OK We have all discussed how Intel and AMD have it's advantages. We all know who is better per price per preformance. But what we don't know is how much does it cost to make a chip. AMD claims that it has the smallest die so it has a cost advantage. Intel claims that it's 300mm process gives them more advantage. Who is right? To clear up some of the questions read <A HREF="http://news.com.com/2100-1001-914985.html?tag=fd_lede" target="_new">this</A>.
From reading the article on C-Net, it looks like they are both even on costs. And it's also true that the cost of making the chip is very small compare to the price that it's being sold.
So if they cost the same then intel Makes more money per chip then AMD does. Intel also have more overhead then AMD does since it has lot more employees. But what do you think the advantage will be when Prescott and Hammer on SOI comes out. Since the SOI wafer costs more wouldn't it be cost AMD to more to make Hammer therfore the Hammer will be expensive then Current Top preformance Athlon XP.
KG
"640K ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates.
From reading the article on C-Net, it looks like they are both even on costs. And it's also true that the cost of making the chip is very small compare to the price that it's being sold.
So if they cost the same then intel Makes more money per chip then AMD does. Intel also have more overhead then AMD does since it has lot more employees. But what do you think the advantage will be when Prescott and Hammer on SOI comes out. Since the SOI wafer costs more wouldn't it be cost AMD to more to make Hammer therfore the Hammer will be expensive then Current Top preformance Athlon XP.
KG
"640K ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates.