"I was the one that pointed out that AMD did indeed abandon the dead end socket 7 - two years after Intel did - don't you remember?"
Well gee Monica, all sockets, slots and packages are dead end, else we would still be using 40 pin DIPs. The point is that AMD managed to double the performance before it moved on to something else. Remember that Intel abandoned their Slot1 soon after AMD abandoned Socket 7, so Intel's choice wasn't all that hot. I know, I know, here I go again using facts instead of fud, but...
"And I was the one that pointed out that AMD lost money in every year that their main CPU offering was socket 7 - don't you remember?"
Yes you did. Of course, the fact that if Intel hadn't low-balled the Celeron to drive the profits out of the Socket 7 market, then AMD, WInchip, Cyrix and Rise might have made money. Remember that "Microprocessor Report", that notorious anti-Intel rag, estimated that Intel was selling the original Celeron at, or below, the cost of manufacture. But assume that they actually were making a profit off of it, however small. There just isn't a good business case for the pricing of the original Celeron except to get rid of the competition. It arguably took away profits because there were some that bought it instead of a much more profitable PII. Even if that hadn't of happened, it likely did not contribute enough to the bottom line to cover the cost of development. It did get rid of everyone else except for AMD. Now in an attempt to get a high enough clock rate so that Intel couldn't price them out of existence, AMD did suffer a production crash and got terribly hurt, but that was only one quarter, they probably could have made money the rest of the time if it wasn't for the low prices on the Celeron.
I know, I know, facts are pesky little things... |
