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.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: justaview who wrote (220459)	12/14/2006 2:19:30 PM
From: fastpathguru	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Had Intel stared Microsoft down with an incompatible implementation of x86-64, AMD would have been out of business by now. Coulda, woulda, shoulda... You assume Intel dictates to M$? Evidently, they don't. An alternative outcome is that Intel's incompatible extensions would fail to catch on, and they'd wind up copying AMD anyways after loosing much face and money. Again, evidently, a risk they weren't willing to take. fpg

To: justaview who wrote (220459)	12/14/2006 2:36:46 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

The most overlooked factor in AMD's success was Intel's caving in to Microsoft and cloning AMD64. This created a powerful momentum for AMD. Had Intel stared Microsoft down with an incompatible implementation of x86-64, AMD would have been out of business by now. After Itanium fiasco, Intel's negotiating leverage vs. MSFT was about zero. Joe

To: justaview who wrote (220459)	12/14/2006 2:39:29 PM
From: bobs10	Respond to of 275872

you: Had Intel stared Microsoft down with an incompatible implementation of x86-64, AMD would have been out of business by now. But that was a one shot deal -- like winning the lottery. It’s a new game now. The AMD management are either dreaming or in denial. me: You guys really do live in dimension X don't you. INTC got MSFT to back Itanium and look at what it got MSFT. Meanwhile AMD comes along and says hey MSFT we've got this really neat way of evolving from 32 bit to 64 bit X86 without all the hassels of Itanium. At the time INTC had no 64b X86, they had to copy AMD64 remember? So if MSFT was to move X86 to 64 bit they really had no option but AMD64. Incidentally at the time it was becoming all too obvious that 64 bit processing would be soon needed as the 4mb addressing limitation of 32b was going to be a severe limitation going forward. If anyone is in denial it's the INTC fans that pollute this board with their redefinitions of history.

To: justaview who wrote (220459)	12/14/2006 3:20:07 PM
From: pgerassi	Respond to of 275872

Dear Justaview: How wrong can you be. The performance disparity is back where it was in P3/K6 days. K6 to P3 disparity is quite a bit larger than K8 versus C2D. K6/3 had integer slightly over P3 where P3 had FP big over K6/3. When K7 came out Intel was behind and stayed there until C2D and even with C2D, K8 wins in FP and 4 and up way, even at 2P server and loses to C2D in integer at 1 way. This of course pre K8L. Against K8L, C2D loses in most places. The most overlooked factor in AMD's success was Intel's caving in to Microsoft and cloning AMD64. This created a powerful momentum for AMD. Had Intel stared Microsoft down with an incompatible implementation of x86-64, AMD would have been out of business by now. Intel had a incompatable 64 bit implementation, IA-64. Microsoft made a version of Windows for Itanium and IA-64. It went nowhere. So Intel couldn't stare down Microsoft. AMD64 was too easy a transition for OS people and programmers. AMD listened to developers, OS people and customers in extending x86 into AMD64. It became the no brainer to use. With compatability mode allowing 64 bit OS to run x86 compiled legacy 32 bit code, it just didn't make sense to support a half hearted two bit incompatible 64 bit code Intel version. And Microsoft didn't want to support three 64 bit versions. They really wanted one version. And they had it already, AMD64. But that was a one shot deal -- like winning the lottery. Intel had too many of these. AMD's DDR versus Intel RDRAM. AMD won and Intel had to backtrack to SDRAM and then to DDR. AMD's rDDR2 versus Intel FB-DIMM. AMD won and Intel is backtracking to rDDR2. AMD with short pipeline high IPC versus Intel very long pipeline low IPC high clock. AMD won and Intel had to backtrack to P3 and then to C2D. AMD DCA and ODMC versus Intel FSB and external MC. AMD won and Intel has yet to get CSI to work so it can ODMC. CSI slipped again to 2009 from 2007. Sorry, it wasn't a one shot deal. 5 shots and still counting. t’s a new game now. The AMD management are either dreaming or in denial. The only one in denial or dreaming is you and to a lesser degree, Intel management. Intel management is learning that there are some things that money can't buy. And others that could be bought with money, may use too much of a shrinking money pile. They found some low hanging fruit in the reorganization savings tree. But some of that was marginal. Some other low hanging fruit is there. But it is mostly marginal. The big fruits are on the bigger branches of ego, Itanium, middle management, copy exactly (following AMD to something like APM), capacity reductions (closing fabs) and sharing process R&D (like everyone else). Each of them is bruising to Intel's ego, but it has to be done to lower Intel's breakeven point. They could avoid this, if they would give up on the Monopoly Mentality, raise prices and sun themselves on Duopoly Beach. Some of the above would still need to be done, but they could use the resultant big profits to cover those moves. Pete