Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

The rise and fall of Hector's Reich

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 28, 2007 10:42:54 AM

Just for the heck of it, I decided to write a little op-ed type piece on AMD’s recent troubles. Please feel free to brutalize it :)  Sorry, it's a little long....

“A lesson from history” – by EasyG

The fortunes of AMD in its struggle against Intel remind me not a little of the great German offensive against the Soviet Union in the summer of 1941: a military undertaking codenamed Operation Barbarossa. Leave to one side for a moment the ideological underpinnings of the Russo-German conflict, and what Barbarossa is illustrative of is the danger attendant upon a certain kind of success: of winning too much ground too quickly from a much larger opponent, while failing (or even having a plan) to deliver the knockout blow.

To begin with, Germany was a smaller country than the country it proposed to invade – smaller in terms of land area, population, manufacturing capacity, and the material resources available to it. What the Germans had on their side was technological superiority and a revolutionary tactical doctrine. It was the German belief in the technical superiority of their arms that led to the fateful decision to invade the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941.

In first phase of Barbarossa, the Germans quickly seized huge tracts of Soviet territory, while destroying literally hundreds of Russian formations in the process. The Soviets armies were caught by surprise, and were unable escape encirclement by the fast moving Panzer troops. They were systematically and ruthlessly destroyed. Land that had been Russian land for generations switched hands overnight. At their height, the Germans occupied a Soviet territory many times larger than Germany itself -- a jagged line from Leningrad in the north to Sebastopol in the south.

But there were troubling portent. At the beginning of the conflict, the German Panzers were undoubtedly superior to the Russian tanks. The correct employment of these technically superior tanks laid the foundations for the initial German successes. There were, however, rumors of new Russian models (T34 and KV) that would be more heavily armed and armored than any existing German models. The Germans, peculiarly convinced that the enemy would never emerge from his technological quagmire, were slow to respond with upgunned and more heavily armored models of their own.

Furthermore, the German were stretched across a long front hundreds of miles deep into Soviet territory. The German supply system threatened to buckle under the strain of supplying the Panzer divisions with the fuel, ammo, and material needed to wage war over so extended a territory. Besides for distance, there was the problem of integration. Simply put, the newly conquered territories could not be integrated into the German communications system overnight: it was no simple matter to ship a crate of 88mm ammunition from a factory in Munich to Smolensk in the war zone, as for one thing Russian and German trains ran on tracks of different gauges.

The German attack bogged down, and then in the winter of 1941 the Russians counter- attacked with devastating results. The Russians attacked en masse using their new tanks, and the situation which had existed in the summer of 1941 was now exactly reversed, with the Russians carrying the initiative and the Germans in a state of disorganization and disarray. Prior to the catastrophe, the best of the German battle commanders (Heinz Guderian ) had taken a cold hard look at the situation, and concluded the following:

1) the Germans had started the war by grossly underestimating the enemy’s vastly superior strategic reserves of men and material;
2) the Germans had also underestimated the Soviet capacity to adapt and to evolve, and indeed the Panzer armies had lost their initial technical superiority by not evolving themselves;
3) the Germans were extended over too long a front, which heightened the difficulties posed by points #1 and #2 above, as the Russians could attack with overwhelmingly superior forces at any point along that front with reasonable expectations of success

Guderian advocated limited strategic withdrawals to pre-selected positions chosen for their suitability for defensive warfare: a “shortening of lines,” or narrowing of the Russian offensive front, which at the same time would serve to relieve the strain to Germany’s over-extended systems of supply and command. He recognized that any decision to fight along an extended front served the Russians’ purpose while a shorter front blunted the Russian advantages in men, guns, and tanks. In a nutshell, Guderian argued that Germany would best be served by trading some land for some time, and that that time should be used to develop new weapons with which to continue the offensive under conditions more favorable to Germany.

In the end, though, Guderian was overruled by Hitler, who decided that Germany would not give up an inch of ground, but hold fast and “dig in.” This decision committed Germany to a war of attrition that it could not hope to win, since it meant squandering men and equipment in a fruitless attempt to hold on to exposed salients. The Germans would be slowly bled to death, and while the Russians would also bleed, attritional warfare suited the Russians since they had superior strategic resources with which to survive the bleeding out process.

Now flash forward to 2007: Germany’s situation on the Eastern Front in WWII is indeed uncannily similar to AMD’s situation today. AMD’s failure to correctly assess, and correctly prepare for, the logistical challenges attendant upon a deep and rapid penetration into a rival’s territory is reminiscent of Germany’s lack of strategic vision in preparing for Barbarossa. Hector Ruiz’s decision to hold on to market share at all costs, even at the expense of profitability, echoes the Hitlerian decision to hold onto every inch of captured territory regardless of consequences. And most importantly, AMD’s decision, much like Germany’s decision, to engage the enemy in a war of attrition could not have come at a worse time.

Perhaps there's still time for AMD take a lesson from Colonel General Guderian on the folly of wastefully expending resources in the stubborn attempt to defend territorial gains at any cost; and on the wisdom of coolly and judiciously trading territory for the time needed to retool, reequip, and ultimately resume the struggle against the old ideological adversary.

More about : rise fall hector reich

April 28, 2007 1:14:41 PM

Quote:
it deserves to be brutalized. AMD didnt kill 6 million jews. This is a bogus comparison at best. I couldnt read it all. The first paragraph killed it for me.



Remember the war in my PC?
April 28, 2007 1:51:09 PM

well for one thing, the analogy is there. There is no reference to the Holocaust. He is just referring to the invasion of Russia by the Germans. He never said anything about jewish people or even hinted to anything like it. This is actually a good comparrison. The world war between semiconductor companies
Related resources
April 28, 2007 2:16:42 PM

Quote:
Just for the heck of it, I decided to write a little op-ed type piece on AMD’s recent troubles. Please feel free to brutalize it :)  Sorry, it's a little long....

“A lesson from history” – by EasyG

The fortunes of AMD in its struggle against Intel remind me not a little of the great German offensive against the Soviet Union in the summer of 1941: a military undertaking codenamed Operation Barbarossa. Leave to one side for a moment the ideological underpinnings of the Russo-German conflict, and what Barbarossa is illustrative of is the danger attendant upon a certain kind of success: of winning too much ground too quickly from a much larger opponent, while failing (or even having a plan) to deliver the knockout blow.

To begin with, Germany was a smaller country than the country it proposed to invade – smaller in terms of land area, population, manufacturing capacity, and the material resources available to it. What the Germans had on their side was technological superiority and a revolutionary tactical doctrine. It was the German belief in the technical superiority of their arms that led to the fateful decision to invade the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941.

In first phase of Barbarossa, the Germans quickly seized huge tracts of Soviet territory, while destroying literally hundreds of Russian formations in the process. The Soviets armies were caught by surprise, and were unable escape encirclement by the fast moving Panzer troops. They were systematically and ruthlessly destroyed. Land that had been Russian land for generations switched hands overnight. At their height, the Germans occupied a Soviet territory many times larger than Germany itself -- a jagged line from Leningrad in the north to Sebastopol in the south.

But there were troubling portent. At the beginning of the conflict, the German Panzers were undoubtedly superior to the Russian tanks. The correct employment of these technically superior tanks laid the foundations for the initial German successes. There were, however, rumors of new Russian models (T34 and KV) that would be more heavily armed and armored than any existing German models. The Germans, peculiarly convinced that the enemy would never emerge from his technological quagmire, were slow to respond with upgunned and more heavily armored models of their own.

Furthermore, the German were stretched across a long front hundreds of miles deep into Soviet territory. The German supply system threatened to buckle under the strain of supplying the Panzer divisions with the fuel, ammo, and material needed to wage war over so extended a territory. Besides for distance, there was the problem of integration. Simply put, the newly conquered territories could not be integrated into the German communications system overnight: it was no simple matter to ship a crate of 88mm ammunition from a factory in Munich to Smolensk in the war zone, as for one thing Russian and German trains ran on tracks of different gauges.

The German attack bogged down, and then in the winter of 1941 the Russians counter- attacked with devastating results. The Russians attacked en masse using their new tanks, and the situation which had existed in the summer of 1941 was now exactly reversed, with the Russians carrying the initiative and the Germans in a state of disorganization and disarray. Prior to the catastrophe, the best of the German battle commanders (Heinz Guderian ) had taken a cold hard look at the situation, and concluded the following:

1) the Germans had started the war by grossly underestimating the enemy’s vastly superior strategic reserves of men and material;
2) the Germans had also underestimated the Soviet capacity to adapt and to evolve, and indeed the Panzer armies had lost their initial technical superiority by not evolving themselves;
3) the Germans were extended over too long a front, which heightened the difficulties posed by points #1 and #2 above, as the Russians could attack with overwhelmingly superior forces at any point along that front with reasonable expectations of success

Guderian advocated limited strategic withdrawals to pre-selected positions chosen for their suitability for defensive warfare: a “shortening of lines,” or narrowing of the Russian offensive front, which at the same time would serve to relieve the strain to Germany’s over-extended systems of supply and command. He recognized that any decision to fight along an extended front served the Russians’ purpose while a shorter front blunted the Russian advantages in men, guns, and tanks. In a nutshell, Guderian argued that Germany would best be served by trading some land for some time, and that that time should be used to develop new weapons with which to continue the offensive under conditions more favorable to Germany.

In the end, though, Guderian was overruled by Hitler, who decided that Germany would not give up an inch of ground, but hold fast and “dig in.” This decision committed Germany to a war of attrition that it could not hope to win, since it meant squandering men and equipment in a fruitless attempt to hold on to exposed salients. The Germans would be slowly bled to death, and while the Russians would also bleed, attritional warfare suited the Russians since they had superior strategic resources with which to survive the bleeding out process.

Now flash forward to 2007: Germany’s situation on the Eastern Front in WWII is indeed uncannily similar to AMD’s situation today. AMD’s failure to correctly assess, and correctly prepare for, the logistical challenges attendant upon a deep and rapid penetration into a rival’s territory is reminiscent of Germany’s lack of strategic vision in preparing for Barbarossa. Hector Ruiz’s decision to hold on to market share at all costs, even at the expense of profitability, echoes the Hitlerian decision to hold onto every inch of captured territory regardless of consequences. And most importantly, AMD’s decision, much like Germany’s decision, to engage the enemy in a war of attrition could not have come at a worse time.

Perhaps there's still time for AMD take a lesson from Colonel General Guderian on the folly of wastefully expending resources in the stubborn attempt to defend territorial gains at any cost; and on the wisdom of coolly and judiciously trading territory for the time needed to retool, reequip, and ultimately resume the struggle against the old ideological adversary.


Why did you have to compare such thing with AMD situations?

Whats the purpose of this? Most people know already where AMD is standing right now.
April 28, 2007 2:44:38 PM

Excellent anaysis of the Eastern front strategic situation. When the T34 MBT and the JS1 and JS2 heavy BT came out it was clear that the Panzers had no chance whatsoever. Not to mention that a war of attrition against the soviets is like trying to bleed out Bill Gates. I can also see a clear parallel with the Intel-AMD situation. And in the end Intel will rule supreme; it's all but inevitable.
April 28, 2007 3:19:57 PM

Quote:
Whats the purpose of this? Most people know already where AMD is standing right now.


:D  I'm guessing EasyG had too much free time, so this piece was written. Still, it is a nice piece of work. I'm afraid "Hector's Reich" will be over sooner than we think.
April 28, 2007 3:24:39 PM

Quote:
Remember the war in my PC?


Why, do you run Company of Heroes on it?
April 28, 2007 3:46:10 PM

and one more analogy :
the germans were able do develop new tanks (tigers) which on paper were superior to the newer soviet tanks (t34), but it was too late, and they didn't have the production capacity to produce enough of those to really affect the war. anyone said K10 ?
April 28, 2007 4:17:36 PM

Good analogy to AMD's current predicament. I must admit that the parallels are somewhat striking.

I give you 5 stars for the very well thought out and well written perspective.
April 28, 2007 4:19:40 PM

Quote:
and one more analogy :
the germans were able do develop new tanks (tigers) which on paper were superior to the newer soviet tanks (t34), but it was too late, and they didn't have the production capacity to produce enough of those to really affect the war. anyone said K10 ?



Another excellent point. K10 looks great on paper but by most accounts is too little too late.
April 28, 2007 4:36:07 PM

But AMD did "kill" hunderd thousands of prescotts
April 28, 2007 5:05:00 PM

mine is a survivor of the Prescaust. 3.2 -> 3.6 on air with stock cooling, and only 48*
April 28, 2007 5:13:17 PM

Quote:
mine is a survivor of the Prescaust. 3.2 -> 3.6 on air with stock cooling, and only 48*


Thought I'd got my S478 Gallatin 3.4 to a stable 3.8something with 44°C idle, but running Company of Heroes makes it overheat after 30 minutes so had to drop it back down to 3.74 were it seems okay again.

If I had a better cooling solution I am sure I could do much better! :) 


If the Gallatin normally runs a lot cooler than a Prescott, then just ignore me :lol: 
April 28, 2007 5:24:47 PM

I think this is a great anaolgy.

I also think it deserves a mention that the Russian casualties were something insane like 40:1 of the germans, and that the war cost the Russians 20 million people...
April 28, 2007 5:35:27 PM

Quote:
and one more analogy :
the germans were able do develop new tanks (tigers) which on paper were superior to the newer soviet tanks (t34), but it was too late, and they didn't have the production capacity to produce enough of those to really affect the war. anyone said K10 ?



Another excellent point. K10 looks great on paper but by most accounts is too little too late.


As I know tanks very well, I can concur that the Tiger was bigger and had greater armour than the T34 but it was not a T34 competitor, rather a Joseph Stalin 1 & 2 (henceforth JS1&2) competitor. The T34 was a main battle tank that had great mobility and firepower and was tactically used to overrun Vermacht troops with rapid advancements. It was not inferior to the Tiger I/II variants though as its greater mobility and low slung design made it a very difficult target. Moreover, the Tiger family had issues with their front engine configuration and the combustion of petrol that led to burnt Tigers even with relatively slight hits. The JS series though (renamed after Stalin's death as the T10) was a different beast altogether. Huge (the Tiger which was the war's 2nd largest tank was like a toy compared to it) and with unmatched armour and firepower the JS was a real behemoth that scared off enemy Panzers (by the way, Panzer means ''Tank'' in German and is not the codename of a certain type of tank). As it was slow and unmanouverable though it actually contributed to the Soviet triumph much less than the smaller but ultimately brilliant T34. These from an ex tank squad commander. :) 

As for the processors... it's like that... the K10 (Tiger) is in all probability going to be inferior to the Pernyn (JS) but it is the smaller and nimbler C2S (T34) that will win the game with its massive market share.

Cheers.
April 28, 2007 5:37:04 PM

So after the war Germany rebuilt and became one of the world's largest economies.

Now compare modern day Germany to modern day Russia...
April 28, 2007 6:00:37 PM

Quote:
I think this is a great anaolgy.

I also think it deserves a mention that the Russian casualties were something insane like 40:1 of the germans, and that the war cost the Russians 20 million people...



Quite right so. Only that 14 million of them were civilians killed either by the Germans or by the NKVD (KGB's predecessor) or by starvation. As for the kill ratio it has to do with Stalin's initial numbness and later on with his insistence to keep doing things his way instead of the Generals' (a.k.a. the right) way. I can go on for hours regarding the missutilisation of Divisions and the bleeding of reserves, good think they had a lot of those. When he eventually let General Zukov (heralded as the greatest military genious of the war, even above Romel and Monty) run the show (even though Stalin remained the Generalissimo - the supreme commander) things changed dramatically.
April 28, 2007 6:46:52 PM

Quote:
it deserves to be brutalized. AMD didnt kill 6 million jews. This is a bogus comparison at best. I couldnt read it all. The first paragraph killed it for me.


Vern, the russians under Stalin, the USs ally in WWII killed 12 million Jews, but history is writen by the victor, and the US gov couldnt publically condem russia as it did germany that would have been rather hypocritical.
April 28, 2007 7:53:10 PM

Its a good overall analogy, leaving out the politics of the matter, but you did leave out a couple things. Russia was helped immensely by imported military equipment from the U.S. and the air war made a dramactic turn as U.S. provided fighter planes replaced the Russian fighters, thus helping to cut the supply lines of the Germans. Like so many things in war. Its rarely any single thing, be it tanks or whatever, that turn the tide, but a combination of things which make the victory.

That said, I think AMD took on too big an enemy and at the same time counted too much on future products like the R600 series video cards and the K10 processors, neither of which has yet seen the light of day after months of waiting.
April 28, 2007 8:04:48 PM

Quote:
AMD tried to grab too much too quickly, and p!ssed off a giant....

Toyota is a great example of how it should be done.... and I only use this because i have read other commentary from finanical analysts along this lines....


That reminds me of the quote of Admiral Yamamoto following the Pearl Harbor attack, "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve". AMD, with its lawsuit against Intel and other provocations did indeed awaken the sleeping giant of Intel.
April 28, 2007 8:27:24 PM

Quote:
Its a good overall analogy, leaving out tha politics of the matter, but you did leave out a couple things. Russia was helped immensely by imported military equipment from the U.S. and the air war made a dramactic turn as U.S. provided fighter planes replaced the Russian fighters, thus helping to cut the supply lines of the Germans. Like so many things in war. Its rarley any single thing, be it tanks or whatever, that turn the tide, but a combination of things which make the victory.

That said, I think AMD took on too big an enemy and at the same time counted too much on future products like the R600 series video cards and the K10 processors, neither of which has yet seen the light of day after months of waiting.




True. Then again Hitler outfoxed Stalin and despite the Molotov-Riebentrop agreement he attacked the USSR, an act you could argue as a snicky one. So it's fair game I guess since the Red Army was totally unprepared for war.
April 28, 2007 8:32:30 PM

Quote:
Its a good overall analogy, leaving out tha politics of the matter, but you did leave out a couple things. Russia was helped immensely by imported military equipment from the U.S. and the air war made a dramactic turn as U.S. provided fighter planes replaced the Russian fighters, thus helping to cut the supply lines of the Germans. Like so many things in war. Its rarley any single thing, be it tanks or whatever, that turn the tide, but a combination of things which make the victory.

That said, I think AMD took on too big an enemy and at the same time counted too much on future products like the R600 series video cards and the K10 processors, neither of which has yet seen the light of day after months of waiting.




True. Then again Hitler outfoxed Stalin and despite the Molotov-Riebentrop agreement he attacked the USSR, an act you could argue as a snicky one. So it's fair game I guess since the Red Army was totally unprepared for war.

Well, they both signed that treaty intending to break it, so Stalin was just a little slow.
April 28, 2007 8:44:03 PM

Quote:
Perhaps there's still time for AMD take a lesson from Colonel General Guderian on the folly of wastefully expending resources in the stubborn attempt to defend territorial gains at any cost; and on the wisdom of coolly and judiciously trading territory for the time needed to retool, reequip, and ultimately resume the struggle against the old ideological adversary.


What exactly is AMD wastingfully expending its resources on currently? Is it not trying to develop and deploy its next CPU architecture -- K10? What else would you have AMD spend its resources on?

Now AMD may be making little to no profit on its current line of K8 CPUs. Why? What other choice do they have? Who is going to buy an overpriced CPU? Should AMD just put them on a shelf and take a tax write-off? That is a sure fire way to give even more territory to the competitor. If AMD had not dropped its prices, then everyone would be jumping ship to the competition's platform. As long as people are buying AMD CPUs and respective platforms (even at a heavily discounted price) then when the new CPUs "finally" arrive... maybe... just maybe... they will have a base of users ready for upgrades.

Otherwise... Pretty good analogy.
April 28, 2007 10:23:37 PM

Quote:
and one more analogy :
the germans were able do develop new tanks (tigers) which on paper were superior to the newer soviet tanks (t34), but it was too late, and they didn't have the production capacity to produce enough of those to really affect the war. anyone said K10 ?



Another excellent point. K10 looks great on paper but by most accounts is too little too late.


As I know tanks very well, I can concur that the Tiger was bigger and had greater armour than the T34 but it was not a T34 competitor, rather a Joseph Stalin 1 & 2 (henceforth JS1&2) competitor. The T34 was a main battle tank that had great mobility and firepower and was tactically used to overrun Vermacht troops with rapid advancements. It was not inferior to the Tiger I/II variants though as its greater mobility and low slung design made it a very difficult target. Moreover, the Tiger family had issues with their front engine configuration and the combustion of petrol that led to burnt Tigers even with relatively slight hits. The JS series though (renamed after Stalin's death as the T10) was a different beast altogether. Huge (the Tiger which was the war's 2nd largest tank was like a toy compared to it) and with unmatched armour and firepower the JS was a real behemoth that scared off enemy Panzers (by the way, Panzer means ''Tank'' in German and is not the codename of a certain type of tank). As it was slow and unmanouverable though it actually contributed to the Soviet triumph much less than the smaller but ultimately brilliant T34. These from an ex tank squad commander. :) 

As for the processors... it's like that... the K10 (Tiger) is in all probability going to be inferior to the Pernyn (JS) but it is the smaller and nimbler C2S (T34) that will win the game with its massive market share.

Cheers.
I would agree with you.
Tiger is although known for its heavy armor and armament, it is also well-known for its mechanical breakdowns. After the Battle of the Buldge, most Tigers were being used as defensive turrets, rather than offensive tanks.

