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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (47360)	1/26/1999 2:35:00 AM
From: Petz	Respond to of 1571614

Tench, >>>At the very worst (sic), there is an eighteen-month window of opportunity for AMD to exploit<<< 18 months is an eternity in this business, enough time to double its penetration from 15% to 30%. >>>There is no way that either Intel or AMD will deploy their seventh-generation processors across all market segment<<< Agree with you completely! Market segmentation is exactly what AMD need to double its market share (again). Petz

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (47360)	1/26/1999 5:18:00 PM
From: Cirruslvr	Respond to of 1571614

Tench - RE: "By the way, I'll be e-mailing Linley Gwennap a revised copy of my rant just to see what he has to say in response." I was going to suggest you do that, but seems like you already did. Let us know what he says. It should be interesting. RE: "Perhaps Mr. Gwennap is assuming that Intel can't do any better than a K7-look-alike for Willamette." As I have said, IF the K7 is all that it is cracked up to be, it should outperform any Intel chip. If the if becomes a reality, and IF the K7 gets pumped out in volume by Q4 '99/Q1 '00, will Intel have anything to position against it? They will have a Coppermine for desktops, and whatever the server version of the Xeon with on-chip cache and KNI is. Is there anything else Intel has announced on their roadmap? RE: "At the very worst, there is an eighteen-month window of opportunity for AMD to exploit. That window will only grow smaller, especially if AMD fails to execute as before." I think the K6 was announced in March/April '97. The K6 didn't hit close to volume production until the end of '97/beginning of '98. That means there were quite a few months of nothing. 18 months after the K6 came out was September/October '98. AMD had quite a bit of production between the time volume production was achieved and the 18 month mark after the K6 came out. If AMD ends up following the same schedule, and I hope they don't, they will still have the K7 out in volume production at least half a year ahead of Willamette. Of course, if Intel ends having a chip that can compete with the K7 before Willamette that I don't know of, AMD better have a ramp up close to the K6-2's ramp up. RE: "I don't forsee AMD replacing their K6-2 (or K6-3) with the K7 in the low-end in the next two years" I would assume that there will be a low-end version of the K7, at least on the .18 process. I doubt AMD will wanna put 600MHz L2 cache on a low-end K6-3 in '00. RE: "But I am saying that Linley Gwennap is way off-the-mark with his latest article." I am surprised that a guy who writes for the Microprocessor Report wrote such a harsh article. Don't they get all the info they describe/write about and sell from Intel themselves? Again, maybe this guy knows something about the K7's performance that we don't know...