A readable explanation to what keeps AMD out of markets--without Intel
skullduggery:

http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.ph...k=view&id=1365

And a nod to forums like this, where the participants just can't
believe that anybody would buy anything other than AMD.

RM

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>A readable explanation to what keeps AMD out of markets--without Intel
> skullduggery:
>
> http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.ph...k=view&id=1365
>
> And a nod to forums like this, where the participants just can't
> believe that anybody would buy anything other than AMD.
>
> RM
>
And if you think that is the truth, I've got some pets.com stock to sell
you. You really think major oems make decisions without Intel
involvement? They would be remiss not to negotiate with Intel.

del cecchi.

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> A readable explanation to what keeps AMD out of markets--without Intel
> skullduggery:
>
> http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.ph...k=view&id=1365
>
> And a nod to forums like this, where the participants just can't
> believe that anybody would buy anything other than AMD.

Congratulations Robert, you've found your soul-mate. Never again will
you be the only Intel apologist on the forums. Now you and Gundeep can
compare notes. :-)

At 17% marketshare of a 200 mn market, it's producing at least 35 mn
processors. On its existing production line, it can supposedly produce
upto 50 mn processors (90nm @ 200mm wafers), if necessary. On its next
production line, that'll likely increase some more (65nm @ 300mm),
probably somewhere in the vicinity of 75-100 mn. Plus, it's production
line is entirely devoted to producing CPUs, nothing else like chipsets.
I don't think it's asking to become the sole supplier of chips for any
one company, so why does it matter to them whether they have the
capacity to supply their entire production line completely? If this was
truly just because of AMD's production capacity then why don't they buy
from AMD as a second source, whenever Intel can't produce enough chips?
That's happened quite often in the past, Intel couldn't produce enough
chips, but the manufacturers still wouldn't go to AMD.

Yousuf Khan

On 7 Jun 2005 14:23:29 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>A readable explanation to what keeps AMD out of markets--without Intel
>skullduggery:
>
>http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.ph...k=view&id=1365
>
>And a nod to forums like this, where the participants just can't
>believe that anybody would buy anything other than AMD.

Hmph - same old FUD... more holes than a sieve.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 20:44:59 -0400, Yousuf Khan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>> A readable explanation to what keeps AMD out of markets--without Intel
>> skullduggery:
>>
>> http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.ph...k=view&id=1365
>>
>> And a nod to forums like this, where the participants just can't
>> believe that anybody would buy anything other than AMD.
>
>Congratulations Robert, you've found your soul-mate. Never again will
>you be the only Intel apologist on the forums. Now you and Gundeep can
>compare notes. :-)
>
>At 17% marketshare of a 200 mn market, it's producing at least 35 mn
>processors. On its existing production line, it can supposedly produce
>upto 50 mn processors (90nm @ 200mm wafers), if necessary. On its next
>production line, that'll likely increase some more (65nm @ 300mm),
>probably somewhere in the vicinity of 75-100 mn. Plus, it's production
>line is entirely devoted to producing CPUs, nothing else like chipsets.
>I don't think it's asking to become the sole supplier of chips for any
>one company, so why does it matter to them whether they have the
>capacity to supply their entire production line completely? If this was
>truly just because of AMD's production capacity then why don't they buy
>from AMD as a second source, whenever Intel can't produce enough chips?
>That's happened quite often in the past, Intel couldn't produce enough
>chips, but the manufacturers still wouldn't go to AMD.
>
> Yousuf Khan


Intel has a lot more to offer then just a CPU, which is about all Apple
would get from AMD. The Intel TV ad jingle alone is worth a few million
units.

