AMD's Response to 'delays'

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Again proof intel will raise prices . We know AMD would but AMD isn't intel . Why does intel spend billions on new fabs . Why do they push the process smaller and smaller.

Most here know. If Intel keeps it prices @ current 65nm prices . Intels 45nm processors will give intel higher margins without raising prices. When VCRs came out they were $1000+ But as the market grows and more systems get into hands of the masses. prices get lower. That applies to cpu's also . How much of LCD come down in prices.

Sure their is only 2 players in the X86 market + 1 . But really there should only be intel but IBM put the srews to intel. You guys are going to see some strange developments in the Computer markets here shortly.

As Intel rids itself of X86 hardware. You will see Sun and Intel become much closer . As sun and Intel have a cross license agreement were Elbrus tech is concerned. Apple will become a bigger and bigger player. Why would Intel do this. Intel has 2 really big enemies and they know it . IBM and MS . I can see Intel working very hard with Apple to develop their system even better. As for IBM they are the source of all Intels present day problems. IBM used Intel to take down both DEC and Apple . Now these 3 are teaming up and it only a good for us. My wife just ordered an apple system . As her sister has one and she loves it (my wife) . I think there spendy but its her $$$. She already has a nice 6800 but she likes Apples OS. SO do I . But gaming kills apple for me . But thats going to change soon.

Nemesis, you ask for proof that Intel would raise prices. I ask you to look at history and challenge you to prove that Intel "wouldn't" raise prices if there were no competition, or if AMD continues on this downward spiral. Look what AMD was charging for their CPU's when they were on top. Huge money. Why? because they could. They dominated the CPU scene from a performance standpoint.

Look at Intel CPU pricing just before K7 came out. Huge. Intel could set the standard before that point. Charge what they pleased.

All intel is doing right now with these price wars is thoroughly throwing AMD a great huge revenge campaign. Once Intel gets all it's market share back that AMD has taken since K7, they will be satisfied and start to crank up the prices again.

So please, look at history. And also, please stop taking the Intel is holier than thou approach and they can do no wrong. They are doing very well now. Leave it at that.

 

[Nemesis 1]

I don't get it AMD isn't competion right now. Why hasn't Intel raised prices of the mid and lowend cpu's at 45nm. Or did they infact raise prices. Because intel will get more dies per waffer. Intel wants 60% margins and so do I. BoB did a wonderful job on the Pro Arch(P3). Were all very proud of him. Intel will move ahead in the industry pushing the transitor to is limit. Intel does this for 2 reasons Margins and the push to smaller cooler devices Surely your not suggesting its because of AMD . Intel could easily lower 45nm processors prices . AMD would be road kill. But their going for 60% margins and should achieve this we believe in the second quarter of 08.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Have I . Apple choose to go down a differant road period. Their products tho expensive are gaining market share . Thanks in no small part to Intel cpu's.

Competion is Good true it can also be bad.

Lets take China. Selling Lead paint products in our Kids toys. I bought a belt month ago made in China. 2weeks before the materials used Broke. Chinas forged steel . Cheap and breaks easily. But thats to be exspected since all the steel from the 9/11 buildings was shipped their illeageally so fast it make ones head spin .

Competition is good if it leads to lower cost quality products . But thats not always the case.

So according to replies and what others are saying in other forums. Now that Intel is leading in performance . We shouldn't see Nehalem till bulldozer arrives. Than we should also never exspect to see gesher or 32nm till 2014.

Noway not buying it. In 2003 I bought my daughter a Comquake pc . $3000 for a piece of junk. The dollar today buys alot more Cpu. than it did 15 years ago. Than factor in inflation .

Its nice that you believe that we all owe this to AMD . But its just not so. We owe it to Intel and their push to smaller process size.

