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: Elmer who wrote (119468)	7/6/2000 4:32:49 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579261

Elmer Re..<<<<<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. <<<<<<p><br> Elmer, of course Intel says they are doing this to advance technology; Intel said when P6 came out it would improve the Internet experience; (remember that fib Elmer) and Intel promised us Rambus would be a superior experience (EVEN YOU ARE CALLING THIS A FIASCO) and used crooked benchmarks as noted by Demond of RWT in Jan, and denounced by Tom Pabst in his benchmarks. Any time Intel says "this is good for you; believe me" one should take that as a contrarian indicator because it usually is good for Intels bottom line first and foremost.</p><br> <<<<Intel licenses this architecture to other chipset vendors so your claim that it is a closed system is not correct. <<<<<<<<<p><br> So; Apple licenses and their system is considered closed. Ibm licensed their micro channel and that was considered closed. There are different degrees of closed just as there are different degrees of full; and different degrees of loud. Simply put, AMD IS MORE OPEN THAN iNTEL, and the more openess you have, the more likely you are of success. <<<<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. <<<<<<<p><br> That's it, the only criteria for evaluating whether a bus is superior is if it can support smp. What about bus speeds and point to point connections and the ability to upgrade to 400 mhz . Aren't these things just as important, or even more important than SMP. If GTL is so good, why did Intel abandon it for Willy? Smp is coming for Athlon as smp chipsets (760) have already been demoed. Just don't get your undies in a bunch.<br> <<<< 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. <<<<<<p><br> I would assume that is why Intel has been able to just sell 8% of 1ghz and 30% of systems over 900 ghz. The EV_6 bus has been shipping since Sept. of 99; the fact that you refuse to acknowledge it is immaterial. That's your problem, not AMD's. Secondly all of the price/ performance comparisons say that (Anand's, Sharkeys, Tom's Hardware)say that the Duron is the price/performance leader in low cost x-86 segment, and Tbird is the price performance leader in high-end x-86 cpu market. So what the **ll are you babbling about? In most market segments where AMD and Intel compete, Amd is the price/performance leader. If Intel servers beat Sun on price/performance, go to sun board and start whining there.