In this case, K10 will be utterly formidable. However, it'll also suffer from heat / power consumption problems. It is probably the reason why AMD will only clock them as high as 2.6Ghz (2.5 Ghz for this year).

It also means that K10 will only serve as the flotation device for AMD, rather than an offensive punch to take back the market share.

EDIT: No offense to anyone, but I would really hope K10 will come out better than we're predicting. We really need competition in this industry. :p 
April 28, 2007 10:38:26 PM

Quote:
I think its a petty asasociation for the atrocities commited by the hitler regime. And I think nazis would rather kill alot of AMD non arians than use their tech.

I wouldnt compare Intel to Hitlers riech and theres alot more similarities in the conquest for control. I just think its in bad taste for the horrific things done by the german government at the time.


An emotional opinion that can be argued against. Everyone remembers Hitler as being evil but frankly, Stalin did just as bad if not worse in many cases.

A very well written essay by the way. Maybe someone should send it to this Henrich guy and perhaps he can learn from history and change his strategy accordingly.
April 28, 2007 11:11:15 PM

I guess that makes Nvidia and VIA the allies - who´s the jew by the way? A horrible analogy.
April 28, 2007 11:24:49 PM

Quote:
It also means that K10 will only serve as the flotation device for AMD, rather than an offensive punch to take back the market share.


Floataion device is right. Dont get your hopes up. Only a stall in the lab at Intel could resurrect AMD in short order. I just dont see K10 as bieng significant. I tried and the gut feeling is mostly not there. Especially seeing the xtx flop. Its a stigma for them these days.
i would wait until R600 is being benched by several other sites before it is concluded that R600 flopped. TGdaily is the only one with benches now, and to be honest, it would be biased to base conclusion on only one source.

AMD needs K10 to survive. We know it; Intel knows it; AMD knows it, and Hector knows it. If K10 flops again, AMD will be another 2nd rated company for another 3~4 years or so. As a result, I would think AMD has some technical difficulties with K10, but I don't think AMD would release a product that's inferior than the competition it was supposed to outperforms.
April 28, 2007 11:35:28 PM

Quote:
I guess that makes Nvidia and VIA the allies - who´s the jew by the way? A horrible analogy.


The analogy was a simple military scenario-strategy between Germany and Russia.

I do not think the intent of the analogy was to include the evil things that were perpetrated onto the Jewish people. If that was the intent, then I would agree with verndewd -- utterly disgusting.
April 28, 2007 11:38:29 PM

Quote:
If K10 flops again...


When did K10 flop the first time? :wink:
April 29, 2007 12:47:41 AM

Quote:
I guess that makes Nvidia and VIA the allies - who´s the jew by the way? A horrible analogy.


The analogy was a simple military scenario-strategy between Germany and Russia.

I do not think the intent of the analogy was to include the evil things that were perpetrated onto the Jewish people. If that was the intent, then I would agree with verndewd -- utterly disgusting.

Vern, I do not in any way mean to condone what Hitler did to the Jews, or for that matter, what he did to many other groups of people within Europe. As someone pointed out, Napolean tried a similar thing by attacking Russia and failed. Perhaps that campaign as an analogy would have been easier as far as the political and moral aspects.

In my own opinion, one of the worst of the evils in the war was how Hilter was so much admired and supported by people in the USA before we entered the war, even refusing to allow Jews to enter the country despite knowing what they were enduring in Germany and the countries that it had conquered. We can't do anything about the past, as it is done. What we can do is to never forget the past and to do our best so that history does not repeat itself.
April 29, 2007 3:09:03 AM

Quote:

AMD needs K10 to survive. We know it; Intel knows it; AMD knows it, and Hector knows it. If K10 flops again, AMD will be another 2nd rated company for another 3~4 years or so.


So what about all the parts that they manufacture for the Wii and 360? They are both selling well; hell the Wii is sold out nearly everywhere you go. Also consider their competitive low and mid-range cards and CPU's as well, which is where the vast bulk of sales are.

It would be folly to say the merger hasn't been a massive pain for them and that, according to their recent financial difficulties, they are going to go under. However, we know little of K10; I've yet to see one reliable benchmark or RRP quoted so for all we know K10 may have a better price/performance ratio, which what AMD need to to be chasing. They don't NEED a benchmark slayer, just great chips at a great price.

Quote:
As a result, I would think AMD has some technical difficulties with K10, but I don't think AMD would release a product that's inferior than the competition it was supposed to outperforms.


Performance is not the be all and end all like some people would believe. If chip a perfoms at 95% of chip b but is 20% cheaper then guess which one is better performance to price, and is thus more attractive to customers.
April 29, 2007 3:36:03 AM

Quote:
I guess that makes Nvidia and VIA the allies - who´s the jew by the way? A horrible analogy.


The analogy was a simple military scenario-strategy between Germany and Russia.

Yeah, that's correct. I said at the beginning that I was going to draw the comparion in a very narrow sense without any ideological overlay. I really think emotions need to be removed from equation when a person is making business decisions, like deciding where to invest money etc. If Intel goes down in flames it won't be because they were the bad guys, but because they screwed up their business. Ditto for AMD.

There are clear and obvious analogies between war and business, which is why students are as likely to encounter Sun Tzu or von Clausewitz in business schools and as in courses in academic history. But there is such a horror of WWII Germany that some folks are loathe to believe that anything useful can be learned from the writings of Guderian, von Mellenthin, and Manstein (to name a few). This is a mistake, in my opinion, because the Wehrmacht generals are vitally concerned with the employment of technology in a shifting, competitive environment. I wouldn't recommend reading these guys for higher level ethics; but for strategy and grand tactics, the Germans are awfully hard to beat for cold, hard, objective analysis.

Just for fun, I tried to look at the AMD vs. Intel strictly in their terms, as it would be played out in a war game, while our servers were down at work. I thought, yeah, let's just try to look at AMD and Intel as combatants, facing each other across a line: one big, one small; one essentially conservative, the other essentially innovative. In a nutshell, I wondered what Guderian would say if Merrill Lynch hired him to analyze the semi-conductor market.

Just to finish the analogy, I think it bears mentioning that there is one other important way in which AMD’s situation run parallel to Germany’s in WWII. A couple people have alluded to it already, although there’s a lot more that can be said: AMD, like Germany, is fighting a war on two fronts. It’s fighting it out with Intel in the CPU theatre of operation, and with nVidia in the GPU TO. A two-front war isn’t by definition un-winnable. The US also fought on two fronts during WWII. But resource management does become extremely critical in a multi-front conflict since theatres of operation will ultimately compete for available resources.

An interesting example of this can be seen in 1943, in the debate which took place between Albert Speer and Heinz Guderian over how Germany should use the very limited quantities of steel still available to it.

Speer, the munitions chief, argued in favor of utilizing this resource to maximize aircraft production. As the minister in charge of war production, he naturally viewed the war from the perspective of production, and believed the greatest threat to Germany came in the form of the US and British strategic bombers targeting Germany’s industrial base. He believed, therefore, that all available resources should go toward the manufacture of interceptor aircraft.

Guderian, on the other hand, was an actual battle commander, a veteran of the Eastern Front, elevated to the post of Inspector of Panzer Troops. He, quite understandably, viewed the Soviet ground forces as posing the most significant threat to Germany, and argued that the steel should be used to build up Germany’s armored forces.

When available resources are limited, problems of this sort are almost intractable, and even the tiniest miscalculation can be utterly catastrophic. For the resource rich, the margin for error increases considerably.

I have got to wonder if resource management issues won’t rear up their ugly head at AMD/ATI. I think they are bound to since AMD will now have to do CPUs, GPUs and chipsets on the same thin pool of capital expenditure.
April 29, 2007 3:39:40 AM

Quote:
I guess that makes Nvidia and VIA the allies - who´s the jew by the way? A horrible analogy.


The analogy was a simple military scenario-strategy between Germany and Russia.

I do not think the intent of the analogy was to include the evil things that were perpetrated onto the Jewish people. If that was the intent, then I would agree with verndewd -- utterly disgusting.

Sure thing. The germans were only a simple militaristic people asking for a little lebensraum. :?

The military and ethic aspects of WWII can´t be divided as they belong inherently together.

What makes me a little wonder is the great detail of the analogies description. I can´t but notice the interest in it by the author which makes me a little uneasy. It´s the kind of stuff where i don´t know what that person was thinking and whether he has a nazi flag at his wall or is just a history buff or maybe just a dedicated Hearts of Iron player or something...
April 29, 2007 4:08:54 AM

Quote:
Sure thing. The germans were only a simple militaristic people asking for a little lebensraum. :?

The military and ethic aspects of WWII can´t be divided as they belong inherently together.

What makes me a little wonder is the great detail of the analogies description. I can´t but notice the interest in it by the author which makes me a little uneasy. It´s the kind of stuff where i don´t know what that person was thinking and whether he has a nazi flag at his wall or is just a history buff or maybe just a dedicated Hearts of Iron player or something...


I think you are reading way too far into this.

If you are having trouble understanding what the author is trying to convey, then try asking him -- instead of creating a potentially inaccurate interpretation that could be harmful to the author.
April 29, 2007 4:32:35 AM

mmk some people have some real emotional baggage on their shulders. Drawing similarities between a war,and business has nothing to do with the ethics that caused the war to happen, period. If this analogy offends you, how bout all those VW bugs on the road? or the benz your neighbor drives? Try to calm down, and just read it for what it was, which is a very nice comparison of one political entity overreaching itself against a larger opponet, in one timeframe, to a diffrent political entity doing the same in the future.
April 29, 2007 4:44:34 AM

Quote:
I think its a petty asasociation for the atrocities commited by the hitler regime. And I think nazis would rather kill alot of AMD non arians than use their tech.

I wouldnt compare Intel to Hitlers riech and theres alot more similarities in the conquest for control. I just think its in bad taste for the horrific things done by the german government at the time.


An emotional opinion that can be argued against. Everyone remembers Hitler as being evil but frankly, Stalin did just as bad if not worse in many cases.

A very well written essay by the way. Maybe someone should send it to this Henrich guy and perhaps he can learn from history and change his strategy accordingly.

:roll: :roll: I made a point of stalin how? :roll: Like not.

Great guys lets just say AMD is hitler reborn, for cryin ou loud what the hell is wrong with you people? You are grouping one of the bloodiest regimes in history with a tech manufacturer deperately trying to create a vision in tech to benefit end users.

What kind of sick shock and awe crap do you guys live on day to day? I think its reprehensible to group AMD and Hitler's reich in any similarities. Or the 3rd reich and Intel for that matter, although Intel would make a better match to the propaganda and quest for control as they pawn off netburst last leavings to stupid preprogrammed idiots.

What the reich and Intel have in common is mind control.Amd doesnt enjoy that luxury . And intel Partbers up in china who reacts to copyright infringement cases with a braod sattement of "it will damage trade"

Which could be taken as well rip off anyone we want to. Perfect suitor for intel, just like the reich.? This comparison is bad.

Vern,

Hilter was a girlscout compared to Stalin
April 29, 2007 5:19:58 AM

Quote:

How many newbs will read this and equate amd to nazi germany? I will guarantee some will make just such an association.


Unfortunately that's true. What a sad world we live in :cry: 
April 29, 2007 5:41:26 AM

Quote:
I think its a petty asasociation for the atrocities commited by the hitler regime. And I think nazis would rather kill alot of AMD non arians than use their tech.

I wouldnt compare Intel to Hitlers riech and theres alot more similarities in the conquest for control. I just think its in bad taste for the horrific things done by the german government at the time.


Hector is hitler btw :wink:

PS. If you look beyond the jew thing, NAZIs weren't so bad. They had good policies, but needed a scape goat, aka, jews.
April 29, 2007 5:55:28 AM

Quote:

The comparison is irresponsible. I would rather discuss the comparison of sun tzus strategy to the failure of AMD planning. That at least doesnt have 6 million dead jews tied to it.


Although it was a bit long, the author of the analogy made a valid point with the comparison of the conflict between AMD/Intel and the historical conflict of Germany/Russian during Germany's invasion of russia. War stategy and business strategy have a lot in common and there's nothing wrong with making this comparison.

Nothing was mentioned of the Nazis and neither side was glorified by the OP. The six million Jews murdered had nothing to do the analogy. It was just a simple analysis, take it for what it is.

If anything, people need to remember WWII, even what happened to all sides, and learn from it. Like the saying goes: Those who do not learn fron history are doomed to repeat it!
April 29, 2007 6:15:14 AM

That was actually a very good analogy you made OP. I can see that your a history buff like myself.....well not really a buff, but I do watch the History channel. :wink: I would argue that you probably could of used certain periods in the Roman empire for your analogy, but probably not as effective. By the way, they teach these battles in military school for a reason....
April 29, 2007 6:34:16 AM

Quote:
If K10 flops again...


When did K10 flop the first time? :wink:
my bad....
i mean, if K10 flops..
apologize :p 
April 29, 2007 6:55:10 AM

Quote:

AMD needs K10 to survive. We know it; Intel knows it; AMD knows it, and Hector knows it. If K10 flops again, AMD will be another 2nd rated company for another 3~4 years or so.


So what about all the parts that they manufacture for the Wii and 360? They are both selling well; hell the Wii is sold out nearly everywhere you go. Also consider their competitive low and mid-range cards and CPU's as well, which is where the vast bulk of sales are.
but those are just break even businesses. AMD cannot pay for K10's R&D, all the advertisements, and flourish just from those businesses.

Quote:

It would be folly to say the merger hasn't been a massive pain for them and that, according to their recent financial difficulties, they are going to go under. However, we know little of K10; I've yet to see one reliable benchmark or RRP quoted so for all we know K10 may have a better price/performance ratio, which what AMD need to to be chasing. They don't NEED a benchmark slayer, just great chips at a great price.

that's exactly my point. we know nothing of K10, so we don't know it will take the performance crown for AMD, or it'll just make AMD another alternative company.

so far AMD claimed K10 will have 50% and 20% increase in performance in both floating point and integer processing compare to Core 2 at the same clock. so if K10 doesn't perform up to AMD's advertisement, AMD will not only lose customers, they will lose their credibility.

Quote:

As a result, I would think AMD has some technical difficulties with K10, but I don't think AMD would release a product that's inferior than the competition it was supposed to outperforms.


Performance is not the be all and end all like some people would believe. If chip a perfoms at 95% of chip b but is 20% cheaper then guess which one is better performance to price, and is thus more attractive to customers.
of course. so if Athlon X4 performs about 95% of Penryn, yet 20% cheaper, then AMD will have a killer chip in terms of price/performance. however, AMD already claimed to have at least 40% in performance increase against the Core 2s. by having a 5% slower processor, Intel still has the performance crown, and AMD will likely to lose the enthusiast market. plus Intel can scale the processor as high as they want. with Nehalem due in 2008, AMD cannot, and will not develop another micro-architecture just to answer Nehalem.

AMD needs to win this by a fair amount of margin, and they need this win NOW.
April 29, 2007 1:16:30 PM

@viperabyss

Ah, now I understand you. You're post was in regards to AMD's claims. I don't bother looking at claims, only post-release benchmark scores and RRP :wink:

But yeah, they'll have a lot of egg on their face if they don't live up to expectations.
April 29, 2007 10:48:12 PM

Quote:

PS. If you look beyond the jew thing, NAZIs weren't so bad. They had good policies, but needed a scape goat, aka, jews.


Yeah, executing gypsies and the occasional Untermensch that didn´t fit their aryan image of perfection.... to name just a few.
April 30, 2007 1:19:17 AM

Quote:
:? :? :? Why do you insist on following the lead to divert my point? I dont care about stalin or pol pot or the baath party or the spanish inquisitors.

I am well aware of the likes of stalin and Mao and the mass burials that pull their souls to hell with hirohito and all the rest

The comparison is irresponsible. I would rather discuss the comparison of sun tzus strategy to the failure of AMD planning. That at least doesnt have 6 million dead jews tied to it.


Easy bro...I wont mention it again. But understand the comparison is not directly about Hitlers morals, but the stratigic descisions of a campiagn that lead to a specific outcome. Just like mishap investigations, people have to put aside emotional influences to get beyond those influences so the truth can be ascertained.

