Rob Stow wrote:
> >>> Or as Sander Sassen, at Hardwareanalysis, puts it: "Cedar Mill, Intel's
> >>> 65-nm Pentium 4, will finally put the Pentium 4 on par with AMD's Athlon
> >>> 64 in terms of performance, power-consumption and heat-production...." :-)

> > Don't you think though that it is also typical of a mindset which has not
> > grasped just how far ahead AMD is right now? We see it all the time here.
> >
>
> You are missing the point: Sassen said *nothing* to indicate
> *his* mindset. One of his two articles regurgitated AMD's press
> releases and the other regurgitated Intel's. Period. Full stop.
> In those two articles the content/opinions from Sassen=NIL.

So you're saying that on AMD's press release, AMD said that Intel's
Cedar Mill will catch upto them finally? Because that above statement
came from the AMD side of the article. If it's just a press release
from AMD, then it's a bad press release.

Also Intel typically does not say these sort of things either. They
typically try to downplay any competitor's products or company in their
own press releases.

Yousuf Khan

YKhan wrote:
> Rob Stow wrote:
>>>>> Or as Sander Sassen, at Hardwareanalysis, puts it: "Cedar Mill, Intel's
>>>>> 65-nm Pentium 4, will finally put the Pentium 4 on par with AMD's Athlon
>>>>> 64 in terms of performance, power-consumption and heat-production...." :-)
>
>>> Don't you think though that it is also typical of a mindset which has not
>>> grasped just how far ahead AMD is right now? We see it all the time here.
>>>
>> You are missing the point: Sassen said *nothing* to indicate
>> *his* mindset. One of his two articles regurgitated AMD's press
>> releases and the other regurgitated Intel's. Period. Full stop.
>> In those two articles the content/opinions from Sassen=NIL.
>
> So you're saying that on AMD's press release, AMD said that Intel's
> Cedar Mill will catch upto them finally?

No, I didn't intend to say that. Instead of saying that one
article is an AMD release and the other an Intel, I should have
said that neither article contains anything that isn't in the
press releases from those two companies.

To put it another way, you will fail if you try to find
something in either article that Sassen got from anyplace other
than Intel or AMD. Neither article has anything about either AMD
or Intel's future chips that is not obviously copied or
paraphrased from the AMD and Intel flacks.


> Because that above statement
> came from the AMD side of the article. If it's just a press release
> from AMD, then it's a bad press release.




>
> Also Intel typically does not say these sort of things either. They
> typically try to downplay any competitor's products or company in their
> own press releases.
>
> Yousuf Khan
>

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:32:40 -0600, Rob Stow <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>George Macdonald wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 07:39:27 -0600, Rob Stow <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> Yousuf Khan wrote:
>>>> Rob Stow wrote:
>>>>> Paxville's abject failure and Intel's recent cancellations have taken a
>>>>> lot of pressure off of AMD. Since AMD now knows that they have a little
>>>>> more time to tweak and debug, perhaps that is all they are doing: using
>>>>> the available time for exactly that.
>>>> Or as Sander Sassen, at Hardwareanalysis, puts it: "Cedar Mill, Intel's
>>>> 65-nm Pentium 4, will finally put the Pentium 4 on par with AMD's Athlon
>>>> 64 in terms of performance, power-consumption and heat-production...." :-)
>>>>
>>>> "Intel's new 65-nm processors"
>>>> http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1820/
>>>>
>>>> "AMD’s new sockets and DDR2 support"
>>>> http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1820.2/
>>>>
>>>> Me thinks there's a just a wee bit of an Intel bias in that boy's articles.
>>>>
>>> All he has to work with are Intel and AMD press releases, so what
>>> I was seeing in those articles is exactly what those two
>>> companies have been saying - nothing more and nothing less.
>>
>> Don't you think though that it is also typical of a mindset which has not
>> grasped just how far ahead AMD is right now? We see it all the time here.
>>
>
>You are missing the point: Sassen said *nothing* to indicate
>*his* mindset. One of his two articles regurgitated AMD's press
>releases and the other regurgitated Intel's. Period. Full stop.
>In those two articles the content/opinions from Sassen=NIL.

Huh? Intel said this: "Cedar Mill, Intel's 65-nm Pentium 4, will finally
put the Pentium 4 on par with AMD's Athlon 64 in terms of performance,
power-consumption and heat-production..." - just "on par"?:-)

As for AMD, the last PR I saw did not have "will not make the transition to
65-nm in 2006"; in fact, IIRC, it stated 65nm some time in 2H2006. The
article certainly suggests to me that the author is indicating that AMD
needs 65nm to stay in the game, which is not at all obvious.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 23:38:17 -0500, Yousuf Khan <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Rob Stow wrote:
>> Paxville's abject failure and Intel's recent cancellations have taken a
>> lot of pressure off of AMD. Since AMD now knows that they have a little
>> more time to tweak and debug, perhaps that is all they are doing: using
>> the available time for exactly that.
>
>Or as Sander Sassen, at Hardwareanalysis, puts it: "Cedar Mill, Intel's
>65-nm Pentium 4, will finally put the Pentium 4 on par with AMD's Athlon
>64 in terms of performance, power-consumption and heat-production...." :-)

From the early samples I've seen, Intel still has a ways to go. Their
65nm P4 chips, while consuming less power than their 90nm
counterparts, will still consume more power than AMD chips. They also
won't change performance by any meaningful amount (the single-core 600
series are identical while the dual-core 900 series double the L2
cache but otherwise are the same). It remains to be seen if 65nm
production allows Intel to crank clock speeds up at all, but if they
can't, AMD should still be comfortably ahead.

That being said, Intel isn't standing still. Their plans for a whole
new architecture, evolved from the Pentium-M line, seem fairly
impressive and are expected before the end of 2006. This is why I
think Intel will have caught up to AMD in 2007 if things keep going as
is.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

Rob Stow wrote:
> No, I didn't intend to say that. Instead of saying that one article is
> an AMD release and the other an Intel, I should have said that neither
> article contains anything that isn't in the press releases from those
> two companies.
>
> To put it another way, you will fail if you try to find something in
> either article that Sassen got from anyplace other than Intel or AMD.
> Neither article has anything about either AMD or Intel's future chips
> that is not obviously copied or paraphrased from the AMD and Intel flacks.

Well, that can be said about just about any announcement article out
there. However, this article came not from his news announcements pile,
but from his editorial section. And in editorials, it's all of the
little flourishes and spins that they add that indicate their
preferences. Among the editorial conclusions that he makes, besides that
Cedar Mill will finally catch upto AMD, he also makes the conclusion
that only Pentium M is worth having in a laptop and that AMD has nothing
worthy to compete against that, despite the fact that AMD has already
said that they experienced 72% growth rates in the amount of laptop
chips they sold.

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 01:17:46 -0500, Yousuf Khan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Rob Stow wrote:
>> No, I didn't intend to say that. Instead of saying that one article is
>> an AMD release and the other an Intel, I should have said that neither
>> article contains anything that isn't in the press releases from those
>> two companies.
>>
>> To put it another way, you will fail if you try to find something in
>> either article that Sassen got from anyplace other than Intel or AMD.
>> Neither article has anything about either AMD or Intel's future chips
>> that is not obviously copied or paraphrased from the AMD and Intel flacks.
>
>Well, that can be said about just about any announcement article out
>there. However, this article came not from his news announcements pile,
>but from his editorial section. And in editorials, it's all of the
>little flourishes and spins that they add that indicate their
>preferences. Among the editorial conclusions that he makes, besides that
>Cedar Mill will finally catch upto AMD, he also makes the conclusion
>that only Pentium M is worth having in a laptop and that AMD has nothing
>worthy to compete against that, despite the fact that AMD has already
>said that they experienced 72% growth rates in the amount of laptop
>chips they sold.

Possibly the Cedar Mill comment is based on:
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2005...tium_4-02.html
- a grrrreat umm, source?:-)

--
Rgds, George Macdonald