AMD surpasses Intel in U.S. retail stores

TalkBack 29 of 55:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

You need to think more carefully.

``That is not actually how I seem to understand the situation. I do believe Intel attempted to break away from x86 but AMD produced a 64bit x86 which stalled Intel's attempts and forced it to backtrack.''

Intel / HP were touting the IA64 since 1996, that would take the processor h/w by storm and revolutionalize non-RISC 64-bit computing, etc.

Intel/HP HAD all the resources to pull this off. After their lackluster performance of Itanium-1 and their LONG delays they started PANICKING.

In the mean time puny AMD needed to SURVIVE the heavy Intel's weights. They speculated that a 64-bit version that WILL NOT break 32-bit app compatibility is their ONLY way to pursue a better market share standing. Their 32 bit procs were already better than similar of Intel's and their 64-bit extension was apparently the right one. That is given the legacy 32-bit x86 code out there.

For AMD it was "make a better x86 and compete with Intel or move to the microcontroller space"

Intel/HP DO NOT have this excuse though. They MISSED the OBVIOUS: they DID NOT HAVE A SMOOTH transition path from IA32 to IA64: ALL apps would have to be recompiled and as a matter of fact MOST REWRITTEN to follow the LP64 size model of IA64. This is a NON-trivial undertaking on the part of app developers. Also, Intel did NOT provide until recently SUFFICIENT s/w tools to AID s/w develpers to easily transition 32-bit source targetting IA32 to 64-bit aware/ready source code. This is really UNWISE on Intel's part.

It is as if there were TWO conflicting forces within Intel. AMD showed the MISSING LINK to a 64-bit ABI that did not require a rewrite of source. At that moment, since Intel had done an extremely POOR job at pushing developemtn tools fortheir IA64, Intel decided to leave the LENGTHY path to IA64 development and return to try to catch up with AMD's ways....

This is pathetic, as Intel/HP HAVE ALL the resources and know-how to pull off a NEW ISA and processor that will have NONE of the contortioned intricacies of x86 AND they could make the transition path to it SMOOTH.

Is it AMD's fault to take the only move it could at the time to survive? This is unfair to claim.

So yes, AMD filled in the GAPs that Intel left behind and Intel DID NOT PERSISTENTLY pursued their IA64 implementations. In the meantime s/w and h/w developers "smelled" Intels panick and irresolution on this so they held back.

I know of HP and SGI as the only serious adopters of IA64.

Summary: I causticized Intel for its lack of determination to move to the next gen of proc. architecture. I cannot blame AMD for doing Intel's work much better than Intel and survive.

--m

Posted by: michael_t   Posted on: 11/08/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Why Isn't Server Virtualization Saving Us More? A Few Small Changes May Dramatically Increase Your Efficiency VMware Companies have rapidly adopted server virtualization over the past few ... Download Now
• The Impact of Virtualization Software on Operating Environments VMware Today's use of virtualization technology allows IT professionals to ... Download Now
• Building the Virtualized Enterprise with VMware Infrastructure VMware VMware virtualization software has been adopted by over 120,000 enterprise ... Download Now