Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (
More info?)
On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 05:28:50 -0400, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
wrote:
>On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 01:12:48 -0400, George Macdonald
><fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 08:24:10 -0400, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 01:02:42 -0400, Tony Hill
>>><hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 00:50:10 -0400, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Besides, I don't think it's really the chipsets that are the problem
>>>>>here. It has more to do with Intel restricting competition in this
>>>>>marketplace. Intel tends to target some markets as strategic to its
>>>>>business image, and it restricts manufacturers from offering any
>>>>>competing brands in that marketplace. It will tolerate competition in
>>>>>the home market but not in the work market where its nameplate will be
>>>>>highly visible.
>>>>
>>>>There may be some backroom dealings involved, I have absolutely no
>>>>connection to those sorts of decisions so I really don't know. There
>>>>are definitely also some marketing issues, I STILL meet lots of people
>>>>in the business community that just don't trust AMD processors.
>>>
>>>As Yousuf and George are well aware, that persistent marketplace
>>>irrationality would disappear if only I would stop my cranky posts
>>>insisting that buyers prefer market leaders. If Intel doesn't soon
>>>start paying me for my slanted posts, I will stop making them, and the
>>>market for Intel processors will collapse.
>>
>>Nobody has said there has to be a "collapse" - that's just your active
>>imagination conjuring up delusions again. If the market preferred the
>>highest volume vendor, we'd only have one car company, one of everything in
>>fact.
>>
>Markets do change. For all I know, Intel could be in a serious
>downward spiral. I don't think that I, or anyone else, for that
>matter, is bright enough to see that with any real clarity or
>certainty, whether from inside or outside Intel.
>
>Markets do prefer the highest volume vendor, but to go from that to
>saying that there would be just one vendor as a result just doesn't
>follow. You know that, so why are you presenting such an absurdity as
>an argument?
Hadn't you noticed? The FTC is asleep at the wheel... catatonic would be a
better description. All around us, the large business structures are
consolidating: banks, petroleum, autos, etc. with barely a peep from the
regulators.
>>>I'd be impressed if Intel's success at imposing market discipline were
>>>nearly as effective as Yousuf seems to think it is. Standard Oil did
>>>it successfully and got busted, IBM did it successfully and got
>>>busted, Microsoft did it successfully and got busted (but what a joke
>>>that was). I guess that's why Yousuf is jumping up and down with
>>>excitement at the enforcement action in Japan. If Intel's success is
>>>due to anticompetitive practices, it will get busted. I'm skeptical,
>>>to say the least. Actually, I think it's clear I believe Yousuf is
>>>just plain wrong, but I always allow for the possibility that I could
>>>be wrong.
>>
>>We live in different times, which is why M$ only got their ear twisted;
>>hell even IBM got only a slap on the wrist and got rid of one of their
>>pending liabilities into the bargain, as part of the settlement. Now you
>>expect us to believe that what you think trumps what the Japanese FTC has
>>concluded... not that I expect the US FTC to reach the same conclusion.
>
>I'm not even sure what it is you think I believe that I expect you to
>believe. Intel pushed the envelope in Japan? I don't doubt it. How
>serious a legal problem is it for them? I really don't have a way to
>evaluate. I haven't seen any evidence that it is a serious legal
>problem for them. What is it, exactly, that I expect you to believe?
I think the Japanese FTC action is serious for Intel - they had better
behave or there will be disastrous consequences. Their smug
business-as-usual reaction is not a good sign for them - they're a company
which shows almost palpable signs of corpulent rot.
>>Now that the man who said "They buy the Megahertz" has gone, even Intel has
>>confessed that they are beat technically.
>>
>For the moment.
>
>>>>Whether it be that they fear some sort of odd-ball incompatibility
>>>>(I've found the same number of incompatibilities with Intel chips as
>>>>with AMD chips) or they feel that the processors have a much higher
>>>>failure rate (in my experience both Intel and AMD chips have VERY low
>>>>failure rates).
>>>>
>>>>However there definitely have been and continue to be some technical
>>>>issues that have made AMD chips less attractive in certain markets. I
>>>>can say with a high degree of certainty that the lack of good
>>>>integrated graphics chipset for the Athlon64 hurt it's potential in
>>>>the corporate market. It'll be interesting to see if HP brings out a
>>>>new nVidia/AMD based system when nVidia releases their (just announced
>>>>this week) integrated graphics Athlon64 chipset later this year.
>>>>
>>>Intel's larger volume means that it can afford more development effort
>>>for things like chipsets. That's just one of the advantages the
>>>market leader has automatically.
>>
>>I don't see the chipsets thing - Intel only has a couple of chipsets per
>>sector with variations like IGP. In fact it's only recently that they had
>>a server chipset worth anything - it's also the chipsets architecture which
>>is the reason they're getting beaten in performance.
>
>You mean because the memory controller isn't on board or because of
>hypertransport, which isn't a memory interface (joke--for the other
>high-stepper here)? I don't understand why Intel has been so slow to
>move on connectivity like hypertransport. The decision to keep the
>memory controller off the chip is clearly a business decision, not a
>technical decision.
The on-board memory controller is a large part of the AMD performance
advantage - see Keith about latency.
🙂 Hypertransport is the one beloved patriot I
see in AMD's strategy: the roadmap shows it stuck at 1000MHz well into 2006
and no sign of a ramp up at all. I don't think they can afford that.
>>Now they've welcomed
>>nVidia to their "platform" gambit since they can't do that bit themselves -
>>doomed to more failure IMO... nVidia will be gone when they realize they're
>>only allowed breadcrumbs for lunch. According to the proposed plot so far,
>>they won't get a look at the business sector anyway, since they'll be a
>>"different image".Ô_ô
>>
>>The success stories are starting to roll in Robert: The Weather Channel,
>>Bell Helicopter, Verisign and of course M$ themselves love Opteron with the
>>huge successes in the MSN server farm and MS Treasury. When the principle
>>OS vendor endorses the hardware, especially for big-time server ops, that
>>really counts. What some Weary Willie in IT or management thinks right now
>>doesn't matter - those people are malleable or replaceable.
>
>Hadn't heard about the MSN server farm. I've been pondering the
>Apple/Intel deal. I guess we'll find out what that's really about,
>but if Apple puts OS X on x86, that makes Apple a direct competitor
>for Microsoft. There are only two reasons for Apple not to be an
>aggressive competitor that I can think of: Microsoft Office and money.
>I don't know what to say about Microsoft Office, but, with Intel on
>the team, money shouldn't be a problem.
For the kind of money involved, I don't see that Intel would care much but
if Apple thinks they can do the transition, I'm going have to seriously
look at the correct point to dump some Apple stock I bought ~15 years
ago.
🙂
What seems the least credible part of the Apple rumors is that they would
openly talk of phasing out the IBM Power chips; a much better tactic, if
Intel is to be a part of their strategy, would be to talk of parallel lines
of systems for the foreseeable future. In fact it could be that they are
looking at Intel as a CPU supplier for some new consumer appliance - they
*are* an appliance innovator more than anything else.
>As to what those Wearie Willie or his ignorant boss thinks, markets
>move slowly, but they do move. From outside DEC, it sure looked as if
>DEC thought it was irreplaceable. DEC was wrong, of course, but the
>chip business has as much to do with investment capital as it has to
>do with technical excellence and it would take alot to push Intel
>aside. In the meantime, life moves on.
DEC, who latterly hated that name -- "Digital please" -- got hurt badly
because Intel stole their shiny new high-clock rate CPU technology - add in
the marketing blunders with Alpha and the fact that their service org
thought they could compete with IBM. It also seemed to take a while for
them to realize VAX was obsolete - possibly an architecture overhaul there
late 80s would have helped?
They lost their competitiveness and there *were* strong challengers in the
market - in some ways, possibly Sun got the market Digital should have had
the vision to chase... ironic that one of the founders came from Data
General.
🙂 Intel is kinda different because they don't sell directly to
their customers but if there were, e.g., a strong adversary against Dell
with a full supply of AMD CPUs, Intel could have found itself in a heap of
trouble by now after its recent missteps. That day may yet still come...
or Otellini may show Barrett up as a fumbler??
--
Rgds, George Macdonald
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram