Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kash johal who wrote (80911)	11/24/1999 12:42:00 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574006

Kash, just to address a few points, <Losing the server chipset buz to reliance is another case in point - Intel simply couldn't be bothered to develop a DDR server chipset - and that has been adopted even by DELL.> It may be hard for the public to believe, but even the server market is highly segmented. There are areas best covered by Intel's chipsets, and there are areas best covered by the competition like RCC. It would have been nice if Intel could cover every market segment with a different chipset proliferation, but that takes a lot of effort even on Intel's part. By the way, RCC's current server chipsets support PC100 and PC133, not DDR. For the time being, I believe DDR is a great solution only for servers at around the $5,000 price point. For the higher-end servers, PC100/PC133 is a better choice than DDR because they tend to have much larger amounts of memory, and DDR will have a higher price-per-MB than PC100/PC133. <Perhaps they should have offered a 750Mhz or even an 800 Xeon slot II.> Perhaps. <As far as Cascades I understood they were originally due in Q4 99 so maybe Q2 2000 is realistic. A 2 quarter slips seems about right for Intel.> Intel never committed to a Q4 1999 release of Cascades. You can accuse Intel of playing politics, but then that would just be p!$$!ng over nothing. I had this argument with Chuck before. I don't feel like arguing about it again, because these sort of arguments just go nowhere. <I see Intel fumbling and bumling and most of it seems to have started after Grove handed day to day reigns at Intel to Barrett. I suspect this is more than just a coincidence.> Kash, now that's just plain stupid. Was the infamous Pentium FDIV fiasco Barrett's doing? When Intel initially missed the boat regarding sub-$1000 computers, was Grove or Barrett in charge? When trouble was brewing in Merced-land, was Grove or Barrett in charge? The point is that neither are or were perfect CEOs. Both have their fair share of stumbles. Yet Intel still does very well thanks to strong fundamentals. Grove did a wonderful job establishing Intel's fundamentals, and Barrett is doing a wonderful job maintaining them or even pushing them into other areas. I think it's unfair to even suggest that all this so-called "fumbling and bumbling" was due to Barrett. That sort of stuff is only good for tickling the fancy of anti-Intel zealots. I know you don't want to be associated with said zealots. Tenchusatsu