Ed

On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 18:52:43 -0500, "Del Cecchi"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>A readable explanation to what keeps AMD out of markets--without Intel
>> skullduggery:
>>
>> http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.ph...k=view&id=1365
>>
>> And a nod to forums like this, where the participants just can't
>> believe that anybody would buy anything other than AMD.
>>
>>
>And if you think that is the truth, I've got some pets.com stock to sell
>you. You really think major oems make decisions without Intel
>involvement? They would be remiss not to negotiate with Intel.
>
I'm not sure what you think I believe. I wouldn't be at all surprised
if Intel expressed its unhappiness to IBM, to HP, and to Sun for their
building servers around AMD chips, and, as you suggest, I'd be amazed
if IBM, HP, and Sun didn't use the fact that they are negotiating with
AMD as leverage with Intel. That's just business.

If you're suggesting further that Intel first sweeps the room for
listening devices and then works out some kind of anticompetitive
arrangement, it could be happening, but, contrary to what some here
believe, it doesn't have to be happening to explain Intel's continuing
market dominance.

It's relatively easy to see why server OEM's are building around AMD
chips. It's relatively easy to see why an OEM targeting game players
would build around AMD chips. For anybody else, it's a much tougher
proposition because AMD just can't provide the one-stop shopping and
the volume that Intel can. And the reason AMD can't do those things
has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with investment
capital.

RM

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 20:44:59 -0400, Yousuf Khan <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>> A readable explanation to what keeps AMD out of markets--without Intel
>> skullduggery:
>>
>> http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.ph...k=view&id=1365
>>
>> And a nod to forums like this, where the participants just can't
>> believe that anybody would buy anything other than AMD.
>
>Congratulations Robert, you've found your soul-mate. Never again will
>you be the only Intel apologist on the forums. Now you and Gundeep can
>compare notes. :-)
>

"The forums"? Does that include comp.sys.intel?

>At 17% marketshare of a 200 mn market, it's producing at least 35 mn
>processors. On its existing production line, it can supposedly produce
>upto 50 mn processors (90nm @ 200mm wafers), if necessary. On its next
>production line, that'll likely increase some more (65nm @ 300mm),
>probably somewhere in the vicinity of 75-100 mn. Plus, it's production
>line is entirely devoted to producing CPUs, nothing else like chipsets.
>I don't think it's asking to become the sole supplier of chips for any
>one company, so why does it matter to them whether they have the
>capacity to supply their entire production line completely? If this was
>truly just because of AMD's production capacity then why don't they buy
>from AMD as a second source, whenever Intel can't produce enough chips?
>That's happened quite often in the past, Intel couldn't produce enough
>chips, but the manufacturers still wouldn't go to AMD.
>
The Apple-Intel deal tells the story, and a post in the comp.arch
thread about the Apple-Intel deal summarizes the problem nicely: one
processor just isn't enough. You need a whole family of processors
and chipsets tweaked to fit into lots of market segments. AMD *still*
doesn't have a presence in the notebook market, AFAIK. AMD was
probably interviewed, they probably said they were working on it, and
Apple said, "Yeah, right."

The benefit of huge volume is that can make all those different tweaks
and flavors. It just didn't make economic sense for IBM to try to
fulfull Apple's wish list. The volume was too small. It might make
sense for AMD to try, but their promises apparently aren't credible.
Intel's promises aren't always credible either, but when Intel fails
to deliver, you're no worse off than everybody else, and Intel will
eventually deliver something.

RM

Ed wrote:
> Intel has a lot more to offer then just a CPU, which is about all Apple
> would get from AMD. The Intel TV ad jingle alone is worth a few million
> units.

