Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Yet another delay from.. guess who ?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 6, 2004 11:36:54 PM

<A HREF="http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20040806035152..." target="_new">Intel Moves 1066MHz Bus Introduction to Fourth Quarter</A>

Seems like this also means EM64T desktop chips are being delayed. Guess my <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?nam..." target="_new">january prediction </A> is still mostly on track

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

More about : delay guess

August 7, 2004 4:08:19 AM

good , this delay shouldn't effect intel profits and stock prices. I think 1066mhz fsb will be introduced with BTX form factor, the true form of LGA 775.

------
Prescott 3.2E 1MB L2 HT
1GB PC 3200 Dual channel(PAT)
Asus P4P800 Bios 1016
PNY Geforce 6800 GT 256MB DDR3
60,823 Aquamarks
August 7, 2004 5:31:35 AM

"this delay shouldn't effect intel profits and stock prices."

Why would you care one way or the other? The fact is this one delay won't make any difference but the sum of all parts just might. This is a fact kanavit! Intel is in no danger of disappearing any time soon. No matter how bad things get or not you will be able to buy a intel cpu 5 years from now. (and I am confident you will)

That was not true for amd just 1 year ago. intel almost buried amd. Without amd there is no competition so less tech advance and more money from you and me to buy a slower cpu. Competition is good for the consumer THAT'S you and me.

If AMD had had 1 tenth the problems Intel has had in the last year and Intel executed normally (which they are not) these forums would be flooded with don't buy amd it's problematic garbage. AMD could never get away with what intel has weathered.

Look at it this way (all things =)if you support the underdog you support competition which in turn gives us all more value for the money spent. I work hard for my money and I want as much as possible for it.

Remember how nvidia ruled in graphics? ati was the underdog. then all of a sudden ati made a tech break through r300. nVidia being the clear leader had a great deal of trouble with this loss of performance crown and stumbled cheated whatever. (ati cheated a little to) Nvidia is now making a great product 6800 but 2 years ago I went ati 1 because it was the best for the buck, 2 because ati was the underdog. (I like competition) however even though ati is Canadian like me if upgrading vid card to high-end today i'd prolly get nvidia cause it's better and they are no longer a complete threat to ati, thus competition goes on.

Intel makes a good product but they are (NO) different then any other company they want as much of your money as possible. Fact is intel has tried to bury amd and almost did. Fooling people with MHz as everything kinda back fired, netburst hit a thermal brick wall.

Statistically amd has usually provided the best bang for the buck in cpu's. There have been exceptions like xp3200 and other I'm sure but in general better bang for the buck with amd over all.

You can argue how great intel is with the inventing of sse sse2 sse3 etc etc. AMD can make great extensions just like 3d now but it's useless if software don't take advantage of it. because amd controls so little market share software developers just forget it. the cross license agreement allows amd Intel to copy x86 extensions and this makes a level playing field. If amd ever gets enough market share they could make there own like 3dnow and have synthetic benchmarks showing how much better amd is over Intel. Then Intel could copy and say see we are good too.

AMD did wonders with the a64 design and intel let the ball drop thinking itainium was the future but it never caught on. AMD is executing flawless right now so give credit where credit is do. Intel is struggling not to loose market share but so what if they do. They are big and going no where and a little humble pie would do you and me the consumer some good so don’t take it so personal.

BTW I do own some AMD stock as of a couple of months ago. It is not doing very good. but I'd be no better in Intel and I'm now holding for the longer term. So call me bias if you like but I have always supported the underdog so long as they offer more bang for the buck.

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
Related resources
August 7, 2004 6:20:46 AM

This is why i hate limped dick brand loyal pussies, i always buy the best price/performance components, don't give a sh*t about brands.

<A HREF="http://www.ebaumsworld.com/epilepsyr.shtml" target="_new">DON'T CLICK HERE!!</A>
August 7, 2004 7:13:15 AM

>BTW I do own some AMD stock as of a couple of months ago.
>It is not doing very good.

I told you not to, didn't I ? I also told you to buy put options in intel instead, cause I thought they where gonna drop badly, and had you done so, you'd be counting your profits now :D 

Its ironic, but AMD shares rarely do well when intel stumbles. When intel drops, or posts worse than expected results, the market sees that a sign for the entire industry, thereby pulling AMD down as well, even if they are doing much better (relatively speaking). IF intel does well, it will usually mean AMD didn't do so well, so its really rare to see AMD gain significantly. They only did when they where really undervalued, borderline bankrupt sometime last year when they hovered around $3.5. once that was corrected (and I counted my profits), AMD's stockprice is pretty much tied to intels again, however strange that may seem. It will probably take quite a while before the stockmarket realizes intel's stumbeling doesn't necessarely spell doom for AMD as well..

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
August 7, 2004 8:35:08 AM

Re: "I told you not to, didn't I ? I also told you to buy put options in intel instead, cause I thought they where gonna drop badly, and had you done so, you'd be counting your profits now :D "


Yes you did and kudos to you. However that being said you did not recommend I buy puts in AMD and I'd be just as ahead now if I had. Personally I don't like the idea of shorting or puts at others expense but I realize it's just business and every short becomes a buyer sooner or later.

There is a problem with tech right now and it's not just intel. nvidia just missed something huge yesterday so the naz and market is down in general. Nvidia dropped like 35% today. Blame it on Intel blame it on summer doldrums, blame it on oil, blame it on interest rates, blame it on unemployment, blame it on nvidia. The naz is down 300 points from when I entered but if it was up 300 points I'd be doing ok with my amd long. as a mater of fact a month ago I was way ahead with my long, intel was up to. So if we had this conversation a month ago you would be wrong I'd be loosing money if I had bought intel puts. But at your ((I told you not to, didn't I ?)) we are having this conversation today.

Today wish I had shorted intel or amd but I am long amd and will hold as I see it as the next ati eventually. Timing and patients is everything (no one can expect to enter a stock at the absolute low and ride it up) You won't see me crying or bragging win or loose. Do you remember when you bought amd at 5 and it went to 3. This is how it goes, you could sell at 3 and accept a loss, or stand firm in what you believe. I believe I might buy more amd because I believe it will do very well over the next 2 years. However I could be wrong. I will live with it if I am.


If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
August 7, 2004 2:02:37 PM

Puts on Nvidia would have put you in the chips too.

Abit IS7 - 2.8C @ 3.4 - Mushkin PC4000 (2 X 512) - Sapphire 9800Pro - TT 420 watt Pure Power
Samsung 120gb ATA-100 - Maxtor 40gb ATA - 100
Sony DRU-510A - THAT'S MORE LIKE IT!
August 7, 2004 2:42:21 PM

Dual core Cpu's mid 05.
August 7, 2004 3:02:41 PM

>Puts on Nvidia would have put you in the chips too

Yeah, and even more so, but I didn't see that one coming at all. Intel otoh was rather easy to "predict" (though nothing is ever sure obviously).

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
August 7, 2004 3:05:12 PM

>Dual core Cpu's mid 05.

Maybe. given intel's trackrecord over the last 12 months, I wouldn't bet on it any longer though, "somewhere in 2005" seems a safer prediction. Further more, I don't see these making any sort of impact on their stocks.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
August 7, 2004 4:20:59 PM

add usual delay thing allwayse get delay by at lease 1 quarter in desktop.IPF is the only exception.

i need to change useur name.
August 7, 2004 5:33:34 PM

I did say over a year ago it takes at least 5 years to do the Engineering on a new CPU design and I told you AMD was going to release the new 64 Bit architecture and would have other new releases of that DIE and that Intel was now behind ten years!!

Coca Cola designs a new Colour scheme for a coke can by the time the aluminium is processed overseas then shipped to the can producing factory's then the paint is put on it is a 5 year process you can read all about Product to the consumer in Six Sigma and follow that up with the lean process by James P. Womack and Daniel T. Jones. Revised Edition.

You might as well give up on Intel for at least 2 to 5 years they have not pulled the Magic Bullet out that all the Intel Fans were looking for and expected last year and that is because they don't have one. Aside from the Electronics industries being in a real down turn or rut this last 4 years, there is very little profit in upgrading Wafer Fabs or training the new staff to run them.

It takes 16 or more weeks simply to grow and manufacture a single wafer full of DIE and during that process no one not even God knows if the chips will function until they are placed into substrates (Using Robotics) and then later tested. Almost a year simply to get a single test DIE.

