I'll take a shot at your question, i.e., why all the fuss about AMD.
1. AMD is the only company that is currently competitive with Intel in the x86 market. The others currently making x86 aren't keeping up with the megahertz, at all. They are also another level down, I would say, or a tier three in the semi business, if you were to stratify companies. The other architectures, like Alpha and Sun, are not compatible, so are not in direct socket competition with Intel, and are therefore a layer removed from competing with Intel. It's like an apples to oranges comparison vs. apples to apples. These are all fruit, but if your recipe calls for an apple, an apple you'll buy. If you're IBM and you need to put CPU chips into your PCs for the next quarter, it's either Intel or AMD. Sun or Alpha won't work. As for production, even though, as you say, AMD has a really poor track record in production and production planning, you never know. They could pull a rabbit out of a hat by getting straightened out by alliance partner Motorola, or by signing an agreement with IBM, who knows how to make chips in volume, latest technologies, high yields and reliability, like that. Then, you could have a well architected CPU chip and a viable production ramp plan.
2. Intel and AMD are long time rivals, largely because they've been making compatible products for quite a while, so the, as you say, "whipping boy" type banter. If you go over to the "rival" thread, AMD, you'll see a lot of David will slay Goliath type banter, David of course being AMD. It's like cats and dogs, Hatfields and McCoys, Yankees - Red Sox. It's almost stupid, like you imply, for Intel to worry about a company 10% their size, but the rivalry fires keep getting stoked and it goes on and on.
Someone else?
Tony
|
