Amd and Intel, Were they once PARTNERS!!!?? Look here!

[dszd0g]

BTW, pm how long have you been with Intel? Did you guys actually look at the first AMD clone (datasheets) to see how much of it was directly copied?

I also have heard, a lot of new microprocessor ideas at Intel have been licensed or aquired from other companies. Even the crappy implementations like MMX were aquired from other companies.

I am not really expecting too much of an answer. It is always a good idea to watch what one says about the company they work for.

I hope you guys have something good up your sleeves, because the P4 ain't it. Neither is merced. McKinley isn't too bad from what I've heard, but that was mainly HP working on that one and not Intel. I really would like to see both AMD and Intel neck and neck for quite a while. It would be the best thing for the consumer.

 

[pm]

I've been working for Intel for nearly 6 years.

As far as the Pentium 4... I remember when I first joined Intel people were saying the Pentium 60 and 66 were poor value for money, were too hot, had too big a die to be manufactured in mass volume and were, in several cases, slower than the 486DX4-100 which was available at that time.

Then I remember the introduction of the Pentium Pro. People said it poor value for money, was too hot, had too big a die and was, in plenty of cases involving 16-bit code, slower than the Pentium 166 and 200. This was right when Win95 was released and 32-bit code was pretty rare.

I actually find it amusing that no one else (beyond Anand who wrote about it in this article) seems to remember these two introductions. Anybody who wrote off the Pentium or the Pentium Pro core ate their words just a few years later. Now we have the Pentium 4 and people are saying the same things that they always have.

I personally think the Pentium 4 has a very bright future. Just wait and see.

 

[Degenerate]

Cool, i think too that the P4 will shine very soon. I was reading Tom's Hardware's latest P4 articles and they said some good things about it. thing are going to change. (especially after the FlASK was recompiled.)

 

[dszd0g]

I remember both of the situations. It was not until the Pentium 75 that it was at all worth going with a Pentium. In my opinion Intel should not have released the Pentium 60, and 66. I didn't think the Pentium 60 and 66 sold well. However, maybe it was profitable for Intel to do so. I didn't purchase a Pentium until the P90. I was hoping to overclock it to 100Mhz to hit the 66Mhz bus speed. Unfortunately, I couldn't get it to be stable playing games at 100Mhz like some people had reported.

I still think the Pentium Pro was a crappy chip. It's 16-bit performance sucked. It wasn't until Intel released the Pentium II that the P6 spread. I don't think the Pentium Pro was ever profitable.

We will have to see about the P4. Maybe it will end up being the Pentium Pro and Intel will have to come out with the Pentium II equivalent to give us the performance we want.

I think we'll have to wait until the McKinley is realeased (if we remember) to see how much of HP's technology is used in it. Then when the information is public and confidentiality contracts no longer apply we can argue about it.

 

[Auric]

I reckon it is important for the end user/buyer to realize that new tech is not introduced for their benefit. The newest stuff is never the best value and is often only an introduction to the next cycle of stuff which may or may not turn out to be worthwhile. It may be a dead-end or maybe if a sufficent base of guinea pigs is created there will be the incentive to continue development of that tech. Think about VESA Local Bus, Accelerated Graphics Port, and so on. My understanding (limited as it is), is that Intel has never been much of an innovator. In the bigger picture they are still coasting off that lucky IBM win. Like DEC, Intel has the size to ride out some years of mediocrity but the industry is still young and things will change. We have been using the same tired tech for the past twenty years and are due for some change. Isn't the P4 just a baby step in that direction?

 

[Degenerate]

Then how would you comment on Amd? Are you saying that the computers we are using are not good enough?? Can be better with the competition, yes i agree, and thats what we need. A push.

It takes the companies years, 4+ to design a new chip and the Athlon was only released about 1 year ago. Intel had barely the time to respond in a dramatic way (they went nuts at the Athlon and failed - recalls) where as Amd had all the time they needed.