- Oct 7, 2006
- 355
- 0
- 18,780
Some people just can't see the full story like Sharikou can! :lol: 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.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :trophy: :trophy: :trophy: :trophy: :trophy:
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.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :trophy: :trophy: :trophy: :trophy: :trophy:
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram