Intel Face Plant

Scout · Dec 28, 2004

I was reading on the Inquirer today

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=20406

an interesting article about Intel, AMD and 2005. The article is yet another forecast that Intel will be pretty much sucking wind the next year or so and AMD will be flying high, only limited to how many processors it can make.

I've always liked Intel processors, but I have to admit, Intel really has it's hands full... especially considering how well the new 90 nm A64's seem to be performing.

Scout
700 Mflops in SETI!

Flinx · Dec 28, 2004

What about this strained silicon announcement made by IBM and AMD just awhile ago (about a month). Apparently its an low cost upgrade to existing facilities and should allow 25 percent increase transistor speed. Starting 1st/2nd quarter 2005
<A HREF="http://www.computerworld.com/hardwaretopics/hardware/story/0,10801,98251,00.html" target="_new">http://www.computerworld.com/hardwaretopics/hardware/story/0,10801,98251,00.html</A>

<A HREF="http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20041213-4459.html" target="_new">http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20041213-4459.html</A>

<A HREF="http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2004-12-13-strained-silicon_x.htm" target="_new">http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2004-12-13-strained-silicon_x.htm</A>

Does that translate into 25% faster CPU's? If it does it will provide some interesting times for Intel!

The loving are the daring!Edited by Flinx on 12/28/04 11:41 AM.

endyen · Dec 28, 2004

Amd doesn't need faster, at the moment. If they get too fast, everyone will want one, and they just dont have the production.

RichPLS · Dec 28, 2004

True, but then that would enable them to charge even more, increasing profits.
Believe it, if they could produce faster chips, they would.

<pre>°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°`°¤o \\// o¤°`°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°
And the sign says "You got to have a membership card to get inside" Huh
So I got me a pen and paper And I made up my own little sign</pre>

Vapor · Dec 28, 2004

Or at least they'd move everything to 90nm to decrease costs.

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.

Crashman · Dec 29, 2004

No they wouldn't. AMD dropped the MHz race something like 3 years ago. They'll only produce CPU's at speeds to keep them competitave with Intel, no faster. When they produced the A64 4000+ they got a significant lead by accident, anticipation a P4 4.0GHz that was never released.

Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!
Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!

darko21 · Dec 29, 2004

<<No they wouldn't. AMD dropped the MHz race something like 3 years ago. They'll only produce CPU's at speeds to keep them competitave with Intel, no faster. When they produced the A64 4000+ they got a significant lead by accident, anticipation a P4 4.0GHz that was never released.>>

Funny I guess its how you look at it. I personally see it as INTEL dropped the MHz race when they dropped the V6 for a 4 cylinder with higher RPM for misleading marketing purposes. AMD made the right choice sticking with the V6 design IMHO. The a64 might even be considered a V8 compared to the 4 banger Prescott.

Right now I see AMD as building a reputation. AMD might very well be able to produce higher clocked cpu's then the current offerings maybe 20% faster. But AMD has obstacles to over come. Like the impression Intel can do no wrong. For example look at tom’s stress test. Just bump the computer and the Intel fan might move ever so slightly causing a huge spike in temps. Could AMD get away with that? Could AMD get away with cpu throttling under load when MHz matters? If AMD cpu's would draw 130 watts over intel 89 watts what would Dell say about that.

I remember arguing with people in these forums who stated one of the reasons Dell does not offer the consumer a choice of AMD is cause if you actually dropped a computer off a desk the fan might pop off and cpu could fry. Believe it or not Intel lovers talked about that a lot.

No I think AMD did it right sticking to a performance design over high MHz design. I'd bet intels next generation cpu will put performance over MHz. If it's going to take intel a long time to get the next generation cpu out the door you might see the p3 play a bigger role, at least the p3 was designed with performance first over marketing as in MHz.

As to your theory about AMD being able to launch faster cpu's but won't. I disagree when it's there (tested and safe) and cannot be bashed by biased journalism or what not amd will release it. If for anything for servers AMD could supply all x86 servers and stay status quo on desktops or enter high end nootbooks, so why not just do it with opterons. AMD's manufacturing capacity is growing and with the new IBM/AMD strained SOI on 90 nm clocks and performance will go up regardless of what intel can or can not produce.

AMD might be capacity constrained at the moment but capacity is growing rapidly as will performance when available. IMHO.

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.

Crashman · Dec 29, 2004

Actually it was more like 5 years ago when AMD announced they weren't going to race against Intel any longer, come to think of it. They've been pacing Intel ever since. Every time they've had the opportunity for a significant lead, they delayed it while Intel caught up.

As for Dell, they have a special arrangement with Intel. If any company was going to ignore AMD based on quality, it would have been chipset quality, as chipsets for AMD processors in 2000 and 2001 were truely bad.

Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!
Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!

endyen · Dec 29, 2004

Hmm. Here's a thought. Amd starts ramping speed. Intel says to Mikey, hey have we got a deal for you. So Dell does a hostile takeover of Amd, and starts making thier own chips, under licence from Intel.
I mean no-one would believe another stockholder revolt was "unsponsored" at this point.
For that matter Motorola may just need expanded fab facilities for thier phone chips, if the price was "right"

darko21 · Dec 29, 2004

<<Actually it was more like 5 years ago when AMD announced they weren't going to race against Intel any longer.>>

You mean 5 years ago since AMD said they would stick to performance and not go with a 4 banger for marketing purposes. Glad to see you corrected yourself.

<<They've been pacing Intel ever since. Every time they've had the opportunity for a significant lead, they delayed it while Intel caught up.>>

I'm not sure what you mean there perhaps you could elaberate, then I will respond.

<<As for Dell, they have a special arrangement with Intel. If any company was going to ignore AMD based on quality, it would have been chipset quality, as chipsets for AMD processors in 2000 and 2001 were truely bad.>>

Chipset issues was over exagerated and is completley non exsitant for quite some time now. It's the special (marketing and pricing) arrangment that matters and always did. I could show you a link where someone claimed a little over a year ago that dell won't use amd cause of bad chipsets and fans that pop of when an AMD computer is dropped from a desk.

My gripe was

<< AMD dropped the MHz race something like 3 years ago. >>

It was intel that dropped the race and AMD that refused to follow that misleading marketing game. have you seen the stanford video were the head intel engineer quit intel because of what he called blue crystals? (Blue crystals do nothings in luandry soap just there for marketing) He told craig barrett and friend hey we bought you a couple of years with these blue crystals now what will you do with it, cause the clock is running. His bosses said you listen to us we decide product direction you do what we tell you so implement faster clocks. Needless to say he quit.

So your claim AMD dropped the MHz race is some what silly as they just refused to implement a bunch of marketing nothing. It was Intel that changed the rules thank god AMD had the brains not to follow this misleading marketing plan as it seems to have blown up in intels face.

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.

Crashman · Dec 29, 2004

I'm only stating the facts, you're the one spewing myths. AMD specifically stated that they were dropping out of the price wars AND MHz race back around 2000 and instead targetting the midrange market. That was in response to Intel stating AMD pushed the industry to far, putting product on the market that wouldn't have to be upgraded as soon, and too low, sacrificing profits in order to gain market share. The statement was listed on MSNBC.com, I read it in the stock news.

Now obviously they have matched Intel at every step and offered minor performance improvements as compared to Intel. But they have followed their plan to never get too far ahead of Intel, or charge too much less than Intel, a plan which favors small market share increases over the long term rather than MHz and price wars.

Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!
Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!

Crashman · Dec 29, 2004

And there weren't any good chipsets available for Athlons until the SiS 735 was released.

Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!
Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!

darko21 · Dec 29, 2004

<<I'm only stating the facts, you're the one spewing myths.>>

You are only stating your opinion and its wrong. Just like the news guys at aljehzera. You want to enter web tech journalisim and you cannot grasp the importantce of being unbiased.

<<AMD specifically stated that they were dropping out of the price wars AND MHz race back around 2000 and instead targetting the midrange market.>>

Please show me where ((AMD)) said they were backing out of the MHz race. You know full well that is misinterpeted, as AMD refused to impliment those phoney clock rates as its an expensive marketing thing to implement. Very expensive but it did by intel some phony advantage for a couple of years.

<<But they have followed their plan to never get too far ahead of Intel>>

Again that is just your opinion and I say its wrong. I say amd or intel will push the advantage as far as they can if AMD can't produce enough only offer it in high ASP's servers or notebooks. This plan of yours never to get to far ahead of intel is beyond stupid.

As I said my gripe was

<< AMD dropped the MHz race something like 3 years ago. >>

That is biased and misleading, as intel is the one who changed the game for marketing only, and not AMD. AMD stayed the course and did the right thing not implementing phony clock rates into the cpu design just to give it a marketing advantage. Thank god AMD had the forsight not to follow such a stupid lead, and to do even better with what count performance. Just think of the crap you would be spewing if Intel had stuck with th p3 like amd did with athlon and then amd implemented phony clocks to mislead like the p4. You would have a hay day bashing AMD. That is a fact but I would doubt you would accept that.

<<And there weren't any good chipsets available for Athlons until the SiS 735 was released.>>

I can't remember when SiS came out with 735 but its irrelevant to the fact that AMD has had solid chipsets available for a very long time. That was the point was it not?

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.

Crashman · Dec 29, 2004

No unbiased opinions here, just facts. We've already had the discussion how filtering out one news report from 5 years ago is nearly impossible. You're spewing biased opinions to counter facts I repeat from news reports. Unless you can show me an article where those reports were proved bogus, but then again, if I can't find 5 year old news I doubt you will either.

Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!
Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!

Vapor · Dec 29, 2004

<<But they have followed their plan to never get too far ahead of Intel>>

Again that is just your opinion and I say its wrong. I say amd or intel will push the advantage as far as they can if AMD can't produce enough only offer it in high ASP's servers or notebooks. This plan of yours never to get to far ahead of intel is beyond stupid.

Actually, AMD has said what Crash is saying numerous times--so have their shareholders. So for better or for worse, we're not getting any extra performance until Intel ups their game significantly.

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.

Crashman · Dec 29, 2004

The problem is I used the term MHz rather than the word Performance, because the competition back then was MHz based due to the similar performance between the Athlong and the Coppermine PIII. And Darko is going to use any method he has to pick that apart even though he knows that they were used interchangably 5 years ago. So then he's going to play on my 3 year mistake, which I corrected, and say I'm lying next.

Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!
Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!

darko21 · Dec 29, 2004

<<Actually, AMD has said what Crash is saying numerous times--so have their shareholders. So for better or for worse, we're not getting any extra performance until Intel ups their game significantly.>>

Bullshit, If you have a link I'd love to see it!

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.

darko21 · Dec 29, 2004

<<So then he's going to play on my 3 year mistake, which I corrected, and say I'm lying next.>>

Your 3 year mistake had zip to do with it and you fully know it.

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.

Vapor · Dec 29, 2004

Bullshit, If you have a link I'd love to see it!

Alright, here you go: <A HREF="http://199.111.6.2/10k?tenkyear=00&idx=A&co=AMD&nam=DEMO&pw=DEMO" target="_new">READ 2000, 2001, and 2003 CAREFULLY, YOU'LL SEE</A>. Those are their 10-k annual stockholder reports, so there. I'll give you more links if you want!

BTW, if you don't want to read, they explicitly say that they're no longer in the MHz race, they're going to keep up with Intel solely on a performance level. It also goes on to say that due to certain measures, they're not (economically and production-wise) capable of selling better processors than what their offer due to high production and research costs and low market support due to the likes of Dell and brand favoritism (stemming from such marketting campaigns as Intel Inside and Centrino). They essentially credit consumer ignorance as the reason why we haven't and won't be seeing AMD processors that destroy Intel's offerings.

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.

Vapor · Dec 29, 2004

<A HREF="http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/DownloadableAssets/TK0304.pdf" target="_new">Here</A>'s the full 2003 report--pages 43-55 get to the topic pretty damn well.

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.

Crashman · Dec 29, 2004

I should have given you more credit than that, but I know from past experience what happens when you get wound up.

Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!
Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!

darko21 · Dec 29, 2004

<<BTW, if you don't want to read, they explicitly say that they're no longer in the MHz race>>

That does not change the fact that...

<<AMD dropped the MHz race something like 3 years ago.>>

Is wrong!!

Intel dropped the MHz race. amd carried on with performance. That 10k is worded and designed to calm investers who do not have a clue. We in THGF's should be above that don't you think? AMD dropped nothing.... To create a phoney MHz lead takes cash and acomplishes nothing other then a phony marketing advantage.

It was Intel that changed and not for the right reasons. AMD stuck with performance over marketing as they did not have the cash to play that stupid game.

SO
<<AMD droped the MHz race something like 3 years ago.>>

Is some what retarded as it was intel that really droped it. Before intel created the misleading p4 MHz meant somthing after that it was marketing.

Look at it this way if via released a x86 cpu at 5 GHz but preformed like a p4 celeron at 2 GHz or an athlon at 1 GHz (same performance) would you be posting how Intel dropped the MHz race.

I doubt it. I really do.

Crashes statment might have been better worded as " when Intel abandonded IPC in favor of marketing"

Would make a lot more sence to people in the know although it would be hard to explain in a 10k where it is spoon fed to idiots.

You should know better

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.

darko21 · Dec 29, 2004

<>

Your obvious bias brings out the worst in me.

You should have said when intel dropped IPC cause that is what actualy happened AMD just stayed the course. AMD di not drop MHz Intel changed and droped IPC to be exact.

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.

peteroy · Dec 29, 2004

If I understand your arguement correclty I'm gonna give my point of view.

The Mhz race as I racall it was who will release a faster CPU first.

A race ceases to be a race when:
- One opponent gave up on the goal of releasing faster CPU than it's competitor.
- The opponent fails by default if he can't keep up with it's competitor no matter how much he wants to.

It's like you can't enter the Olympics by just saying "I can run very fast, trust me", you gonna have to prove it.

Now I think darko is confusing between giving up on the race and still releasing faster Mhz processors with time.

As I see it, AMD realized they can't keep up with Intel faster Mhz so they gave up on trying to release faster Mhz than Intel, instead they started the 1800+ marketing to make people aware that even though their processors are lower on mhz, they perform very well like P4 1800Mhz.

But, that did not mean that AMD will get stuck with Mhz, they kept on making them clock faster with time, but it was out of the Mhz race, it was part of going forward not in a race.

It's like you can run everyday and workout and get stronger and stronger, but that doesn't mean you can beat the guy who's genetics are currently better than yours therefore he has many sponsers and compete in the olympic games. No matter what you will do you can't say your in a race with him when you are not in his level in running.

But you may very well be stronger than him in other areas like lifting heavy objects or being more talented in art.

Either way, it is like natural selection, whichever company that will have the solutions for the needs of it's customers, that will be the company that will strive longer.

That is the reason Intel hurried and signed that deal with Nvidia, they didn't want to let AMD to have the only solution of SLI based graphics, same is valid with the Intel EMT64.

Intel is on the guard and it doesn't underestimate AMD one bit.

<A HREF="http://www.clancas.net" target="_new">clan CHAOS</A>

Vapor · Dec 29, 2004

Intel dropped the MHz race. amd carried on with performance.

So you're saying that by beating out AMD in MHz, Intel gave up the race? I don't follow that at all. MHz != performance, as said by AMD. That, however, does not mean Intel dropped the race by only increasing MHz and not performance.

Look at it this way if via released a x86 cpu at 5 GHz but preformed like a p4 celeron at 2 GHz or an athlon at 1 GHz (same performance) would you be posting how Intel dropped the MHz race.

I doubt it. I really do.

Well, if the VIA had a 1GHz processor out at the same time as AMD and Intel, and then went up to 5GHz (yet offering no performance gain), I'd say AMD and Intel LOST the MHz race. If both their reactions were to come out with their own 5GHz, zero performance gain chips, to match VIA, then the race is still on. If they continued on their merry-way, keeping up with VIA solely in performance, then they dropped the race.

The way I see it: Intel came out with P4 at higher clocks than PIII, but didn't get the performance up. AMD couldn't keep up with the clocks (due to the aforementioned financial and market situation of AMD at the time) but could keep up on a performance level and said: "Aw, [-peep-] it, let's drop the MHz race and just keep up with them performancewise." Maybe that's also why AMD uses a PR system for their naming?? If it weren't a MHz based market (one that Intel dominated--only those in the know bought [or even could buy] AMD), all processors would have been named á la Opterons and the new Intel 3xx, 5xx, and 6xx series a long while ago.

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.

Intel Face Plant

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Champion

Distinguished

Polypheme

Distinguished

Polypheme

Splendid

Distinguished

Polypheme

Polypheme

Distinguished

Polypheme

Distinguished

Polypheme

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Polypheme

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Share this page