Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (
More info?)
On Mon, 30 May 2005 07:20:37 -0400, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
wrote:
>On Mon, 30 May 2005 02:02:14 -0400, George Macdonald
><fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 29 May 2005 07:06:28 -0400, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 29 May 2005 01:49:25 -0400, George Macdonald
>>><fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
>>>
>><<snip>>
>>
>>>>Look back in the thread for *your* use and definition of "incompatible" -
>>>>no it wasn't I who started this. Both AMD & Intel sell actual x86 chips
>>>>which both run the same code; if a P4 is an "actual Intel chip" an Athlon64
>>>>is an "actual AMD chip". No it's not something else and the ownership of
>>>>the definition has just formally changed... to shared?
>>>>
>>>It's your claim, George. You can't demand that I do the work to back
>>>up your claim, can you? In any case, I'm not going to. Google says
>>>that the word "incompatible" belongs to you.
>>
>>4bv89155v8hviq15hg3kv810ru1gos26q2@4ax.com - "An AMD processor is
>>incompatible with an Intel processor because...." seems to predate anything
>>I've said.
>>
>Sorry, I couldn't find that. As it is, though, anything less than the
>full quote is misleading:
>
>"An AMD processor is incompatible with an Intel processor because it
>doesn't say Intel on the package and Intel will tell you to pound sand
>if you have questions about it."
D'oh! You can't find that then you find it - what the hell are you on
about? What is it that you can't find about a Message ID? If your
newsreader doesn't support it, plug it into the Message ID box at Google
Groups.
>It's clear that I'm not claiming they are incompatible in any ordinary
>sense.
Just what are we to make of this? You said it... but you didn't
really<gawp> - on top of which you ascribed the use to me. Nobody in their
right mind would expect Intel to help them with an AMD CPU... and yet
that's a reason to mark AMD's product as "incompatible". This is nuts - an
exercise in the absurd.
> Even so, it is just inconceivable to me that you'll never turn
>up differences between the two processors that mean that a user
>application will work with one and not the other. Badly designed
>application? Probably. It's just something that people aren't going
>to worry about it if they don't have to.
What utter rubbish - there's as much chance of finding an app which works
with only one version of a P4 and not the other versions... or a P-M or
vice versa. Again you have no evidence so you speculate about things which
might be... and with apparently no first-hand knowledge or experience.
Talk about a definition of FFUD [sic]!
>>>>I've no idea what that is supposed to mean nor what mission you have in
>>>>mind. You can't possibly argue with the fact that the Athlon64/Opteron
>>>>works... rather well in fact. Whether you've personally tried/tested one
>>>>has nothing to do with the facts. Hell even Intel's new CEO has resorted
>>>>to the "don't worry chaps, we'll catch them up [... in about 18 months]"...
>>>>funny that: AMD is going to stand still to give them a fair whack at
>>>>it.:-[]
>>>
>>>What has *any* of that got to do with the fact that most people are
>>>going to test for mission-critical applications?
>>
>>Like I said, the AMD CPU works... at least as well as any Intel version; in
>>fact an examination of specified operating parameters and current empirical
>>evidence indicates that the Intel product is subject to higher thermal
>>stresses... certainly something to be taken into account. Mission
>>critical, however, would cover many other more likely failure points in a
>>system infrastructure than the CPU. I'd expect that there are even some
>>who would rule out any x86 system for that task. You'll have to give
>>evidence: of actual failure, or why an AMD system would be more
>>susceptible.
>
>You're implying I'm saying things that I'm not saying.
Like what? I don't think there's any doubt that you've questioned the
viability of the AMD CPUs vs. Intel's.
> People are
>going to test for mission-critical applications for whatever processor
>they use, and because it works with one doesn't mean they will forgo
>testing with another. As I hear it, more and more mission-critical
>stuff goes on x86.
As I hear it, "people" in IT rarely do their own testing. All the big OS
vendors and ISVs, SAP, Oracle, IBM, etc. have run their software on both
CPUs. There are thousands of benchmarks published on the Web using
commercial software - differences between PIII, P-M, P4(flavors), AthlonXP,
Athlon64 are well understood. For home-baked stuff you run it just to be
sure it works - "testing" reqts. are minimal for an IT organization.
>As to vulnerability, I wouldn't know how to judge one over the other,
>and I never made any claims (at least for this generation of
>processor).
Your "claims" are well documented.
><snip>
>>>"It won't" in this instance is ambiguous. Could the entire
>>>infrastructure of the semiconductor industry change? Sure. It's
>>>happened in lots of industries. It takes time. Short of that
>>>happening, there should be a shortage of AMD chips. I don't see that
>>>heppening, either. This really does remind me of sports talk radio.
>>
>>You obviously haven't tried to buy an AMD CPU recently - "shortage" is only
>>a relative term here but there is obvious binning which is causing
>>shortages in some of the more popular mid-priced Athlon64s... probably good
>>for AMD's ASP.
>>
>So AMD has got its pricing model wrong becaue they didn't predict
>yields correctly.
I dunno how to explain this to you but it's not a static model and demand
is always kinda difficult to predict - ask Intel about that... and their
umm, fairly recent inventory problems.
🙂 There's also the fact that, as
one would expect, the channel plays games with the prices. Bottom line is
that AMD CPU prices are holding quite well., which some buyers may find
annoying; OTOH it means that they don't feel cheated by precipitous drops
in price a few weeks after purchase.
>>Whoever the quote is due to matters not - would Napoleon make you feel
>>better?
🙂 Feigned indignation is no substitute for facts.
>>
>I wouldn't have bristled. As to facts, the use of a quote attached to
>a controversial historical figure isn't one. It's a rhetorical tactic
>and not an especially attractive one.
Lenin, Stalin, Napoleon? Since the target was not your idealogical
"appearance", I'm afraid I see no reason for your complaint.
>You're trying to get me to make claims about the relative quality of
>the products. I think I'm just making a statement about how buyers
>think and about how markets work. Purchasing from the dominant
>supplier is always safer, and the rules of the business more or less
>guarantee that Intel is going to be the dominant supplier for the
>forseeable future.
Fer Chrissakes give it up.
>As it is, you are trying to make arguments both ways: that AMD has a
>chip shortage (indicates that demand exceeds supply) and that AMD is a
>safe supplier even though it's number 2. Both can't be true.
There's more than one market to be err, supplied. It gets
complicated.<shrug>
> As it
>is, chips can be bought from a safe commodity supplier who can deliver
>them in nearly unlimited quantities and doesn't have to worry all that
>much about hitting production targets accurately (the worst they have
>to worry about is articles in the WSJ about growing inventory). It
>isn't just a mattr of buyer irrationality. Buyers want to know that
>they can get what they want when they need it. The safest bet to be
>able to do that is the biggest supplier. A company like Sun that is
>building a future around AMD chips is inevitably adding risk to its
>bottom line by doing do. You don't like it, apparently, but that's
>the way life goes.
Over-simplification. Extreme point analysis is not applicable here.
--
Rgds, George Macdonald
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram