Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Support AMD for keeping the competition?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 7, 2003 5:46:49 PM

Do hardware enthusiasts have to support AMD?
Now intel got considerable perfomance advantage over AMD in desktop processors,no doubt?But now I got a serious question.Last quarter of 2002 saw intel making profit of 1 billion and AMD "loss" of 250 million.And last quarter AMD losses 2 percent of market share whereas intel gains 2 percent market share.
So what will happen in future.Can AMD compete with intel with these losses?If not intel will be the only player and we will see so many bad things for the customer(no explanation is needed,I think).
So what we have to do?Do we have to buy and recommend AMDs closing the eyes to Intel's perfomance advantage and technological superiority?We want AMD in the market,at any cost.Right?
July 7, 2003 5:56:10 PM

im sticking with AMD until they die, i hate intel, i love amd, its as simple as that
Related resources
July 7, 2003 6:00:01 PM

AMD gets their A64 out on time that will help. But if not they will lose more money and market share to Intel.
July 7, 2003 6:04:51 PM

First of all, AMD is pretty safe. They make other useful products such as flash memory and so even if their CPU department takes a fall, AMD won't die.

That said, AMD's CPU department isn't likely to die either. The absolute worst case scenario would be that AMD just centers on the low-end market and drops to the level of VIA. (Well, actually an equally-bad scenario would be that AMD sells it's CPU department to someone like VIA or IBM.)

Besides, Intel wants AMD around too. So long as AMD still has a noticable portion of the market share (even if it becomes just the low-end market share) Intel doesn't look like a monopoly. And Intel definately doesn't want to be a monopoly. It'd be bad for their business. So it actually benefits Intel to make sure that AMD doesn't die, and Intel knows that.

So don't do something silly like recommend products that you yourself wouldn't use. That's just compromising your integrity and there's hardly ever a good excuse for doing that. It's okay to support Intel. The world won't end.

"<i>Yeah, if you treat them like equals, it'll only encourage them to think they <b>ARE</b> your equals.</i>" - Thief from <A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=030603" target="_new">8-Bit Theater</A>
July 7, 2003 6:13:09 PM

-----------------------------------------------------------
They make other useful products such as flash memory and so even if their CPU department takes a fall, AMD won't die.
--------------------------------------------------

And if u consider the overall sales AMD is generating profit?

Enthusiast
July 7, 2003 6:29:39 PM

I always get a thrill out of supporting the underdog, but I do believe in the "Support AMD to keep competition" theory.

<font color=red>Proudly supporting the AMD/Nvidia minority</font color=red>
July 7, 2003 6:48:58 PM

The bulk of the "loss" was a) income tax bill, and b) compared to the previous year.

They still make money.

They have their partnership with IBM.

They still do business with UMC.

Hardware enthusiasts can support whomever. There's not enough of us to make much of a difference even if we all agreed!

AMD is not going anywhere.

Unless they make more comments like, "Intel is using their position to lock consumers in to inferior (Centrino) technology." C'mon Mr. Hargrove (et. al.) If Centrino is inferior, then I'd be dancing in the streets (traffic permitting), because that would mean there's something EVEN better! But it isn't. Not yet, anyway.


__________________________________________________
<b><font color=red>Three great virtues of a programmer are: laziness, impatience, and hubris.</font color=red><b>
July 7, 2003 7:02:27 PM

If every body is thinking without bias who can buy AMD?
Top end customers can always select P4 with no doubt(great perfomance).
Average customers will select P4 2.4c if they think wise(no considerable price difference with (inferior)2800+).

So why people are buying AMD?
July 7, 2003 7:18:29 PM

Quote:
So why people are buying AMD?

Because there are a <b>LOT</b> of people who want to pay as little as possible for their computer. Heck, I could assemble a sweet little budget box for $600 (or less if I want to cut serious corners) using AMD. It's hard to beat that for people with limited funds.

And since there are an awfully large number of people on such limited funds, AMD has a pretty good market. They just unfortunately don't make much money on that market.

"<i>Yeah, if you treat them like equals, it'll only encourage them to think they <b>ARE</b> your equals.</i>" - Thief from <A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=030603" target="_new">8-Bit Theater</A>
July 7, 2003 7:36:38 PM

Who needs AMD?

Every smart users that know they will have more fun with there systems even if they get a little more FPS in games.

Do we really care about having 5 to 10% differences in performance for less money. I really don't care!

I personnaly own an Athlon 1800+ (OC to 2400+) and for now, I'm really pleased with the performance... And the money I saved with this purchase will be wisely spand in 6 to 12 months on a cheap XP 3200+.

I think too many people focus on performance. If you have a good/versatile chassis (MotherBoard) you can easily buy hardware as needed.

It's why I bought a good HDDD (IBM DTLA307030) 3 years ago, and it still gives me good performance. even today, I load many games faster then my friends who bought bigger but slower HDD.

The slowest part of a PC qill always be the HDD, not the CPU! So, it's better to have a good HDD than the TOP of the LINE CPU!

Humm... We were talking about CPUS...

--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?
July 7, 2003 7:59:16 PM

So how much money u can save with an AMD CPU now(at present, forget the Past)
AMD Intel
budget system XP1500+($51) Celeron1.7 ($55)
medium system XP 2800+($163) P42.4C (169)
perfomance system XP 3200+(449) P43.0C(395)

the prices are from pricewatch

http://www.pricewatch.com

And all the mentioned Intels are offering better perfomance than the AMDS.So how much u saved?
July 7, 2003 8:19:38 PM

Strangely appropriate name with a post like that.

Shadus
July 7, 2003 8:22:02 PM

I have a severely difficult time believing that a <i>Celeron</i> 1.7GHz is even close to the performance of an AXP1500+. Besides, you can also get an AXP T-Bred 1700+ for only $45, which runs better than the AXP1500+ <i>and</i> costs less. Plus you can pick up a KT333 motherboard for $40, but an i845P motherboard or better will cost at least $60.

So which would you rather have: an AXP1700+ on a KT333 mobo for $85, or a Celeron 1.7GHz on a i845P mobo for $115?

"<i>Yeah, if you treat them like equals, it'll only encourage them to think they <b>ARE</b> your equals.</i>" - Thief from <A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=030603" target="_new">8-Bit Theater</A>
July 7, 2003 8:23:31 PM

I don't know how to explain but here it goes...

Let's say you are having a heart surgery. And there are only two doctors in the whole world who can treat you. Let's call them Dr. AMD and Dr. Intel. One of doctor who wasn't that good in the past went back to school and got it's education and now is a better doctor then the other, let's call him Dr. Intel. The other doctor who used to have lot of patient got behind and now lost his patient due to lack of service he was providing, let's call him Dr. AMD.

So here's the senario...
Dr. Intel has all the training to do the operation on you. He is the most qualified doctor. He knows what he is doing. He will probably do the operation in less time then Dr. AMD.

Dr. AMD who also has training he may not be upto date with his training But he can also do the operation. He may take little longer then Dr. Intel. He also doesn't have new tools and training like Dr. Intel (SSE2, HT).

Now my question to you. If both of these doctors are going to charge you same money for operation. Who will you go to get the operation done Dr. Intel or Dr. AMD?

I hope this answers "Support AMD for keeping the competition?"

KG

"Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity." - Sarah Chambers
July 7, 2003 8:30:39 PM

First the CELERY will pretty suck against an XP1500+ CELERY are very slow and they should not call them CPU... They should call them... Cheaper than cheap CHIP for Wall-Mart PCs.

So, if you want decent performance for cheap you MUST buy an AMD chip. So you will pay about the same price and get a lot more punch in games/apps with an XP instead of a CELERY.

But, if today, you have a lot of money to spend. For sure the newest P4C are good and with the newest boards out. The upgradability is good.

But people who bought AMD in the last year are "lucky". I mean, they bought a good performer and when they will NEED to upgrade they will have a good replacment CPU for cheap : the XP3200+. I DON'T say that XP3200+ are the BEST! In 6 to 9 months they will mostly gives these CPUs, because the A64 will be out. Mainly because AMD kept using is socket for a long time!

And, of course, people that buy low-end P4 with a decent MB will enjoy the same advantage in 12 to 18 months. But only, if Intel will support it's "new socket" long enough with new CPU core.

