Jozef, Re: "I think the parts you highlighted show the flexibility of Hammer design."
That's obviously been a very focused goal at AMD - to continue the "one size fits all" approach, and design a processor that can meet the challenges of high end and low end, mobile and desktop, server and enterprise, and everything in between. I believe that Hammer is the best design that AMD could go for. It will probably deliver a solid solution for all the segments it is targeting.
However, I think the main limitation of this approach will be that a Jack of All Trades will always be Master of None. I think that Intel, going with several different CPU architectures and micro-architectures, has a better opportunity a few years out. Intel is using Netburst on the desktop, Banias in mobile, and IA-64 in server. The strengths of these architectures are best fitted for their markets. If successful, I think Intel could be better in any one of these markets.
Then again, this plan doesn't really take any effect next year, when Intel will have to continue to rely on Netburst to take up the majority of volumes in all of Intel's markets. While I think Hyperthreading will be what Intel needs to compete in the server market, I can't see a Netburst based mobile chip. Intel will have a hard time keeping mobile market share in 2002.
In 2003, things might change. Hammer will have ramped up, and AMD will be filling every one of K7's holes with a K8. It will definitely give them much more of an advantage. However, Intel will launch Banias, Netburst will ramp in frequency, and Itanium will have a much higher performing McKinley or Madison core. I see competition remaining in the months to come.
wbmw |
