea of innovation is to find ways to serve their own purposes but not necessarily the purposes of the industry. Another way to look at this – and I find this very interesting – is that in all their public comments, their expression of Intel returning to greatness is squashing AMD. If you think about it, given the relative size of the two companies, the only way for Intel to achieve greatness is to find a way to extend their markets from US$30 billion to US$60 billion. Instead, their goal is to steal a few hundred million dollars from AMD. That tells you that they’re extremely limited in their thinking. I think it’s a cultural issue, and that cultural issue will only go away if there’s a change of management.

Q: AMD is currently pursuing litigation that should result in greater exposure of the issues surrounding Intel and what many see as the abuse of its monopoly position. Some industry observers appear dubious about litigation of this kind, simply as a policy. Others are dubious simply on a practical level – Intel has more lawyers and so on. Could you comment on the litigation in general terms and indicate why AMD is pursuing this tactic and what you hope to achieve?

A: Well I can’t comment in detail on the ongoing litigation, but just in general, I think it took a lot of courage for Hector Ruiz and AMD to launch this. I think this is something many people in the industry were hoping for. Someone had to do it because it’s very clear that Intel is abusing their monopoly in many ways, and we’ve outlined a lot of examples. There’ll be a Discovery process as part of the litigation, and I find it interesting that Intel’s first move in the litigation process was to propose that access would be denied to any wrongdoing outside the US, on the understanding that this is a US lawsuit. That tells me that Intel is very nervous about exposing some of their behavior outside the United States.

We know that Intel has basically been condemned by Japan's Fair Trade Commission (FTC). We know that they’re under investigation in both Europe and Korea. There’s quite a lot happening for a company that claims that they’ve done nothing wrong.

I can accept the presumption of innocence. But time will tell, and I know that many people in this industry are kind of anxious to see what’s going to come out of the Discovery process. For our part, we know that we’ve always abided by fair and open competition. I’m not sure that they can claim the same.

I’ll give you an example that’s exactly apropos. Tomorrow, at Computex, we’re presenting a series of Turion 64 X2 based notebooks, and it’s very clear that there are a number of partners who are keen on being in the room but scared to death of being on stage. That’s fundamentally wrong. They’re not afraid of being on stage because of us. So, why would they be afraid? I think that this deleterious environment that Intel is creating through exercising their muscle needs to stop. After all, they’re a big company. They’ve got lots of resources. There’s other ways to win than by threatening people. Even so, the reality is that one needs to be cautious, if one wants to remain a partner of Intel.

One more reason to hate intel... :?

 

[spud]

http://digitimes.com/bits_chips/a20060621VL201.html


Q: Industry observers seem to agree that Intel's latest processor cores, originally codenamed Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest, now generically branded Core 2 Duo, will provide AMD with plenty of performance competition. Even so, it seems as though Intel is remaining content with basically legacy technology, staying with a front-side bus architecture and so on. Increasingly, it seems, a once-innovative company has entered the managerial and technology doldrums. What is it in the Intel corporate culture that has allowed them to squander their many opportunities and resources?

A: The problem Intel is wrestling with is certainly one of culture. It’s not that they’re lacking resources, but even so, their entire business model is predicated on locking up solutions and excluding anyone from participating. I find it interesting that recently they’ve been putting on the block quite a few businesses they had acquired, in which they’ve been an immense failure. That’s because in all of these markets where they had acquired capacity, they were not able to establish a monopoly. Culturally, it’s a company that functions well in the monopoly situation.

Basically, their idea of innovation is to find ways to serve their own purposes but not necessarily the purposes of the industry. Another way to look at this – and I find this very interesting – is that in all their public comments, their expression of Intel returning to greatness is squashing AMD. If you think about it, given the relative size of the two companies, the only way for Intel to achieve greatness is to find a way to extend their markets from US$30 billion to US$60 billion. Instead, their goal is to steal a few hundred million dollars from AMD. That tells you that they’re extremely limited in their thinking. I think it’s a cultural issue, and that cultural issue will only go away if there’s a change of management.

Q: AMD is currently pursuing litigation that should result in greater exposure of the issues surrounding Intel and what many see as the abuse of its monopoly position. Some industry observers appear dubious about litigation of this kind, simply as a policy. Others are dubious simply on a practical level – Intel has more lawyers and so on. Could you comment on the litigation in general terms and indicate why AMD is pursuing this tactic and what you hope to achieve?

A: Well I can’t comment in detail on the ongoing litigation, but just in general, I think it took a lot of courage for Hector Ruiz and AMD to launch this. I think this is something many people in the industry were hoping for. Someone had to do it because it’s very clear that Intel is abusing their monopoly in many ways, and we’ve outlined a lot of examples. There’ll be a Discovery process as part of the litigation, and I find it interesting that Intel’s first move in the litigation process was to propose that access would be denied to any wrongdoing outside the US, on the understanding that this is a US lawsuit. That tells me that Intel is very nervous about exposing some of their behavior outside the United States.

We know that Intel has basically been condemned by Japan's Fair Trade Commission (FTC). We know that they’re under investigation in both Europe and Korea. There’s quite a lot happening for a company that claims that they’ve done nothing wrong.

I can accept the presumption of innocence. But time will tell, and I know that many people in this industry are kind of anxious to see what’s going to come out of the Discovery process. For our part, we know that we’ve always abided by fair and open competition. I’m not sure that they can claim the same.

I’ll give you an example that’s exactly apropos. Tomorrow, at Computex, we’re presenting a series of Turion 64 X2 based notebooks, and it’s very clear that there are a number of partners who are keen on being in the room but scared to death of being on stage. That’s fundamentally wrong. They’re not afraid of being on stage because of us. So, why would they be afraid? I think that this deleterious environment that Intel is creating through exercising their muscle needs to stop. After all, they’re a big company. They’ve got lots of resources. There’s other ways to win than by threatening people. Even so, the reality is that one needs to be cautious, if one wants to remain a partner of Intel.

One more reason to hate intel... :?

Moo.
Fucking Idiot!

 

[doormatderek]

*Woof*

 

[spud]

*Woof*

Moo.

 

[MatTheMurdera]

http://digitimes.com/bits_chips/a20060621VL201.html


Q: Industry observers seem to agree that Intel's latest processor cores, originally codenamed Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest, now generically branded Core 2 Duo, will provide AMD with plenty of performance competition. Even so, it seems as though Intel is remaining content with basically legacy technology, staying with a front-side bus architecture and so on. Increasingly, it seems, a once-innovative company has entered the managerial and technology doldrums. What is it in the Intel corporate culture that has allowed them to squander their many opportunities and resources?

A: The problem Intel is wrestling with is certainly one of culture. It’s not that they’re lacking resources, but even so, their entire business model is predicated on locking up solutions and excluding anyone from participating. I find it interesting that recently they’ve been putting on the block quite a few businesses they had acquired, in which they’ve been an immense failure. That’s because in all of these markets where they had acquired capacity, they were not able to establish a monopoly. Culturally, it’s a company that functions well in the monopoly situation.

Basically, their idea of innovation is to find ways to serve their own purposes but not necessarily the purposes of the industry. Another way to look at this – and I find this very interesting – is that in all their public comments, their expression of Intel returning to greatness is squashing AMD. If you think about it, given the relative size of the two companies, the only way for Intel to achieve greatness is to find a way to extend their markets from US$30 billion to US$60 billion. Instead, their goal is to steal a few hundred million dollars from AMD. That tells you that they’re extremely limited in their thinking. I think it’s a cultural issue, and that cultural issue will only go away if there’s a change of management.

Q: AMD is currently pursuing litigation that should result in greater exposure of the issues surrounding Intel and what many see as the abuse of its monopoly position. Some industry observers appear dubious about litigation of this kind, simply as a policy. Others are dubious simply on a practical level – Intel has more lawyers and so on. Could you comment on the litigation in general terms and indicate why AMD is pursuing this tactic and what you hope to achieve?

A: Well I can’t comment in detail on the ongoing litigation, but just in general, I think it took a lot of courage for Hector Ruiz and AMD to launch this. I think this is something many people in the industry were hoping for. Someone had to do it because it’s very clear that Intel is abusing their monopoly in many ways, and we’ve outlined a lot of examples. There’ll be a Discovery process as part of the litigation, and I find it interesting that Intel’s first move in the litigation process was to propose that access would be denied to any wrongdoing outside the US, on the understanding that this is a US lawsuit. That tells me that Intel is very nervous about exposing some of their behavior outside the United States.

We know that Intel has basically been condemned by Japan's Fair Trade Commission (FTC). We know that they’re under investigation in both Europe and Korea. There’s quite a lot happening for a company that claims that they’ve done nothing wrong.

I can accept the presumption of innocence. But time will tell, and I know that many people in this industry are kind of anxious to see what’s going to come out of the Discovery process. For our part, we know that we’ve always abided by fair and open competition. I’m not sure that they can claim the same.

I’ll give you an example that’s exactly apropos. Tomorrow, at Computex, we’re presenting a series of Turion 64 X2 based notebooks, and it’s very clear that there are a number of partners who are keen on being in the room but scared to death of being on stage. That’s fundamentally wrong. They’re not afraid of being on stage because of us. So, why would they be afraid? I think that this deleterious environment that Intel is creating through exercising their muscle needs to stop. After all, they’re a big company. They’ve got lots of resources. There’s other ways to win than by threatening people. Even so, the reality is that one needs to be cautious, if one wants to remain a partner of Intel.

One more reason to hate intel... :?

Moo.
****** Idiot!


****** Idiot! <-------lol!

 

[TheMaster]

*Woof*

Moo.

Brawwr!

 

[clairvoyant129]

http://digitimes.com/bits_chips/a20060621VL201.html


Q: Industry observers seem to agree that Intel's latest processor cores, originally codenamed Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest, now generically branded Core 2 Duo, will provide AMD with plenty of performance competition. Even so, it seems as though Intel is remaining content with basically legacy technology, staying with a front-side bus architecture and so on. Increasingly, it seems, a once-innovative company has entered the managerial and technology doldrums. What is it in the Intel corporate culture that has allowed them to squander their many opportunities and resources?

A: The problem Intel is wrestling with is certainly one of culture. It’s not that they’re lacking resources, but even so, their entire business model is predicated on locking up solutions and excluding anyone from participating. I find it interesting that recently they’ve been putting on the block quite a few businesses they had acquired, in which they’ve been an immense failure. That’s because in all of these markets where they had acquired capacity, they were not able to establish a monopoly. Culturally, it’s a company that functions well in the monopoly situation.

Basically, their idea of innovation is to find ways to serve their own purposes but not necessarily the purposes of the industry. Another way to look at this – and I find this very interesting – is that in all their public comments, their expression of Intel returning to greatness is squashing AMD. If you think about it, given the relative size of the two companies, the only way for Intel to achieve greatness is to find a way to extend their markets from US$30 billion to US$60 billion. Instead, their goal is to steal a few hundred million dollars from AMD. That tells you that they’re extremely limited in their thinking. I think it’s a cultural issue, and that cultural issue will only go away if there’s a change of management.

Q: AMD is currently pursuing litigation that should result in greater exposure of the issues surrounding Intel and what many see as the abuse of its monopoly position. Some industry observers appear dubious about litigation of this kind, simply as a policy. Others are dubious simply on a practical level – Intel has more lawyers and so on. Could you comment on the litigation in general terms and indicate why AMD is pursuing this tactic and what you hope to achieve?

A: Well I can’t comment in detail on the ongoing litigation, but just in general, I think it took a lot of courage for Hector Ruiz and AMD to launch this. I think this is something many people in the industry were hoping for. Someone had to do it because it’s very clear that Intel is abusing their monopoly in many ways, and we’ve outlined a lot of examples. There’ll be a Discovery process as part of the litigation, and I find it interesting that Intel’s first move in the litigation process was to propose that access would be denied to any wrongdoing outside the US, on the understanding that this is a US lawsuit. That tells me that Intel is very nervous about exposing some of their behavior outside the United States.

We know that Intel has basically been condemned by Japan's Fair Trade Commission (FTC). We know that they’re under investigation in both Europe and Korea. There’s quite a lot happening for a company that claims that they’ve done nothing wrong.