--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?
July 7, 2003 8:37:55 PM

Sorry for the mistake.
You are right.In low end CPUs celeron can't compete with AMD.But I am sticking with my theory in midrange and perfomance PCs,Intel is offering more price/perfomance .Or any objection?
July 7, 2003 8:44:22 PM

Suppose the Air conditioning in the operation theatre went wrong when Dr.AMD is doing heart surgery.Then the patient will die(as well as Dr.AMD).
This is simply a joke.Please dont take it serious.
July 7, 2003 8:46:59 PM

Quote:
im sticking with AMD until they die, i hate intel, i love amd, its as simple as that

Now ... is this what is called a Fanboy?

But Officer, I wasn't speeding - I was qualifying ...
July 7, 2003 9:23:10 PM

Loyal AMD customer
July 7, 2003 10:31:50 PM

That doctor analogy was the stupidest thing I have heard in my whole life. I don't even know where to start.

People seem to only look at the CPU when it comes to price. We also must consider how much AMD mobos and memory configurations cost compared to Intel. Or should I somehow use a doctor story to explain it? Dr. Intel's operating bench costs more to use than Dr. AMD's operating bench.

<font color=red>Proudly supporting the AMD/Nvidia minority</font color=red>
July 8, 2003 12:01:32 AM

Wrong, the i865 boards are at an all-time low that even good AMD mobos can't compare in price.
I firmly believe you are not using a valid argument anymore NOW.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/news.html" target="_new"><font color=red><b>Join the Tom's Hardware Guide Community Photo album, send us your pics!</font color=red></b></A><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 07/07/03 08:24 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
July 8, 2003 12:04:03 AM

Ok who created once again a fake user to try to start a flame war!

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/news.html" target="_new"><font color=red><b>Join the Tom's Hardware Guide Community Photo album, send us your pics!</font color=red></b></A>
July 8, 2003 2:30:32 AM

oh, sure, absolutely. The guy is a fake. Someone around here just has waaay too much time in his/her hands! :smile:
July 8, 2003 3:51:03 AM

uhhh. Are we looking at the same Pricewatch? At the highest level, the P4 is actually cheaper. But look down at the lower levels.

2600+: $91
P4 2.6: $118

AMD processors don't break the $100 mark until the 2700+. Intel does so at the 1.8 Ghz! AMD holds the price advantage by quite a good margin. Looking at the Celeron processors, they are quite cheap, but if you're shopping for a Celeron processor you're probably just gonna send e-mail and surf the internet. Buy a Duron 1.3 for 34 dollars and be happy.

Also, AMD and Intel are roughly the same in terms of holding the preformance lead, at least the last time I looked at the benchmarks.

The Athlon 64 will be a big advantage for AMD. The idiots who shop for pre-built computers will probably be wowed by "64-Bit Processing Power!". AMD is far from dead. They are a very large company and will not be folding any time soon.
July 8, 2003 5:19:48 AM

heya slvr_phoenix..
u said,
Quote:
And Intel definately doesn't want to be a monopoly. It'd be bad for their business. So it actually benefits Intel to make sure that AMD doesn't die, and Intel knows that.

I am still trying to figure out how cud that be the case? cud u explain please??

me says: If it was not for <b><font color=red>C</font color=red></b>, we wud be using <font color=blue><b>BASI, PASAL & OBOL</font color=blue></b>
<b>slvr_phoenix</b> says: But I'd still be using Python. :-p
July 8, 2003 1:43:30 PM

The idiots who shop for pre-built computers will probably be wowed by "64-Bit Processing Power!"

I really suspect whether AMD show real competition with their 64 bit Athlon to intel.
At present there is not much 64-bit software.So when AMD launches its A64, it have to compete with
P4 in 32-bit computing.Here what matters is its native 32 bit support,and who think it will be showing better
perfomance than P4?
I am telling this with reference to THG review "duel of the titans-Opteron Vs Xeon".Defenitely opetron is outperforming Xeon(and P4) in server benchmarks.But I thing it is the workstation benchmarks which is more close to
desktop perfomance when it comes.We are talking about desktop processors so let us consider workstation benchmarks only.Here even the Opteron cannot match the Xeon(and Pentium 4).And when AMD launches desktop hammer
it can never compete with P4(So only the idiots will be buying AMD at that time).And when 64 bit softwares are becoming common after a few months,what will happen if intel is launching its 64 bit pentium?Its going to be tough time for AMD.
July 8, 2003 1:55:08 PM

Quote:
at least the last time I looked at the benchmarks.

I guess the last time meant 1 year ago.

<A HREF="http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030623/p4_3200-07.ht..." target="_new">Some a$$-whooping</A>
<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1834&p=5" target="_new">Some more a$$=whooping</A>

Roughly the same in performance lead? I think NOT!

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/news.html" target="_new"><font color=red><b>Join the Tom's Hardware Guide Community Photo album, send us your pics!</font color=red></b></A>
July 8, 2003 2:38:26 PM

Quote:
Also, AMD and Intel are roughly the same in terms of holding the preformance lead, at least the last time I looked at the benchmarks.

Welcome to 2003.

Check again.
July 8, 2003 2:55:45 PM

Quote:
when AMD launches desktop hammer
it can never compete with P4(So only the idiots will be buying AMD at that time).

You're absolutely right. The current Northwoods at 3.0Ghz and 3.2Ghz are more than enough to destroy a 2.0Ghz single-processor system in 32-bit software. This is a very serious thing for AMD. I did this <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?nam..." target="_new">preview on Athlon 64's performance</A> considering clock speeds 1.8Ghz, 2.0Ghz and even 2.5Ghz (maybe I should bump it?... it's interesting...). <b>It takes a full-blown 2.5Ghz Single Opteron to really challenge a 3.0Ghz in 32-bit software. </b> AMD, be careful now...
July 8, 2003 4:40:38 PM

Amd has a huge following with enthusiasts and overclockers. Unlocked cpu's itself is a big attraction. I picked up a 2100 for £55, now run it at 2.3ghz/200mhz fsb no problem, (about as fast as a 3200 barton).

The mobo and memory set me back an extra £170. If i was to go the intel route i wouldnt have the unlocked multi to play with and would have to get a board that does 250mhz and a 2.4c for a good overclock.

The 2.4 costs £147 + 120 + 100 (233mhz) for mem and board = £337 for around 16,300 3dmarks stock and 16,900 overclocked to say 2.9ghz on air cooling. With my setup Im at 2.3ghz and get 16,100 but saved a cool £110....

For me it was all about getting something very very cheap that will put me on till A64/prescott comes out and maybe I will go the intel route depending on how oc the A64 will be...

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6719742" target="_new"> MY RIG </A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=996846" target="_new"> 3D-03 </A>
<font color=red> 120% overclocker </font color=red> (cheapskate)
July 8, 2003 5:10:09 PM

whooohhh. Those benchmarks are not a good thing.

Yeah, well.....uh....They're still cheaper! lol.

Companies can still function if they don't have the performance lead. For a few months, nVidia was blown away by ATI. Guess who still sold more cards overall? nVidia. Right now, there really isn't any reason for people to get the best, so most people go for the mediocre. I have an Athlon XP 1800+ and a GF3 Ti 500. I've yet to come across a game that I can't enjoy just as much as someone with the best.

Does getting 350 FPS rather than 100 FPS really add to your gaming experience? Isn't your monitor limited by it's refresh rate, anyway?

Anyway. In conclusion, AMD's chips are still signifigantly cheaper. Companies with the cheaper products will always have a following.
July 8, 2003 5:47:39 PM

Well I have a question. The new Athlon FX (Thorton) has half the cache of the Barton...but the T-Breds also have half the cache of the Barton...and FX is the new Duron. What's going on? It's a bit confusing isn't it...all this from AMD who've been complaining over the confusion in the business right now.

As for whether to buy Intel or AMD...i buy whatever. Right now I'm running an Athlon 1.13 @ 1.3...soon my temporary upgrade of a 1.9+ will be coming...after that I'll see what best suits me. I don't really get why anyone is like "I have to have an Intel" or "I have to have an AMD". AMD have always been good to me, but I still have a P150 sitting about that runs fine too. Who knows. AMD really need to sort out the chipsets tho.

As for VIA buying up AMD if they go down...doubtful. Rumour has it VIA are looking at getting rid of their CPU division. That's just idle gossip tho.

