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: Tony Viola who wrote (44559)	1/1/1999 10:54:00 PM
From: Maxwell	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1572158

Tony Viola: <<Can you substitute CPU chips in for Xeons? Doesn't matter, even if AMD were to pull off the big upset, it doesn't mean the boys that make servers would go with AMD. Remember who has the infrastructure support, best FIT rates, RAS, yields and availability of large quantities of chips practically guaranteed. In the case of servers, these are much more important than a little more speed. Ask IBM, Compaq, Dell, HP, anyone. This isn't about overclocking chips or some 16 year old's benchmarks. The server boys have their own benchmarks.>> To be able to sell servers to IBM or CPQ it must pass IBM's and CPQ's internal proprietary benchmarks not some garbage Winstone benchmark. IBM and CPQ will know which system is better. K7 will outrank Xeons. Who is talking on overclocking? The K7 is all raw speed. If AMD can pull off the biggest upset then my AMD investment will have met its objective. Maxwell

To: Tony Viola who wrote (44559)	1/2/1999 1:07:00 PM
From: Ali Chen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572158

Tony, your repetitive arguments are mostly nonsense. <Remember who has the infrastructure support, best FIT rates, RAS, yields and availability of large quantities of chips practically guaranteed.> A server manufacturers make a product - servers. How the heck your "yield and availability of large quantities" may affect the choice of CPU? Do you know how good or bad are yields for 21164, or MIPS, or PA-8200? How large their quantities are? Does it prevent server makers from successfully using these CPUs? As soon as a CPU manufacturer guarantees parameters and availability, who cares? In theory it is better to have a second source, but you know what happened to this institution when Intel announced monopoly... And why would "large quantities" be a factor in the server market, where a SINGLE machine supposed to serve many clients? Unless you want to built a 4-way Xeon into every light bulb to control the dimmer... If you mean under "availability" the continuous supply of certain CPUs for which the service infrasrtucture has been established and is profitable (for a server maker of course), juggling with processor's lines (as Intel does) is also not a good argument for you. Compare: Socket8 PentiumPro -> Slot1/PII -> Slo2/Xeon... <infrastructure support> - I am not really sure you understand what you are talking about. If you mean the passive hardware, then the K7 was specifically designed to reuse all it - connectors, brackets, thermal plates, retainers, heat sinks, etc. If you are talking about chipsets, I don't think the recent stories with 4way-NX-Xeon combo are very supportive for your argument. In any case for a state-of-the-art server people used to have proprietary solutions for SMP on x86 processors. After all, Maxwell was talking primarily about uniprocessor machines on K7 vs Xeon. You must be so afraid of K7 to penetrate your lucrative server market that you are responding to you own fears! And in a way pleasurable for you... As far as I know, AMD did not explicitly announced their intent to go after server market...yet:)