I can accept the presumption of innocence. But time will tell, and I know that many people in this industry are kind of anxious to see what’s going to come out of the Discovery process. For our part, we know that we’ve always abided by fair and open competition. I’m not sure that they can claim the same.

I’ll give you an example that’s exactly apropos. Tomorrow, at Computex, we’re presenting a series of Turion 64 X2 based notebooks, and it’s very clear that there are a number of partners who are keen on being in the room but scared to death of being on stage. That’s fundamentally wrong. They’re not afraid of being on stage because of us. So, why would they be afraid? I think that this deleterious environment that Intel is creating through exercising their muscle needs to stop. After all, they’re a big company. They’ve got lots of resources. There’s other ways to win than by threatening people. Even so, the reality is that one needs to be cautious, if one wants to remain a partner of Intel.

One more reason to hate intel... :?


Yes, because Intel is the big giant evil corporation out to get everyone's money, while AMD is the innocent bystander out there to satisfy everyone on the planet.

 

[Artmic]

I could care less about Intel, but if their product is cheaper and performs 10-30% better than a comparably priced AMD solution then i'd always go for the hardware that gives you more for the money.

All is good, let them compete, let them inovate(or at least try to)... we all win, more choices , more savings.

 

[Heyyou27]

One more reason to hate intel... :?

You hate capitalism?

 

[shinigamiX]

http://digitimes.com/bits_chips/a20060621VL201.html


Q: Industry observers seem to agree that Intel's latest processor cores, originally codenamed Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest, now generically branded Core 2 Duo, will provide AMD with plenty of performance competition. Even so, it seems as though Intel is remaining content with basically legacy technology, staying with a front-side bus architecture and so on. Increasingly, it seems, a once-innovative company has entered the managerial and technology doldrums. What is it in the Intel corporate culture that has allowed them to squander their many opportunities and resources?

A: The problem Intel is wrestling with is certainly one of culture. It’s not that they’re lacking resources, but even so, their entire business model is predicated on locking up solutions and excluding anyone from participating. I find it interesting that recently they’ve been putting on the block quite a few businesses they had acquired, in which they’ve been an immense failure. That’s because in all of these markets where they had acquired capacity, they were not able to establish a monopoly. Culturally, it’s a company that functions well in the monopoly situation.

Basically, their idea of innovation is to find ways to serve their own purposes but not necessarily the purposes of the industry. Another way to look at this – and I find this very interesting – is that in all their public comments, their expression of Intel returning to greatness is squashing AMD. If you think about it, given the relative size of the two companies, the only way for Intel to achieve greatness is to find a way to extend their markets from US$30 billion to US$60 billion. Instead, their goal is to steal a few hundred million dollars from AMD. That tells you that they’re extremely limited in their thinking. I think it’s a cultural issue, and that cultural issue will only go away if there’s a change of management.

Q: AMD is currently pursuing litigation that should result in greater exposure of the issues surrounding Intel and what many see as the abuse of its monopoly position. Some industry observers appear dubious about litigation of this kind, simply as a policy. Others are dubious simply on a practical level – Intel has more lawyers and so on. Could you comment on the litigation in general terms and indicate why AMD is pursuing this tactic and what you hope to achieve?

A: Well I can’t comment in detail on the ongoing litigation, but just in general, I think it took a lot of courage for Hector Ruiz and AMD to launch this. I think this is something many people in the industry were hoping for. Someone had to do it because it’s very clear that Intel is abusing their monopoly in many ways, and we’ve outlined a lot of examples. There’ll be a Discovery process as part of the litigation, and I find it interesting that Intel’s first move in the litigation process was to propose that access would be denied to any wrongdoing outside the US, on the understanding that this is a US lawsuit. That tells me that Intel is very nervous about exposing some of their behavior outside the United States.

We know that Intel has basically been condemned by Japan's Fair Trade Commission (FTC). We know that they’re under investigation in both Europe and Korea. There’s quite a lot happening for a company that claims that they’ve done nothing wrong.

I can accept the presumption of innocence. But time will tell, and I know that many people in this industry are kind of anxious to see what’s going to come out of the Discovery process. For our part, we know that we’ve always abided by fair and open competition. I’m not sure that they can claim the same.

I’ll give you an example that’s exactly apropos. Tomorrow, at Computex, we’re presenting a series of Turion 64 X2 based notebooks, and it’s very clear that there are a number of partners who are keen on being in the room but scared to death of being on stage. That’s fundamentally wrong. They’re not afraid of being on stage because of us. So, why would they be afraid? I think that this deleterious environment that Intel is creating through exercising their muscle needs to stop. After all, they’re a big company. They’ve got lots of resources. There’s other ways to win than by threatening people. Even so, the reality is that one needs to be cautious, if one wants to remain a partner of Intel.

One more reason to hate intel... :?
What?

 

[cherrion]

9-inch just shut up. I think everyone is getting sick of your pointless stupid threads. You are a pathetic AMD fanboy and you ovbiously dont have anything else to do all day except post stupid threads.

 

[Action_Man]

One more reason to hate intel... :?

You hate capitalism?

No he hates america.

 

[spud]

9-inch just shut up. I think everyone is getting sick of your pointless stupid threads. You are a pathetic AMD fanboy and you ovbiously dont have anything else to do all day except post stupid threads.

Word.

 

[Parrot]

http://digitimes.com/bits_chips/a20060621VL201.html


Q: Industry observers seem to agree that Intel's latest processor cores, originally codenamed Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest, now generically branded Core 2 Duo, will provide AMD with plenty of performance competition. Even so, it seems as though Intel is remaining content with basically legacy technology, staying with a front-side bus architecture and so on. Increasingly, it seems, a once-innovative company has entered the managerial and technology doldrums. What is it in the Intel corporate culture that has allowed them to squander their many opportunities and resources?

A: The problem Intel is wrestling with is certainly one of culture. It’s not that they’re lacking resources, but even so, their entire business model is predicated on locking up solutions and excluding anyone from participating. I find it interesting that recently they’ve been putting on the block quite a few businesses they had acquired, in which they’ve been an immense failure. That’s because in all of these markets where they had acquired capacity, they were not able to establish a monopoly. Culturally, it’s a company that functions well in the monopoly situation.

Basically, their idea of innovation is to find ways to serve their own purposes but not necessarily the purposes of the industry. Another way to look at this – and I find this very interesting – is that in all their public comments, their expression of Intel returning to greatness is squashing AMD. If you think about it, given the relative size of the two companies, the only way for Intel to achieve greatness is to find a way to extend their markets from US$30 billion to US$60 billion. Instead, their goal is to steal a few hundred million dollars from AMD. That tells you that they’re extremely limited in their thinking. I think it’s a cultural issue, and that cultural issue will only go away if there’s a change of management.

Q: AMD is currently pursuing litigation that should result in greater exposure of the issues surrounding Intel and what many see as the abuse of its monopoly position. Some industry observers appear dubious about litigation of this kind, simply as a policy. Others are dubious simply on a practical level – Intel has more lawyers and so on. Could you comment on the litigation in general terms and indicate why AMD is pursuing this tactic and what you hope to achieve?

A: Well I can’t comment in detail on the ongoing litigation, but just in general, I think it took a lot of courage for Hector Ruiz and AMD to launch this. I think this is something many people in the industry were hoping for. Someone had to do it because it’s very clear that Intel is abusing their monopoly in many ways, and we’ve outlined a lot of examples. There’ll be a Discovery process as part of the litigation, and I find it interesting that Intel’s first move in the litigation process was to propose that access would be denied to any wrongdoing outside the US, on the understanding that this is a US lawsuit. That tells me that Intel is very nervous about exposing some of their behavior outside the United States.

We know that Intel has basically been condemned by Japan's Fair Trade Commission (FTC). We know that they’re under investigation in both Europe and Korea. There’s quite a lot happening for a company that claims that they’ve done nothing wrong.

I can accept the presumption of innocence. But time will tell, and I know that many people in this industry are kind of anxious to see what’s going to come out of the Discovery process. For our part, we know that we’ve always abided by fair and open competition. I’m not sure that they can claim the same.