I don't think all the steel went there, if any. Check this out:

USS New York
It was built with 24 tons of scrap steel from the World Trade Center .
It is the fifth in a new class of warship - designed for missions that include special operations against terrorists. It will carry a crew of 360 sailors and 700 combat-ready Marines to be delivered ashore by helicopters and assault craft.
Steel from the World Trade Center was melted down in a foundry in Amite , LA to cast the ship's bow section. When it was poured into the molds on Sept 9, 2003, "those big rough steelworkers treated it with total reverence," recalled Navy Capt. Kevin Wensing, who was there. "It was a spiritual moment for everybody there."
Junior Chavers, foundry operations manager, said that when the trade center steel first arrived, he touched it with his hand and the "hair on my neck stood up." "It had a big meaning to it for all of us," he said. "They knocked us down. They can't keep us down. We're going to be back."
The ship's motto? "Never Forget"

Here is a link
Read this

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
I don't get it AMD isn't competion right now. Why hasn't Intel raised prices of the mid and lowend cpu's at 45nm. Or did they infact raise prices. Because intel will get more dies per waffer. Intel wants 60% margins and so do I. BoB did a wonderful job on the Pro Arch(P3). Were all very proud of him. Intel will move ahead in the industry pushing the transitor to is limit. Intel does this for 2 reasons Margins and the push to smaller cooler devices Surely your not suggesting its because of AMD . Intel could easily lower 45nm processors prices . AMD would be road kill. But their going for 60% margins and should achieve this we believe in the second quarter of 08.

What is this ^ ? And who is "Were all" ?

 

[Nemesis 1]

http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Jan/25776.htm . Its my feeling that not one scrape of that steel should have left The USA not 1 ounce. Our steel industry couldn't use the steel.

Well Keys Who did you go to school with and what kids grew up with you. Were you lived as a Kid

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
I don't get it AMD isn't competion right now. Why hasn't Intel raised prices of the mid and lowend cpu's at 45nm. Or did they infact raise prices. Because intel will get more dies per waffer. Intel wants 60% margins and so do I. BoB did a wonderful job on the Pro Arch(P3). Were all very proud of him. Intel will move ahead in the industry pushing the transitor to is limit. Intel does this for 2 reasons Margins and the push to smaller cooler devices Surely your not suggesting its because of AMD . Intel could easily lower 45nm processors prices . AMD would be road kill. But their going for 60% margins and should achieve this we believe in the second quarter of 08.

I'll ask this time, who exactly is the "we" to which you keep referring, and why would they care? Anyone else smell that smell?

 

[CTho9305]

Originally posted by: bfdd

Originally posted by: CTho9305

Lets take China. Selling Lead paint products in our Kids toys. I bought a belt month ago made in China. 2weeks before the materials used Broke. Chinas forged steel . Cheap and breaks easily.

That's unregulated competition. With laws like we have in the US, competition generally gives you reasonable products at reasonable prices. If you take away regulation, you end up with monopolies charging a lot for bad products and commodity markets charging very little for bad products. You need regulation because consumers are neither fully informed nor rational (requirements for the ideal free market to work).

lololol competition in China? In a Communist state? Don't make me laugh. They have regulation, but no competition.

Calling China communist is not very accurate. They're only communist on paper. From Wikipedia: While the PRC is regarded as a Communist state by many political scientists, simple characterizations of China's political structure since the 1980s are no longer possible. The PRC government has been variously described as authoritarian, communist, and socialist, with heavy restrictions remaining in many areas, most notably in the Internet and in the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of reproductive rights, and freedom of religion. If you google "china capitalism" (w/o quotes) you'll find a lot of articles about the strange versions of "communism" and "capitalism" in modern China.

 

[bfdd]

CTho, and most those are because they want to assimilate HK. I know China has millionaires and the such and "enterprise" but to say it isn't government regulated is lawl. Everything there is Gov't regulated, just because you "own" a business doesn't mean they can't come in and swoop in on it.

 

[ddarko]

Originally posted by: CTho9305Calling China communist is not very accurate. They're only communist on paper.

With all due respect and apologies for taking a thread that has drifted FAR off topic but WTF?!? China is "only communist on paper"? What paper is that, the paper that the country's laws are written on? China is a ONE-PARTY STATE. There is no other party other than the COMMUNIST party. Try to start another political party. You know what happens to you? You go to jail! Sheesh, that foolish Wiki entry you quoted is almost an quintessential example of missing the forest for the trees...

Ask the people of Hong Kong what it means to live under a system where they cannot pick their own leaders. Ask them what it means to live under a system that is "only communist on paper." And Hong Kong has it FAR better than the rest of China. I'm an American liberal who thinks there's far too much reflexive China-bashing in my country but come on, let's call a spade a spade. China is most definitely a communist country; its leaders certainly thinks it is. It may be a different breed of communism than the one that existed in the Soviet Union but regardless of its economic nature, China is still POLITICALLY communist.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Jan/25776.htm . Its my feeling that not one scrape of that steel should have left The USA not 1 ounce. Our steel industry couldn't use the steel.

Well Keys Who did you go to school with and what kids grew up with you. Were you lived as a Kid

If you would kindly just grace me with answers, that are not in riddle form, to my two tiny questions it would be most appreciated.

A third question I dare ask. Can you explain to all of us here, why you have such hatred and loathing for the company known as AMD? Now, there is of course zero sense in denying such loathing and hatred as it is far too late for that. In other words, a comment from you similar to "I don't hate or loathe them, I just don't like their business practices." will not do. Too much has transpired for us to buy into that.

So please, let's REALLY hear it, right from the source. I'm quite sure that I'm not the only one here who might like to know.

Thanks in advance.

 

[JimiP]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
I don't get it AMD isn't competion right now. Why hasn't Intel raised prices of the mid and lowend cpu's at 45nm. Or did they infact raise prices. Because intel will get more dies per waffer. Intel wants 60% margins and so do I. BoB did a wonderful job on the Pro Arch(P3). Were all very proud of him. Intel will move ahead in the industry pushing the transitor to is limit. Intel does this for 2 reasons Margins and the push to smaller cooler devices Surely your not suggesting its because of AMD . Intel could easily lower 45nm processors prices . AMD would be road kill. But their going for 60% margins and should achieve this we believe in the second quarter of 08.

How is AMD not competitive? They still have a rather strong presence in the lower to mid range CPU market. Granted their Phenom's that are currently available aren't the best chips out there doesn't mean AMD isn't competitive in other areas. They simply don't have a viable high end chip to bench against Intel's current high end.

I feel that most of us here at AT would like to see AMD succeed and do well. They have pulled it off before and I know that they can do it again. I honestly don't see AMD leaving the scene for a very long time.

 

[zach0624]

Originally posted by: JimiP

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
I don't get it AMD isn't competion right now. Why hasn't Intel raised prices of the mid and lowend cpu's at 45nm. Or did they infact raise prices. Because intel will get more dies per waffer. Intel wants 60% margins and so do I. BoB did a wonderful job on the Pro Arch(P3). Were all very proud of him. Intel will move ahead in the industry pushing the transitor to is limit. Intel does this for 2 reasons Margins and the push to smaller cooler devices Surely your not suggesting its because of AMD . Intel could easily lower 45nm processors prices . AMD would be road kill. But their going for 60% margins and should achieve this we believe in the second quarter of 08.

How is AMD not competitive? They still have a rather strong presence in the lower to mid range CPU market. Granted their Phenom's that are currently available aren't the best chips out there doesn't mean AMD isn't competitive in other areas. They simply don't have a viable high end chip to bench against Intel's current high end.

I feel that most of us here at AT would like to see AMD succeed and do well. They have pulled it off before and I know that they can do it again. I honestly don't see AMD leaving the scene for a very long time.

I think jimip is pretty spot on here. Also what reason does intel have to improve tech if there is no competition? Also ask yourself this question, Why does intel exist? To make money. They have no reason once amd is gone to keep prices low. As long as there is a need for processors they can charge what they want(certain limitations apply like if they were to raise the price of their cpus above what their customers can afford or if the government regulates them somehow).

 

[Nemesis 1]

Your asking alot more than you realize.

Here is what I will do.

E-mail Bob at bob.colwell@comcast.net Ask him about a friend of his that goes by name Chip.

 

[toadeater]

Originally posted by: ddarko
Ask the people of Hong Kong what it means to live under a system where they cannot pick their own leaders.

I want to ask them what it means to get 100Mbit DSL for $36/month. They can have our freely-elected lobbyist puppets, give us the broadband.

Who knows, maybe China will even buy AMD? But I doubt the FTC would let that happen.

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: zach0624
I think jimip is pretty spot on here. Also what reason does intel have to improve tech if there is no competition?

The answer is to keep selling CPUs in a saturated market.

Also ask yourself this question, Why does intel exist? To make money. They have no reason once amd is gone to keep prices low. As long as there is a need for processors they can charge what they want(certain limitations apply like if they were to raise the price of their cpus above what their customers can afford or if the government regulates them somehow).

But if CPUs are expensive and offer little improvement, then people won't buy them.

 

[zach0624]

Originally posted by: Accord99

Originally posted by: zach0624
I think jimip is pretty spot on here. Also what reason does intel have to improve tech if there is no competition?

The answer is to keep selling CPUs in a saturated market.

Also ask yourself this question, Why does intel exist? To make money. They have no reason once amd is gone to keep prices low. As long as there is a need for processors they can charge what they want(certain limitations apply like if they were to raise the price of their cpus above what their customers can afford or if the government regulates them somehow).

But if CPUs are expensive and offer little improvement, then people won't buy them.

Okay I exaggerated a little bit but intel will still be able to sell their chips for much higher prices and extending technology cycles because they won't have to release a better chip until people are tired of buying their old one. Competition with ones self is less than competition with another company as far as money is concerned and Intel can do as little as they want and still sell cpus and make profit

 

[Vee]

Originally posted by: Accord99

Originally posted by: zach0624
I think jimip is pretty spot on here. Also what reason does intel have to improve tech if there is no competition?

The answer is to keep selling CPUs in a saturated market.

Please keep your wits together. Your answer is mindboggling, and so are the many roads drowning your extremely unlikely little future scenario. I don't even know where to start.
There won't be any saturated market. Why would Intel invest huge sums constantly building new manufacturing facilities to keep the world market "saturated"?
Intel's purpose is to make money. Not to supply the world population with cheap computing power.
It would definitely be in Intel's short term interest to have a much leaner manufacturing structure that offers better returns. And in the long term their revenues will rather rise than drop until the day they are encountering competition.

I don't see Intel stopping research and development. They will cut down. Definitely. But not stop. But without AMD it's going to go into new directions. They are going to offer considerably fewer CPUs for one thing. They are going to work on integrating ever more hardware into proprietary platforms. Expanding their monopoly on computer hardware. That will be their No 1 strategy to shut out any threats of competition.

Another thing you will see evolving is a dramatic difference in price, capability and performance between highend and lowend platforms. Today, competition from AMD has pushed up the lowend to almost close the gap to highend. This doesn't just benefit Joe&Jane. It also exposes the failure of Itanium and makes it hard to justify transistor counts, price, power consumption. There wouldn't have been any cheap, powerful X86 solutions without AMD. With AMD gone Intel can start the progress to extract premium charges for hardware that meets the needs of industry & business. My guess is that Intel's primary means to accomplish this stratification is the capabilities they will offer in the various platforms. Meaning, any need above the typical business/consumer laptop - pay up! Pay up big.

Also ask yourself this question, Why does intel exist? To make money. They have no reason once amd is gone to keep prices low. As long as there is a need for processors they can charge what they want(certain limitations apply like if they were to raise the price of their cpus above what their customers can afford or if the government regulates them somehow).

But if CPUs are expensive and offer little improvement, then people won't buy them.

Again your answer is mindboggling. Again I don't know where to start...
They will buy them because they need to. And you will too. Trust me, the world is not about to experience any lack of demand for processors. But it is quite likely that it will come to that you will no longer be able to buy a CPU in retail. ...Or a mainboard, or a videocard, or...
The thing is that CPUs, or rather "platforms" will develop in directions that are in the interest of Intel, their strategies for profit and monopoly, rather than what you would choose if you had a free choice. It's absolutely certain that performance improvements will very much slow down for the consumer.
I think it's highly likely that the desktop PC, and gaming PC, as we know it will die. But people will be in need of various computing appliances and Intel will roll in a lot of money with little pressure, risk or effort.

 

[bryanW1995]

Sounds to me by your tone . You will by AMD. Do you have proof Intel will raise prices .

I do right here

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Your asking alot more than you realize.

Here is what I will do.

E-mail Bob at bob.colwell@comcast.net Ask him about a friend of his that goes by name Chip.

Meet me at the 3rd street bridge at 8 am on monday, dec 2nd, 2077. Make sure that you are wearing a bright orange jump suit. Ask for "diarrhea man".

 

[CTho9305]

Originally posted by: bfdd
CTho, and most those are because they want to assimilate HK. I know China has millionaires and the such and "enterprise" but to say it isn't government regulated is lawl. Everything there is Gov't regulated, just because you "own" a business doesn't mean they can't come in and swoop in on it.

That you can be thrown in jail for complaining about the government doesn't mean you aren't free to use poisonous materials produce shoddy, unsafe products in factories with bad working conditions that make the air unbreathable.

