1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

so Jobs gets screwed by IBM over game consoles, thus Apple-Intel ?

Discussion in 'Intel' started by Guest, Jun 10, 2005.

  1. That is your opinion.
     
    George Macdonald, Jun 22, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Guest

    Flint Guest

    And their response wasn't permanently etched in stone either. Yhey left
    the door to reconsider them down the road, which itself reads more like
    a veiled warning to Intel.


    Funny, that's *exactly* where they've seen their largest marketshare
    increases in the past 12 months. The last figures I've seen show
    AMD gaining aproximately 4% in the past 12-18 months. AMD's *gain* in
    that period exceeds Apples total market share. Jobs choice of Intel
    (while not a dumb move) was still motivated by ego however.


    <snip>

    His "When the big guys decline AMD as a vendor, it means something."
    overlooks the fact that the 'big guys' were looking at AMD in the first
    place, and there is a *reason* for that... like some vendors are growing
    tired of dealing with Intel? Dell didn't take a good long look at AMD
    for *no* reason. Their passing on Intel isn't etched in stone either,
    and can only be interpreted as they may simply don't feel AMD isn't
    quite ready to be a singular strategic supply partner, that's all.

    There's no question as to AMD's Athlon64 being a technically superior
    processor in most respects however. There's no reason some vendors can
    use either or both, aside from contractual issues.



     
    Flint, Jun 24, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Guest

    Mike Smith Guest

    If it's just his opinion, then where are all the AMD-equipped PCs?
    Don't sales figures alone make it a clearly established *fact* that more
    vendors choose Intel than AMD?
     
    Mike Smith, Jun 24, 2005
  4. Fair enough - that there are more Intel-based CPUs being used/sold is not
    in doubt... not that that exactly translates to more vendors. RM has a way
    of wording things to provoke controversy - it's his way. He's in permanent
    mourning over the Itanium he bought and seems to want to blame it on AMD
    instead of where the true blame lies - funny that!.:)

    In fact on re-reading his post what I, in my haste, really meant to
    highlight as his opinion was sentence following the one above:
    He doesn't have any tangible reasons... because there are none.
     
    George Macdonald, Jun 25, 2005
  5. Guest

    Robert Myers Guest

    Here's a reason:

    For 2004, Intel earned $7.5 billion and AMD earned $91 million.

    I'd not bet my future on AMD against Intel for anything.

    RM
     
    Robert Myers, Jun 25, 2005
  6. But if you are a typical Mac advocate, that would be a reason to use AMD,
    not Intel :^)

    James
     
    James Arveson, Jun 25, 2005
  7. The status quo is no guarantee of anything. For 2004 the only thing Intel
    has been good at is quasi-legal/illegal marketing chicanery - make no
    mistake: they have been soiled by this shameful behavior; they have most of
    their eggs in one basket, i.e. Dell and AMD has a piece of the high ASP
    market where it matters most. Those are the tangibles. Your insistence
    that AMD must fail is just perverse - they don't need to put Intel out of
    business to be successful; they don't even need 50% of the market.
     
    George Macdonald, Jun 26, 2005
  8.  
    James Arveson, Jun 26, 2005
  9.  
    George Macdonald, Jun 26, 2005
  10. A reward for selling some of the crappiest network switches in
    the world (PowerConnect)?
    They can dump their interest in my bank account if that will
    help them.
     
    Lefty Bigfoot, Jun 26, 2005
  11.  
    James Arveson, Jun 26, 2005
  12. Guest

    keith Guest

    Dell is *not* in any way a competator of INTC, they are INTC's retail arm.
    There is no way an hionest person could come to your absurd conclusion.
    Over half the systetms are IBM. Go figure.
    Flash is a fickle buisness that has nothing to do with CPUs.

    ....and INtel isn't? They haven't done woderfully in any market other than
    CPUs either.
    Nonsense. AMD can survive, quite well, on the manufacturing that it has
    available with a ramp as they gain acceptance. AMD dosn't need to compete
    with themselves.
    Utter nonsense.
     
    keith, Jun 27, 2005
  13. Guest

    Robert Myers Guest

    Well, no. Go read the exchange starting with Del's "We're Number 1"
    post on comp.arch.

    RM
     
    Robert Myers, Jun 27, 2005
  14.  
    James Arveson, Jun 27, 2005
  15. Guest

    keith Guest

    Bullshit. They may sell some AMDs under the table, but please don't lie
    like this. Dell is nothing but an Intel retail outlet.

    The systems are made by?
     
    keith, Jun 27, 2005
  16. Your issue is with Mr. Storm, not me. It was his claim. You seem to have a
    problem following this conversation. it seems to over your head. Why not
    drop out?
    A lot of companies - go look for yourself.
    http://www.top500.org/lists/plists.php?Y=2005&M=06

    " A total of 333 systems are now using Intel processors. Six months ago
    there were 320 Intel-based systems on the list and one year ago only 287.
    The second most-commonly used processors are the IBM Power processors (77
    systems), ahead of Hewlett-Packard's PA Risc processors (36) and AMD
    processors (25). "
    http://www.top500.org/news/articles/article_68.php
     
    James Arveson, Jun 27, 2005
  17. Guest

    Tony Hill Guest

    For the anal-retentive out there, there actually is one system built
    by Intel. ASCI Red at #139 on the list. Built in 1999 it is one of
    the oldest systems still on the current list, and it consists of just
    shy of 10,000 Pentium Pro processors.
    For those that are curious, the most common processors used are as
    follows:

    Intel x86 (Xeon/P4/PPro) - 254 systems / 50.8%
    Intel Itanium - 79 systems / 15.8%
    PowerPC (Power4, Power5, PPC 440, etc.) - 77 systems / 15.4%
    HP PA-RISC - 36 systems / 7.2%
    AMD Opteron - 25 systems / 5.0%
    All others - 29 systems / 5.8%


    Of course, if you break it down by percentage of Rmax you get a
    slightly different set of numbers:

    PowerPC - 36.54%
    Intel x86 - 32.69%
    Intel Itanium - 14.07%
    AMD Opteron - 6.30%
    HP PA-RISC - 2.74%
    All others - 7.66%


    The small number of BlueGene/L systems really skews performance
    results in IBM's favor. AMD and our "other" category are the only
    other two chip types that delivery system performance above the
    others. For AMD this is mainly a case of newer systems (ie there
    simply are no 4 or 5 year-old Opteron systems to bring down the
    average, unlike eg. PA-RISC), while for the "other" category it is
    mostly skewed by a few big NEC SX6 processors, a la Earth Simulator.


    Of course, the actual relevance of all of these numbers leaves
    something to be desired. Even this list is by no means complete, as
    discussed recently in another thread about BMW/Sauber's supercomputer.
    That system used a good chunk of 2.2GHz Opteron processors and
    probably would have slotted in somewhere around 300-350, but they
    never bothered to run the Linpack test and submit the results. There
    are MANY more systems out there that are more powerful than a lot of
    the systems on this Top500 list. In fact, other than the top 15 - 20
    or so, it's really not a very accurate list of the most powerful
    supercomputers in the world, even if the only thing you are counting
    is Linpack performance (which in itself is not the end-all, be-all
    benchmark for HPC stuff, it's just an easy test to run in a controlled
    manner which has a fair degree of relevance to many supercomputing
    applications).
    Err, AMD is still in the Flash business at the moment. They are
    working on plans to spin off Spansion as an independent company, but
    for the time being they are still the majority owner.
    Intel would probably do well to continue shrinking their product mix,
    they've done rather poorly in pretty much all their businesses. Their
    flash revenues are less than 1/10th those from processors. To the
    best of my knowledge they have never really made any money from that
    division, about the best they've managed is roughly break-even.
    With AMD's current fab they could support about 20-25% of the ~175M
    world market for x86 processors (there's a fair degree of variation
    depending on just what processors they're selling, dual-core chips
    with 2MB of cache need much more fab space than a single-core chip
    with 128KB of cache), assuming they were pumping the chips out full
    tilt. Right now AMD has between 16 and 17% of the world market. So,
    even without any new fabs they do still have some room to grow.

    They also seem to be progressing on schedule for volume shipments from
    their new fab starting in about a years time. They also have some
    agreements with chip foundries to produce processors if demand
    requires. Long story short, they can satisfy a fairly large increase
    in business.
    I'm rather certain that AMD played a major role in Steve Job's choice
    of Intel processors. AMD gives them a really solid second-source for
    processors should Intel falter. This is one of their major complaints
    about their current deal with IBM. After Motorola kind of fell off
    the map they were left with ONLY IBM to supply them with PowerPC
    chips. While the announcement may have only mentioned Intel
    processors and initial systems will probably all use Intel chips, I'm
    quite certain that Apple will keep in contact with AMD.
     
    Tony Hill, Jun 27, 2005
  18. There has been some criticism of Linpack as a relevant benchmark for
    anything except highly threaded scientific problems. Other types of problems
    may be better solved on systems with fewer, more powerful processors than
    are used in the Blue Genes machines, for example. But that is always the
    problem with benchmarks, I guess.

    I am currently working with a company that put together their own Xeon-based
    machine for analyzing seismic data for oil exploration. They "claim" their
    computer outperforms most of the Top 500, but have no interest in
    benchmarking the computer. I expect that there are many other computers like
    that.
    We were discussing the viability
    Thanks for the correction.
    It's difficult to extract the flash segment of the profits as they are
    buried in the Mobility group. But you are probably not far off. As I said,
    they too are effectively a "one product" company. From Apple's perspective
    that is good news. The one product happens to be the product that Apple is
    interested in.

    to new customers.
    That capacity of 40M chips/yr is consistent with the numbers I have seen -
    about 1M/ Athlons/wk from 5K 200 mm wafers coming out of fab 30. That
    converts to about 60% yield for a 100 mm die -not too impressive. My numbers
    are 2 yrs old and, hopefully, they have improved by now.

    The assumption was that AMD would exploit their opportunity in the high end
    part of the business. I would anticipate that a ramp of their dual core
    processors would put a big hole in any capacity they might have. If they are
    having any yield problems, the impact would be even greater. I could do a
    yield analysis, but it would likely give a number that would be
    prohibitively low.

    tel, rather than AMD. He may have seen IBM
    I agree. Now Apple finally has two potential suppliers who really are in the
    microprocessor business. I would also expect that the business arrangement
    involved a commitment on the part of both parties - Intel to deliver and
    Apple to buy. If Intel falters, AMD would have a shot. I would be surprised
    if he spread his resources over two suppliers, however. He had enough
    headaches dealing with IBM/Moto.

    There is another factor that may have influenced Jobs. He was likely highly
    impressed by IBM's research capability and, to a lesser extent, that of
    Motorola. Intel's research efforts, in the areas of interest to Jobs, at
    least match their capability and are all under one corporate roof. In
    contrast, AMD does not have a highly visible research effort.

    James
     
    James Arveson, Jun 27, 2005
  19. No, you misread or mispunctuated my comment - see below. As for M$ as a
    role model, they *do* have a lot of err, customers who have "chosen" their
    OS & software and have not been quiet about their enthusiasm for AMD64.
    Nobody can say "Gee I dunno if it's gonna work". Check the numbers on the
    MSN farm: reduction from 250 computers to 25 IIRC.
    What does it matter?... numbers of available systems doesn't really count.
    When an outfit like DALCO can put together a MP HPC system for Sauber, from
    racks, bits & pieces, the whole equation changes. The fact is that this is
    a market where AMD did not have that high ASP presence... now it does and
    in a *big* way.
    Eliminated? AFAIK it's still on the block and still a "monument sur le
    dos".
    And Intel is not?
    Again you seem to be short on facts: in the next year, if everything plays
    out, AMD will have two additional production facilities: their own Fab 36
    is already well into 300mm 65nm prototype production and "going well" by
    all accounts; Chartered needs the work badly so is at least highly
    motivated. As for Intel catching up technically, that is not going to
    happen until P4 is dead... and even then, you think AMD is twiddling their
    developmental thumbs?
    Jobs went with Intel because Intel sees opportunities to nix the wayward M$
    and re-establish their proprietary architecture niche. It's gonna be a
    long road but as long as Apple does what it is told........ it's a *BIG*
    maybe.

    Oh, AMD said they'd never even talked to Apple and were "too busy"
    anyway.:-[]
     
    George Macdonald, Jun 27, 2005
  20. Really?.... Love it!
    Why? The flash market, it would appear, is intrinsically a boom 'n' bust
    cyclical play, judging by events of the recent past. When you see the
    number of devices, it has to be profitable but............
     
    George Macdonald, Jun 27, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.