Intel Undercuts AMD

AMD going under would be the end of Intel by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 05:32 · Score: 0

Just like MS has been in a position of praying Apple stays alive. Long term AMD may have to consolidate with someone --but who? Compaq isn't in a position to help, although the K7 might be something they'd want, if other OEMs would still buy it (from them)

Re:AMD going under would be the end of Intel by Daa · 1999-07-03 06:27 · Score: 1

Something everyone seems to forget is Intel makes
the Compaq/DEC Alpha chips. Intel bought the old DEC Chip Fab and now makes the Alphas as well as making the ARM chip.

Intel is also in the midst of building one of ( if not THE) first chip fabs that will use 300mm ( 12in) wafers - and produce chips down to .13u. the fab will cost billions , but will allow Intel to lower the per chip cost.

I expect AMD will have real problems trying to match Intel for yield and overall chip cost
Re:AMD going under would be the end of Intel by Brandon+S.+Allbery · 1999-07-04 00:08 · Score: 1

> Something everyone seems to forget is Intel makes
> the Compaq/DEC Alpha chips. Intel bought the old DEC Chip Fab and now makes the Alphas
> as well as making the ARM chip.

Samsung was a second source for Alpha chips, and still is (if they aren't in fact the primary source for them now...).

--
-- brandon s. allbery, sysadmin @ cmu electrical & computer engineering "Think, youth, THINK!"

Re:Need they say more? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 05:38 · Score: 0

That doesn't mean they weren't ready to be released which is what the original poster stated.
The P5-60/66 may have ran hot but it still worked and while adequate cooling was needed it performed within its specifications qualifying it as "ready."

The 486 DX4/100 was kind of an accident, intel made it primarily for laptops but all the desktop people started using them. That doesn't make the Pentium 60/66 any less "ready."

You may also remember when the Pentium Pro came out and how slowly it runs 16-bit code. It was still "ready."

Good! I fervently support price wars. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 05:42 · Score: 0

I like cheap things.

I don't care about AMD or Cyrix. They exist only to place price pressure on Intel.

Re:Need they say more? by dillon_rinker · 1999-07-05 23:26 · Score: 1

So you're saying MMX doesn't stand for Multi Media instruXions? I thought it didn't stand for Multi Media Xtensions.

More expensive better for AMD?? by Discordia · 1999-07-06 09:34 · Score: 1

Im not convinced that the K7 being more expensive than the PIII is totally a bad thing for AMD. I used to sell computers, and it was difficult trying to sell the "budget" amd to newbie computer buyers while saying "trust me...it's faster. Better for almost anything. AMD is a good brand...they're not like a generic chip..." Intel is like the Nabisco of processors, and trying to convince typical consumers to switch to a cheaper "knockoff" can be difficult. If AMD can position the K7 as a premium product that you pay a LITTLE more for, it may turn their image around.

Re:Original P6 (PPro) was good but Windows wasn't by Locutus · 1999-07-08 05:48 · Score: 1

Call it what you will but I think it was Microsofts flawed design of Windows 95 that did the PPro in. It was loudly advertised as a 32bit OS when it really wasn't/isn't. So legacy code didn't get a boost, neither did the brand spank'n code written to Win32c. Intel was designing the PP back in 1990 when a 32bit 486 was still very popular though it was running 16bit Dos/Windows and only OS/2 was 32bit in 1991 and viable on a desktop as opposed to the workstation (read NT). IBM beat Microsoft by almost 5 years with an advanced OS for the desktop and all they could do was produce marketing for a new shell on a 16bit OS.
Did Intel make the mistake or was it Microsofts lack of innovation? I think it was more the former then the latter.

--
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus

strange costs by BB · 1999-07-03 13:24 · Score: 1

You stated: "Doesn't it make it obvious that their chips have had hugely inflated prices?"

Yes, but inflated over what? Pay attention to all the costs to make chips, not just the cost to manufacture one more chip.

You also stated: "Sure, AMD's Athlon probably has a hugely inflated price, too, but it was planned to be a lot cheaper than the slower competing chips from Intel."

This makes no sense. Do you really think a chips costs can be planned? I think they are just making the best chips they can, and pricing them accordingly.

Chips cost very little to actually make, but cost a lot to set up i.e. design and plant costs. As long as they don't sell below their cost to make, which I have heard is around $25, then the rest is margin. Pricing is complicated because of this. They price for the highest profit, of course, and this is nowhere near the price to make these chips.

I think this is purely a competitive/predatory move meant to keep market share. It sucks for AMD, but they should have foreseen this. I don't see how they can make it in the long term unless they gain an advantage over Intel, and I don't think that will happen.

Re:strange costs by drudd · 1999-07-04 00:18 · Score: 1

This makes no sense. Do you really think a chips costs can be planned? I think they are just making the best chips they can, and pricing them accordingly.

He's referring to the end price to the consumer, which CAN and is predicted. AMD was hoping to beat Intel's pricing on comperable performance... they didn't go as low on pricing as they probably could because they desperately need money to fund their R&D.

drudd

--
Venn ist das nurnstuck git und Slotermeyer? Ya! Beigerhund das oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!

Re:shouldn't be a problem by raxor · 1999-07-03 13:26 · Score: 1

too bad intel *disabled* SMP for the celeron.
i mean if they were after volumous sales, SMPed celerons would have done it.

Re:I don't get it by zdarnell · 1999-07-03 13:36 · Score: 1

Its because people are so 'open minded' they've made themselves closed minded. Its the same trash they're throwing at microsoft. AMD is the Linux of the CPU market. Intel is the Microsoft. People dont understand that both companies have their place in the world, but they want their favorite to crush the other and claim victory. (In the process swapping places with the original monopoly.) I stand by Intel. They have made quality chips forever and deserve everyone's support. Dont buy a Chip because its by AMD. Buy it because its a better value. If its not, then buy an Intel or erm, Cyrix... Its the same reason I use linux and FreeBSD for my servers. It is a much better server platform than windows. But I use windows for alot of things, like web browsing. Yes, I also use Internet Explorer.
/me awaits the hate mail and comparisons to satan

Re:Do you really think cost == quality? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 13:47 · Score: 0

It's actually usually a correct assumption, but it's wrong often enough too.

Nevertheless, Intel is being usurped as the market leader in x86 processors. The benchmarks show this, and Intel will confirm it with a lower price.

Intel will lose it's lead in the midrange server-processor business, just as it lost it's marketshare in the desktop processor business.

The point is this:

Intel Inside (Boing-Boing-Boing-Boing) (tm) is supposed to be a mark of distinction that makes it worth paying triple price for 10% more chip. Intel is surrendering this. They can't even use FUD anymore.

Carmack's impressed by Mondo54 · 1999-07-03 13:50 · Score: 1

finger johnc@idsoftware.com

Does anyone think Quake timedemo scores are enough to shift entire markets? 3dfx and nVidia already think so.

--

But isn't the purpose of the Doomsday machine lost if you keep it a secret!

Re:Carmack's impressed by IntlHarvester · 1999-07-03 22:28 · Score: 2

The high end gaming market is a pretty signifcant profit center for all these companies, so Quake numbers will certainly help AMD a little.

However, the real money and market share in the PC business is volume, and that means business desktops and low-end home machines. These machines ususally ship with really cheap video systems such as S3 or the Intel one.
--

--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.

Re:Yay competition! by raxor · 1999-07-03 13:50 · Score: 1

AMEN

Re:Question?? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 13:50 · Score: 0

you can't don't try.

Re:Nonsense! (Re:this is just silly) by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 14:35 · Score: 0

"If you believe Intel when they say that they are profitable for all chips they ship, then you are a fool."

And you are a fool if you believe that there's no possibility of them making a profit.

I think a big old "DUH" has the be thrown out here.

First: The fabs Intel are using have probably been paid for for years.

Second: Intel is big and has MAJOR connections.

Third: Computer processors are NOT ALL INTEL DOES!

Fourth: Lowering prices is a VALID METHOD OF BEATING YOUR COMPETITION!!!!

Man you people are so FREAKING THICK. How much you suppose it costs Intel to make one chip? $0.25? $1.00? How much to package it? $2.00? How much to ship it? $1.00? So the chip may cost maybe $4.00 for Intel. To sell at loss, they almost literaly have to GIVE them away. Now granted, I have no clue how much it costs. But sand is cheap. The R&D is not, but like the fabs, that was paid for a long time ago. Intel has money in the bank--they want to keep it that way. So they are NOT going to be taking a hit just to get rid of AMD. It's simply not logical. Business exists to make money. Simple as that. It has NOTHING to do with these holy wars over "open" this and "open" that. It has nothing to do with "freedom". It's all about $$$. That's all Intel cares about. That's all AMD cares about. And believe it or not, that's all RedHat cares about. In fact.. When you get right down to it, even Linus himself cares about $$$. So all this holy war bullshit is a waste of time, bandwidth, cpu cycles, and brain cells.

*sigh*

Why can't people ACCEPT competition when it's there? Huh? What if some new company popped up someplace and started making chips for less than both AMD and Intel? What if they did it at a loss? What if some crazy rich guy just wanted to change the world a bit and had no intention of actually making money? What then? Would you praise his effort and waste of money? Or would you condemn it and try to have him shut down and tossed in prison for "unfair" business practises?

What if a CPU came in each box of Cracker Jacks? Perhaps a 800Mhz XyZCorp processor? What then? Would you cry foul or would you sit back and greedly get every box of Cracker Jacks you can because deep down you are just a lazy cheap bastard who has no respect for the work and efforts of others trying to feed their kids and own a house?

Sad.

Re:Clarification by akintayo · 1999-07-03 15:29 · Score: 1

Sure you do not work for Intel ?
They did not recall the Pentium. They denied the bug, then claimed it only showed up under rare circumstances. And then they reluctantly offered to replace the defective chips. I believe the user had to do the actual switching.

So they ship a computer that had a problem with multiplication/division then pulled an Iomega. A recall is when a company that worries about lawsuits pulls a defective product before some 'wise' person injures themselves.

--
Woe be on to them, all who rise against poor people, shall perish in a the end. Buju Banton

Re:this is just silly by ToLu+the+Happy+Furby · 1999-07-03 15:50 · Score: 1

Actually, in effect Intel did underclock the celerons, ridiculous as it may seem to you and your father. And ridiculous as it may sound to most of us. I'm guessing the reason you think it's so ridiculous, is that your father used to work in a fab. Because, up until about a year ago, the single-minded goal of every semiconductor fab was indeed to produce the highest yield of the fastest chips at the lowest cost. But then, in the case of Intel at least, this rosy picture was forever shattered by the nefarious forces of [cue dark clouds and threatening music]...marketing.

You see (and it amazes me how many slashdotters seem not to know this--I suppose it's because most of you play with computers at work, where such things are a no-no, or perhaps because as Linux users you prize stability over flashy game performance), there was a period of time--about nine months or so IIRC, starting early last summer--when the most expensive consumer CPU money could buy was the PII 450, and the fastest consumer CPU money could buy was...the celeron 300A.

Yup, I just said that. Huh? Well, suspiciously enough, it turned out that ~95% (maybe more; hard stats are of course impossible to come by, so most people just said 95% to emphasize that it wasn't guranteed or anything) of 300A's could be overclocked to 450, with completely perfect stability (well, since the overclocking community is mostly gamers, and gamers are generally stuck with Win9x, it's hard to know how stable the things really are;), and often no extra cooling required. Plus, since the jump from 300=>450 corresponds to changing the bus speed from 66 Mhz to 100, all your peripherals run fine and dandy as well (some PCI cards, RAM, etc, fare poorly when asked to run at unorthodox bus speeds like 82 Mhz).

And, for many tasks, including just about the only comsumer-oriented programs these days that can use more computing power than, say, a K6-300 can offer--3D gaming--these celeron 300/450's and their full-speed 128k cache were actually faster than those PII 450's and their half-speed 512k cache...which cost around 8 times as much.

Now, why, you may ask, did such a silly situation come about? And why, if all these celerons they were turning out could run just fine at 450, and they could sell 450 Mhz chips for ~$600, did Intel brand them at 300 Mhz and sell them for ~$80??

Well, remember the ominous mention of marketing at the end of the first paragraph?? Well that was just foreshadowing for the part that comes here:

See, around the middle of last year, Intel was running into a bit of a problem, alluded to above: namely, that Moore's law was churning along fine and dandy on the hardware side, but that the software corrolary to it--that, as fast as CPU's get faster, there will be applications developed that will seem to run slow--was falling worrisomely behind. Half of this was Microsoft's fault: their bloatware, which Intel had always been able to count on in the past to consume resources at an exponential rate, was now becoming so bloated that they couldn't cobble together new versions of it that would work--thus, the year-plus long delays on the products which have since been renamed Office2000 and Win2000. The other half, of course, was the internet's fault; or, more precisely, the phone wire's fault: when your connection is peaked out at its theoretical limit of 56k, adding processor speed ain't gonna do you much good, no matter what the funny dancing space people in the shiny suits tell you.

AMD, heretofore the company-of-the-cheap-knockoff-486, was suddenly in a position to be a respectable CPU company--first off, because their new K6 was just as fast as the PII in integer computations, and secondly, because you suddenly didn't need the fastest CPU out there to have a computer that would run the latest software and do the latest cool thing--surf the net. Thus, the sub-$1000 market was born. And Intel's marketing departement, being the little monopolizers that they are, and realizing that the more people bought non-Intel PC's and found that the things still worked, the more likely they'd be to do it again, decided that they needed to mingle with the rabble and offer a chip for the sub-$1000 market themselves.

Now we come to the point in our story where marketing and technology tragically collide. You see, the way fabs are run today, there simply is no "cheaper and less effective manufacturing process" to use, especially if, like Intel then, you didn't realize a couple years ago that you'd want to have one. That is, using a less effective manufacturing process would paradoxically have been more expensive.

This is because, for one thing, semiconductor fabs basically only have one assembly line each; that is, if you already have a fab that you've upgraded to the state of the art, and now you for some odd reason want to have a process that's less than state of the art, you need to build a new fab. And, for another, the cost of building a fab that is state of the art compared to one that's a bit less lies mainly in R&D, which in this case had already been done.

And--this is the kicker--the three things that determine the top speed a chip can run at stably are 1) core design; 2) manufacturing quality; and 3) process size. Now, obviously if Intel wants to make the cheapest chip they can, they don't want to come up with a new core design, so they didn't--they used the PII and just lopped off the L2 cache; and other than changing to a lower process size, manufacturing quality issues are mainly R&D things that got ironed out in the course of pushing the Mhz of their PII line. And besides, you save more money making chips the best you know how, so that absolutely none of them will not run at 300 Mhz, than you do making them purposely badly and having some that don't pass the test. Now, they may still have had some .35 micron fabs around when they decided to make the celeron...but using them to make a low cost chip would have been especially stupid, because higher process size means larger die size, means more silicon per chip, means higher cost per chip.

Thus, the original celeron--a PII with no L2 cache, and SMP crippled. (This only involves grounding a single pin which otherwise is used to assign which chip is #1 and which is #2 in a dual-PII system, and is thus easily surmounted--until, as is rumored, Intel comes up with a trickier way to do it. My point in including this little tidbit is that it forms a parallel to underclocking the chips--that is, it's a change included not because it costs any more or less for Intel to manufacture--it's exactly the same--but because it disables a feature for the customer.) However, with no cache, they ran about as fast as a dead three-legged hippopotamus, and therefore sold about as well.

So, realizing that it was even worse for customers to begin to associate them with horrible chips than to begin to associate AMD with decent ones, Intel took the plunge, added 128k of full speed on-die L2 cache to the celeron, thus creating the wonder that was (sadly, it's no longer manufactured) the 300A (A to differentiate it from the cacheless 300), and marking the first time in a hell of a long time that Intel had sold a chip for less than 20% more than it costs to make it (IIRC, it costs them ~$60 to fab a celeron, and ~$70 for a PII/III--the difference, as we should have learned by now, is not in getting higher clock speeds, but in the extra silicon required for the 512k cache, and, in the case of the socket-based celerons, in the extra packaging of a slot as opposed to a socket design).

Now, we may ask--if these puppies could run at 450 Mhz (and in fact it proved much easier to get a chip + full-speed on-die cache to run at 450 than the chip + half-speed external cache of the PII), why only sell them at 300? The answer, of course, is that terrible marketing thing: the entire reason for the celeron line was because Intel needed something at the sub-$100/CPU price-point. Now, at the same time, they didn't want anyone stupid enough to pay them $600 for a (slower, remember) PII 450 to realize they were being royally ripped off. And same with the goofball (in my woeful ignorance, that'd be me) who spent $250 for a PII 350. And so on down the line.

And, as we've seen, there was no good way to make chips that couldn't technically run at 450--in fact they discovered a better way to make chips run at high speeds, and that's why starting with Coppermine, all Intel chips will have on-die caches. But they could configure the chips to run at a much slower speed than they were capable of.

And that's exactly what they did.

And are still doing, although to a much lesser extent; nowadays, the .25 micron process is running out of room: that's why you can't expect to take a celeron 400 and clock it up to 600 and still, say, boot. Plus, the celeron is of course lacking the P!!!'s whoop-de-do SIMD instructions (so it can't browse the web worth a damn;).

And, whew, this ended up being a lengthy post. What I've said can be backed up at pretty much any website for hardware enthusiasts ( ArsTechnica has a particularly well-written explanation of the marvel that was the 300A here and especially here.)

Bottom line is, the x86 market is all about marketing and price points. And now that AMD has the technology to beat them in every segment of that market, Intel is gonna have to do a lot of the former and start giving in on the latter. And if you've read this whole thing, you must be bored.

Re:The AMD Athlon is Faster by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 05:45 · Score: 0

Intel is willing to lose their R&D investment to keep a competitor from gaining a foothold- shown by the celeron.

./ is libertarian only when convenient by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 05:45 · Score: 0

Its amusing how everyone in here demands mussolini-like efforts from the government when it involves bashing companies they hate (Wintel)...but when it comes to anything else they want the government to go away entirely.

Slashdot - usenet for idiots.

Re:./ is libertarian only when convenient by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 07:18 · Score: 0

Hehe.. You are absolutly correct.

I was going to post a message saying how terrible it will be that my next upgrade is now going to cost less now because of the price wars between these two. It's the same thing with the memory and hard drive industry. Why doesn't anyone try to stand up for Western Digital, who has taken an increadible hit in the drive market. Other companies came along who could produce better drives at a lower price and WD just couldn't keep up. I've had several new WD's go bad in the last year or two which is a noticeable change from best years.

Here's my lame attempt at a slogan:

Slashdot - be different (like everyone else)

Re:Dumping? by IntlHarvester · 1999-07-03 05:46 · Score: 3

Also, it has to be noted that Intel provides more of a 'package' to it's OEMs...

Also, part of the package Intel has is long term contracts and marketing arrangements such as the Intel Inside campaign, which locks OEMs into using Intel chips in return for sponsored advertising.

This pretty much consigns AMD to the home/consumer and white box market. The major vendors such as Dell and Compaq probably couldn't used AMD chips in their "Business Desktops" without some serious renegotiation.
--

--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.

ah, the p75.... by delmoi · 1999-07-03 05:49 · Score: 1

Man, My p75 kicked ass... it ran stable at 133MegaHerz. that was cool btw, network solutions was hacked, there www.netsol.com DNS entry was rerouted to CORE... they fixed it but it needs to propegate before it goes back to normal. I submited this, but...
_
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"

--

ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n

Re:ah, the p75.... by Black+Blade · 1999-07-03 07:17 · Score: 1

I have a Pentium 75 on a secondary machine. You mean to say that I could overclock my P75 and have it run like a 133? And it won't cook itself?
That would be like getting a new machine.

--
#include "mysig.h"
Re:ah, the p75.... by Athos · 1999-07-03 08:18 · Score: 1

I've got a P75 running at 133 with Linux. It only ran at 120 with Win95. (It's not my main machine, but works quite nicely)

--

--
-- The Internet is the Suppository of All Knowledge. You get it in the end.
Re:ah, the p75.... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 10:54 · Score: 1

Or you could get a WinChip C2 at 200MHz and it would run you $35 for roughly Pentium performance. I have done this with some older boxes and I have been pretty happy. Can't beat the price, runs Linux and FreeBSD like a top.

Re: And Good for AMD :-) by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 05:51 · Score: 0

Lately AMD had larger revenue while having lower
prices. Now I believe that they will have yet
larger revenue, since intel this way publicly
acknowleges their inferiority. So far they claimed
that they are more expensive because they are better. No longer. Will we have a green
"AMD inside" sticker on our cases?

One thing, however sohuld not be underestimated:
AMD is no loger able to scale up socket 7.
Athalon runs on DEC Alpha chip motherboards, which
are due to low volumes still a bit expensive.

So - watch. It will be a tough match.

Petrus

MMX by delmoi · 1999-07-03 05:57 · Score: 1

Um, amd *baught* MMX from intell, they licensed it, I don't see how they could be pissed.
anyway the K7 is *way* a head of the pIII. but I doubt that it will be much beter then intels real "7th" generation chip.
Intel's compitition always seems to jump the gun on version numbers, I mean, a k5 is really a faster 468. k6 was a faster pentum, and k7 will be a faster pII. but there "generation" numbers are always one ahead of what intel is doing.

besides, AMD created 3dnow and had it out 9 months before intel's SSE. and the k7 is really cool
_
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"

--

ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n

Re:MMX by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 06:39 · Score: 0

Um, amd *baught* MMX from intell, they licensed it

I belive at first AMD cloned MMX in a way they cloned x86 set, there is no *difference*. Command set (ie hex number and what they do) can't be patented/copyrighted per se. There was a litigation process, when Intel sued AMD for "copyright" infridgement, but I believe the court ruled out that AMD can use command set, but not MMX(tm) logo/acronym, which they never used without referencing to Intel.

In either case licensing fee didn't cover a single bit huge R&D sunk in developing MMX. As for 3DNow!, well, AMD just made the first move, it was rather expected one, not something MAJOR to develop (IMHO).

Re:I Will not pay the AMD Tax! by Vrongar · 1999-07-03 06:00 · Score: 1

And when AMD go down I'll be laughing at you paying $800 for a mid-range CPU.

Re:Delicate situation for Intel? by m3000 · 1999-07-03 06:01 · Score: 1

It sounds like regular business to me. Consumers want the best bang for the buck, and Intel wants to give them that. It's competion, just like what occurs in all kinds of other businesses.

How can users start a chip company? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 06:15 · Score: 0

Can you afford to buy a 3 billion dollar chip making plant that will go obsolete in 3 years?

i didnt think so. enough said.

I am sick and tired of monopolies to phone companies harassing my ISP assuming they have rights to the whole internet, to airline industries which American arilines ownes my whole airport and even did monopolistic practicies to rid off competition so I have to pay 3x fold to fly home this christmass, to microsoft wich is self explanitary, to now this intel thing. I am sick of this.

I even despice unix but use linux for political reasons.

Re:How can users start a chip company? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 10:50 · Score: 0

I've often wondered if it would be possible to have a public processor core developed with an open source methodology. With enough organization, users could pool together the cost for their processors, and when enough are in the pool, just fabricate a few lots at a foundary. This would probably require some kind of non-profit corporation to organize.

There would be difficulties.

- Foundary technology may be behind state of the art.

- Testing for yeild and reliability would require a lot of sophisticated equipment. I don't think a foundary will run production test programs for you. Actually I think they may run them, but you still have to develop them on multi-million dollar equipment.

- It requires a LOT of effort to develop a processor. A chipset and motherboard architecture may also be needed. Why would the chipset maker support such a threat to their buisiness model?

I guess it would have similar to how the linux distros are sold now. The IP is open (maybe GPLed) and there are companies (or a non-profit organization composed of peoole who care) that would sell these things in stores to cover the costs of manufacturing.

This is the kind of thing I think would be nice, but it doesn't quite seem realistic. Still, a part of me actualy wants to try this.

Matt
msienko@pacbell.net

200MHz by delmoi · 1999-07-03 06:17 · Score: 1

well, in theory, but they couldn't find any 200mhz ram, and they didn't think that it would be out in time.

so now the *memory* bus is just 100 or 133 using regular sdram
_
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"

--

ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n

Re:"brandneu" by jwilloug · 1999-07-03 15:55 · Score: 1

Even stranger is that babelfish is completely correct, if a little archaic. "Brandnew" literally means "newly forged".

libertarianism does not = breaking the law. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 16:01 · Score: 0

I couldnt agree more. I have met a few /.ers who hate any government intervention including the doj trial and even defended ms but I believe they were anatchists. Anarchists are popular in Germany and they believe in no government. Libertarianism obviously believes in law enforcment wiht police departments and the national guard and stuff but if Intel breaks the law then it should be prosicuted. Its not about econimic freedoms. ITs about justice. Most Americans believe in personal freedom but do we really have it? No. If I was pissed off and walked down the street and began assulting people I could go to jail. I do not have the freedom of breaking the law. But I have freedom becuase people obey laws. Its kind of a catch. If no one obeyed the laws then caos and anarchy would rule and people would no longer have the freedom to go outside safely. Same is true for the sherman acts. Economic freedom will only happen if bussinessesx play by the rules and in return we all ahve a better world execpt the CEO's of ms and intel. Did you know Bill was in harvard to become a lawyer? His father was also a lawyer so Bill learned his bussiness skills by studying criminals and rewording meanings in words to make them sound something different to competitors.

