Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:50:06 02/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 15, 2000 at 13:50:22, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On February 15, 2000 at 09:46:41, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>Tom, read my lips carefully. AMD is _not_ considered a serious competitor for >>Intel chips. Look at the volume. Look at the demand. Like it or not, the > >If you said this a few months ago, I would have agreed. > >Athlons were easy to get back then, but getting an Athlon motherboard was almost >impossible. (Intel was using its leverage with Taiwanese mobo vendors to keep >them from making Athlon mobos.) The situation since then has improved >dramatically, even though Intel is using bullying tactics to keep VIA from >selling their Athlon chipset. > I wouldn't disagree at all. Intel and Microsoft are both _very_ heavy- handed in this industry. IBM did the same in the 60's and 70's. I can tell you wild stories about what happened when I recommended that our university buy a machine from a company called "Xerox" rather than IBM in 1972. It was incredible, with people flying into town, out of town, phone calls, etc. However, Intel chips do work. AMD chips sometimes work. They make their share of mistakes (PII-compatible when they are most definitely not, for example). However, nowadays, Intel has the brand name recognition. They choose (years ago) to start the "Intel Inside" advertising game. And it seems to have worked. Yes we could say they are very heavy-handed. However, they have pretty well had their way with this. >I think that comparing Athlon market share to PIII market share right now is >inappropriate. Gateway has been selling PIIIs forever, but only started selling >Athlons a few (2?) weeks ago. Check Gateway's web site. Their 850MHz Athlon is >almost $1000 cheaper than their 800MHz PIII, and it has almost exactly the same >"extras." I'm sure consumers won't ignore this. The profit comes from businesses and repeat customers. I notice that hardly any major corporations use AMD processors in their office machines. Which makes a difference. IE the Dell folks said that in corporate america, AMD doesn't sell, while to "Johnny Appleseed with a limited budget" AMD/Cyrix/etc have done ok. > >Hopefully the Willamette (demonstrated today) will be much better than the >Athlon. But we'll have to wait a while to see, and I'm not holding my breath. > >Personally, I like the idea of using a chip designed by the same people >responsible for the 21264 and the PA8000... (ie, the Athlon) > >-Tom > I do too. The 21264 is arguably the best there is right now. >BTW, Bob, I don't appreciate the snide little phrases that preface your posts. >Like "Tom, please." and "Tom, read my lips carefully." Do you really need to >make condescension part of your debate strategy? Hmmmm.... Wasn't intending it to be condescending... only a way of emphasizing a point that is easy to miss. Sorry...
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.