• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Interesting Intel CPU article... "Intel fights for dominance"

A few things I found interesting...

1) missteps were the announcements of dropping certain lines of yet to be released products, right??? What were these so called recall of defective desktop cpus in 2004????

2) a move to more cost effective 12" wafers??? I though we have been at 300mm (12" conversion to meters) for sometime...I didn't think this was new...
 
I would'nt worry about poor little intel. While AMD may be nimble they have serveral huge disadvantages the biggest being INTEL is a repected company and a household name. Intel also has much more resources to bear on R&D and marketing... When intel tweaks dothan with 64 bit support, quad ram..maybe even on board mem controller AMD will be on the defensive again. Then what? Actually I think IBM is about to get into x86 business then fight will be interesting..
 
Originally posted by: Zebo
I would'nt worry about poor little intel. While AMD may be nimble they have serveral huge disadvantages the biggest being INTEL is a repected company and a household name. Intel also has much more resources to bear on R&D and marketing... When intel tweaks dothan with 64 bit support, quad ram..maybe even on board mem controller AMD will be on the defensive again. Then what? Actually I think IBM is about to get into x86 business then fight will be interesting..
Click to expand...


I'm not worried about Intel at all. For them to bomb they'd REALLY have to screw up or have an Enron. Ain't gonna happen! I think AMD gets a lot of tech from IBM, if not almost all. I see articles on AMD that show cooperation or exchange of tech between the two.
 
i'm very interested to see how this whole strained silicon thing plays out, AMD just seems to be spitting out effective technologies at a rate greater than that of intel. But indeed, AMD seems to hold the niche market, Intel is a better known brand. lol yeah, what the HELL do they mean by "bargin-basement Intel knockoffs?" Didn't Intels 64bit scheme come from AMD?
 
Originally posted by: Duvie
A few things I found interesting...

1) missteps were the announcements of dropping certain lines of yet to be released products, right??? What were these so called recall of defective desktop cpus in 2004????

2) a move to more cost effective 12" wafers??? I though we have been at 300mm (12" conversion to meters) for sometime...I didn't think this was new...
Click to expand...

recall

It might be that they are switching *this* plant over to 300mm.
 
IBM is the only one that can save AMD, and AMD is IBM'S only chance of taking on the gaint Intel in the X86 market.( IBM are going to go in there, trust me)

You have to look at it Realistically, even though I am hugely sympathetic towards AMD, that does not make me a fanboy. I?ll post later I?m off to see what?s going on in the sales ! later.
 
AMD and IBM have breakthrough in latest microprocessor process. New process is able to boost up 20% of performance with the same power consumption of current process. 🙂
 
Originally posted by: Rhin0



I'm not worried about Intel at all. For them to bomb they'd REALLY have to screw up or have an Enron.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but how could Intel "have an Enron" as you put it?

Enron was no more then a shell company dealing with service/trading, they had no tangible products.
All of Intel's revenue is directly from marketable products, its businesses aren't a mirage (like some of Enron's).

I'm not sure how it could have 'an Enron'.
 
Originally posted by: Rand
Originally posted by: Rhin0



I'm not worried about Intel at all. For them to bomb they'd REALLY have to screw up or have an Enron.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but how could Intel "have an Enron" as you put it?

Enron was no more then a shell company dealing with service/trading, they had no tangible products.
All of Intel's revenue is directly from marketable products, its businesses aren't a mirage (like some of Enron's).

I'm not sure how it could have 'an Enron'.
Click to expand...


Would you prefer Parmalat? Nortel? WorldCom? Abit?
 
"Intel's smaller rival that made its name by making bargain-basement Intel knockoffs"

This is the only part that really pisses me off. Intel has become nothing more then what 3DFX was back in the voodoo SLI days. Anyone who remember those days should see that Intel is to 3DFX as AMD is to Nvidia.

Now instead of IBM coming out with there own cpu, they just need to buy/merge with AMD and be done with it.
 
What would IBM gain by buying AMD? More debt? AMD needs IBM but why do IBM need AMD? IBM makes most their money from services nowdays and their microprocessor division is doing fine selling chips to various vendors. What would IBM gain from taking on Intel?
 
Originally posted by: Naustica
What would IBM gain by buying AMD? More debt? AMD needs IBM but why do IBM need AMD? IBM makes most their money from services nowdays and their microprocessor division is doing fine selling chips to various vendors. What would IBM gain from taking on Intel?
Click to expand...

There is a chance that IBM will start offering there own x86 chips. Since IBM is already working with AMD, it just makes more sense to work with AMD to make A64 chips then it would for IBM to have there own.

As for IBM taking on Intel. What does AMD gain from taking them on other then keeping from going under?
 
IBM and Intel are two huge players. IBM would love to knock Intel off its rocker, it makes sense. Maybe IBM is prepping AMD, yes I know there?s a transaction of money between the two for technology, but why didn?t IBM go to Intel which has ten times more capacity, ten times more budget?.

What IBM gain from Buying AMD ?

It?s been said for a while that IBM have been thinking about entering the X 86 businesses recently. Would IBM like to start from scratch or have a company half way there?.Apple isn?t making huge orders for g4?s/G5?s and power architecture doesn?t seem to be on the growth side, no matter how more efficient it is then x86. Why did IBM sell its pc business off ? for funds to buy AMD ? Someone said ?Why would they want AMD?s debt?. IBM would cover those in a heartbeat; they too like Intel have deep pockets. IBM made a huge racket internally when Intel lost the rights to make the XBOX2 CPU. True Intel couldn?t really care, but IBM shouted and touted that it was a blow and they took great pleasure from being chosen over Intel.

With AMD being pumped with more funds, more engineers, marketing actually given a budgets, more capacity. That would flip the semi conductor world on its head. Intel truly would be worried, they would have to innovate, and they would be under heavy fire. But Intel is this huge castle, walls miles high, It?d take a lot of fire before you?d see cracks in them, market segments shrink. As well as AMD is doing at the moment, It still cant make a dent in Intel?s armour.

No matter how good opteron is, Xeon will always be chosen. No matter how much athlon 64 trounces Pentium 4?s in the majority of apps, P4 will still sell 10 x times more. More Xeons with 64 EMT have sold them Opterons, even tho Opteron had over a year start. What does this tell you ? Intel is rock solid. Sales wont fall, unless they have more then a kid at the gates rocking them back and forth. I am hugely sympathetic towards AMD, I love them man. But it is only a matter of time before Intel gets it feet again and squeezes them again. Intel will NEVER run AMD out of business, they will always leave them scraps, just enough so that there will never be broken up due to trading standards and the like.

Unless IBM go in and pick them up, history will just loop??..And Loop
 
IBM sells Intel and AMD-based servers. Buying AMD and having a household microprocessor to go along with their servers could cut out the middleman (Intel)... I'm a noob to these things, but its just a thought...
 
IBM helped AMD with strained silicon or whatever because it was business transaction and IBM made money on the deal. Added benefit was that it helped AMD which maybe IBM also wanted. But it was first for the money.

IBM is doing fine with their PPC line and Apple is just one small customer of theirs. IBM is broadening out and selling to console and electronics makers and doing great as neutral vendor.

IBM sold its PC business because it was money losing business and IBM had been looking to dump it for quite some time. Same as their hard drive business. PC business was only good for tax writeoff.

IBM has deep pockets and is extremely profitable with very high margins. Most of that is due to their service business which makes up majority of their revenue and profits. IBM's bread and butter is services, consulting, and enterprise market.

If IBM was to buy AMD, it would mostly be stock transaction and small acquisition. But why would they do this when their microprocessor division is performing well in its growing niche market? I don't buy the rumor they want to enter x86 business. If IBM had wanted to, they would have entered long ago.
 
Both of those articles refer to IBM's PPC chip business. Multiple Power PC chips are going to power Xbox2, Playstation3, and Macs.
 
Originally posted by: Hyperlite
what the HELL do they mean by "bargin-basement Intel knockoffs?" Didn't Intels 64bit scheme come from AMD?
Click to expand...


I think they're referring to AMD's earlier days when they made clone 386 and 486 CPUs.

 
Originally posted by: Zebo
I would'nt worry about poor little intel. While AMD may be nimble they have serveral huge disadvantages the biggest being INTEL is a repected company and a household name. Intel also has much more resources to bear on R&D and marketing... When intel tweaks dothan with 64 bit support, quad ram..maybe even on board mem controller AMD will be on the defensive again. Then what? Actually I think IBM is about to get into x86 business then fight will be interesting..
Click to expand...

Originally posted by: clarkey01
IBM is the only one that can save AMD, and AMD is IBM'S only chance of taking on the gaint Intel in the X86 market.( IBM are going to go in there, trust me)

You have to look at it Realistically, even though I am hugely sympathetic towards AMD, that does not make me a fanboy. I?ll post later I?m off to see what?s going on in the sales ! later.
Click to expand...

This is a very realistic scenario.

However, it's also a disaster for computing. It will, IMO, mean an Intel monopoly, stagnant technology, high prices, products widely stepped in performance/price.
The reason is, IBM is the wrong home for AMD or x86.
IBM's management is pretty... well... - Anyway, they will pull out gradually, as their conservative investments will prove inadequate for being competitive. IBM's engineering will probably do nothing to urge the management to any real commitment. They're rather lukewarm to x86. And would much rather dream of unrealistic strategies of replacing x86, and waste time, money and resources on that.

Nope, in the long run, no matter what initial ambitions, IBM would be the death of AMD x86.
I see no reason it would play out any different than Cyrix. IBM remains the same.

I think Intel's commitment to Itanium, will mean AMD is still able to spring a few surprises, for some years yet. Don't worry just yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top