This "response" is a beautiful example of paradigm blindness.
The accusation:
he likes to revise history to make AMD look like the second coming of Christ.
The response:
You guys are all getting very touchy again, and very nasty. Is the scary news about the Thoroughbred B bringing out the worst in you all?
AMD looks like it's old chip has pretty much caught up with Intel's latest and greatest, putting the pressure back on Intel for the big Q4.
Following that, AMD has a whole new generation of products scheduled for Q1. While Intel has what, a modest process shrink and the strike 3 version of Itanic?
32-bits just ain't gonna cut it, next year.
1) Start with an insult. Insist fear is motivating posts that question the individual's paradigm. This provides a sense of security from which to operate.
2) Equate paper launch to volume production, i.e. "buy the hype hook line and sinker". The 2.8GHz P4 is out in volume. The XP2400+ and 2600+ models are MIA. The "new stepping" also comes at the cost of a process with NINE metal layers. Intel is soldiering on with six. Either way you cut that, it's bad for AMD. If you take the point-of-view that nine metal layers is expensive, then AMD is taking a big hit in the COG department. If you take the point-of-view that it's "easy" and "doesn't hurt AMD's cost/die" advantage... then Intel can pull the same trick to keep the P4 dancing away from the K7.
3) Present the "good guys" per your paradigm in the most generous possible light: "Whole new generation of products". I hardly call a K7 with integrated memory controller, two additional pipeline states, and 64-bit addressibility "a new generation". It's evolutionary, not revolutionary. All that aside, many of your previous posts indicated that there would be an early K8 launch, yet it has recently been pushed out by a quarter. Also, given the fact that the SOI process is yet to ramp, volumes will be low until late next year.
4) Demonstrate oversimplified binary thinking by presenting the "bad guys" based on your paradigm in the worst possible light: Based on what I've seen (which has been either very limited or very speculative depending on the article), Prescott also seems to be evolutionary rather than revolutionary (rumors about Tejas are equally speculative, but it appears to be more "revolutionary"). As to a "modest process shrink", I'm not sure I agree here. Integrating Si-Ge, which was first developed by IBM, before IBM, for an exceptionally low cost/wafer seems to be more than a "modest process shrink" from where I sit...
Based on the evidence at hand, I would say that your post went further to prove the accusation leveled against you, rather than dispelling it... |
