I'm sick and tired of people saying...

that AMD is going to go out of business. Intel was in the exact same situation 2 years ago ( maybe even worse). Think back to late 2000:

AMD had just introduced the 266MHz FSB and DDR (the AMD760 chipset)! Intel had recently cancelled mass production of the P3 1.13GHz after finding an instability issue. The 1.2GHz Athlon with DDR was killing the P3 1GHz. The Pentium4 was delayed. A while later, Intel introduced the Pentium 4 1.4GHz and 1.5GHz with RDRAM. RDRAM was still extremely expensive back then. To entice people to buy P4s, Intel included the RAM with the processor. However, the 1.2GHz Athlon was still outperforming the 1.5GHz P4 in many apps. It cost half as much and upgrading the RAM would've been a lot cheaper. At that time, no one in their right mind would buy a 1.5GHz P4 with RDRAM over a 1.2GHz Athlon.

Today, AMD is having trouble increasing the core speed of their processors (the same problem Intel was having with the Pentium 3 on the 0.18u coppermine core). A while ago, AMD released the TBred but it still underperformed Intel's latest (just as the 1.5GHz P4 was below the performance of the 1.2GHz Athlon). The original Pentium 4 didn't overclock too well, just as the TBred doesn't.

As you can see, history is merely repeating itself only in Intel's favour this time. If history continues repeating itself, the Hammer will be as successful to AMD as the Northwood is to Intel.

yup this is calling Business & Competition.

Quote:

---

A while later, Intel introduced the Pentium 4 1.4GHz and 1.5GHz with RDRAM. RDRAM was still extremely expensive back then. To entice people to buy P4s, Intel included the RAM with the processor.

---

btw Asus sells its recent P4T533 motherboard with 256Mb of RIMM4200 32bits included.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Labdog
yup this is calling Business & Competition.


btw Asus sells its recent P4T533 motherboard with 256Mb of RIMM4200 32bits included.

---

That's not my point Labdog. The point is that Intel was in a very bad position in 2000 and 2001 and no one said that Intel was going to go down. So why would AMD go under for being slightly less than bleeding edge? At least their processors are priced relatively low.

I remeber those days, it was intel guys coming over to AMD's side. The cycle continues.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AMD_Man


That's not my point Labdog. The point is that Intel was in a very bad position in 2000 and 2001 and no one said that Intel was going to go down. So why would AMD go under for being slightly less than bleeding edge? At least their processors are priced relatively low.

---

Intel had more market share then, and still does now.

However, I don't think AMD is going under.

all amd needs is one commmercial and then they can get even more market share. I dont know why they dont have commercials now. If you look at intel commercials you dont even find out what theyre selling until the end of the commercial, and they dont advertise any speeds just "the center of your digital world" and everybody buys intel cpus.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AMD_Man


That's not my point Labdog. The point is that Intel was in a very bad position in 2000 and 2001 and no one said that Intel was going to go down. So why would AMD go under for being slightly less than bleeding edge? At least their processors are priced relatively low.

---

nope. ppl said AMD is bleeding edge but not AMD. that are only ppl speculations. i recall my remark: this is JUST Business & Competition.
if AMD will come out a good new product (ClawHammer & Opteron certainly) it will be to Intel prooving they can also improve their product to reenter into the competition & so on blah blah blah...

Infinite Cycling phenomenon which is calling Progress, R&D & IT enforcement.

fans apart, we have only to choose the better product for our needs along this cycle. (btw likewise ATI versus nVidia)

:)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Labdog

fans apart, we have only to choose the better product for our needs along this cycle. (btw likewise ATI versus nVidia)
:)

---

Beta was superior to VHS and look what that got them. :p

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Pagan_Ranger


Beta was superior to VHS and look what that got them. :p

---

DVD owns all now! :D :p

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Pagan_Ranger


Beta was superior to VHS and look what that got them. :p

---

haha. :p

btw, Beta belonged to Apple. this may explain its collapse...

Quote:

---

Intel had more market share then, and still does now.

---

But Intel lost quite a bit of market share back then, somehwere around 20% of the home market. Surprisingly Intel is having a hard time reclaiming that lost share back now that they have the lead. It seems that with the Athlon series of processors AMD made a permanent dent into Intle's market.

This is a big deal because that is money that Intel will never have access to again. Due to pricing it seems that AMD is solidly situated in that market segment while Intel is forced to sit by and watch. Especially with the incredibly cheap to produce Tbred chips, Intel will not be able to reasonably compete on price. Another powerful release on AMDs part will insure that more of Intel's foothold will be chipped away.

So truthfully right now AMD is actually sitting in a fairly strong position for a new release. They are maintaining share and releasing into new markets. Intel has no option other than to sit back and wait for the results. They are not in a proper release schedule to counter the Hammer series and they are not in the financial position to attack the low end with loss leading chips immediately. This means that AMD will manage to draw in some more of Intel's share.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fbs1992
all amd needs is one commmercial and then they can get even more market share. I dont know why they dont have commercials now. If you look at intel commercials you dont even find out what theyre selling until the end of the commercial, and they dont advertise any speeds just "the center of your digital world" and everybody buys intel cpus.

---

Intel having like 75% of the market and AMD not having commercials is kinda connected. The majority of that "75% of the desktop/workstation environment" is businesses and university like places. I knows its not 75% right now but I know its 70+ and AMD is in like the 20s. Anyways, AMD doesnt bother with commercials because the majority of desktop/workstation company buyers do not exactly decide what to buy by watching super bowl half time ads =)

And No Intel was never in the same position AMD was. Pagan_Ranger was on track when me mentioned how much of the market Intel had at that point. Its even more of an issue now. Intel has been knee deep in the computer market way before AMD really started to come into its own. If AMD had really blown Intel away and had the brains to try and take over the business areas (which would never have happened due to AMD's inability to make a rock solid chipset) and gotten closer to 40% of the market then yes it would be a little different right now and Intel might have to worry. But that didnt happen. What happened was all the .com cr@p and now enron and Worldcom. Companies have to be extremely careful now in all respects. Smaller companies (when I say smaller I mean smaller than Intel and such) like AMD are gonna get hit the hardest. They are gonna have to worry about being straight as an arrow and making sure their products can still compete. Chances are, Intel is gonna be around for a long long time. AMD is kinda..... Both Intel and AMD are trying to overcome a pretty big hurdle with upcomming releases, 64bit platforms. This introduces tons and tons of possibilities of failure. If Intel completely flops on their next release of course it will hurt them, but they will still be around because it is definitely not the only pie Intel has a finger in. AMD on the other hand really doesnt have any pies to begin with. If they flop on this AMD won't go away but they will be held like they were held before the K6

Personally I think AMD has been putting a very large amount of effort into their next gen proc so I think it will go smoothly, enough.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Labdog

haha. :p

btw, Beta belonged to Apple. this may explain its collapse...

---

Are you sure? I was certain that Beta was developed by Sony.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Pagan_Ranger


Are you sure? I was certain that Beta was developed by Sony.

---

I thought it was sony also

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jamesavery22


Intel having like 75% of the market and AMD not having commercials is kinda connected. The majority of that "75% of the desktop/workstation environment" is businesses and university like places. I knows its not 75% right now but I know its 70+ and AMD is in like the 20s. Anyways, AMD doesnt bother with commercials because the majority of desktop/workstation company buyers do not exactly decide what to buy by watching super bowl half time ads =)

And No Intel was never in the same position AMD was. Pagan_Ranger was on track when me mentioned how much of the market Intel had at that point. Its even more of an issue now. Intel has been knee deep in the computer market way before AMD really started to come into its own. If AMD had really blown Intel away and had the brains to try and take over the business areas (which would never have happened due to AMD's inability to make a rock solid chipset) and gotten closer to 40% of the market then yes it would be a little different right now and Intel might have to worry. But that didnt happen. What happened was all the .com cr@p and now enron and Worldcom. Companies have to be extremely careful now in all respects. Smaller companies (when I say smaller I mean smaller than Intel and such) like AMD are gonna get hit the hardest. They are gonna have to worry about being straight as an arrow and making sure their products can still compete. Chances are, Intel is gonna be around for a long long time. AMD is kinda..... Both Intel and AMD are trying to overcome a pretty big hurdle with upcomming releases, 64bit platforms. This introduces tons and tons of possibilities of failure. If Intel completely flops on their next release of course it will hurt them, but they will still be around because it is definitely not the only pie Intel has a finger in. AMD on the other hand really doesnt have any pies to begin with. If they flop on this AMD won't go away but they will be held like they were held before the K6

Personally I think AMD has been putting a very large amount of effort into their next gen proc so I think it will go smoothly, enough.

---

FYI, Intel marketshare is closer to 80% than it is to 70.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by steppy76


FYI, Intel marketshare is closer to 80% than it is to 70.

---

Really? wow. is AMD still in the 20s? Id guess not cause Apple still has like .9% right? =) so the max AMD could have is 19.1. Im joking I dont know how much Apple has but I know our graphics dept here uses em and that is the only place I've ever seen apples used.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AMD_Man
that AMD is going to go out of business. Intel was in the exact same situation 2 years ago ( maybe even worse). Think back to late 2000:

---

Ummm two years ago (late 2000) Intel was making over 2 billion dollars PROFIT every quarter. AMD hasn’t made that much in it’s entire history.

Today AMD needs $900 million in sales every quarter to break even, and they are only getting $600 million. There is absolutely no comparison between Intel’s financial position two years ago and AMD’s today.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by irwincur


But Intel lost quite a bit of market share back then, somehwere around 20% of the home market. Surprisingly Intel is having a hard time reclaiming that lost share back now that they have the lead. It seems that with the Athlon series of processors AMD made a permanent dent into Intle's market.

---

AMD’s (X86) market share climbed from about 14% in the K6 days to a high of 23%, and has now dropped back down to about 18%. Much of that gain was taken from Via (Cyrix), Intel’s share has fluctuated around 80% with a low of about 77%, and a high of 82% in that time. (They are almost at 82% today)

While these numbers may be significant for AMD, for Intel, ASP is a much bigger concern.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jamesavery22


Really? wow. is AMD still in the 20s? Id guess not cause Apple still has like .9% right? =) so the max AMD could have is 19.1. Im joking I dont know how much Apple has but I know our graphics dept here uses em and that is the only place I've ever seen apples used.

---

G4 sales are typically not lumped in with X86 processors when calculating market share since most of them are sold in the embedded market. Apple only accounts for a small part of PPC sales, so it makes more sense (maybe in more ways then one ;) ) to compare the G4 to AMR and MIPS embedded products.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Moridin


Ummm two years ago (late 2000) Intel was making over 2 billion dollars PROFIT every quarter. AMD hasn’t made that much in it’s entire history.

Today AMD needs $900 million in sales every quarter to break even, and they are only getting $600 million. There is absolutely no comparison between Intel’s financial position two years ago and AMD’s today.

---

I wasn't talking about financial situation but rather product situation. Did Intel lose much money with the delay of the P4 and its poor performance? Not really.

AMD isn't going anywhere. They have been in far worse financial conditions than this. Right now the majority of the tech industry is struggling with sluggish sells. Even the mighty Intel came in under projected numbers and just recently cut 4K people. These are cycles that constantly repeat themselves.

AMD was here yesterday, is still here today, and baring some major disaster, will be here tomorrow too.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AMD_Man


I wasn't talking about financial situation but rather product situation. Did Intel lose much money with the delay of the P4 and its poor performance? Not really.

---

Exactly, the delay and dissappointment (to our community) was nothing to Intel. Intel had 80% of the market so people were gonna buy them anyways and Intel gets tons of profit from the all the other markets they are in. AMD's only income is this market. If AMD fouls up its gonna be like putting deodorant on with a porcupine

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Un4given
AMD isn't going anywhere. They have been in far worse financial conditions than this. Right now the majority of the tech industry is struggling with sluggish sells. Even the mighty Intel came in under projected numbers and just recently cut 4K people. These are cycles that constantly repeat themselves.

AMD was here yesterday, is still here today, and baring some major disaster, will be here tomorrow too.

---

I agree with you in the short term, but in the long term I’m not so sure. Chip making is increasingly consolidating into a couple of big players. This is happening for a lot of reasons, primarily related to the rapidly increasing costs of R&D, and equipment.

We are rapidly approaching a time when only the very largest of companies can design a high-end processor, or construct a fab to build it. This is why HP and Compaq were so anxious to throw away their own processor architectures and switch to IA-64. (or whatever Intel is calling it now :) )

AMD’s problem is that they are only a mid sized player, ranking about 10th in the value of products they manufacturer. It looks like the industry as a whole may consolidate on four or five semiconductor makers, and that would leave AMD out in the cold.

That isn’t to say AMD couldn’t go the ARM route and become strictly a chip design company, but I’m not sure their licensing would allow it. I seem to recall a provision their licensing with Intel, that AMD could not outsource more then 20% of their production.

Even here though, the rising complexity of high-end processors means you need an incredible amount of resources just to design a processor. I can easily see this rising beyond the ability of a mid sized player like AMD to compete.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AMD_Man


I wasn't talking about financial situation but rather product situation.

---

Companies go out of business due to their financial situation, not the quality of their products. Many companies with excellent products have gone out of business.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Moridin


Companies go out of business due to their financial situation, not the quality of their products. Many companies with excellent products have gone out of business.

---

3dfx....