AMD Is An Anagram Of MAD, Intel Is An Anagram Of INLET, Cyrix...Ah Who Cares?
July 8, 2003 6:07:42 PM

I think P4 is better for overclocking too.
July 8, 2003 6:35:05 PM

no -_-" AMD are much better overclockers than Intel, have you seen what crazy japanese computer freak can do to an AMD athlon 1700+ using liquid nitrogen?

Proud Owner the Block Heater
120% nVidia Fanboy
I'd get a nVidia GeForce FX 5900Ultra... if i had the money and if THEY WOULD CHANGE THAT #()#@ HSF
July 8, 2003 6:39:43 PM

Not really, low-end, yes, but mid and high-end, no more.

Look at the XP3200+, costs MORE than a 2.8C, which trounces it as well! (check THG or Anand for overall wins) The 2.8C has SSE2 which means later on if more apps use it, it'll only rise in performance, PLUS it has HT, PLUS it has overclockability.
Not to mention AMD motherboards are now either the same or more costly than similar Intel boards (look at the Asus P4P800V features and price compared to the A7N8X).

Says a lot about AMD's ability to survive lately.

If I wanted to upgrade these days, and wanted to stay on the low-cost side, I'd definitely just replace my XP1600+ with some XP2600 or more. May need that adapter though, since I don't feel like flashing my BIOS at all, and don't wanna risk it. Epox has the worst BIOS user-friendliness when it comes to updating. Can't do it in Windows, have to do it the hard DOS way which garantees nothing.

If I wanted to get a new system, and have the money, Intel would be my main choice right away no matter what value AMD has later on. It's over anyways, they can't offer more CPUs before Athlon 64.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/news.html" target="_new"><font color=red><b>Join the Tom's Hardware Guide Community Photo album, send us your pics!</font color=red></b></A>
July 8, 2003 6:40:46 PM

Have you seen what crazy Japanese computers freaks can do with a 2.4C using liquid nitrogen?

In fact, have you seen what THG can do to a P4 with air-compressed cooling?


Look at both sides before stating, kiddo.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/news.html" target="_new"><font color=red><b>Join the Tom's Hardware Guide Community Photo album, send us your pics!</font color=red></b></A>
July 8, 2003 6:44:12 PM

I disagree...not saying i am an amd fanboy (i'm typing this post from an overclocked pIII). All i have to say is NO...unlocked multiplyers are very usefull...Example...a few months ago i was trying to get the best o/c out of my processor...since i had junky pc100 memory my computer would "hit the wall" after increasing the fsb to 112mhz...so that ment that i had to stick with a junky 12% overclock...now if i had ulocked multiplyers instead of paying big bux for pc150 memory (or i suppose pc3500 or 3700 for modern computers) i could have goten a much better overclock without spending the extra money...lets put it this way a 2.4c will have to run a 250mhz (1000mhz QDR) just to reach 3.0 ghz...
About the thorton processor...adding to confusion...i guess?All the thorton is, is a barton that fails testing becuase of a bad block of L2 cache...so amd removes the bad block (by alocating only 1/2 of the L2 memory) and then sells them. This allows amd to use a unified manufacturing process....instead of having to produce t-breds and bartons...they just produce bartons and neutered bartons. This also reduces the number of processors that are thrown away (Costing AMD money) thus they rack in more $$. IMO it is not that hard to understand...they are amd's version of a celeron...what is a celeron...a P4 that has been neutered...is that confusing...i don't really think so. Now why is amd changing their name to FX...i think this is a good thing...that way people will know if the athlon 2600+ has 512kb or 256kb of L2 cache...this AVOIDS confusion IMO.
July 8, 2003 6:47:54 PM

Quote:
heya slvr_phoenix..
u said,

In reply to:
------------------------------------------------------------

And Intel definately doesn't want to be a monopoly. It'd be bad for their business. So it actually benefits Intel to make sure that AMD doesn't die, and Intel knows that.



------------------------------------------------------------

I am still trying to figure out how cud that be the case? cud u explain please??

In the US monopolies are often highly regulated (AKA screwed over) by the government in order to both promote new competition and protect consumers. A company that becomes viewed as a monopoly often ends up rather unhappy and restricted from doing much of anything. Where as a company that still has competition, no matter how insignificant that competition may be to them, is more or less free to do as it pleases. (So long as they follow the law anyway.)

