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: hmaly who wrote (119439)	7/6/2000 12:20:11 PM
From: Bert Herman	Respond to of 1579033

Harry, Re.: Intel and chipset business. I remember the introduction of the pentium and what a mess it was with all those chipsets unable to manage the new PCI-bus. It was that time Intel entered the chipset and MB business and in no time took over that market, just plain simple because they were the only ones with reliable MB at that moment. I think they were surprised themselves by the success of it. And I still believe they originally viewed it only as a support product for the processors. It took competitors several years to come back with decent products and take some share back from Intel. I don't think they make much money with it now, but with Willy, they can do this all over again. And this time, not by surprise, but very well planned. Bert

To: hmaly who wrote (119439)	7/6/2000 1:49:53 PM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579033

Re: "EP; if that is the reason Intel entered the chipset business, Intel is failing dismally with their i8** series failures. Personally, I believe Intel is controlling the chipsets for the same reason Intel is always changing busses etc; which is to keep control of market and not let competitors get a hold. Via already has 50 - 60 percent of PIII chipset market so why try to control what you obviously lost control of. Willy chipsets will be another story, and I believe Intel will once again use chipsets to close off the competition by limiting licenseing as opposed to AMD which clearly is asking every chipset man. to produce a chipset. Time will tell but historically, open standards have overwhelmed closed standards." Perhaps you missed my post where I said Intel dominated the Chipset business until the RamBus disaster. The reason Intel changes busses, which they haven't done for about 5 years despite your claim they are "always" doing it, is to advance technology. AMD did the same thing when they went to the supposedly "superior" EV6 architecture. I don't remember you complaining then AMD did this. Do you think they should have stayed with the old socket7? BTW it's amusing to note that the "superion" EV6 has yet to yield a single dual processor Athlon system while Intel's "inferior" P6 bus is merrily supporting vast numbers of SMP systems. So good does it work and so seemlessly for the designer that it's far and away the world's price/performance leader while AMD's superior architecture is still MIA a year after the Athlon introduction. Intel licenses this architecture to other chipset vendors so your claim that it is a closed system is not correct. EP EP