Exactly, they offer music too. Might be the deciding factor in choosing
iTunes over someone else, whether they offer the Intel jingle for
download. :-)

Yousuf Khan

"Robert Myers" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 18:52:43 -0500, "Del Cecchi"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>
>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>A readable explanation to what keeps AMD out of markets--without Intel
>>> skullduggery:
>>>
>>> http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.ph...k=view&id=1365
>>>
>>> And a nod to forums like this, where the participants just can't
>>> believe that anybody would buy anything other than AMD.
>>>
>>>
>>And if you think that is the truth, I've got some pets.com stock to
>>sell
>>you. You really think major oems make decisions without Intel
>>involvement? They would be remiss not to negotiate with Intel.
>>
> I'm not sure what you think I believe. I wouldn't be at all surprised
> if Intel expressed its unhappiness to IBM, to HP, and to Sun for their
> building servers around AMD chips, and, as you suggest, I'd be amazed
> if IBM, HP, and Sun didn't use the fact that they are negotiating with
> AMD as leverage with Intel. That's just business.
>
> If you're suggesting further that Intel first sweeps the room for
> listening devices and then works out some kind of anticompetitive
> arrangement, it could be happening, but, contrary to what some here
> believe, it doesn't have to be happening to explain Intel's continuing
> market dominance.
>
> It's relatively easy to see why server OEM's are building around AMD
> chips. It's relatively easy to see why an OEM targeting game players
> would build around AMD chips. For anybody else, it's a much tougher
> proposition because AMD just can't provide the one-stop shopping and
> the volume that Intel can. And the reason AMD can't do those things
> has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with investment
> capital.
>
> RM
I was referring to the thesis of the article at the above link.
>

Robert Myers wrote:
> >Congratulations Robert, you've found your soul-mate. Never again will
> >you be the only Intel apologist on the forums. Now you and Gundeep can
> >compare notes. :-)
> >
>
> "The forums"? Does that include comp.sys.intel?

You'll have to ask Gundeep, he's the one that brought it up. :-)

> The Apple-Intel deal tells the story, and a post in the comp.arch
> thread about the Apple-Intel deal summarizes the problem nicely: one
> processor just isn't enough. You need a whole family of processors
> and chipsets tweaked to fit into lots of market segments. AMD *still*
> doesn't have a presence in the notebook market, AFAIK. AMD was
> probably interviewed, they probably said they were working on it, and
> Apple said, "Yeah, right."

Well, what happens when you offer all of that and still nobody picks up
your product? You just have to look back at AMD's early Opteron
experience. It engineered a complete barebones server platform (through
Newisys), and manufacturers were still balking until their customers
forced them to accept it (IBM, for example was forced to accept it by a
group of its Japanese customers looking to buy a supercomputer). AMD
actually went beyond just offering an accompanying chipset, it offered
the whole platform to manufacturers, all they would have to do is add
hard disks and a logo. Now the ball has gotten going, but it took a
while for it get started rolling.

Well, the Turion platforms are coming out now. By the time Apple is
ready to offer its first x86 machine (in one year), that platform will
already be mature and probably already on its second or third
generation. It's not as if Apple would be manufacturing its own laptops
anyways, those are always done by the Taiwanese laptop houses.

One company in particular comes to mind which is offering AMD64
laptops, which is Acer; Acer produces probably five times as many
systems as Apple, it's now the second or third largest laptop brand in
the world. And it's seen fit to produce Athlon 64, Sempron, and Turion
laptops. Of course, AMD was in a rare power position with respect to
Acer: it sponsors the Ferrari F1 team, and Acer wanted to produce
Ferrari-logo'ed laptops, it's only choice was to do it with AMD
processors. When AMD forces them to try its processors, they usually
tend become loyal. But the fact that AMD has to force these
manufacturers to use its processors is highly suspicious.

>
> The benefit of huge volume is that can make all those different tweaks
> and flavors. It just didn't make economic sense for IBM to try to
> fulfull Apple's wish list. The volume was too small. It might make
> sense for AMD to try, but their promises apparently aren't credible.
> Intel's promises aren't always credible either, but when Intel fails
> to deliver, you're no worse off than everybody else, and Intel will
> eventually deliver something.

As I said, Apple is not even expecting to introduce anything until one
or two years out. AMD's credibility has been a lot more than Intel's in
the past three years. But it's not really the manufacturing or platform
credibility that matters here, it's the advertising credibility. Apple
can now advertise its Macs on TV for cheap.

Yousuf Khan