No ones saying Hilter wasnt a dirtbag, but it has little to do with the stratigic decisions of the campaign, unless you go to the next level, or way back to look at his insanity and his zero defects mentality which drove him further into micro-management. And even those may have a bearing on AMD, depending on Hectors and Henris reactions to any enginerring reports of K10 delays/performance issues.

It was a good analogy in terms of strategy, regardless of the underlying morality issues.
April 30, 2007 2:32:52 AM

This analogy sucks, sorry. But maybe we could fix it a little-

1.- The Russian tank tech was better than German in 1942 (Panzer III-IV didn't have many chances against KVs, but Russian didn't know how to use that edge). And of course, they had to fight vs T-34 and their answer (Panther) was too expensive. The big guys (Tigers, JSs, etc) were defensive tanks, too slow to do much in an offensive.

FIX: Intel had Pentium M, and they didn't use to conquer the desktop-server space. Till now.

2.- More than one front. If it had been just Germany vs Russia, I think Germany would have won (Stalin was nuts from day one and Hitler went (strategically) nuts just in Stalingrad). BUT, as they were fighting in Russia they had to divert troops to Africa and Western Europe. And their factories were crushed by allied bombardments. They were fighting in too many fronts.

FIX: With ATI, AMD has now 2 fronts.

2.- The first problem of the Red Army was Stalin. First he killed most of the officers in the army and in the first year he was the master?mind. And he lost utterly.

FIX: Management issues. that's easy :-D

3.- Lend and lease. USA send lots and lots of supplies, tanks, planes and weapons to Russia. Without them Russia couldn't have resist the first 2 years.

NO FIX possible, so much for the analogy

4.- Mussolini. If Mussolini hadn't attacked Greece, German would have attacked two months earlier and could have seize Moscow before Fall. Those two months made the difference.

FIX: Mmm, lateness. That sure does ring a bell with AMD.

5.- Winter. German troopers didn't have winter equipment. They hoped to with that front before that.

FIX: Confidence... Maybe this is fixable...
April 30, 2007 2:50:40 AM

Quote:
I will come out and accuse the poster of direct comparison to nazi germany based on the thread title. Any one with a mind of reason knows that 2 of the reichs caused 2 world wars. I think the implication of sacrcastic insinuation is very clear. And worthy of serious correction.

i am not even remotely desensitized to mankinds carnal idiocy ,enough to placate such a grotesque use of logic. One must make alot of moral concessions to arrive at agreement with such erroneous writing.


dude, u are way off the mark. did u even bother to read the op? he doesn't even mention nazies or jews. this is a pure miltary strategy thing where territory is market share, weapons is product, attrition is price war, and resources is equity. the comparison is perfectly valid if u look at it that way and leave out the emotions. all he's saying is amd overexpanded and needs to scale back until it can traction competitive products again.

i understood where he was going perfectly and it has nothing to do with insinuating amd is evil. i can tell the op is prolly a war gamer from his ww2 knowledge. ive met this kind of guy alot. they think _panzer general_ is the best game ever and they always wanna play the germans or japanese in axis&allies cause they like the strategic challenge. if u ever meet one they are usually in technical fields like engineering or accountaing; never in the helping fields. the it industry is full of these guys.

to say that everyone who agreed with the op's argument are morally bankrupt is a stupid blanket statement. it's u who expose yourself to be an idiot with such ridiculous assertions

/lurk
April 30, 2007 3:21:26 AM

:roll:
April 30, 2007 3:40:21 AM

Quote:
I think its a petty asasociation for the atrocities commited by the hitler regime. And I think nazis would rather kill alot of AMD non arians than use their tech.

I wouldnt compare Intel to Hitlers riech and theres alot more similarities in the conquest for control. I just think its in bad taste for the horrific things done by the german government at the time.


An emotional opinion that can be argued against. Everyone remembers Hitler as being evil but frankly, Stalin did just as bad if not worse in many cases.

A very well written essay by the way. Maybe someone should send it to this Henrich guy and perhaps he can learn from history and change his strategy accordingly.

:roll: :roll: I made a point of stalin how? :roll: Like not.

Great guys lets just say AMD is hitler reborn, for cryin ou loud what the hell is wrong with you people? You are grouping one of the bloodiest regimes in history with a tech manufacturer deperately trying to create a vision in tech to benefit end users.

What kind of sick shock and awe crap do you guys live on day to day? I think its reprehensible to group AMD and Hitler's reich in any similarities. Or the 3rd reich and Intel for that matter, although Intel would make a better match to the propaganda and quest for control as they pawn off netburst last leavings to stupid preprogrammed idiots.

What the reich and Intel have in common is mind control.Amd doesnt enjoy that luxury . And intel Partbers up in china who reacts to copyright infringement cases with a braod sattement of "it will damage trade"

Which could be taken as well rip off anyone we want to. Perfect suitor for intel, just like the reich.? This comparison is bad.

i think your the only one making that connection and ranting about it.... its just a tactical situation having nothing to do with the countries behind it.
April 30, 2007 9:07:49 AM

Quote:
AMD tried to grab too much too quickly, and p!ssed off a giant....

Toyota is a great example of how it should be done.... and I only use this because i have read other commentary from finanical analysts along this lines....


Toyota doesn't have to pay $1200/vehicle to health care and other employee benefits.. .more like $200.00... Put $1000/vehicle in research and development or better parts/machinery and you get a lot of better vehicles.
!