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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (100287)	3/27/2000 5:01:00 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576159

In conclusion, I'd like to thank you guys for responding to my list of Intel innovations. It shows me just how distorted your views on Intel really are. No wonder 50% of the posts on this thread are more anti-Intel than pro-AMD. It's like watching negative campaign ads from politicians. Tenchusatsu, To see how you got to this conclusion, you might want to trace back this series of posts to the first one....yours...#100182. You started out by being combative, and of course, what you got back were combative responses. And you wonder why 50% of the posts on this thread are anti-Intel and why our view of Intel is distorted.....what's there to wonder about? ted

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (100287)	3/27/2000 6:43:00 PM
From: milo_morai	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576159

Tench, Wrong again. Intel is yielding Coppermines very well, despite the low-volume launches. Volumes are more important to Intel than speed. If notched gates create significant yield problems, Intel would drop them in a heartbeat. In conclusion, I'd like to thank you guys for responding to my list of Intel innovations. It shows me just how distorted your views on Intel really are. No wonder 50% of the posts on this thread are more anti-Intel than pro-AMD. It's like watching negative campaign ads from politicians. Tenchusatsu Tench OEM Customers would disagree with that last bold statement you make. I've been all over town (the same one you live in) and cannot find any Piii's at 800Mhz or above. I can go down to any Costco and get 1000Mhz Athlons from Compaq NOW. Yields are great!!! (for AMD) Milo

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (100287)	3/27/2000 7:29:00 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576159

Tench Re..< Rambus is helping push the Pentium III performance past that of Athlon. And you can buy Rambus-based PCs now, while DDR-based PCs are still months away >> Tench, yes the i840 with 800 mhz rambus is faster on some applications but is slower on some and hardly worth the extra expense. Secondly the 800 mhz is rare and is what people expect but what they normally get is 700 or 600 mhz rambus which is slower than BX with pc-100. So, ultimately the rambus setup is just there to beat athlon on certain specs. Hardly my idea of a great innovation; but if you think fooling people is a great innovation; your undies must really get in a bunch over Intel's vaporware releases. Re..<< You couldn't be more wrong about that. 810 is currently the most popular low-end chipset out there, period.>>>> Surely you jest. The i810 may have more sales, but that doesn't mean it is more popular than BX chipsets. By low-end you should say cheap; cheap sells but popular is another matter. Yes it was, but it was also the first PC processor to feature an on-die L2 cache. (By the way, Milo, what you were talking about was Covington Celeron, which I admit was weak.)>>>>> So you agree that Celeron wasn't an innovation but rather a response to k6-2. It was only after the Covington flopped Intel responded with Mendocino, one of Intel's greatest chips, mainly because of overclockability. But that chips heyday and Intel's is long gone. We were talking about recent innovations, not ancient history. Wrong. SSE was in development long before AMD introduced 3DNow. AMD went the quick-n-dirty route with 3DNow, trying to keep it simple in order to gain a nine month time-to-market advantage over Intel. However, AMD failed to capitalize on that TTM advantage, which is why the robustness of SSE is winning out over 3DNow. You have just given another reason why Intel is losing the patent parade. You say Intel was developing SSE long before AMD started developing 3dnow; and yet AMD beat Intel to market by 9 months. Isn't it possible Intel had to reverse engineer 3DNOW to find out how to do sse. As far as "robustness" being better wouldn't have made any difference if AMD had 97% of high end marketplace. It's Intels monopoly that was the major factor. Re..<<<Wrong. HubLink-based chipsets are cheaper to make and faster than BX. You really ought to stop basing your judgements on Tom's Hardware Guide, a site that thinks an overclocked 440BX chipset is a legitimate system...>>>>> Tench, you are the first person I have heard this from. Sharkeys, Anands Ars and Tom all have lambasted the hub architecture and said stick with BX. Write them a letter. Im sure they will retract their statements and apologize. Secondly the hub architecture ;like celeron grew out of a failure\; Rambus in this case. Wouldn't it be nice if Intel operated ahead of the curve instead of behind? Re..<<<<<<Wrong again. Intel is yielding Coppermines very well, despite the low-volume launches. Volumes are more important to Intel than speed. If notched gates create significant yield problems, Intel would drop them in a heartbeat.>>>>> Tench, I know you work for Intel and have to follow company line; just like Elmer; but give it a rest already. Intel has been feeding us this crap for 6 months now. If yields are so hot, where all these 1 million chips/fab/wk. Elmer was talking about; low or high mhz. As far as "Volumes are more important than speed"; oops you must have forgotten about the 1ghz ; where Anand states Intel changed doping to increase speed but that will reduce yields and temperature. Re....<<< No wonder 50% of the posts on this thread are more anti-Intel than pro-AMD. It's like watching negative campaign ads from politicians.>>>> Yeah sure Tench, name me one person on this thread who is even close to Whinee Peewee Paulie in negativity. My bet is he would win a negativity poll by wide margin.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (100287)	3/27/2000 11:09:00 PM
From: Ali Chen	Respond to of 1576159

<You couldn't be more wrong about that. 810 is currently the most popular low-end chipset out there, period.> Comment: Most popular? Really? Maybe it is popular because nothing else from Inetel does work at all? System of choice in the absence of choice. Have you ever worked on a 810-based machine? This is a piece of crap with crystal clarity! The screen frequently blinks for a fraction of a second during opening/closing windows, text gets screwed/chewed when scrolling in IE... If you personally built i810s, please do not lie about their performance... Or you just have never seen a normal system. <Wrong. HubLink-based chipsets are cheaper to make and faster than BX. You really ought to stop basing your judgements on Tom's Hardware Guide, a site that thinks an overclocked 440BX chipset is a legitimate system.> Comment: Tom does not think anything. He just proved with HARD DATA that the 133/133 BX system solution is FASTER than hublinks/810/820 etc. FASTER hands down, no matter whether is it legitimate or not in your corporate opinion. <Wrong again. Intel is yielding Coppermines very well, despite the low-volume launches. Volumes are more important to Intel than speed. If notched gates create significant yield problems, Intel would drop them in a heartbeat.> Comment: Yeah, this is above anything. Tehch, stop shooting your mutant aliens in your imaginary computer word, go outside to any volume-selling store, and watch for one-two hours what is on the shelves and what people can really get... There is no Piii above 600-650 in stores. I guess demand is way too good that every high-end system is Athlon-800+++. Remeber, few weeks ago we were joking about Intel running out of dumpster capacity... They found the new dumpster - it is called X-box :) And now the Celemines... Good dumpster, but too late - the performance train ran over. <I'd like to thank you guys for responding to my list of Intel innovations> You are very welcome, especially for iAPX432, i740, i860, Itanic, Rambus, and other tremendous successes, and nobody knows now many unborn others... <No wonder 50% of the posts on this thread are more anti-Intel than pro-AMD.> Why it is hard for you to understand that the only obstacle on AMD's road to undisputable success is the Intel with it's bag of money?