Re: More on Processors from May issues of "PROCESSOR"
From: Andrew Harrison (andrew_._remove_harrison_at_su_n.com)
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 09:43:40 +0100
Rob Young wrote:
> In article <DTiotGxQ0bj6-pn2-PlOygEkPGNpe@dave2_os2.home.ours>, "Dave Weatherall" <email@example.com> writes:
>>On Fri, 28 May 2004 03:37:46 UTC, firstname.lastname@example.org (Rob
>>>In article <uMCdnZnxnNOX9CvdRVnemail@example.com>, "John Smith" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>>>>Doesn't this sound like Intel 'tripping?' Not only is this bad for
>>>>Intel's 32-bit processors, but I cannot see this being 'good' for Itanic..
>>> Yeah. And then financial reality sets in. AMD cleared $60 million
>>> last quarter, Intel cleared $2.5 billion last quarter. Profits equal
>>> to twice AMD's revenues. Maybe Intel shovels an extra $100
>>> million to Itanium just for good measure?
>>Well considering you had AMD going bust Rob, that's a fair
>>performance and it can easily get better. Intel is still a big comapny
> I had them taking a beating in 2003. I don't believe I had
> them going out of business, others used the words "kill." But
> without context it is hard to know what you are referring to.
> Perhaps this?
You had them going away under an onslaught of price cutting from
In fact they didn't take a beating Q4 2003 was their turn arround
quarter where they started turninfg in a profit and no top of that
despite your predictions that they would be in the middle of a
price cutting war in fact their average unit price went up.
You could not have got it much more wrong if you had tried but
then as we all know predictions and you just don't make happy
bed fellows do they Rob.
> My point is one corporation is much larger than the
> other. Yes , Dell was small at one time and IBM larger in the
> PC space.
Heard of Hertz and Avis ????????????????????????
> Unlike IBM's non-reaction to the market, that certainly isn't
> Intel historically.
> If Intel sees share slipping, they will do something about it.
> AMD is mostly relagated to a small section of the market. Yeah,
> maybe everyone gets excited when/if they double that section. They
> would still be small in comparison.
You really havn't been paying attention have you. Intel just put an
axe to their up to now very sucessfull strategy of lengthening the
pipeline, improving the prediction and bumping up the clock speed
and with it a very successfull Bzzzt its the clock speed marketing
Tejas and Jayhawk are dead, Prescott looks very much like a dud
and all Intel can show for their new very very expensive 90
nanometer process is a hotter, more complex and slower set of
units. Imagine that Intel has just written of a 1.5 billion
dollar investment for the 3 CPU's and their 2.5 billion and
upwards investment in the FAB isn't delivering a return as
early as they expected.
And then they have to fixup a new strategy, getting some designs
done, goto their ISV's and saying start doing threading because the
cores are just not going to go on getting faster at the rate you
expected and fix the marketing none of which are cheap options either.
In the mean time AMD can crank the clock up on Opteron/Athlon-64 and
then go dual core with a big per core lead over Intel who are going
backwards to Pentium M.