Which would you rather see suceed?

The Hammer architecture or the IA-64 architecture?

Assuming that AMD has no other secret chip that is completely compatible with IA-64, the release of the two mainstream chips will be a defining moment for AMD.

Intel already has the Prescott ready go, so this appears to be no biggie if they lose support for thier 64-bit architecture. Not that it would happen with so many industry ties, but they're set. Intel isn't going anywhere.

Putting all normal considerations aside like price, cheering for the underdog, and anything else, which do you hope to see take the stronger hold in the market?

AMD is still clinging to x86 with the Hammer line, not something I like simply for the fact that I belive x86 has lived its term and now its time has come to be replaced. Intel has dumped the old and gone for something new while phasing out x86. I like that.

Someone has to win, and if I understand all this correctly, in few years if everyone sticks to their roadmaps there will be three instruction sets to code for instead of two. Apple, Intel, and AMD.

I'm proably a little off on some things stated above, like the processors will be sold for different markets, because I haven't read a complete writeup on the two for a few months now. Please feel free to restate the question in your own way in your answer. I'm more concerened with how you feel about the splitting of instruction sets.

So what is it? My vote goes to Intel just for the reasons stated above.

I would like the Hammer to be more successful because then it would force Intel to lower the price on their CPU's. If they can steadily do that and keep that way.. I might be an Intel Pentium fan again. I'm a solid AMD/ Intel Celeron fan at the moment..

Come on Intel, you have to kill AMD already. And charge us a fortune for your processors and get sued for having a monopoly. :D

I dont think AMD has the marketshare to be setting industry standards. It's one thng to try to beat the other guy at his own game that you've had time to watch and studdy, but trying to come up with your own game and the rules to go with it, while at the same time developing products to compete is a little more difficult.

I hope that hammer does well to help increase competition and maybe to make intel rethink charging 600+ for a cpu.

I want whatever one will perform the best in the long run to win.

Obviously AMD, since they're the smaller company and will force Intel to push their prices down if they're competitive enough.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mandorallen of Molynnr
Obviously AMD, since they're the smaller company and will force Intel to push their prices down if they're competitive enough.

---

Amen to that.

Plus, as someone reminded us in another post, we don't want INTEL to be charged with "Monopoly Syndrome". No way.

Plus, as in the Bible, David is worth our support.

Although I don't really like the idea of extending the x84's life a little bit further I also dislike the idea of having IA-64 dominating the 64 bit scenario.

Chronus

I want Intel to suceed. I've been a big fan of them and I always will be a fan of Intel. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Chronus


Amen to that.

Plus, as someone reminded us in another post, we don't want INTEL to be charged with "Monopoly Syndrome". No way.

Plus, as in the Bible, David is worth our support.

Although I don't really like the idea of extending the x84's life a little bit further I also dislike the idea of having IA-64 dominating the 64 bit scenario.

Chronus

---

I think any cost-conscious buyer will want the Hammer to succeed whether they favour Intel or AMD. If I'm allowed to hazard a guess, the success of the Hammer might give AMD another 20% of the market, making the competition between Intel and AMD extreme which translates to extremely low prices for us! :D :p :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AMD_Man


I think any cost-conscious buyer will want the Hammer to succeed whether they favour Intel or AMD. If I'm allowed to hazard a guess, the success of the Hammer might give AMD another 20% of the market, making the competition between Intel and AMD extreme which translates to extremely low prices for us! :D :p :D

---

Amen to that too! :D

In Japan, for instance, AMD has managed to capture a whopping 45 to 50 % share of the market (CNBC news of last January).

Worldwide, it's (according to analysts, forget AMD's conservative 20 %market share) in the range of 25 to 30 %.

It really would be fantastic to see and to KNOW AMD getting almost 40/45% of the market.

Barton will give people something to think about.
But Hammer, will convince people to buy AMD more and more.
Plus, the new chipsets are coming.

Already we see INTEL doing the unthinkable (can anyone imagine INTEL shareholders banging their hands against the walls): reducing the prices, they now have P4s at 2.2 and 2.26 at little over 241 dollars/euros.

Chronus

Quote:

---

Originally posted by macutty
I dont think AMD has the marketshare to be setting industry standards. It's one thng to try to beat the other guy at his own game that you've had time to watch and studdy, but trying to come up with your own game and the rules to go with it, while at the same time developing products to compete is a little more difficult.

---

very well said

Well I personally think.. you can buy whichever you want but unless you work for intel, you're stupid if you want just 1 company (Intel in this case) to succeed and have a monopoly. Usually you want competition so you get lower prices.

But obviously most people don't think of it this way. Hell how many people have even tried AMD/ Linux here? Don't get me started. :p

I welcome competition because that brings good things to us users fast. Also If you really ask yourself if you would like a CPU for $140 or the same CPU for $70 because of competition, I think those with any sense would say $70. Therefore I would like AMD to succeed so that Intel feels the heat and must keep on its toes to try and stay better.

Don't forget.. what happened to Cyrix. And if AMD wasn't around, you'd be paying $1200 for an Intel CPU now, and it'd be clocked at 1.0ghz, not at this 2.53ghz which it has now because it feels competition from AMD.

I think your straying a bit from the actual question. Which architecture do you want to see suceed for purely technology and innovation based reasons.

Besides, everyone already knows everone else's opinion on which manufacturer they like based on exactly as I said not to base your answer on.

Quote:

---

Putting all normal considerations aside like price, cheering for the underdog, and anything else, which do you hope to see take the stronger hold in the market?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zackbass
I think your straying a bit from the actual question. Which architecture do you want to see suceed for purely technology and innovation based reasons.

Besides, everyone already knows everone else's opinion on which manufacturer they like based on exactly as I said not to base your answer on.

---

Well architecture comes from different companies.. so I have to favor the company with the architecture I like. ;)