So Intel doesn't get its hands bound by the government and makes a lot more money as long as AMD competes with them. If AMD goes down, so do Intel's profits.

"<i>Yeah, if you treat them like equals, it'll only encourage them to think they <b>ARE</b> your equals.</i>" - Thief from <A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=030603" target="_new">8-Bit Theater</A>
July 8, 2003 8:16:54 PM

----------------------------------------------------------
they can't offer more CPUs before Athlon 64.
----------------------------------------------------------
And after A64?Now I really suspect even after that they cannot compete.Now some magazine reviewed it.
http://www.amdboard.com/hn05120301.html
And is the review shows some hope to AMD?I dont think so.If it cannot compete with a P42.2 think about 3.2.No way!!
July 8, 2003 9:06:00 PM

Haha, full of holes there ya know?

First: ES are often not the real deal.
Second: The chipset seems to be old and may get better soon, or an nForce 3 should be used.
Third: 1.4GHZ? Wait till it's 2GHZ before saying anything dude. That was an unfair statement by you to look at the 3.2GHZ against this 1.4GHZ!
Fourth: All synthetic benches. Has NO real value at all. Where are the game benchmarks, movie ones?

I have to ask myself often, in this world of logic, how can an obscure magazine score such hardware if no one else did already, and get to bench it. I just DON'T get it.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/news.html" target="_new"><font color=red><b>Join the Tom's Hardware Guide Community Photo album, send us your pics!</font color=red></b></A>
July 9, 2003 12:08:27 AM

you can buy like 5 athlon xp 1700+ with the money u spend on P4 2.4c

Proud Owner the Block Heater
120% nVidia Fanboy
I'd get a nVidia GeForce FX 5900Ultra... if i had the money and if THEY WOULD CHANGE THAT #()#@ HSF
July 9, 2003 1:23:42 AM

5 XP 1700+ is a bit exaggerated...
Plus, the AMD equivalent for the 2.4C chip is actually around XP2800+...
July 9, 2003 2:12:13 AM

Actually it's more like 2.5 AthlonXP 1700+.

But who cares, a 2.4C is leaps ahead, and even if you overclocked your XP1700+ (besides, who buys more than 1 CPU at home for his single CPU setup?!!), you can also overclock the 2.4C and get XP3200+ performance and more.

Convince me.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/news.html" target="_new"><font color=red><b>Join the Tom's Hardware Guide Community Photo album, send us your pics!</font color=red></b></A>
July 9, 2003 3:34:11 AM

-----------------------------------------------------------
That was an unfair statement by you to look at the 3.2GHZ against this 1.4GHZ!
-----------------------------------------------------------
And do you think the 64 bit which will be launched in september is clocking more than 3.0 GHz?I have a serious doubt about it,probably they will start with 2.0Ghz or so.
So we will be comparing the "available" processors at that time irrespective of the clock.

---------------------------------------------------------
All synthetic benches
---------------------------------------------------------
I know.But as this is the only availabe bench I am considering it only for"comparision".Or the magazine people are loyal to some company?I never imagined that situation.
I am agreeing with you about the chipset issue.
July 9, 2003 6:05:56 PM

Intel will launch Presscot in september.It can break away Amd in 32 bit arena .Think if it have 64 bit extension.My god,Poor AMD!!
July 9, 2003 6:21:10 PM

it might have... *Yamhill* *cough* *cough*

Best case scenario in this conspiracy theory:
Maybe they can turn on Yamhill on Prescott and Tejas, and then later on, after they reach their alledged 10Ghz goal, convert desktops to IA64?... Hm... Nice. Someone at Intel said Itanium's core would be scaling all the way up to 5Ghz within the next ... can't remember the number ... years...

Just dreaming here, of course.
July 9, 2003 6:25:40 PM

So the question is what is the effect of that in AMD?I think much smarter moves is needed from them(Even 64 bit is not smart!!!!)
July 9, 2003 7:40:24 PM

You know, Sun once considered introducing "low cost" workstations utilizing AMD Athlon. . .

:evil: 

__________________________________________________
<b><font color=red>Three great virtues of a programmer are: laziness, impatience, and hubris.</font color=red><b>
!