I’ll give you an example that’s exactly apropos. Tomorrow, at Computex, we’re presenting a series of Turion 64 X2 based notebooks, and it’s very clear that there are a number of partners who are keen on being in the room but scared to death of being on stage. That’s fundamentally wrong. They’re not afraid of being on stage because of us. So, why would they be afraid? I think that this deleterious environment that Intel is creating through exercising their muscle needs to stop. After all, they’re a big company. They’ve got lots of resources. There’s other ways to win than by threatening people. Even so, the reality is that one needs to be cautious, if one wants to remain a partner of Intel.

One more reason to hate intel... :?

Here is part 2: http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20060621VL202.html :lol:

 

[Viperabyss]

http://digitimes.com/bits_chips/a20060621VL201.html


Q: Industry observers seem to agree that Intel's latest processor cores, originally codenamed Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest, now generically branded Core 2 Duo, will provide AMD with plenty of performance competition. Even so, it seems as though Intel is remaining content with basically legacy technology, staying with a front-side bus architecture and so on. Increasingly, it seems, a once-innovative company has entered the managerial and technology doldrums. What is it in the Intel corporate culture that has allowed them to squander their many opportunities and resources?

A: The problem Intel is wrestling with is certainly one of culture. It’s not that they’re lacking resources, but even so, their entire business model is predicated on locking up solutions and excluding anyone from participating. I find it interesting that recently they’ve been putting on the block quite a few businesses they had acquired, in which they’ve been an immense failure. That’s because in all of these markets where they had acquired capacity, they were not able to establish a monopoly. Culturally, it’s a company that functions well in the monopoly situation.

Basically, their idea of innovation is to find ways to serve their own purposes but not necessarily the purposes of the industry. Another way to look at this – and I find this very interesting – is that in all their public comments, their expression of Intel returning to greatness is squashing AMD. If you think about it, given the relative size of the two companies, the only way for Intel to achieve greatness is to find a way to extend their markets from US$30 billion to US$60 billion. Instead, their goal is to steal a few hundred million dollars from AMD. That tells you that they’re extremely limited in their thinking. I think it’s a cultural issue, and that cultural issue will only go away if there’s a change of management.

Q: AMD is currently pursuing litigation that should result in greater exposure of the issues surrounding Intel and what many see as the abuse of its monopoly position. Some industry observers appear dubious about litigation of this kind, simply as a policy. Others are dubious simply on a practical level – Intel has more lawyers and so on. Could you comment on the litigation in general terms and indicate why AMD is pursuing this tactic and what you hope to achieve?

A: Well I can’t comment in detail on the ongoing litigation, but just in general, I think it took a lot of courage for Hector Ruiz and AMD to launch this. I think this is something many people in the industry were hoping for. Someone had to do it because it’s very clear that Intel is abusing their monopoly in many ways, and we’ve outlined a lot of examples. There’ll be a Discovery process as part of the litigation, and I find it interesting that Intel’s first move in the litigation process was to propose that access would be denied to any wrongdoing outside the US, on the understanding that this is a US lawsuit. That tells me that Intel is very nervous about exposing some of their behavior outside the United States.

We know that Intel has basically been condemned by Japan's Fair Trade Commission (FTC). We know that they’re under investigation in both Europe and Korea. There’s quite a lot happening for a company that claims that they’ve done nothing wrong.

I can accept the presumption of innocence. But time will tell, and I know that many people in this industry are kind of anxious to see what’s going to come out of the Discovery process. For our part, we know that we’ve always abided by fair and open competition. I’m not sure that they can claim the same.

I’ll give you an example that’s exactly apropos. Tomorrow, at Computex, we’re presenting a series of Turion 64 X2 based notebooks, and it’s very clear that there are a number of partners who are keen on being in the room but scared to death of being on stage. That’s fundamentally wrong. They’re not afraid of being on stage because of us. So, why would they be afraid? I think that this deleterious environment that Intel is creating through exercising their muscle needs to stop. After all, they’re a big company. They’ve got lots of resources. There’s other ways to win than by threatening people. Even so, the reality is that one needs to be cautious, if one wants to remain a partner of Intel.

One more reason to hate intel... :?
how about one more reason to hate 9nm?

 

[mjp1618]

Q: Questions have been raised about AMD’s ability to be competitive in deep submicron. As I understand it, the K8L is going to be fabbed at 65 nanometers, but there does seem to be some suspicion that Intel may be moving along the process curve at a faster speed. And of course Intel has a formidable reputation for its manufacturing capabilities. I’m just wondering if you have any comment on your ability to keep up on the process curve with a competitor such as Intel.

A: I’ll make two comments. As I said earlier, I think we’re doing better than keeping up because if you look at our current position, and when we’ll finally be fabbing processors at 45-nanometer, we’re closing the gap. I think we’re doing better than keeping up.

Second, I hear a lot about Intel’s manufacturing prowess, but some things just don’t fit. If you look at their current situation, they’re on 65-nanometer; we’re on 90-nanometer. They’re on 300mm; we’re on 200mm. Their ASP is rumored to be one and a half times ours, yet, their gross margins were lower than ours in the first quarter. So I think Intel’s manufacturing engine is plagued by inefficiency, and probably because of their aggressive approach to adoption of new submicron technology, yields that are less stellar. In fact, it’s noticeable that Intel doesn’t talk a lot about their yields. They talk about their time to market at new nodes, but they don’t talk too much about their yields. Even though they may introduce parts done on a new process earlier than we do, it’s not obvious to me that they reach mature yields much earlier than we do.

Maybe Intel introduces a new technology a year ahead of AMD, but they only reach their mature yields three months ahead of us. So it will be very interesting, by the time we get to 45 nanometers, to see exactly who’s the manufacturing expert in the industry. I think any foregone conclusion that Intel is better at manufacturing than we are is incorrect. I’m very confident we’re going to demonstrate that over the next couple of years – if we haven’t demonstrated it already.

Q: Intel still lacks its own interconnect, of course. The CSI interconnect is reportedly delayed, possibly until 2009. Hypothetically, they could adopt HyperTransport, given the open nature of HyperTransport and its development by the HyperTransport Consortium, although that seems unlikely. Do you see any movement there?

A: No. First of all, if there was any movement, they’d probably try to conceal it from me as much as possible!

I’m not very optimistic about Intel adopting an industry-wide standard such as HyperTransport, even though most people would tell you it’s a very good standard. It’s against their DNA. They’ll have to come to grips with that issue, for sure. Whatever enhancements they’ve made to the current front-side bus, trying brute force, adopting large caches and so on, to try to mask some of the latency issues, helps, obviously, but it still doesn’t get to grips with the fundamental issue, which is that their architecture doesn’t scale with the number of cores.

Clearly we’re moving very quickly to a multi-core environment, and the elegance of the K8 architecture, where you’re basically enhancing memory bandwidth at the same time as you’re adding cores, is something that Intel is inevitably going to have to address. My sense, from what I hear, is that they are impaired first by the fact that it’s not a minor undertaking. Second, there’s still this Itanium versus Xeon issue out there, and they’re not sure how to tackle it.

On the one hand, it’s clear that Intel will soon have better performance on their own x86 lineup than on their Itanium lineup. It’s also pretty clear that to keep up with AMD, they’ll have to add reliability, availability and serviceability (RAS) features to their x86 server processors, and that will basically remove any advantage conferred by the feature sets of the current Itanium range.

The real question to ask is, since, at some point, you will be able to get an x86 processor that’s faster, that has the same RAS features, that’s cheaper to manufacture and that dissipates less power, why would anyone buy an Itanium? I think they’re really struggling with the answer to that question. The answer is obvious, but it’s a difficult one for them to accept.

Q: At Computex, Intel was originally scheduled to announce Montecito, the Itanium 2 processor, but symptomatically that schedule was pushed out to a later date. Do you have any additional comment on Itanium, in the light of that?

A: Well, I’m not sure that Itanium is interesting for anyone, really, and I think it’s becoming less and less interesting for Intel. Maybe the salvation for Itanium is to make it socket-compatible with Opteron. That would make it an excellent candidate for a Torrenza co-processing opportunity. That’s probably the only chance it’s got!

I love it how interviews with AMD executives focus more on Intel and Intel's products rather than AMD and AMD's own products...

 

[Ycon]

Id say youre delivering reasons to hate you all day :lol:

OT: Gotta love those posts by Spud