Strike three for Intel

TalkBack 15 of 52:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

How soon you youngsters forget, or (more likely) never learn.

Intel has led the industry for 30 years.
Intel has been around for more than 40 years, I'll agree. It was only after they hooked up with IBM that they become the CPU leader.

AMD has been competing the the now 5 year old, tired netburst architecure.
True enough, as far as it goes. The Pentium-M architecture is (drumroll please) - an extension of the Pentium III architecture adapted for the portable market. A little research will show you that a P3 was/is faster than a P4 at any given clock speed. Thank heavens for Intel that they kept the P3 and its descendants around for the portable market - it's the only thing that Intel has in its favor right now.

Hate to say that AMD's advantages are 95% beating netburst and about 2% for the mem controller - and that is only for jumpy code like games. They have done a great job of hyping that as well as HT.
I'd like to see your sources for that 2% number, otherwise, your argument is as specious as saying that 93.6% of all statistics are made up on the spot. Links will suffice. As far as HT goes, that's Intel's, and not AMD's bag, baby.

Basically, AMD won retail - about what 10% of the market?
More like 14-16% depending on the specific submarket. That's with Intel's abuse of their monopoly power. If it weren't for the fact that the majority of home users that built their own machines did so with AMD, you'd be running a $700 1.3 GHz Prescott, and extolling its virtues as the fastest processor available.

I actually thank Intel and Microsoft for creating the industry. Without them, we will be using punch cards on IBM mainframes. AMD? They basically have been like how a remora attaches itself to a shark. The one to thank is not AMD, it's IBM - for forcing Intel to second source the X86 product line!

Actually, the market was created by IBM and IBM alone. That, and the fact that IBM used COTS components to make their PCs, which allowed others to copy them. The only reason for Intel's involvement was that IBM liked Intel's 8086/8088 processors better than the Zilog Z-80 microprocessor. The only reason for MS's presence other than a programming language was that Gary Kildall, the inventor of CP/M and the BIOS blew off IBM's representatives back in 1982.

The only reason that Intel has any 64-bit chips other than the Itanic is that their licensing agreement with AMD allowed them to copy AMD's 64-bit extensions for x86. If it were not for that, Intel would still be developing x86-64 to catch up, and releasing sometime in 2007. Incidentally, the only reason Intel developed Itanic was because their licensing agreement with AMD would have forced AMD to reverse-engineer the thing. Fortunately for all of us, software developers including MS, failed to drink deeply from the Itanic Kool-Aid trough.

Posted by: Letophoro   Posted on: 03/03/06 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

• Five Steps to Determine When to Virtualize YourServers VMware Server virtualization isn't just for big companies. Entry-level ... Download Now
• Virtualization: Architectural Considerations And Other Evaluation Criteria VMware Of the many approaches to x86 systems virtualization available in the ... Download Now
• VMware Infrastructure: A Guide to Bottom-Line Benefits VMware Frustrated by the costs of maintain ever larger data centers?or building ... Download Now