Some people just can't see the full story like Sharikou can! I didn't stop laughing for about ten minutes after I read this.
Why is Intel QX6700 quad core a $125 CPU
Look at this picture. Michael Dell was excited, I heard, he is going to switch to near 100% AMD by 1Q08, just one quarter ahead of Intel's projected BK.
I think AMD's seemingly painful 1Q07 was Hector's plan. By taking a huge hit in 1Q07, AMD builds massive amount of inventory to flood Q2 -- those $59 X2 3600s just keep coming wave after wave. Then in Q3, K10 is out to push all of Intel CPUs down below $100 (except QX6700, which will be sold at $125). Intel's planned price cut in July is too little-- they only cut 50%, they need a 75% cut.
Intel's Penryn may see some clock speed increases, but those will be way short of narrowing the huge IPC gap. Also keep in mind, AMD is migrating to better SOI transistors in 65nm, which will result in 40% clockspeed boost.
Rahul thinks AMD made Intel stronger than ever. How ridiculously wrong. He can't see that Intel is at its last breath. Every sign tells us that Intel is doomed. The reason is simple. AMD has become a major player in server, desktop and mobile and has sufficient capacity. All AMD needs is one killer chip and Intel will be mortally wounded. This is because Intel is huge animal which needs a lot of food to survive, once AMD cuts Intel's revenue by 50%, Intel will die within two quarters, insufficient time for making any adjustments. The situation for Intel is unlike others. SUN always has this Sparc niche to enjoy its meal, so it can last a long time dying slow. Intel and AMD CPUs are software and hardware (except MB) compatible, and AMD has become a smarter choice.
Now, you ask, why should Intel die?
The reason is simple: Intel has been lagging behind AMD for five generations for four years, and there is no sign of catching up. Intel is behind on (a) virtualized 64 bit computing (b) IMC (c) direct IPC (ccHt) (d) direct Core-Core communication (e) virtualized HyperTransport I/O.
The Core 2 architecture somehow reduced the gap in 64 bit and Core-Core communication. But it was a kludge, the solution can't be extended to quad core. Intel's 64 bit architecture is incapable of IOMMU and now AMD made it to IOMMU 1.2.
The K10 will widen AMD's five generation architecture lead.
Sharikou shouldn't let his mind wander.. it's too small to be out on it's own! :twisted:
Seriously, this guy just doesn't get it. Intel is like ten times bigger and has twenty times more business than AMD. Unlike AMD, they have markets that AMD hasn't even looked at yet. Even if AMD took over the entire CPU (servers and home) market, Intel would only loses about 15% of it's business. They could happily continue on with the rest of their microprocessor development and sales. AMD, on the other hand, heavily depends on it's CPU market to keep the rest of it's business afloat.
Add to this the fact that Intel has better (and therefore cheaper) wafer yields than AMD at 65nm. In fact, the C2D line is less than a third of the cost of the Netburst line. If Intel wished to, it could actually afford to move it's entire C2D line pricing to lower than AMD current pricing. The reason that they don't is simply that there is simply no compelling reason to price their superior chip line below AMD, when AMD is losing all the money from these price wars. Intel is not going to lose money, if it doesn't need to.
Lastly, this 8ull$hit that Intel is 5 generations behind.. WTF?
If C2D is five generations behind, AMD is in SERIOUS trouble. And Intel will be hitting the retail chains with 45nm by late July, early August (I have an inside source who tells they slipped back a couple of weeks). AMD won't have 45 till LATE NEXT YEAR, about the time that Intel will be coming out with Nehalem.
Lack of IMC is killing intel...Such a vital part. These AMD fanbois are funny. They'll tell you no one overclocks and that OC/Clock margin means nothing but apparently every average Joe cares whether they have an IMC for their web browsing...