Originally Posted by ezfeeling
Few comments on Karl's post.....
1) AMD did design their own chipsets (once, when Athlon just came out). But if other inventers can do a better job, why not let them? AMD doesn't have strong financial backing like Intel does. So by concentrating all on resource on CPU they would have more chance of coming out ahead. That's why we have kick ass CPU right now and quality motherboard to play around w/ on the AMD front.
No one should be better at making a chipset for an AMD processor than AMD.
|2) AMD was losing money for every K6 chip sold if u didn't know. Athlon on the other hand was the first chip to reach 1G. If you had been reading up on back during those exciting times. Intel was forced to play speed war w/ AMD and start "paper release" the chips. and one of the chip had stabilibity problem coming right off the door, and had to be reprogrammed @ chip level to make things stable. What does this all mean? have you heard of overclocking? Intel was overclocking their own chip and put some restriction so stability can be obtained.
Not sure where this is coming from. The way microprocessor fabrication works is simply by speed-binning parts. a P4 3.4C is the same as a P4 3.2C - only with refinements made to the FABRICATION process to make a higher quality chip that operates at a faster speed regardless of a bump in voltage. The whole "speed war" meant nothing to Intel. They still outsold AMD 4 to 1, or more. I'm not sure what "restriction" you're talking about, since it likely has nothing to do with semiconductor fabrication.
I'm not sure where you're getting your info on the K6 either. AMD was profitable throughout the K6's lifespan, all the way through the K6-3. Problems didn't start until they started fabbing the Athlon. The Athlon and Opteron/AMD64 are **EXPENSIVE CHIPS TO PRODUCE**. They are MORE expensive to bring to market than the P4. A great deal for the consumer? You betcha. Will it help AMD survive? No friggin way.
|3) No matter what you say. Comparing P4 and P3 @ the same clock speed would result in P3's dominance. Wait a min, isn't P4 suppose to be the "next gen" for Intel? P4's only designed so that they can operate @ higher clock speed. Same thing is happeing right now, w/ Prescott and Northwood. To run @ higher clockspeed usually requires more power. PPL complain that Prescott runns hotter then hell while not offering any adventage better then that of Northwood. Now let's see what ppl says when Prescott is released @ higher speed then u can hope for w/ Northwood. Seeing the fomula yet? Too many customer judge preformace based on CPU Speed instead of basic performance. And intel is using this blind spot against them. PR PR PR PR. Now it's easier to see why AMD's chip matches and even outperform Intel @ lower speed setting. They concentrate on bringing quality chips, well, at least much better then what intel offers.
With every new product, you have a product ramp. The pattern for Intel is the same: When a new family of processors is released, they don't perform clock-for-clock with its predecessor, but they can scale FAR further. If you don't understand what "scalability" means to a processor family, then this will be lost on you - but you cannot scale any given processor indefinitely. There are thermal and voltage limits to EVERY semiconductor design.
No one has EVER designed a semiconductor that can scale indefinitely. This is why "Moore's Law" is starting to become less and less relevant. The amount of transistors on a die may increase two fold every 18 months. But so is power consumption, and thermal generation. Moore's law does NOT take these diminishing factors into account.
|4) What was I gonna say? Oh yeah, I do own an Intel and stop bashing me for standing on AMD's side lol Pardon the English, if you can't understand it, it's part of intel's fault.
Oh, you can stand on AMD's side all you want. It won't help them
AMD has to turn a consistent profit, and in order to do that, they have to sell their chips at ABOVE manufacturing cost.
A semiconductor engineer can easily make a chip faster than another. Intel could EASILY make a processor that would blow away anything else in the consumer CPU market - but how much would it COST?
The problem is selling it at MASS MARKET PRICES.
AMD is not doing that. I completely respect the CPU's they make. On the right chipset, they DO run faster than a comparable Intel. I would never deny that. But the fact that they are doing it at THEIR OWN EXPENSE means that they can't do it forever. Again, refer to their financials. They are losing money on EVERY processor they sell, and they simply don't have the volume Intel has.
AMD cannot continue to firesale their chips to "Benefit Consumers" indefinitely. Eventually, AMD will run out of money selling more expensive chips just to undercut intel and "stay in the game". It's not the nature of technology that's the problem here. It's the nature of BUSINESS.
I'll sum it up like this.
-AMD pays Intel for an x86 license. They have to. Without Intel, AMD has no market. Don't ever plan on Intel going away
-I don't consider AMD's platform complete until they take ownership of the entire thing. They clearly abandoned owning their own platform when they abandoned making chipsets. This means integrators like Dell have to go further than AMD to procure components. This is why so many large integrators stay away from AMD or keep them in "low volume" segments. It's a HASSLE to deal with multiple vendors - some of which (VIA) having less than optimal solutions.
-AMD makes a great chip - but it's an EXPENSIVE chip. With every CPU you buy, AMD loses money. Your wallet might like that, but I think it's 100% stupid. The trend CAN'T last forever, and eventually real people will lose their jobs. I can't contribute to that kind of corporate stupidity. If AMD wants to truly innovate, they need to beat intel technically AND financially. Every time I say that, people always say the same thing. "That will eventually happen".
Well, it's been like 10 years now, and it hasn't happened, and shows NO SIGN of happening.