Great Article on AMD.

[Tiberius13]

FatBurger.... I'm curious why you don't think Hammer will continue to be priced cheaper than similarly performing Intel processors? This is a key part of AMD's business model and their focus on keeping their die size smaller is largely to allow them this pricing advantage.

I'm getting the impression that you think AMD will just duke it out with Intel using the T-bred core... and will position Hammer as a specialty cpu for servers, workstations and the like? (making it a real high volume seller like the Xeon.. *cough* *cough*)

I guess most people don't see it that way... they envision the Hammer being the next major re-design of AMD's mainstream processor for the masses. It fits on a nice small dye (110mm), smaller than the Athlon... so it could/should have similar pricing strategy I'd think? (obviously there are other factors to consider...)

Considering the Clawhammer and Sledgehammer plans, it seems the claw would be the mainstream cpu for the masses? The performance gains in the Hammer line will benefit 32 bit performance and 'additionally' support 64 bit. I guess I just don't think AMD can afford to not have the Hammer be a high volume seller for them as it will be the only cpu they have that will be able to keep pace with Intel? Therefore, the pricing must stay similar or cheaper than Intels pricing (anything less than a lower price for equal performance would be a dramatic strategy change for AMD... and very risky)

<font color=green><b>More salt than just a grain you will need with posts of mine. - Yoda©®</b></font color=green><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Tiberius13 on 03/28/02 05:28 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[eden]

If MS doesn't approve x86-64 for AMD, then how will Intel do so with Yamhill? You realize if they refuse AMD and accept Intel, they would lose money earlier on by waiting for Intel's processors, and thus lose profits for something that could easily do success given their monopoly in OSs. So if they refuse AMD, I simply don't see how they would accept Intel's. It's obvious they HAVE to get x86-64, they will only win from it, espcially doing it with OEMs like Dell: Brand new system with Windows XP 64!

Also, taking an existent succesful core like K7 and adding major improvements of K8, how in the world would that translate lower performance? Intel's P4 is different, but AMD's is a huge upgrade. I suspect at least a 25% boost above the best Intel processor by end of year. That's more than enough to get me to buy one...

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!

 

[IIB]

If the Hammer outperforms Intel's best (which it very possibly will), and if the Hammer isn't too costly for simply a 32-bit CPU (which I doubt), and if I feel like an upgrade and have the cash, then I'll be the first in line. Well, probably not, but I'll definitely get one.

AMD will decide how expansive the CPU is... if we consider some of the main cost factors then the CPU itself shouldn't be much more expansive then the Athlon - it has a normak die size (smaller then NW bigger then athlon) and it uses the same packedgeing FC-OPGA... so not alot of extra costs on Fabrication and Packedging (except for the uses of 8 layers of metal interconnects in the SOI process which is - litle more expencive then the previous 6 layer on Bulk CMOS).

then yes the ClawHammer should cost litle more to menufactor - but we're talking about small figures - the fabrication and packedging itsellf amounts to around 50 - 100 bucks (a willi is assumed to cost 100 USD for Intel an athlon on 0.18u is around 50). so still most of the final price is up to AMD.
by the way - 64 bit should have a minimal impact on costs - in fact the Athlon was bassed on a design of a 64bit processor (some sort of MIPS).

This post is best viewed with common sense enabled

 

[FatBurger]

<b>Tiberius13</b>

FatBurger.... I'm curious why you don't think Hammer will continue to be priced cheaper than similarly performing Intel processors?

Because Hammer is AMD's biggest venture yet, which means two things:
1) R&D costs will raise the price of Hammer.
2) Demand will be bigger, AMD won't be able to keep up, and the prices will go up.

I'm getting the impression that you think AMD will just duke it out with Intel using the T-bred core... and will position Hammer as a specialty cpu for servers, workstations and the like?

Not at all, AMD isn't trying to keep this away from the home user, although if prices are too high, then that will happen naturally. I really doubt prices will be too high for home users, however.

Therefore, the pricing must stay similar or cheaper than Intels pricing (anything less than a lower price for equal performance would be a dramatic strategy change for AMD... and very risky)

For the most part, yes. But don't forget that part of Intel's market buys Intel simply because they're more expensive (they want the "best"). This is of course a very small market, but one that could provide a tiny bit of relief in the case that AMD loses market share because of higher prices. Of course, that's all speculation based on the fact that the Hammer will be higher priced than Intel's CPUs at the time, which may or may not end up being true.

<b>Eden</b>

So if they refuse AMD, I simply don't see how they would accept Intel's.

First, to my knowledge Intel still has not officially announced that they will produce an x86-64 CPU. If McKinley performs as well in 32-bit as promised, then they have no need to (from a technological standpoint, not a market standpoint). However, this is still worth discussing.

I'm not so sure that Microsoft would rush to support x86-64 if only AMD was the only one producing such a CPU. I hope they would, but Microsoft doesn't have the best reputation for being the friend to the little guy. They might wait for Intel before releasing an OS to support the two.

Also, taking an existent succesful core like K7 and adding major improvements of K8, how in the world would that translate lower performance? Intel's P4 is different, but AMD's is a huge upgrade. I suspect at least a 25% boost above the best Intel processor by end of year. That's more than enough to get me to buy one...

All we've seen is pictures of the physical processor, there still exists no real benchmarks or pricing information. I refuse to get excited about something until then. I've gone to too many movies with unrealistically high expectations and thought they sucked even though they were good.

<b>iib</b>

AMD will decide how expansive the CPU is...

Yes...

[(except for the uses of 8 layers of metal interconnects in the SOI process which is - litle more expencive then the previous 6 layer on Bulk CMOS).

And except for the R&D costs for producing Hammer in the first place, which are generally added to the equation and make new technology more expensive.

by the way - 64 bit should have a minimal impact on costs -

I never said it would, my point was that I won't pay 64-bit pricing for a 32-bit CPU.

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft