"The first is that in order to be in a better position, AMD has to deliver on the performance."
Sure. But roadmaps that are a quarter or so out are a lot more likely to be realized than ones a year or more out. Both companies have to deliver on their promises, or it will be rougher on them that it might be otherwise.
"If Thoroughbred is late, or if it doesn't hit the heat/power requirements, then Pentium 4 will be there to maintain market share."
What kind of marketshare does the P4 have in laptops? Have I missed something? Sure, but the same can be said for the P4. It isn't a slam dunk for either company, they need to deliver on their roadmaps, or at least close. Since the A4s already deliver at least 1.3GHz at less than 25 watts peak on their 0.18 micron process, I think AMD has a better shot at delivering than Intel.
"The second thing is that, even should AMD deliver on time, they don't gain share immediately on delivery."
I dunno, the A4s have been out for less than 3 quarters and they already account for a substantial share of the US consumer market. They've got a design win for the corporate laptops, let's see what happens there.
"I wouldn't expect Intel to let AMD model numbers make their notebooks look that much faster than the Pentium 4."
My point is that if AMD delivers on their roadmap, the actual frequency rating of the A4s will be extremely close to the mobile P4s. With near frequency parity, Intel has nothing to claim foul over...
I've an interesting question for you. Why did Compaq introduce the 1.3GHz A4 in their Evo line, and then plan on rolling out the mobile P4 in their Presario (i.e. consumer) line? Why the role reversal? |
