SI
SI
discoversearch

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: combjelly who wrote (259576)4/7/2009 3:16:48 PM
From: Elmer PhudRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 275872
 
If any OEM had doubts about either of the companies ability to supply chips and fully functional products during that time frame, it would be Intel and not AMD. It had only been a year or two since the 1GHz(or was it 1.11GHz?) PIII and the "botched" transistor debacle.

There never was a "botched" transistor debacle. That's simply a fantasy, it never happened. They did use a notched gate but that was by design.

The 1.13GHz speedpath problem was a very tiny volume of parts. There has never been a time when Intel was unable to deliver volumes of processors that dwarf anything AMD could offer at the time.



To: combjelly who wrote (259576)4/7/2009 3:24:19 PM
From: Mahmoud MohammedRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 275872
 
Mr Combjelly,

Re: "If any OEM had doubts about either of the companies ability to supply chips and
fully functional products during that time frame, it would be Intel and not AMD."

That's conjecture on your part ... According to the AMD lawsuit, paragraph 36, line 4/5 -->

amd.com

" ... AMD remains capacity-constrained ..."

Mahmoud


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News