Originally posted by: ddarko

Originally posted by: CTho9305
Calling China communist is not very accurate. They're only communist on paper.

With all due respect and apologies for taking a thread that has drifted FAR off topic but WTF?!? China is "only communist on paper"? What paper is that, the paper that the country's laws are written on? China is a ONE-PARTY STATE. There is no other party other than the COMMUNIST party. Try to start another political party. You know what happens to you? You go to jail! Sheesh, that foolish Wiki entry you quoted is almost an quintessential example of missing the forest for the trees...

Not everybody who calls themselves a communist is a communist. Lots of candidates here claim to be republicans, but a neo-con is pretty far from a republican.

Ask the people of Hong Kong what it means to live under a system where they cannot pick their own leaders. Ask them what it means to live under a system that is "only communist on paper." And Hong Kong has it FAR better than the rest of China. I'm an American liberal who thinks there's far too much reflexive China-bashing in my country but come on, let's call a spade a spade. China is most definitely a communist country; its leaders certainly thinks it is. It may be a different breed of communism than the one that existed in the Soviet Union but regardless of its economic nature, China is still POLITICALLY communist.

I'm not saying China is a great place. But a lot of what you posted isn't related to communism. FWIW, just because you claim to be a communist doesn't mean you think you are one. It just means you want people to think you are one.

More Wikipedia: There are also communist movements in Latin America and South Asia that have significant popular support. However, even single-party Communist states like China and Vietnam have adopted capitalist economic mechanisms in certain limited ways, which some observers say is at odds with the original socialist ideals of communism.
...
Like other socialists, Marx and Engels sought an end to capitalism and the systems which they perceived to be responsible for the exploitation of workers.

In what way is China not exploiting workers?

While anticommunists applied the concept of "totalitarianism" to these societies, many social scientists identified possibilities for independent political activity within them, and stressed their continued evolution up to the point of the dissolution of the Soviet Union and its allies in Eastern Europe during the late 1980s and early 1990s.

From a different Wikipedia article: Communist states may have several legal political parties, but the Communist Party is constitutionally guaranteed a dominant role in government

I know a lot of us grew up during the cold war, but you're not a commie just because you call yourself one and you're totalitarian. I know Wikipedia isn't a citable source, but I don't care about this debate enough to look for real source .

 

[Keysplayr]

Keep it on topic folks.

 

[dingetje]

china's sytem is just corporate fascism in disguise, exactly the same as in the united states (which is certainly not a democracy).
communism does not exist anywhere...it only exists in the dictionary and in the dreams of delusional people.

oops just read the ontopic warnng

hmmm errrrm ok to stay on topic, i think amd is well boned.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Your asking alot more than you realize.

Here is what I will do.

E-mail Bob at bob.colwell@comcast.net Ask him about a friend of his that goes by name Chip.

So, I emailed BobC. He says he has no idea who you are, or at least doesn't know you by your Nemisis "alias". He also doesn't know anyone named "Chip" and we both think you are just referring to a silicon chip. Why? He said it was weird.

So, lets not have anymore riddles and runarounds could we please?

Why do you loathe and hate AMD?

How complicated can the answer be? Is it a silly answer? Did an AMD employee sit on your chihuahua or something? So lets have it.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Well its nice that you countacted Bob. For your information . Being a few years older than Bob. I am not surprized that you would put the word Chip with micro processors. ut CHIP in real world is slang for Chip off the Block. Meaning father like Son. CHIP.

I don't believe Bod doesn't remember Chip. I never said I was Chip. Bob was a little young for my group. 3 years younger than I . When your Kids 3 years is a Big differance.

Why I Hate AMD . Hate is a strong word. I just don't believe for 1 second that AMD has ever stood on its own legs. IBM has always been their forcing Intels hand. Intel made a deal with IBM not the Industry. AMD should have been allowed to make Cpu's for IBM because of the agreement. X86 was developed By intel not for the IBM pc's but for the PC industry as a whole. AMD took it upon themselves to reverse engineer intels 386 because AMD couldn't do it on its own .
Intel screwed up by not wording the contract with IBM more simply. Intel did leave the door open for AMD to Steal it tech and they did .

Our legeal system today is totally trash were any good laywer can make a can find loopholes to win cases . That a contract between parties can be easily expanded. Which is exactly what happened with contract between IBM/AMD -----and INTEL .

Everyone says Intel is monoply . What is AMD . They rely on IBM for research .

I here people talking about AMD and High K / metal gates @ 45. If that happens great for them right.

But did AMD develop that tech. If so I would like to know. IN Dollars. How much AMD spent to develop that tech . Vs. What Intel spent to develop it.

AMD has never stood on its own . EVER ! They are like a puppet for IBM . IBM uses AMD to hold Intel in Check.

Just like IBM used intel against Dec. and Apple. So I take it you all liked Dec going under.

Even AMD 64 if you really research it . MS. was in on that development all the way .

Why would MS. Do this . EPIC MS is scared to death of a OS for desktop using high level language. X86 is running out of high octane fuel and is starting to ping.

Software developers are way behind when it comes to high level languages. Why did AMD buy ATI . The real reason .

The ans. goes back to 2004 when intel bought Elbrus. That scared both IBM and MS.
If Intel is smart . In their lawsuite with AMD.

Intels att. shouldn't attack AMD . It should instead find all info on the relationship between
IBM/AMD. Also the relationship between AMD64 development and what MS had to do with it .

You guys say if intel was only player in X86 market innovation well be killed.

I say this that AMD64 / IBM and MS . have already effectively brought innovation to a crawl. Witness K8.

AMD 64 isn't goog for progress it chokes it.

If what I say about the Elbrus Compiler is True. Intel is basicly giving X86 hardware processors to AMD as a lone supplier of hardware X86 hardware cpus. Than if this occurs AMD will have what its always wanted. A monoply on x86 hardware.

Elbrus tech . Is a leap forward not backwards . Software that can handle X86 instructions. While getting rid of the X86 hardware baggage.

If you believe this hasn't shaken up IBM and MS your sadly mistaken . Both IBM/AMD and MS . Know about the license agreement between Sun and Intel on Elbrus tech.

Keys I don't hate AMD I dislike them because they are weak and can't stand on their own merits.

Hate thats reserved for IBM . WHY do I hate IBM . read about IBMs roll in rounding up the jews and non christians during ww2 . Ya I hate IBM .

 

[Nemesis 1]

I wanted to add this bit. How it relates I will leave to you.


RISC and x86
However, despite many successes, RISC has made few inroads into the desktop PC and commodity server markets, where Intel's x86 platform remains the dominant processor architecture (Intel is facing increased competition from AMD, but even AMD's processors implement the x86 platform, or a 64-bit superset known as x86-64). There are three main reasons for this. One, the very large base of proprietary PC applications are written for x86, whereas no RISC platform has a similar installed base, and this meant PC users were locked into the x86. The second is that, although RISC was indeed able to scale up in performance quite quickly and cheaply, Intel took advantage of its large market by spending vast amounts of money on processor development. Intel could spend many times as much as any RISC manufacturer on improving low level design and manufacturing. The same could not be said about smaller firms like Cyrix and NexGen, but they realized that they could apply pipelined design philosophies and practices to the x86-architecture ? either directly as in the 6x86 and MII series, or indirectly (via extra decoding stages) as in Nx586 and AMD K5. Later, more powerful processors such as Intel P6 and AMD K6 had similar RISC-like units that executed a stream of micro-operations generated from decoding stages that split most x86 instructions into several pieces. Today, these principles have been further refined and are used by modern x86 processors such as Intel Core 2 and AMD K8. The first available chip deploying such techniques was the NexGen Nx586, released in 1994 (while the AMD K5 was severely delayed and released in 1995).

As of 2007, the x86 designs (whether Intel's or AMD's) are as fast as (if not faster than) the fastest true RISC single-chip solutions available.[3]


[edit] Cost
Consumers are interested in speed, energy efficiency, cost per chip, and compatibility with existing software rather than the cost of development of new chips.[citation needed] This has led to an interesting chain of events. As the complexity of developing ever more advanced CPUs rises, the cost of both development and fabrication of high-end CPUs has exploded. The cost gains given by RISC are now dwarfed by the high costs of developing any modern CPU. Today, only the biggest chip makers are able to make high performing CPUs. The result is that virtually all RISC platforms with the exception of IBM's Power Architecture have greatly shrunk in scale of development of high performing CPUs (like SPARC and MIPS) or were abandoned (like Alpha and PA-RISC) during the 00s. As of 2007, a RISC chip is (again) the fastest CPU in SPECint and SPECfp, which is IBM's Power6 CPU.[citation needed]