SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Fred Fahmy who wrote (64840)7/12/1999 10:18:00 AM
From: Ali Chen  Read Replies (1) of 1579234
 
FF <"Exactly"....Although, the gap in performance is not nearly as big as the gap in price, these are not the exact same chip, and I think you know better...or at least you should.>
You skipped my next phrase, Freddy. And how convenient
to repeat Intel monikers. In fact, there is no gap in performance
whatsoever-you should know it, and you know about the
price differential.

<Also, "4 times lower"....I think you mean 1/4 the price. I hope you understand the difference.>
No I don't. 1/4 the price means exactly that the price is
4 times smaller than the original price.

<Mathematically, your expression makes no sense.>
You must be a great american mathematician.
I think you should give me a lecture on
mathematics here <GG>

<This is the kind of simplistic thinking that has got
AMD where they are today. Read the post below and you
will see..>
Every market/product is different. Your little company
manufactures nothing but informational noise and
unnecessary service for few customers your were
able to fool. Your "success" can't be a model for
those who manufactures real product and has no means to
cheat customers.

From your other post:
<AMD. They have always had decent competitive products
in certain segments (not all segments).>
Where did you get this ridiculous idea about "always"?
The K6 was designed to run at 200MHz to compete with
PPro150 and PPro-200. Nobody knew about astonishing
frequency scalability of the PPro-P-II core at that
time (only DEC maybe). When Intel had to accelerate
the P-II to maintain monopolistic pricing
strategy and got to 300MHz, the K6 has totally lost
the competitiveness. K6-3 could save the situation
at that time, but AMD management has had a wrong
model and assumed that the smaller K-6-2 die would
bring more profits. And maybe they were correct since
the only selling point are MHz, and nobody agree to
pay higher price for higher-performing chip but
same MHz.

<Instead of taking a more reasonable low key approach,
which starts by growing with the industry...>
In chip business the volume is everything. I'm sure
you are wrong about "low key" crawling approach
here.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News