Barton 3200+ 400MHz
A7N8X Deluxe
Air Cooled 45C
2x512 Corsair DDR 400 PC3200
GeForce FX5900
Two Maxtor 40Gig 8MB cach 7200rpm
SONY RW 52x/24x/52x
SONY DVD 16x/40x
August 8, 2004 12:52:29 AM

> did say over a year ago it takes at least 5 years to do
>the Engineering on a new CPU design

That is roughly correct from what I've read. You make two logical errors though, which completely invalidate your point:

1) adding AMD64 extentions, even though its not trivial, isn't even in the same league as designing a new core from scratch (which is what the 5 years refer to)

2) Who says Intel started working on this only last year or so ? Didn't AMD publish the AMD64 (then x86-64) specs somewhere at the end of last decade ? If intel started back then, they would have had 5+ years. Further more, its not unlikely at all, intel worked on this for even longer: AMD worked closely with Microsoft in defining the AMD64 architecture, you don't believe MS doesn't talk to intel as well do you ? Intel knew exactly what MS and AMD where doing, and I firmly expect MS to have asked/told intel to follow the same specs to ensure windows would run on their cpu's as well. IOW, intel could have been working on EM64T even longer as we know of AMD's plans to create it (remember 'Yamhill' rumours ?). Given their situation with Itanium though, obviously they weren't going to say anything about it as long as they didn't need to.

AMD doesn't have anything like a 5 or 10 years lead in this, that is nonsense. By the time AMD64 becomes an issue (when windows ships next year), Intel will be there as well.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
August 8, 2004 3:11:40 AM

Wait and see if Intel is there with a 64 for the new OS!! I suspect and I make another prediction that Intel will bypass the 64 and come out with a chip that provides other newer options for yet an unknown OS to the public. It is totally obvious that XP has reached its code length and died faster then Windows 98 did. They have updates in Security patches alone in MB that already surpass the total upgrades the old MS website had for Win98.

At this point chronologically and scientifically if Intel wants the lead back in Micro processing they cant try to catch AMD they need to surpass them with a tech leap.

Intel could bring out a matching or slightly better 64 then the current fleet of AMD 64's but I do not think that is their long term or possibly short term goal. Their goal would be and expected by almost everyone to set the Bar in technology, and that means they have to bring the full blown science into the consumers homes that the Military has enjoyed for some years now.

Barton 3200+ 400MHz
A7N8X Deluxe
Air Cooled 45C
2x512 Corsair DDR 400 PC3200
GeForce FX5900
Two Maxtor 40Gig 8MB cach 7200rpm
SONY RW 52x/24x/52x
SONY DVD 16x/40x
August 8, 2004 3:32:13 AM

I'd think Intel, being the company that they are and having the minds they have, would have some engineering tricks up their collective sleeves. They'll probably have to use innovative technology to catch up, but they're certainly not stupid. Certainly the marketing department directs the engineering one, but the engineers have got to be scrambling their best ideas and putting them to good use right about now.

Hopefully.

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i>
August 8, 2004 3:36:22 AM

Quote:

Seems like this also means EM64T desktop chips are being delayed. Guess my january prediction is still mostly on track

Erm, 925XE = desktop chip (high-end, but desktop nonetheless)

<i>Pentium 4 3.2F, 3.4F, 3.6F: desktop processors. Even according to pricing, which is the most important factor!</i>

Hm, if it looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck and hell, it even costs as much as a duck, then it's got to be a duck!

...meaning your EM64T desktop chips already exist in the form of P4Fs. They even cost the same as P4Es at same clock rates. I know you'll argue they're vapourware, but in order for your 2005 prediction to be accurate, they'd have to continue being vapourware for another 4 months, which I doubt they will... Therefore I agree with you in the sense that they're not truly widely available because they're only abailable as an option for HP and Dell, but 64-bit P4s are available now. Which makes it unlikely in my eyes that it'll take another 4-6 months for 64-bit P4s to become alternatives for enthusiasts.

I could be wrong, but I hope not.

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Mephistopheles on 08/08/04 02:45 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
August 8, 2004 4:46:52 AM

Agreed

Barton 3200+ 400MHz
A7N8X Deluxe
Air Cooled 45C
2x512 Corsair DDR 400 PC3200
GeForce FX5900
Two Maxtor 40Gig 8MB cach 7200rpm
SONY RW 52x/24x/52x
SONY DVD 16x/40x
August 8, 2004 7:58:31 AM

well i would tend to agree, but you can agree that its nto out of the realm of possibilties. the p4 3.4 prescott and even the new lg755 chips in the 3.4-3.6 range are still not avialable in large quantities, the 3.4e is coming in more now, but it was out of stock for the longest time. i could see these 64bit chips taking 1-2 months before any quantity reaches oems for resell
August 8, 2004 9:19:08 AM

>meaning your EM64T desktop chips already exist in the form
>of P4Fs

Well.. dual core 2.6 GHz 64 bit Dothans may also exist in intels labs, and they may even get sold in secret to the NSA for $100 each, they are still not <b>available</b>, and neither are EM64T chip for consumers. I assume intel *could* release those same chips as desktop parts, but they aren't, and there is probably a good reason for it too.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
!