BIll is very good at this but the truth will come out.

Bastards... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 03:56 · Score: 0

when do these price wars begin to hurt R&D for future chips?

Re:Bastards... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 04:38 · Score: 0

than maybe we all be using alpha in about 4 years from now. Samsung got the deepest pocket by than.
Re:Bastards... by Arcasia · 1999-07-03 11:55 · Score: 1

About the same amount of time that the last prices wars affected the chips we are currently running.
Re:Bastards... by Gotama · 1999-07-04 17:36 · Score: 1

I caught myself mad at them, because i want AMD to be successfull, but then i realized: this good, those thieving bastards (well yes) finally have a serious competitor.
I hope to see a long drawn out price war

Re:Capitalism by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 16:19 · Score: 0

So this is what's so great about capitalism is it? Technology is held back to lower prices?

I Will not pay the AMD Tax! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 03:56 · Score: 0

Just as the topic says.

Well, accually, 2 to 1 AMDs high tag is going to pay for all of there R&D. Oh well, i'll poke fun at AMD fans none the less ;).

May your CPUs be merry, cool, and fast.

Re:I Will not pay the AMD Tax! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 17:13 · Score: 0

Down with ATI for not providing any Linux support for its new cards!
Re:I Will not pay the AMD Tax! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-04 01:38 · Score: 0

High prices?!?!? The K7 is a lot cheaper than any of the people seriosuly following it had thought or assumed it would be. The K7 isn't at all like the cheap little K6s. AMD needs to charge highER than the K6 not because they think they can make more money off of people but because they need to right now. They were hugely in the whole after the last quarter and need to make a profit to stay aloft. Also consider their limited production of hte K7 (it's a freaking HUGE die size too) and it should come as no surprise at all. When they open their dresdon fab and shrink to a .18 micro process at the beginning of next year (or possibly at the end of this year) THEN you'll really see the price on the K7 come down. The K7 is still cheaper than what Intel usually sells their CPUs for. Remember that this article is just a rumor. I actually don't expect Intel to price cut AMD. They don't have to. Neither Intel or AMD can really afford a price war. AMD certainly can't and Intel probably COULD but if they eliminate AMD by such methods they know they'll have the government all over then for monopolistic business practices, etc. No, Intel will just sit back and hope that AMD can't make enough K7s to be a threat until they finally get the P7 out the door. The K7 is a great processor but it'll take large quantities of it to hurt Intel very much and that won't happen until next year, and in this market 6 months is a long time for stuff to happen...
Re:I Will not pay the AMD Tax! by topdogg · 1999-07-03 08:26 · Score: 0

Hell yeah, :) I always do.. hehe, when we benchmark, and my ole 300a Intel kicks the 350mhz amd all day in game benchmarks, he crys about the price he paid, and the price i paid. Hey if you want a cpu, you go with Intel, if you want something just to turn on, go AMD, untill they can really start leading instead of following & stealing from Intel, maybe they can make a real chip. Seeing how everything AMD has done, has only be Intel's tech drops anyways. :)

--
Got shack?
ShackCentral Network
Worlds best gaming network!!!
Re:I Will not pay the AMD Tax! by MikeBabcock · 1999-07-03 08:28 · Score: 1

I hate to break it to you, but Intel sells their breaking CPUs for over $2000 a part. AMD tops out at ~$600. Have a nice day (Intel's taxing you, not AMD).

--
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Re:I Will not pay the AMD Tax! by periscope · 1999-07-03 05:06 · Score: 1

Intel:
Old Crap, PSN.

AMD:
Forward thinking, no stupid PSN.

--
http://www.jonmasters.org/

Re:90% market share by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 16:21 · Score: 0

the survey you are referring to counted only consumer RETAIL sales . . . COMPUSA, Best Buy, etc.

It didn't count direct (Dell, GAteway) or corporate purchases. Intel's market share is still a good 80+ percent.

Intel undercutting AMD? by Mai+Longdong · 1999-07-03 03:56 · Score: 1

I'm shocked....simply shocked.

Re:Intel undercutting AMD? by Velox_SwiftFox · 1999-07-03 16:52 · Score: 1

Democracy can be so inconvenient, can't it?
Re:Intel undercutting AMD? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 07:16 · Score: 0

Give him a break, he's probably a Yank. Now that South Africa is Red as a baboon's arse and bleeding capital and talent as fast as the airplanes can take off, the Americans have kind of lost interest. Sad? Funny? Expected? I vote "all of the above."
Re:Intel undercutting AMD? by cdlu · 1999-07-03 22:24 · Score: 1

What's democratic about capitalism?

demo-kratia
governming-bythepeople

Of course the Canadian democractic template in which I live is more based on the Mohawk structure than the Greek one, but you get the point.

Down with intel! (And cyrix...yucky CPUs (media_gx 233MHz has i120MHz benchmark))

--
OFTC: By the community, for the community
Re:Intel undercutting AMD? by Velox_SwiftFox · 1999-07-04 11:46 · Score: 1

True. But capitalism thrives best in limited democracies, and democracies that do not allow sufficient capitalism tend to do poorly. Or not exist.

It irritates voters forbidden to enrich themselves. Pure democracies let a bare majority impose and are unviable, and elected officials must respect opinions of significant minorities.

They get voted out when minorities use decisions as litmus tests that change votes, and less affected majorities don't.
Re:Intel undercutting AMD? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 05:18 · Score: 0

What exactly shocks you? Cutting the prices was the most expected move from Intel, it would be surprise if they didn't do that. Given that this is just business (not a love story), there is nothing to be shocked. Don't be naive, watch mass executions in Freetown (Africa) to be really shocked, price cuts are nothing comparing to them, son.
Re:Intel undercutting AMD? by lilgorgor · 1999-07-03 05:25 · Score: 1

sarcasm.

How's this for an ad? by ToLu+the+Happy+Furby · 1999-07-03 16:26 · Score: 1

Ok, so first guy is blabbing on and on to second guy about this awesome new PC he just got. First guy is leading second guy through his house, and obviously can't wait to show him it. So, he's going on and on about the 6x DVD player, and the speaker set with the surround sound and the huge subwoofer, and the 19" monitor, etc, and how it is the ultimate PC available at any price.

Now, we arrive at the computer, and switch to a point-of-view-shot of second guy, who is obviously meant to be the computer expert of the two, looking over the machine. His eyes finally come to rest on that little Intel Inside logo.

Second guy: (stifles a chuckle) "Whoops."

Cut to black; parade of benchmarks--SPECs, WinBench, etc. and just about every 3D game known to man, comparing the K7 to the PIII--after all, assuming Q3 is a good example, they should all have the K7 walloping the PIII--followed by quotations from every publication imaginable declaring the K7 "The fastest x86 chip on the planet," or words to that effect (and again, these should be quite forthcoming).

The basic idea is, turn the Intel Inside logo from something to be proud of on a new computer into something to be embarrassed of. Of course, Apple tried to do this (with moderate success I suppose) with their early iMac and G3 ads--they were, of course, horribly misleading (they used the ancient Bytemark benchmark, which has almost no relevence to the way modern CPU's work), but I seriously doubt very many people found this out.

Still, when comparing two x86 CPU's, the only thing that makes one better than the other is price/performance--with the G3, you're inherently comparing entire platforms. And if AMD can successfully convey the fact (and, barring huge supply problems, it will be a fact) that they have superior price/performance in every possible performance metric on every mid to high-end price point...well...perhaps Intel Inside will start to be interpreted as Ignorant Buyer Outside.

Of course, this all assumes AMD still has enough money to make ads. And that they aren't written by the genius who picked the name Athlon...

Re:How's this for an ad? by Brandon+S.+Allbery · 1999-07-04 00:12 · Score: 1

> And that they aren't written by the genius who picked the name Athlon...

??? I thought it was a pretty good choice, myself, if perhaps relying a bit too much on a geek-oriented pun.

--
-- brandon s. allbery, sysadmin @ cmu electrical & computer engineering "Think, youth, THINK!"
Re:How's this for an ad? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-04 04:11 · Score: 0

"Althon" should be a runner-up to "The Phantom Menace" in the Crummy Name Hall of Fame. You can't say it without sounding drunk (much like Cosby pointed out about the phrase "judicial system"). Luckily names are starting not to matter so much.

Of course by William+Tanksley · 1999-07-03 03:56 · Score: 1

Of ocurse it's cheaper -- AMD's is faster, more scalable, etc.

And to add insult to injury, Intel's chip was delayed, so it'll also possibly be later as well.

-Billy

Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 07:04 · Score: 0

don't forget that the K7 bus protocol is compatible with the EV6 (21264) Alpha architecture. swappable moboards should become a reality soon.
by the way, keep up the good work on Omega!
Re:Of course by Chad+Page · 1999-07-03 04:53 · Score: 2

Nope... although Intel delayed Coppermine, it's going to make a Katmai based P3/600 sooner. The Coppermine P3/600 will be a lot nicer though (it'll run much cooler, faster, etc.)

Re:DOJ!! Where are you? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 16:28 · Score: 0

I don't know what you guys are bitching about.
When it comes to dumping, MS and Intel had Japan
as their teachers!

Translation from babelfish by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 03:59 · Score: 3

(I'll let you clean up the English)

Intel undercuts AMDs price

In view of the forthcoming launching of a vessel of AMDs flagship K7 " Athlon " accesses Intel to the extreme one: For the first time the processor giant undercuts the price of the directly comparable competition product of competitor AMD. The Pentium III with 600 mc/s, which Intel wants to throw two weeks before the AMD Premierenfeier in running, will be clearly cheaper after c't information than the fire-new 600-MHz-Athlon. Its price determined AMD to 699 US Dollar, while Intel had advised a OEM price of 823 US Dollar (with acceptance of 1000 pieces) until recently for the 600-MHz-P III. Still before start of sales of the Athlon Intel thereby seems to recognize its advance in performance. An outline of the bench mark results published so far brings c't in output 14/99 (starting from Monday at the kiosk).

Whether AMD can be pleased about this respect proof of the powerful competitor, is however questionable. The processor prozessorschmiede fights with high losses, all hopes rests with AMD

Re:Apples and Oranges by jwilloug · 1999-07-03 16:50 · Score: 1

Hmmph. So you wanna play number games? Well this is only AMD's fourth or fifth generation (when did they launch, 486? 386?) while Intel x86 is on its eighth (going all the way back to the 4004).

And Windows 98 is obviously better than outdated 70's technology Linux 2.2.

Personally, I'm going to look at benchmarks, and I'm going to look at prices, and I'll leave the numerology to the charl^H^H^H^H^Hprofessionals.

Need they say more? by Accipiter · 1999-07-03 04:12 · Score: 2

This is just further proof that Intel isn't out to make quality chips anymore, they're just out to gain market share. Intel isn't about making quality products, they're a marketing company.

AMD (who I don't particulary favor, but I respect the competition) introduced their 486 clone, and Intel pretty much kept the price of their 486 the same. AMD simply wasn't a threat to Intel. Now, however, more and more people are buying systems with the AMD processor in it, and Intel is starting to get worried. So they drop the price of their processors. That's how competition works. However while AMD is keeping their products up with their standards, Intel is lowering their standards, and introducing shoddy products that would be better given more development time.

Windows 95 was shipped WAY before it was ready. Same thing happened with the Pentium, as well as the Pentium III.

-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

--

-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't. :P)

Re:Need they say more? by Accipiter · 1999-07-03 06:27 · Score: 1

but saying that AMD is everything and Intel must die is dumb.

If you read my comment a bit more carefully, you'd see I don't care too much for AMD. :P

-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

--
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't. :P)
Re:Need they say more? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 19:00 · Score: 0

Uhm, people complain about AMD "cloning" Intel, but that's not entirely acurate. Intel and AMD own the patents up until the 486 together. From then on AMD has done a lot of research, and to be honest they've had as many bugs in their CPUs as Intel. Their first CPUs made on their own (K5,K6) were hardly any big innovations compared to Intel Pentium family - but seriously; how long do you think it takes to develop something on your own after your partner has broken your agreement?
Re:Need they say more? by Accipiter · 1999-07-03 07:22 · Score: 1

Apparently you were in a cave somewhere when Intel had a huge recall on first generation Pentium Chips.

-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

--
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't. :P)
Re:Need they say more? by Accipiter · 1999-07-03 07:42 · Score: 1

Apparently, many users aren't aware of the huge problem the early Pentium processors had, so I'll clarify. The original Pentium chips were recalled due to a bug in the FPU (Floating Point Unit). The bug misreported mathematical solutions in rare instances, and affected Pentium Chips, including the 60, 66, 75, 90 mhz lines. Intel originally denied the problem existed, then finally admitted it.

(I copied this from one of my posts later in the thread, and moved it up.)

-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

--
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't. :P)
Re:Need they say more? by MikeBabcock · 1999-07-03 08:23 · Score: 1

Apparently you're a victim of the Intel marketing machine. Microsoft optimized Direct X for AMD's 'special instructions' just like Intel's MMX. What's that, AMD did their own research? AMD's cloning involves finding out -exactly- what each instruction does, not how it's done. That would be a blatant breach of patent laws, etc. They just want to make sure their processors do all the same quirky things Intel's do. (See http://www.x86.org). At any rate, AMD's core has been superior to Intel's for some things for a long time (since the K6). Floating point isn't one of them, unfortunately for 3D gamers. Their caching code is better on their newer chips and their RISC core is more advanced (better for building on than Intel's which keeps getting overhauled). Maybe you should follow the industry to make a comment?

MMX is licensed, Intel was pissed because AMD used the term MMX in their advertising literature and Intel wanted them to pay to be able to use their trademark. This, incidentally, came down to whether MMX stands for MultiMedia instruXions ;) or just MMX. The law now stands that it's just MMX and it doesn't stand for anything (or Intel wouldn't be allowed to mark it as a trademark).

Enjoy your wierd world. AMD's not better than Intel or vice-versa. They both pay engineers to develop chips from the ground up. They both design innovations and new subsystems. Think Super-7. Think of the fact that the K7 uses an Alpha bus (far superior to Intel's).

Have a nice day.

--
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Re:Need they say more? by Detritus · 1999-07-03 11:15 · Score: 1

This is just further proof that Intel isn't out to make quality chips anymore, they're just out to gain market share. Intel isn't about making quality products, they're a marketing company.
Anymore? Intel has always produced chips that were "good enough", not great. It probably makes sense from a financial point of view, even if it sucks for the engineer/programmer who has to make them work in a system.

--
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Re:Need they say more? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 04:40 · Score: 0

You could clarify the pentium not ready part?

I felt the Pentium was ready.
Re:Need they say more? by Chad+Page · 1999-07-03 04:49 · Score: 1

The Pentium 60 and 66s were 5v space heaters, and barely faster than a DX4/100 at Integer ops. The P 75/90/100 chips were far better.
Re:Need they say more? by atw · 1999-07-03 04:56 · Score: 1

they're just out to gain market share. Intel isn't about making quality products, they're a marketing company.

Intel has more than 90% of the market. They simply don't need to "gain" it to be accused of being a monopoly (ok, they are monopoly now, but with 100% market share no legal guy prove it's not), their strategy is to RETAIN the market share.

Now, concerning your accusation that they are "marketing company", they actually do marketing bit well, something I can't say for AMD (do they actually hire marketing guys at all?). Thing is that in R&D lots of time and money goes to develop actual operations and profiling to find out which one should be optmized more. Cloning it (something AMD does well) is much easier, obviously that what pisses off Intel mostly, they spend damn a lot of effots to fine grane, say MMX, and then some guy comes later and copy their stuff. I don't accuse AMD of copying, it's ok for them to compete, but saying that AMD is everything and Intel must die is dumb. I would think that current situation where Intel has the main share and thereby has money to invest into deep R&D is good, while AMD later clones whole reserach thus limiting Intel's ability to capitalize and exploit their research. It's good for consumers, good for me and you.

AtW,
http://www.investigatio.com

--
alexc
Join Majestic-12 Distributed Search Engine

Delicate situation for Intel? by Sun+Tzu · 1999-07-03 04:13 · Score: 1

Cutting the announced price of an unreleased product to undermine a struggling competitor sounds like risky behavior for a monopoly. Of course, they're not a monopoly until the courts say they're a monopoly.

Is this just healthy competition or are they flirting with danger in the name of the DOJ?

--
Geeky modern art T-shirts

Re:Apples and Oranges - no, CPU and CPU by ToLu+the+Happy+Furby · 1999-07-03 16:59 · Score: 1

Just a nitpick, but the original Pentium was a P5--it came after the 486, Intel's 4th generation chip. The first P6 chip was the PentiumPro, released way back in 96, which amazingly enough contained a full-speed L2 cache of up to 1MB--essentially, a Xeon years before the PII!

And, no, CPU generation numbers aren't arbitrary at all--for a CPU to be a new generation, it needs an entirely new core, not just a little tack-on unit like MMX or KMI, or a change in packaging like socket to slot.

Now, the PII was a generation above the Pentium and Pentium MMX, because it used, that's right, a completely different core--the PPro core. The slot packaging was required because they decided to have an external 512k L2 cache, and couldn't fit it on the processor die; but that is irrelevent with respect to generation number. Thus, the celeron, available in both slot and socket configs, is a P6, as will be the Coppermine PIIIs, also available in both slot and socket, as are the PII/III Xeon's, which have the enormously humongous Slot 2 packaging.

Now, of course, in a sense generation numbers are arbitrary; if I personally design 7 different CPU cores, the 7th one won't be better than a PIII, because I don't know what the hell I'm doing. And furthermore, the K7 isn't actually AMD's seventh generation chip, AFAIK--I think their first chip core was a 386 clone.

But still, the point remains that the K5 was essentially equal to a P5, and the K6 to a P6, so calling the K7 (which is indeed completely new compared to the K6) a seventh generation chip seems fair to me.

On a related note, Intel's 7th generation IA-32 (as opposed to IA-64, the new 64-bit VLIW instruction set chips that will be inaugurated next year (perhaps!) with Merced) chip, Willamette, isn't expected until Q3 of next year. Rumor has it it will have a SPECint of ~40 at 1100Mhz when introduced--probably putting it slightly, although definitively, ahead of the K7 at the same Mhz. And, just as the K7 should scale to much greater clock speeds than the P6 core, Willamette will presumably (of course this is complete speculation) scale higher than the K7 core. Of course, if the laughingstock that Merced has become is any indication, Intel is having trouble designing new chips these days (to be fair, a chip based on an entirely new instruction set, and an entirely new philosophy (VLIW vs. CISC) presents a larger engineering challange than a new chip generation).

Meanwhile, AMD took the K7 design from 0 to production in 17-months--and they're already started on the K8. Which means that if they finish that one as quickly as they did the K7, Willamette's stint at the top of the x86 performance heap could be very short indeed...

Dumping? by gavinhall · 1999-07-03 04:18 · Score: 1

Posted by 2B||!2B:

It's _very_ illegal to dump products on the market at a loss to eliminate the competition, as far as I know. I've always wondered if that's been the case with Celeron chips, and now it looks like Intel is pushing that edge with their PIII's (leaving, of course, the Xeon chips overpriced to make up for it). I definitely think it's about time for a full federal investigation of any (many) illegal activities by Intel. It's every bit as bad as Microsoft giving away browsers and email readers to kill off their competitors (yeah, sure, it didn't cost them a dime to create those, so they can just give them away; right...). In my opinion, the top quarter of Intel and Microsoft employees probably ought to be in the slammer for such activities. Hopefully the feds will keep dragging them into court to put the fear of God into them (or at least the fear of lost revenue, fines, and jailtime).

Re:Dumping? by Nelson · 1999-07-03 10:57 · Score: 1

There is no way that they are dumping. The chips themselves are dirt cheap to produce, there is a tremendous amount of R&D and support costs (fabs are't so cheap) but really the fact of the matter is that Intel has essentially had a monopoly for a very long time and they dramatically over charge for their chips. Who can blame them?

They can probably produce chips much cheaper than AMD and still cut a profit on them, they've been doing it a long time and have very talented people. Intel could probably sell the coppermine for half of what the k7 is going to be selling for and still make a decent profit (probably a huge profit when they sell 100million coppermines because they are so cheap) and stay legal.
Re:Dumping? by Fizgig · 1999-07-03 04:27 · Score: 3

Yeah, but that's really hard to establish in this case. Take the Celeron example. They aren't selling them below cost, teechically. They're probably making a decent per-unit profit. But that doesn't take into account R&D. They'll still living off of the PPro R&D, and almost no research went into creating the Celeron (relative to other chips). A good portion of the cost of the chip is the research that went into it, and in this case, they might actually get away with "dumping" (I doubt it, though). You can't say, "Hey, it cost you more to develop that than you're selling it for!" because they might be able to milk it for another 5 years (PPro), though I doubt it. The only way they'd get caught for dumping is if they sold below the per-unit cost.
Re:Dumping? by Chad+Page · 1999-07-03 04:42 · Score: 1

The Celeron is actually somewhat profitable because of it's good yields (which is pretty amazing since it's got 18 million transistors or so because of the cache.) And all of the R&D was paid for quite a while ago. And there's NO WAY they're not making money hand over fist with the P3, even at the 'reduced' pricing. They typically sell a chipset along with the new chips, too. :)
I'd bet the profit margin is MUCH lower on all those K6-2 2 million excess units last quarter didn't help.
So it's rather ambiguous... Intel IS running AMD into the ground with the Celeron, but is playing fair just enough to dodge antitrust issues. Their R&D and production resources allow this.
Also, it has to be noted that Intel provides more of a 'package' to it's OEMs... the 440BX is a tough chipset to compete with, and Intel will happily sell OEMs a variety of motherboards around their chipsets as well. (Including a model with Riva TNT's and SB64PCIs on 'em.) AMD can't provide a whole solution to it's OEMs. (VIA, in theory, will once they absorb Cyrix.)
AMD's best hopes are that the EV6-based motherboards wind up being very good, and that Intel continues to stick with Rambus (which could be the biggest screwup by an industry leader since IBM bungled the marketing of Micro Channel!)
Because... by the end of the year Intel might just have an improved 800mhz Coppermine P3 ready... if the K7 takes off. And AMD can't afford to be foiled again.
Re:Dumping? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-04 03:36 · Score: 0

Prices and terms for licensing MicroChannel were so absurd that hardly anybody did. IMHO marketing would be hard-pressed to create enough demand to overcome that.
Re:Dumping? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-04 03:54 · Score: 0

AMD is worthless unless they build a surounding chipset

Ye ghods why? I'll only buy a motherboard with a chipset from a CPU maker as a last resort, because it probably won't support competing CPUs as well. I'd much rather have Slot A support from VIA than from AMD. Of course, I'm not buying Slot A until there's a competing x86 CPU I can get down the street, just as I won't buy Slot 1.
Re:Dumping? by T-Ranger · 1999-07-03 04:50 · Score: 1

Well, I dont know how well it scales up to a PIII but according to the lips of a Cyrix rep there 6x86s cost about $80/unit to manufacture. And this was way back when they were done more-or-less by hand. (well, in a test lab as oposed to a plant)
So I find it unlikely that the per unit cost of a PIII is much more that $100.
Ah yes, but what about R&d? I find it unlikely that there are more than, say, 100 people actualy R&D'n a paticular chip. And even if the cosy of a person-year of R&D is 1/4 million (salaries, management, computers, pencils, free coke(-a-cola) etc) then thats only $25million/year, proably no more that $50mil to develope a new chip. Not a realy large amount of cash.
Billion dollar plants, now thats another story, but they have a life expectancy of what? 25 years? Intel isnt closing down there 5 year old plants :)
Intel hasent ever had any competition, they have just set arbartry prices. Only now after a halfdozen years from Cyrix and AMD is Intel feeling any pain, and there doing what should be done in any healthy market: setting there prices to be in line with the competition. They do have deeper pockets, and they do have a larger market share so they dont have to make as much profit on a per unit basis.
And besides, AMD is worthless unless they build a surounding chipset.
Re:Dumping? by atw · 1999-07-03 05:00 · Score: 1

Cyrix rep there 6x86s cost about $80/unit to manufacture.

One of the reason why Cyrix failed is that they were fabless. That's it they had to make their stuff on IBMs fabs. Obviously they had to pay IBM for that service and given that they didn't have much choice 6x86 cost them $80, while it possibly cost $5 to IBM (speculation).

AtW,
http://www.investigatio.com

--
alexc
Join Majestic-12 Distributed Search Engine

It's a giant game of chicken by tlewis · 1999-07-03 04:22 · Score: 2

Intel is trying to run AMD out of cash before AMD
makes it into the giant cash horde of server-class
chips. If they succede, then AMD will be dead,
dead, dead. If they don't, then they will never
be able to destroy AMD, and they will never again
be able to command the kinds of premiums that
they do today on, e.g., Xeons.

I'm rooting for AMD and will be buying an Althon
on principle. Competition rules, monopolies suck,
and competitors trying to bust up monopolies
deserve consumers' support.

Re:It's a giant game of chicken by Vrongar · 1999-07-03 06:27 · Score: 1

I suspect AMD will have no problem sellig every K7 they can Fab. People have been waiting for a truly viable non-Intel chip for quite a while; also most of the OEMs are quite aware of the need for an alterative CPU supplier.
Re:It's a giant game of chicken by Velox_SwiftFox · 1999-07-03 18:48 · Score: 1

Let me get this straight: Intel makes much more profit on their chips than AMD does, so Intel is at a disadvantage. :-)

This is interesting logic. By extension, any company which is highly profitable should fail as a result of their success.

Sorry, you are imagining things. AMD is crippled by their small market share which must support their whole R&D and facilities cost. Intel maximizes their profits by minimizing expenses as well as charging what the market will bear for their processors, and produces them for much less cost per processor as a result.

"Intel start to treat it's friend badly"? I have no idea what you mean by this. Companies deal with each other in the real world for their own benefit, not to help "friends". Are you imagining that it is ethical, desirable, or even legal for public companies to cut other companies out of their market share? Maybe this works in some third-world countries where corruption is rampant, but not in the market Intel works in.
Re:It's a giant game of chicken by GreyFauk · 1999-07-03 22:52 · Score: 1

IF (and ONLY if) I was a Gamer... I'm sure I would have
bought more intel chips up till now.
The truth of the matter is that I've not purchased
an Intel cpu since AMD came out with their K6 line
of processors.
Celery/P-II/P-III ??? wtf?
Why the hell would I buy a chip that is made to be
incompatible with all my existing MB's?
Screw that... Intel only went to the Slot 1 tech because they have a freakin patent on it.

I admire AMD for choosing the Alpha bus chipset.
For one.. it's superior to intel's. Two, it may
provide cross compatibility with Alpha cpu's in the
future. Three? As far as I know.. anyone can liscence
the specs and create their own processor for it...
I.E. Cyrix winchip etc...

How many other non-intel brands of chips can you put into a Slot I or Slot 2 MB?

My savings have already started towards a 4-way
AMD K7.
AMD..... Works for me.

--
Friends don't let friends buy Compaq's. (Dell/Gateway... same same) You want a good computer? Build it yourself.
Re:It's a giant game of chicken by eshefer · 1999-07-03 04:42 · Score: 1

I agree.. It's just in this game of chicken on one side there is a motorcycle and on the other side a semitrailer..

Intel have done this price busting game with amd for a long time. Thats, BTW, is why the Xeons are so expensive. I don't know if there is any (large - intel profits on every chip they sell) profit in the celeron range. The Xeons have been offsetting this for the past year.

Intel are very smart at changing the price model to accomidate these changes in the industry based on competition. this is really no big suprise.
--------------------------------
( my music)
Re:It's a giant game of chicken by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 04:50 · Score: 0

Agree, but I got the feeling that AMD is going to win this round, If the OEM are smart, they will just put little money in AMD, (maybe one or two million dollar a piece) just enough to keep AMD survive. And nobody do better survival game than AMD *l* OEM gain the biggest profit by maintaining AMD survival and the existance of price war.

Intel on the other hand, has always living on fat profit, if now, they even cut their main bread and butter. They will not last. That not to mention Intel start to treat it's friend badly.

All AMD has to do is survive a little longer until Intel's fat cash cushion start to get thin, and the whole process grind to a halt because of exhaustion.

In the price war, AMD has longer experiance than Intel. AMD corporate structure is revolved around surviving like a poor church mouse, while intel used to living large.

What price war? by digitalunity · 1999-07-03 06:29 · Score: 1

Of course Intel is cutting their prices. They need to provide some motivation for people to buy the P-III. Don't forget, AMD did the exact same thing with the K6. If you have an inferior product, you need to make it cheap to get people to buy it.

But i wouldn't expect AMD to follow suit. Athlon was not designed to be cheap. It was designed to set the performance standard for all other market contenders. I wouldn't expect them to lower their prices for the simple reason that people will pay the premium for a superior product. Intel proved that with the P-II, always more expensive than AMD but overall a better product.

--
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.

If no one buys Re:Good! I support price wars. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 06:31 · Score: 0

If no one BUYS AMD chips, how can they exist to compete?

And seeing the Corel logo and this thread reminds me: If you don't support Corel with $ for WP under Linux, why should they upgrade it or make more ports TO Linux? (if, say adobe, doesn't see money being made by Oracle/Corel on the Unix market, then why should they?)

If the AMD can do the job for you, buy the AMD. And if you are using software...pay for it. Such activity encourages the market for more 'cheap things.'

Original P6 (PPro) was good but Windows wasn't by Locutus · 1999-07-03 06:47 · Score: 1

Intel did a decent job with the PPro with its 32bit optimizations but Micros~1 kept Windows a Dos-based operating environment. This forced Intel to start spewwing out junk to keep the buyers thinking things were moving forward and not backward. MMX and double the cache helped it sell more lagging Pentiums while a hacked up P6 was being developed, the PII.
I think we can thank Micros~1 for AMD's ability to compete today. Intel was knocked back about 2+ years just because Windows 9x is very much a 16bit OS and this allowed the K6 to step in and give AMD a name more were willing to accept.
This is why I feel Wintel has had such a rocky partnership since 1995 and that Intel is pushing for OS's like BeOS and GNU/Linux. IMHO

--
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus

Re:Original P6 (PPro) was good but Windows wasn't by Velox_SwiftFox · 1999-07-03 18:02 · Score: 1

The PPro's fatal flaw was that it could not execute 16-bit legacy code without being crippled. Intel fscked up by assuming that this would force *everyone*, including Microsoft, to develop and purchase software that no longer used that legacy code. It did not work out that way.

The flawed design was only purchased for the small segment of the market which was 32-bit, such as NT and *nix, so it became Intel's biggest flop since the iAPX432 (it was in desperation after that previous debacle that Intel as quickly as they could hacked together a strange, asymmetrical, segmented design out of their 8080/8085 CPU called the 8086).

So, Intel resorted to incremental changes while they fixed the problems with the PPro, the Pentium MMX processors. And AMD gained market share by using the opportunity. Microsoft traded off making Windows 95 compatable with legacy applications for what they might have gained by going all 32-bit and making Intel happy. They are not partners, each company has to respect what the market share of the other means to their own profits but it is each companies' duty to maximize their own for their stockholders.

So AMD managed to build market share and compete when Intel was knocked back, and all the other observations in the rest of your comment. :-)

Wow, nice tautology by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 06:50 · Score: 0

!

More interesting translation by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 06:52 · Score: 0

(Used Babelfish to translate the above back to German, and then back to English)

Price of the INTEL undercuts AMDs

In view of forthcoming discharging of a container of the AMDs flagship K7 " Athlon " INTEL to the extreme accesses: For the first time the processor giant under-cuts the price of the directly comparable competition product of the competitor AMD. The Pentium III with 600 mc/s, which throw INTEL two weeks before the AMD premiere celebration when running require, is obviously more inexpensive after c't informationen as the fire-new 600-MHz-Athlon. Its price determined AMD to 699 US Dollar, while until recently INTEL had guessed/advised a Soempreis of 823 US Dollar (with acceptance of 1000 pieces) for the silence 600-MHz-P III., before at the beginning of sales of the Athlon INTEL seems to detect its progress in the performance. One outline the results of point of outline, which are published up to now, gets c't in the output 14/99 (driving off of Monday at the kiosk).

Whether AMD will please over this respect proof of the efficient competitor can, is however asks

AMD Athlon benchmarks by bavarian · 1999-07-03 06:53 · Score: 1

Just in case some of you don't read c't ;-)

- here are the benchmarks for Athlon
(It's always in percent of the Pentium III):

SPECfp95

Athlon 600 MHz 153% (21,1)
Athlon 550 MHz 146% (20,1)
PIII-Xeon 550 MHz 109% (15,1)
PIII 550 MHz 100% (13,8)

SPECint95

Athlon 600 MHz 118% (26,3)
Athlon 550 MHz 109% (24,3)
PIII-Xeon 550 MHz 106% (23,6)
PIII 550 MHz 100% (22,3)

3D-Winbench

Athlon 600 MHz 148%
Athlon 550 MHz 140%
PIII 550 MHz 100%

The numbers are taken from AMD with some values recalculated and added from Intel and Spec sources (published in c't 14/99)

Re:AMD Athlon benchmarks by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 21:18 · Score: 0

We're not as concerned with P3 numbers compared to K7 number so much as P3 coppermine numbers compared to K7 numbers... The K7 came out 6 months after the p3, it should be faster.
Re:AMD Athlon benchmarks by m3000 · 1999-07-03 07:01 · Score: 1

I find it funny that a performance quote from a manufactor /. likes is always taken as truth. Whereas a performance quote made by a competior (ie. Microsoft, Intel) is always subject to intense controversy (ie Mindcraft Linux vs. NT tests). I'll believe it when I see the numbers on Tom's Hardware or Sharky Extreme.
Re:AMD Athlon benchmarks by madprof · 1999-07-03 07:47 · Score: 1

How you can compare a test like Mindcraft's to those Spec tests is beyond me.
No-one really takes spec tests too seriously, for starters. At least not if they know anything. The clueful people on Slashdot will take AMD's figures with the same pinch of salt they take Intel's figures I am sure. Midcraft test? Well that's for operating systems which are a totally different beat and there the scope for fissling is greater.
It's true that some people do seem to blindly follow whatever makes their favourite processor or operating system look good though.
Shame.
Re:AMD Athlon benchmarks by Avus · 1999-07-04 20:59 · Score: 1

I don't think those are numbers supplied by the manufacturer, I guess c't did them themselves. (I'll run and buy one in a minute).
And, c't is by far the most reliable source I know of, *far* more reliable than (even) places like Tom's Hardware.

Fine by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 17:26 · Score: 0

I'm still going to buy a K7 (Actually I was planning on a dual K7 500 system as if I recall the pricing structure two 500's will cost about the same as 1 600.)

Re:Hear hear! by TummyX · 1999-07-03 19:00 · Score: 1

office already saves as xml. pity IE is the onlybrowser to fully support xml.

Re:Performance by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 20:23 · Score: 0

Intel FPUs do indeed suck. Guess that's why I got meself a 533MHz Alpha *gloat*. But for US$250 MB + CPU, I can't understand why more people don't... Linux and all the BSDs has made this possible for me.

btw, tapping this out on my trusty K6-2/300 "general purpose" Linux box.

-t.

Re:this is just silly by jonathanclark · 1999-07-03 21:09 · Score: 1

Thanks for the reiview for those of us not keeping up with the cpu wars.

Jonathan

--
-- Virtual Windows Project

What? Are you High? by gfolkert · 1999-07-03 21:12 · Score: 1

Office does indeed save in XML, but if you were to look at the XML in the document, I believe you would see that it is just a bunch of, ummm, "Proprietary" tags.

In other words, M$ is trying ONCE AGAIN to change the standard by flooding the market with polluted stuff.

Pity, most people won't ever know the difference, as they are shang-hai'd by M$ from the start and never see anything different.

As always,

--
greg, REMEMBER ED CURRY!!!

Re:Two households, both alike in dignity... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 21:23 · Score: 0

How many minutes do you have to save to pay for the computer? If the guy is just doing text editing, it is far more sensible from a business perspective to stick with what he has. A faster computer won't speed that process up much.

Factor in to that the increasing drops in PC prices and he could probably ride this one until it dies, and get a much much better machine for almost free when that happens. The effect on business is minimal.

Youre right by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 06:54 · Score: 0

The K7 kicks the crap out of P3 in float. Plus, I like the mobo architecture.

It doesnt matter by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 06:59 · Score: 0

the architecture of the K7 mobo has a separated bus, so u can run 100mhz ram and a 200mhz bus with no problem.

Re:It doesnt matter by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 22:56 · Score: 0

>But how the hell does a 200MHz bus help when
> a) The RAM is running slower
> b) The system PCI bus is running
> slower
> only external cache would be
> helped

I beleive that the external cache is on a
different back-side bus and is probably run
core clock synchronous - 200MHz is for
the EV6 front-side bus to the main memory

In practice 200MHz vs. 100MHz doesn't help much,
the main limiting factor in DRAM transactions
is access time (RAS/CAS time), not data
transfer time.

Still the he faster bus does help you with 2
things - it halves the data transfer time to
transfer a 256-bit cache line takes 4 clocks on
a 64-bit bus - with a 128-bit memory subsystem
running at 100MHz you can read data fast enough
to feed a 200MHz bus at full rate) so all memory
accesses will be 2 memory clocks shorter (20nS)
while this is not twice as fast it's still faster.

The downside is that with it's tiny address bus
I'd guess that SlotA takes an extra 1-2 clock hit
sending the multiplexed address at the start of
the transaction (compared with Slot1 which has
a full sized address bus) so this number is probably a wash

You can also have more outstanding concurrent
transactions - assuming the K7 microarchitecture
can actually generate such things, and you have
a memory subsystem (like RamBus) which can handle
a very large number of concurrent transactions
Re:It doesnt matter by Dan+Guisinger · 1999-07-03 07:52 · Score: 1

But how the hell does a 200MHz bus help when
a) The RAM is running slower
b) The system PCI bus is running slower

only external cache would be helped
now thats a fucking stupid idea if you ask me
its all there for marketting to people who don't bother to ask why something is done that way

--
www.atacomm.com - The Leader in VoIP Product Distributi
Re:It doesnt matter by Zurk · 1999-07-03 08:27 · Score: 1

the alpha has compatibility with it. eventually ram will get faster. pci will get faster. thats all that counts.
Re:It doesnt matter by Top+Dog · 1999-07-05 04:24 · Score: 1

Take a closer look at how the ram is set up. Also, imagine the benifits when rambus and other new technologies come out next year.

--
Nature abhors a vacuum. So does my sister's dog.

AMD and .18 micron, full speed cache, and copper by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 07:06 · Score: 0

I heard some where that AMD new plant in Germany will be making .18 micron copper cpus (they are faster than normal silicon cpus). Ontop of this AMD cpu's support upto 8mb of fullspeed l2 cache.

AMD has a lot of levarage if you ask me

Would be a good move for Intel by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 07:24 · Score: 0

This would be an awesome move for Intel, be it true! I always vote for the underdog, but the average consumer only looks at the Mhz rating. They do recognize Intel over AMD as AMD is known to many as 'That chip with problems'. AMD has a bad reputation that they need to overcome before they can be priced higher then Intel.

I do hope this lowers the price of AMD K7 processors. I would get one if I couldn't build a dual Celron cheaper.

A little break for you... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 21:57 · Score: 0

Anybody know whose chips has faster context switch time / interrupt latency?

Re:Two households, both alike in dignity... by IntlHarvester · 1999-07-03 22:16 · Score: 2

Hey, actually /. is a place for the kind of computer enthusiasts who brag about keeping their 386s in service with Linux!

Actually, the problem that both Intel and AMD face is the declining returns of faster CPU speeds. I run a P5-133 at home and a PII-350? at work, and other than than booting NT, there's almost no perceptual difference between the two. Of course the home machine has SCSI, better video, and more memory, but by spec, the CPU in the PII should be 3-4x faster. (Other than MAME, I don't really play any games however.)

The real problem here is that Intel is squeezing the OEMs by the balls. The "Intel Inside" marketing lock-in ensures that the big vendors have their offerings up to Intel's latest clock speeds, but the market demands a $1200 PC. Well, if you're Compaq or Dell, how are you going to to build a $1200 PC with a $700 CPU and still try to make any money? Cut corners, that's how. Hence, crappy video and disk subsystems, and a bunch of crap components ready to die and get thrown away in 2 years.

Even for the price difference between a PIII-450 and a PIII-550, they could more than double the memory or get a better video accelerator. Hell, even Windows 98 is going to work better and play better with 128MB of RAM instead of the standard 64MB.

Compaq, Dell, et al have been sucking at Intel's teet for so long that they haven't been serving their customers, and they haven't realized that they've consigned themselves for making a 2% profit margin screwing hard drives into essentially Intel-manfuactured systems. If it hadn't been the rise of big high-profit x86 servers (thank NT for that!), all of these clowns would be out of business. (And watch while Intel destroys the server profit center by driving commodity machines into that market.)

Hopefully, people will get past these magic megahertz numbers and realize that the only difference between this year's K7 or PIII and a Pentium Pro from three years ago is an barely perceptable increase in Quake frame rate or RC5 or kernel complies or whatever. I know everyone on slashdot loves the latest and greatest, but we're way beyond the point where any of this stuff makes any real difference.

(End of rant - too much coffee consumed already.)
--

--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.

Not Suprised by KungFuIce · 1999-07-03 22:45 · Score: 1

I'm really not suprised, because Intel did this when the K6 came out also.

chip stacking to the extreme by cdlu · 1999-07-03 23:19 · Score: 1

By the same token if youstack a bunch of 486/100MHz chips together togehter (perhaps linux's limit of 20, I think it is) you could have a 2000 MHz computer for about $400.00. :-)

--
OFTC: By the community, for the community

Re:Why would a PIII cost more? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 23:28 · Score: 0

Intel is profitable, and can cut prices a *lot* more while turning a profit, but your analysis ignores important realities.

Fact: Intel spent $4 billion last year on those "better production facilities," and will again this year. *Having* them doesn't guarantee lower costs, since they're *paying* to have them. They cost-justify the facilities based on forecasted market demand, which will be lowered as competition heats up.

Fact: Intel spends $3 billion a year on R&D, and has spent billions on 6th-generation Pentium R&D that is still being amortized.

Fact: Intel is spending $3 billion on marketing and general administration costs (they don't break them out separately), which includes all those faceless dancing Intel mascotts who are broadcast during prime time to convince us that Pentiums provide more liveliness than competing products. (A safe battle...nobody's going to come out with a CPU liveliness benchmark).

I can't wait for those "fire-new" Athalons by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 07:38 · Score: 0

heheh

Clarification by Accipiter · 1999-07-03 07:40 · Score: 1

Apparently, many users aren't aware of the huge problem the early Pentium processors had, so I'll clarify. The original Pentium chips were recalled due to a bug in the FPU (Floating Point Unit). The bug misreported mathematical solutions in rare instances, and affected Pentium Chips, including the 60, 66, 75, 90 mhz lines. Intel originally denied the problem existed, then finally admitted it.

-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

--

-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't. :P)

Re:Clarification by kabloie · 1999-07-03 10:48 · Score: 1

And don't forget f00f! That's still a hardcoded problem on my dual p200 and the only workaround is in the OS software. There are more errata, of course, but this one was/is highly exploitable.

-kabloie
Re:Clarification by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-04 03:26 · Score: 0

"Reluctantly" is right. At first they were asking people what sort of applications they were running - you had to prove you were *important* enough to get a CPU that divides correctly.

Intel as Planet Ix in _Dune_ by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 07:49 · Score: 0

If "Pottymouth" Grove had one wish, that would be it. Then we'd all be back in the seventies with The Woz, figuring out how many years we'd have to eat beans and rice t.i.d. before we could afford the down payment on a home computer. Thank yew Jeeee-zus for competition and private ownership of the means of production.

Re:this is just silly by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 07:51 · Score: 0

As you say, price is *a* factor in determining the best product. But who sais that this should be the only factor? If competition allows you to choose between a company whose policy you find morally rejectable, or a company that sells products without stains a bit more expensive....

Re:$823 lt $699 ?? Start Monday at the Kiosk! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 09:50 · Score: 0

You misinterpreted...Intel had "advised" the US$823 price "until recently." The rumour doesn't give Intel's revised advice, but suggests that it will be less than US$699.

Re:Amazing when this actually works by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 10:01 · Score: 0

Are you counting Mac, Be, and Unix as inactive? Or are you talking apps, where Corel and Star are inactive? Or are you just trying to put down Microsoft without bothering to consider whether your put-down makes any sense?

Yay competition! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 07:58 · Score: 1

Don't think of it as Intel undercutting AMD; think of it as the first step towards competitive rather than monopolistic pricing of processors.

Apples and Oranges by gleam · 1999-07-03 08:09 · Score: 1

I think we're all missing the real problem with the story:

Intel is releasing the p3/600 at a lower price than AMDs Athlon/600. But the athlon is a 7th generation chip, while the p3 is a lowly 6th generation. We're comparing apples to oranges, and giving Intel more credit than they deserve. Now, if AMD were selling a k6-3/600 for more than an intel p3/600 this would be news, but otherwise I can only say that this is to be expected!

-ehfisher

--
this .sig is not a .sig.

Price wars by drw · 1999-07-03 10:05 · Score: 1

Intel can afford to cut the prices on their chips because of the huge markups on the Xeon line of processors. Yes, the PIII's might end up cheaper than a K7 (oops...Athlon), but performance-wise the AMD is comparing more to a Xeon. And based on this, it is still a much better deal.

Re:no copper on silicon by Mr.+Peabody · 1999-07-03 10:21 · Score: 1

Why not make them all out of gold? Quite simple, gold is NOT the best conductor. Silver is the best conductor, followed by copper. The real question is why not make them out of silver?

Re:no copper on silicon by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 10:42 · Score: 0

I'm not an expert, so I'm not going to say I am, but for anyone that is interested, I can get you looking in the right direction...

Because I used to work with IBM AS/400's, I read quite a while ago about the new 'discovery' of being able to mix copper with silicon. Mostly the problem resolved with being able to combine the two together.
Since then, AS/400 chips are coming out 20% faster with the new copper mix. I'm sure when you read copper technology in other systems, we're talking about the same type of 'discovery'.

You ask why not use silver... probably the same technique needs to be found out.

-rader

Re:this is just silly by Nelson · 1999-07-03 10:43 · Score: 1

I'd really be shocked if they weren't cutting a profit on the celerons. There wasn't a lot of R&D for it, they really just watered down the P2. Most of the really hard work was already done, they just packaged it, down clocked it and started producing them (all of what, a dime a shot to produce?)

I think this is just great news, chips are getting cheaper because of competition, it's about time. Intel hasn't been pushed before, or at least not seriously. AMD is scaring them a little which should mean better and cheaper chips for all.

I also expect the coppermine to probably match or out perform the athalon, it only makes sense and intel has pulled off those silent style stunners before. (I think it might have been the ppro that performed better than they had let on during design and the released it early) While the pentim iii is an utter disappointment the coppermine will probably perform decently, if they stick with their trends.

Re:About time... by TerryMathews · 1999-07-03 10:55 · Score: 1

Lately their prices have been creeping up to the point where (at least in Oz) there is little or no cost saving in using AMD over Intel

I don't know about Oz, but here near the real world (Dayton, OH), AMD prices have been dropping pretty significantly. I work in a computer store, and we can get K6-2 400s in single unit quantities for $80/pc. Intel has finally decided that they have to compete with AMD dollar for dollar after all.

But, they won't win. All of my machines are powered by AMD K6-2s. Except for my Linux server, a PPro 180. It was given to me. I refuse to buy Intel chips, although I think that the PPro is extrememly powerful for the prices it still sells for. :)

--
-- Terry

OK, Here's where it's at... by KingBob · 1999-07-04 00:31 · Score: 1

This is what I mean, these prices are in AUD$$$ from one local online dealer:

Celeron 400P Cache Socket 370 $193
AMD K6-2-400-3D $169

Pentium II 400 $362
AMD K6-3-400-3D $330

Pentium III 450 $529
AMD K7 (Not Available yet) ????

As you can see, AMD is still a little cheaper for now, but believe me, that margin is ever decreasing...

As I said before, I am a happy AMD user, but I will buy whatever chip offers the best value for money, there's nothing wrong with Intel stuff, it would be foolish to be so dogmatic as to buy only "Brand X" simply to spite "Brand Y", without any financial or performance benefit gain.

Re:OK, Here's where it's at... by TerryMathews · 1999-07-04 12:02 · Score: 1

Ah yes, but you also have to figure in how much it is worth to you to keep chip prices reasonable. If AMD goes under, or is even not a contender anymore, Intel will have no reason to make their chips so cheap. Competition keeps prices low on both sides. If a company has no supporters it can't compete.

--
-- Terry

No No No, you've got it wrong! by gavinhall · 1999-07-04 00:52 · Score: 1

Posted by Napalm4u:

okay AMD has fast Level 1 and level 2 cache. Okay up to a meg i think that runs at 200mhz in the K7. Then the Level 3 cache which is another meg runs at 100mhz or 200 i forget which.

Now the FSB runs at 100(but i bet you could get it up to 133 without any problem). I'm a serious overclocker and can't wait to get my hands on this. The memory will run at 100mhz. The on board Cache will run at 200mhz. It won't be any problem for the memory.

btw there is 200mhz memory. That's what the voodoo 3500 is gonna have on it. I think it runs at 5ns. 133mhz memory runs at 7.5ns

I doubt Intel will do this... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-04 01:54 · Score: 0

I think I agree more with this guy.

Re:90% market share by Top+Dog · 1999-07-04 02:50 · Score: 1

Where are these numbers coming from? Intel is selling less than 10% in new $1000 computers! That is the price level that most people buy. (Maybe not /.'ers, but everyday Joes.) Remember that the K7 is not even at the same level as a P3. It OUTPERFORMS Intel's Xeon processors, and has as much or more cache for less than half or even 1/3 the going price for a Xeon.
Competition RULES!!!

--
Nature abhors a vacuum. So does my sister's dog.

life / economy: a false dichotomy by timothy · 1999-07-04 02:50 · Score: 1

Shelrem wrote:

I like my life free and my economy regulated.

Huh?!

How can "the economy" be regulated be regulated without regulating individual lives?

All choices in life are (that is, can be seen as, whatever ever else they might be) economic choices. If you are free to be idle, that is an economic choice because it limits the amount you earn or learn. If you are *not* free to be idle, it sounds like an economic regulation: does this mean you're in favor of it? How about the right to dispose of your property as you see fit? To invest in someone else's company? To lend money? To take a new job or quit an old one?

What if you come up with a new product, one that you think people would trade their dollars for? If you believe in freedom of the individual, you ought to; if you believe in economic regulation you ought first consider how your regulators view the thing.

Your summary of the left / right / libertarian positions I think misses the attitude of many libertarians (cannot speak for all, of course) which is that libertarians do not believe that personal and economic freedoms can be separated, that they are part of the same thing.

If you like your economy regulated, you can at least take comfort in the way that rent control ensures the availability of low-cost, high-quality housing in every city it's been introduced to.

timothy

--
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5

*sigh* by david_g · 1999-07-04 03:06 · Score: 1

I want an Alpha.

Can anyone explain to me why are those so expensive? Wouldn't we all be a lot better if we didn't have to live in a world where there is no crappy x86 architecture? Oh, well.

RE: Processor ID!! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-04 03:18 · Score: 0

I support competition. I will not buy anything based on brand names, either Intel or AMD (I've owned a K6, PentiumMMX, K6-2, and CeleronA in the past 2 years). I buy the fastest chip I can afford.

BUT, I draw the line at buying an Intel chip with a Processor ID. I have enough qualms about cookies, why would I want anybody to be able to uniquely identify my computer (and possibly me) by using that feature? Sorry Intel, I'm buying a K7 regardless of how cheap PIII's get. Hopefully others will follow and Intel will remove this 'feature' from future processors.

Re:AMD and .18 micron, full speed cache, and coppe by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 08:22 · Score: 0

You mean copper connections to the silicon as opposed to aluminum. The chips are still silicon.

90% market share by MikeBabcock · 1999-07-03 08:24 · Score: 2

AMD sold more processors than Intel in desktop machines in the first quarter of this year. Intel does not have 90%, it's more like 43% (desktop market).

--
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)

Re:90% market share by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 11:22 · Score: 0

What is Intel's overall share in CPU market (both desktop, server)? I would safely bet it's 80%+.

Re: FTC's watchful eye by MikeBabcock · 1999-07-03 08:27 · Score: 1

Considering the fact that they've been under the FTC's eye for the last 3 or 4 years pretty heavily, it's very dangerous. They can probably only afford it (politically) because AMD outsold them on the desktop this year so far. The problem is that if they both up their prices (to pay for their increasing costs), they'll get collusion ... FTC again :).

--
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)

Re:shouldn't be a problem by GotMilk? · 1999-07-03 10:56 · Score: 1

I don't really think that you are totally correct. Although intel has shot themselves in the foot with the pricing on the Celerons, they can still make money promoting SMP. I think that soon enough it will be common for computers with multi-head displays, and dual or quad processors.
I'm waiting for the day when I can buy a dual processor system for $899.00. Intel's slash and burn pricing will only encourage this behovior. I only hope that AMD will survive long enough to prove what they are worth.

--
"Religion, opiate of the masses."

Hear hear! by timothy · 1999-07-03 10:57 · Score: 1

Microsoft may do some naughty things (need good evidence, not just competitors moaning that they're at an unfair diadvantage), but the fact that they're so widely accepted is certainly not due to a lack of competition.

There's no way that you can say that they have no competition, because in any market segment you can name (no fair saying 'Products sold by Microsoft') ;), MS does face competition, even in some cases excellent free / Free products, like apache.

So why is Word / Office everywhere? Because businesses past a certain size --usually! -- don't have the flexibility or creativity to see beyond the status quo, because the cancer of middle management spread and MBAhood has spread into all things. MS benefits from business inertia: to preserve file-compatibility, seems that many businesses think they have to keep an MS-only computing environment. In a sense they're right, because to do otherwise requires installing work-arounds at every turn.

In my place of employ, for example, we frequently receive information from clients in the form of Word, Oulook or Excel files. Hopefully by this time next year they could all be XML data, eh?

In the meantime, management says 'it's safe to buy more MS products, and we'd better get the newest ones because the other people we deal with will get it and we'll need to read their files ...' Circular reasoning, self-fulfilling prophecies. Microsoft cannily exploits what amounts to widespread management dysfunction. That's MS being smart ... sort of like office supply stores that sell the paper that the lawyers fill with obfuscation and pre-emptions.

But all the vindictive stuff about MS (claims that MS executives should all be in jail, or allegations of corruption, etc) would sound strange if it were applied so casually to other companies or groups of programmers. IBM in the 60s arguably had closer to a true monopoly than MS does at present, and that was for both hardware and software. Maybe, then, in 20 years people can think of MS as an amazing company that still makes good products despite having gone through tough times (ala today's IBM), and then again maybe MS will be a scorned, scoffed-at name, a name synonomous with hubris and failure. We'll see.

I am no fan of MS products, but the fact that MS products dominate the workplace is because people buy them!

timothy

--
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5

You should fall down to your knees and thank AMD! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 08:44 · Score: 0

If Intel manages to kill AMD see prices of your so-beloved Pentiums pop up by a factor of 2 or 3.

Intel is an evil moneysucker as microsoft is. Remember the 486** story? 486sx, 487, 486dx - all the the same die, just a dirty trick to make money. Intel is still doing little dirty tricks:
The throttled down the cacheable area of PentiumIIs to force people with more need for memory to buy the much more expensive Xeons, they're going to remove the SMP functionality from Celerons etc...

Remember the fdiv bug? f00f? Intel's closed information politics regarding bug's (err "flaws") in their CPUs is a threat to IT. "Intel inside" is a warning label to me.

Remember all those "integration" attemps by intel? This way they want to control more of the hardware market. With an average Intel-inside computer intel earns much more these days then a few years ago.

Intel is to hardware as Microsoft to software. I'm not willing to pay the intel tax like I'm not willing to pay the Microsoft tax. I don't want to feed the evil (and bunny people).

intel knows the game by drbart · 1999-07-03 11:07 · Score: 1

intel has *always* known, and said publicly, that their most profitable times are when they are alone in the market.

they work hard for an advantage in *time*, which lets them compete on price when others enter a market.. and have little opportunity for profit.

Amazing when this actually works by TheInternet · 1999-07-03 08:49 · Score: 1

Isn't it interesting how active competition actually reduces prices while diversifying offerings? Amazing. Imagine if Microsoft had to face that.

- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson

--
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas

Re:no copper on silicon by Daa · 1999-07-03 11:10 · Score: 1

The problem with copper and silver in ICs is electromigration ( the metel diffuses into the silicon after a while and screws up the chip). The big breakthru recently was a new non-silicon insulating layer that can seperate the copper from the rest of the chip.

Re:Apples and Oranges - no, CPU and CPU by MindStalker · 1999-07-03 11:12 · Score: 2

The point is that they could have called the P-III a seventh generation processor, but the point is its not. There is little to no change from the P-II to the P-III they both are classified as P6's (damn if I didn't know better those numbers would confused the hell outta me) sorta in the same way as the 486 DX wasn't much different from the 486SX (ok ok it did have that weird thing they tried to pass off as a FPU). Though accually if Intel had contested they could have easily got away with calling the P-II a 7th generation processor, as it went from socket 7 to slot 1. but they chose not to. To late! (the Pentium I was a P6 right?..)

Re:this is just silly by ArchAngelQ · 1999-07-03 11:13 · Score: 2

I'm sorry, but my dad used to work in a waffer fab, and I know for a fact that thay cost WAY more than a dime to produce. They in fact do cost about $50 to $75 per chip, not per waffer. FYI CPUs are made on waffers, with the best quality ones most commonly in the middle. As for the celeron, yes, most of the R&D was done, but "underclocking" them is a ridiculous prospect. The mearly used a cheaper and less effective manufaturing process. That, and as an important note, no internal l2 cache like the PII. Thats where they really saved money.

Re:this is just silly by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 11:16 · Score: 1

1. You don't Intel makes a profit on Celeron chips. I'm sure that Intel is screwing consumers on every other Intel process.

2. Why would one believe in competition and still buy AMD Athlon on principle? Because competition like anything can breakdown. OS competition has broken down. So has processors. Wintel are at a point that they can and will kill any competition to stay on top as long as they want now. Better products can not succeed now because Wintel is too big and too nasty. Imagine what impossible situation would it take to replace windows. Multiply that by $20 billion or should that be $100 billion.

3. All these "pre-announcements" should be illegial. It is too damaging to companies and too easy to commit. It seems to only be used in a very negative way. Harm is done since vendors no longer get compared on actual products, but on
the best lie of the future. How do you really think CEOs operate?

4. Competing is fine. But if you're beat, you're beat. Do better next time. Don't put your competitors out of business because you're mad they had a faster processor. This should be payday for AMD. Instead Intel is screwing us all long term again. Do NOT buy overpriced Intel processors anymore. We should choose not to live in a world where processors are all $500. We want COMPUTERS that cost $500. We don't need or want PIII, PIV, PV, etc. Screw that. We have enough power. We need a break on the pricing. More healthy competition. Show Intel they can no longer pull us around by our collective noses anymore.

This is not healthy competition by Intel.
It is called FUD.
It is also UNACCEPTABLE!

Re:this is just silly by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 11:17 · Score: 0

1. You think Intel makes a profit on Celeron chips? Maybe they do but I'm sure that Intel is screwing consumers on every other Intel process.

2. Why would one believe in competition and still buy AMD Athlon on principle? Because competition like anything can breakdown. OS competition has broken down. So has processors. Wintel are at a point that they can and will kill any competition to stay on top as long as they want now. Better products can not succeed now because Wintel is too big and too nasty. Imagine what impossible situation would it take to replace windows. Multiply that by $20 billion or should that be $100 billion.

3. All these "pre-announcements" should be illegial. It is too damaging to companies and too easy to commit. It seems to only be used in a very negative way. Harm is done since vendors no longer get compared on actual products, but on
the best lie of the future. How do you really think CEOs operate?

4. Competing is fine. But if you're beat, you're beat. Do better next time. Don't put your competitors out of business because you're mad they had a faster processor. This should be payday for AMD. Instead Intel is screwing us all long term again. Do NOT buy overpriced Intel processors anymore. We should choose not to live in a world where processors are all $500. We want COMPUTERS that cost $500. We don't need or want PIII, PIV, PV, etc. Screw that. We have enough power. We need a break on the pricing. More healthy competition. Show Intel they can no longer pull us around by our collective noses anymore.

This is not healthy competition by Intel.
It is called FUD.
It is also UNACCEPTABLE!

Performance by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 04:37 · Score: 0

How do the PIII600 and KVII600 compare, performancewise? Isn't the K7 supposed to have an FPU that blows Intel's away?

(forgot my password)
(forgot my nick too)

Re:Performance by Chad+Page · 1999-07-03 04:48 · Score: 1

The K-7 is MUCH faster at FP, and somewhat faster with integer stuff compared to the Katmai-based P3/600. I wouldn't be suprised to see the Coppermine P3/600 w/256K on-die cache match the K7 on integer though, especially if Intel picks up PC133 SDRAM.
(I wonder how many ppl who screamed 'Cyrix/AMD's FPUs suck!' will scream 'Intel's FPU sux!' after the K7 hits the street... :)

DOJ!! Where are you? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 04:40 · Score: 0

It looks like intel discovered some of ms's bussiness practices. I am afraid that bill gates had just made a new class of bussiness where everyone fucks everyone up the ass and screws the consumers for corporate profits and greed. The ariline industry was never bullying before ms came around. Now you see airlines charge 2 to 3 times as much when a tiny competitor goes under and when they make exclusive deals with airports alot like ms and the OEM market so big guys with suits who want nothing but our wallet decides who goes where and how much we pay rather then ourselves. SCREW ALL OF YOU AND YOUR GREED! IF AMD GOES UNDER I WILL BE REALLY PISSED AND I WILL WRITE EVER SENATOR AND GONGRESSMAN TO SPLIT UP INTEL!

I want to thank Gates for starting this whole screw everyoen but yourselves attitiude and wrap it up in a way that makes look morally exceptable and brillant. I know alot of bussinessmen who are raising there children on how Gates does bussiness and making it a model for you treat everyone in life. Gates doesnt even trust his wife. He made his wife sign a contract which gave away her children and all his property to him if they ever get divorced. Andy Grove is just as cruel.

Re:DOJ!! Where are you? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 05:26 · Score: 0

Let me get this straight... If AMD is not around, Intel has no reason to lower prices, everyone screams bloddy-murder "They charge way to much for their processors, yada, yada, yada...". Amd starts to give Intel so competition, Intel is forced to lower prices, and everyone starts screaming bloody-murder "They are dumping their chips below cost, etc, etc, etc..."

Come-on people, what do you want? Intel the only CPU maker that matters, charging whatever they heck they want, or an alternative to keep them honest price-wise. AMD seems to be having a lot of financial problems right now, so in a year, you can find something else to whine about.

The AMD Athlon is Faster by X-ViRGE · 1999-07-03 04:44 · Score: 2

And it was even cheaper. Isn't it a little strange that Intel can drop the price of a chipset that much simply because of a competitor? Doesn't it make it obvious that their chips have had hugely inflated prices?

Sure, AMD's Athlon probably has a hugely inflated price, too, but it was planned to be a lot cheaper than the slower competing chips from Intel.

Re:Two households, both alike in dignity... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-04 04:13 · Score: 0

Buy quake, and you will soon find yourself selling your body on the street for the latest nVidia card...

Bad move Intel by Kohath · 1999-07-03 04:46 · Score: 2

By offering a worse product, and then CONFIRMING that it's worse by making it cheaper than the competition, Intel is giving away the perception that their chips are the 'genuine article' and the choice for 'serious' users running workstations and servers.

AMD's problem has always been their second-fiddle market status. They can't make any money because no one wants to buy a knock-off processor unless they can get it cheap.

If Intel does this, then it will be clear to everyone that the K7 is the new standard in x86-compatible chips.

If Intel doesn't get it's act together, maybe in a year or two we'll be calling them Athlon-compatible.

Re:Bad move Intel by maxume · 1999-07-03 09:18 · Score: 1

Setting a lower price point does do anything to comfirm that they have an inferior product. Many people have commented under this story that intel has always had huge profit margins built into it's chips. Add intels marketing share and history to this and it seems that the 600 mhz PIII probably won't be their biggest chip in the next 6 months.

Also, It seems to me that the standard in x86 compatible chips is the 8086 or some such thing, with this or that sort of thrown on top of it.

--
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.

Merced,IA-64 and the future Was:Apples and Oranges by Bogotron · 1999-07-04 05:56 · Score: 1

I just want to add some information I picked up regarding the Merced. I heard that the chip is extremely near tape-out. The person who said this was NOT specific regarding the exact time, but the implication was within the next two months or so. The validity of rumors are, as always, dependent on who supplies them, and I heard this at a lecture given by Frank Baetke (Manager of High-Performance Computing Technologies, Hewlett-Packard Gremany/USA) at the HiPer'99 conference. He should have access to the correct information from Intel, since Intel and HP are more or less bedmates when it comes to the IA-64 technology and implementation.

When it comes to the sucess/faliure of the Merced, keep in mind that the Merced has to/should implement the new all-cool speed increasing stuff that Intel shoves into the PIII (and beyond), and not only the entierly new stuff as the Merced must show off. Also getting VLIW to work is very much a matter of getting the compilers 'in tune' with the chip. Much more so with VLIW than ordinary RISC/CISC CPU's.

Secondly, keep in mind that IA-64 isn't a pure VLIW implemetation, it is also possible to run normal/sequential code on it as well (although it will probably be optimised for parallel code, duh). In the lecture that followed Yale Patt decribed the IA-64 as VLIW-when-you-need-it, more or less the best of both worlds, if done right. (If you don't know who Yale Patt is then you had better freshen up on your prosessor architecture knowledge!) He also seemed quite enthusiastic about the IA-64, or as enthusiastic as a guru can become of a commecial design. :)

--
Paul Currie

Re:Apples and Oranges - no, CPU and CPU by SEE · 1999-07-04 13:20 · Score: 1

[F]urthermore, the K7 isn't actually AMD's seventh generation chip, AFAIK--I think their first chip core was a 386 clone.

AMD was a licensed producer of the Intel-designed 8086/88, 286, and 386 (the 40 MHz 386 was a fairly simple hack of the Intel 386). AMD has developed 3 cores entirely in-house (486, K5, K7 -- the K6 stared out as the NexGen Nx686). All have used microcode developed outside of AMD -- the 486/K5 were based on Intel 386 microcode, and the K7 is based on the RISC86 microcode developed by NexGen for the Nx586.

NexGen made really cool chips -- and, ever since AMD bought NexGen, AMD has too.

not cosby by great+om · 1999-07-04 17:05 · Score: 1

pretty sure that was dana carvey

--
------- Oh damn.... the Sigfile escaped... -Great OM

Intel's FPU *does* suck by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 08:51 · Score: 0

Well, every x86 FPU sucks.

Only intel could be soo stupid and invent a stack based FPU. And now it's too late to change that...

Well, IA32 is dead anyway, who cares?

(Ok, I'm still typing this with an IA32 (K6-III) machine ;-) )

Re:Bastards... Yes, but.. by The+Original+Bobski · 1999-07-03 08:57 · Score: 1

How does this affect the price of a "vessel of AMD's"?

--
satire, n: 1) witty language used to convey insults or scorn; 2) a form of humor lost on most slashdot moderators.

"brandneu" by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 08:58 · Score: 0

Strange that bablefish doesn't know a better translation for that...

wow! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 09:01 · Score: 0

You mean that intel's 6th generation chip is going
to be cheaper than AMD's 7th generation chip?
This is a big deal? Did I miss something?

It does help... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 09:06 · Score: 0

The EV6 bus introduced some kind of new abstraction. The CPU is now completly independent
from the RAM system: 64Bit 100MHz, 64Bit 133MHz, 128Bit 133MHz, 4MB 200MHz L3 cache -> the interface to the CPU will always be the same. This adds greater flexibility and much better expandibility for the future.

$823 lt $699 ?? by muffel · 1999-07-03 09:06 · Score: 1

Is it just me, or is $823 for the intel *more* expensive than $699 for the AMD?

--

bla

no copper on silicon by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 09:22 · Score: 0

The idea is to replace the very fine wires that are created on the chip itself. Right now these conductors are made of aluminium, new technology alows them to be made out of copper. Copper conducts better i.e. lower resistance, less heat, thus the chip can run at a higher frequency.
My question is if conductivity is that important, then why not make ALL the conductors on a chip out of gold ?

Re:no copper on silicon by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 11:54 · Score: 0

>My question is if conductivity is that important,
>then why not make ALL the conductors on a chip
>out of gold ?

lots of reasons - one is chemistry - will the
conductor mix with the silicon and stay put
through the fab process, another is
will the metal expand and contract at the same
rate as silicon? - don't want all those little
wires to pop or buckle when you power up and
get hot, another is process - are there ways
to do photo-lith etch-resist type proceses
on the metal (I bet it's hard to etch gold without
disolving the rest of your chip)

the reason why copper is suddenly important
is that untill relatively recently us chip
guys never had to really worry about wires
their capacitance and resistance scaled
relatively linearly with process around 0.35u
or so the wires started to suffer from 'edge
effects' that is their linear capacitance
wasn't proportional just to their width -
the edges of the wires have a fixed capacitance
that you can't change - this means that as the
process gets smaller the wires are getting
proportionally slower - delays due to RC effects
along the wire are starting to become a big
problem at 0.18 this means we need new tools
and methodologies (which aren't really here
yet) to optimize designs

AMD K7 benchmarks from John Carmack! by crt · 1999-07-03 11:50 · Score: 2

Carmack has posted some Timedemo benchmarks for the K7.. VERY interesting reading.

Check out the full plan here: http://finger.planetqu ake.com/plan.asp?userid=johnc&id=12549

"AMD K7 cpus are very fast."

Re:Apples and Oranges - no, CPU and CPU by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 09:40 · Score: 0

Cost-performance comparison at a given time is reasonable regardless of what "generation" a company calls it. Generation is an arbitrary marketing term, like a major software version number, that the manufacturer can increment as they see fit. Intel could have credibly called the P-III its seventh generation, given its 70 new CPU instructions.

Personal Freedoms != Libertarianism by Shelrem · 1999-07-03 11:52 · Score: 1

Here's a quick and easy (if oversimplified) way to look at a few of the major political paradigms: there are two factors, social freedoms and economic freedoms. Leftists believe in social freedom, and economic control. The right believes in economic freedom and social control. Libertarians believe in economic and social freedom, and finally, totalitarians believe in both social and economic control.

This means that most Slashdot readers, like myself, is left-wing. Censorship is bad because it infringes on the rights of the individual. Government interference in illegal business practices is good because it favors choice for the consumers-- the people.

I like my life free and my economy regulated. It doesn't mean that it's the only way to think, just mine, and that doesn't mean that we just root for the underdog every time, either. On the other hand, competition is good.

-Shelrem

PIII Xeon != 8086 by lalleglad · 1999-07-03 09:43 · Score: 1

It and all CPUs after the 8086 are however backcompatible.
But picking as easy items as MMU, Protected Memory, SMP capability and
an extended instructionset (eg. MMX and KNI, but there were
others before them) I would beg to differ that present Intel CPUs
basically are 8086 with a 'little extra', which is how I read your
comment.

I am not a huge Intel fan, but I just see them as protecting
their cash-cow as best as they can. They will probably be in for
a rude awakening when they release IA64 anyway.

IT'S A FSCKING RUMOR FOR GOD'S SAKE! by gavinhall · 1999-07-03 11:59 · Score: 1

Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:

Relax. Wait until Intel releases their chip and see what the price is like before you go ballistic.

I'm hoping to see AMD stomp Intel's ass into the ground until the Merced comes out.

Then AMD will have to REALLY hustle to get something fast out to market.

LK

Capitalism by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 12:00 · Score: 0

Um, it's called competition. If Intel can't provide the better product, it can try and provide the best product for the price. It would be either naive or arrogant for them to do anything else.

No. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 12:08 · Score: 0

There's a difference between selling something cheap and selling something at a loss. Intel has much better production facilities than AMD, and are probably getting much higher yields with their chips. The K7 is also a more complex chip than the PIII, so it's likely that even if you don't consider production, it would cost more.

Why would a PIII cost more? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 12:14 · Score: 0

Fact: the K7 is a more powerful chip than the PIII according to preliminary benchmarks.

Fact: Intel has much better production facilities than AMD.

Fact: Intel didn't have to spend nearly as much on R&D on the PIII than AMD did on the K7, because the PIII is just a fancy PII which is just a PPro + MMX.

Considering these facts, which chip do you think costs less?

shouldn't be a problem by FutileRedemption · 1999-07-03 04:48 · Score: 1

and had to be expected anyways.

Intel cannot do the same kind of dumping for p3 as they do for the celeron. There is no high end left to pay for that.

Therefore AMD shouldn't have a problem to get reasonable margins at the high end.

Gone are the times of completely insane high end cpu prices!

this is just silly by conform · 1999-07-03 05:01 · Score: 3

1. Intel makes a profit on all of their chips. With the possible exception of the bottom of the Celeron line, which may come in right at cost. So accusations of dumping are unlikely to fly in the courts.

2. If you really believed in competition, why would you announce that you are going to buy an Athlon "on principle"? If you said, "well, it costs more, but it performs better" then I could see that as supporting competition, but the nature of competition is to reward success to the best product on the market, and price will always be a factor in determining the 'best product'.

3. There is a lot of complaining about Intel 'announcing price cuts for an unreleased product', but this is just a rumor, not an announcement. However, AMD *has* announced prices for chips unlikely to make it to market in the next several months, so that customers could see how much cheaper a -2 month old 550 MHz Athlon is in comparison to a current PIII-550.

4. How else can Intel compete in the short term other than through determining their schedule of pricing? I'm sure that the R&D bosses are under the gun to deliver something to beat Athlon in the desktop market, but you can only design VLSI chips so rapidly.

I'm excited about Athlon (despite the name). I love the prospect of real cometition. I would love to own one. Or several. But I'm not going to blame Intel for reacting to AMD as if they were actually competing. And I'm positive that if the tables were reversed that AMD would be pushing aggressively on Intel.

seamus

damn by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 05:04 · Score: 0

You people fighting over everything. Im wearing a PII as we speak want to jump to the athlon early december. Never thought of upgrading to PIII -it just got nasty!- But this is interesting news. Intel's gotta be talking serious bucks under the k7's prices, at least 80$ for me to even consider it. Besides i heard they're now supporting 200mhz bus-speed. And that i know!!! THAT I KNOW!! pIII is not.
Hell i just get k7 cos i just can't reach the ALPHA series. Is just a processor... :)

Re:About time... by Chad+Page · 1999-07-04 23:36 · Score: 1

K6-2's at 350mhz and below are now being fire-saled for under $50 all over the place. The 350 went down first, and then (at least on NECX's components page) everything else below it dropped last week. At those prices, they're one heck of a deal.

(Also note that the Celeron is basically literally a PPro with MMX and less cache, and a smaller socket. ;)

You're joking right??? by KingBob · 1999-07-05 04:14 · Score: 1

That's Intel and AMD's problem, not mine...

In a free market economy, the laws of supply and demand dictate who survives and who doesn't. It's up the the individual companies to produce something people want, and will therefore buy. These are not charities dude, they are corporations, remember that - I sure do when I am shelling out *my* hard earned $$$ for *their* product.

If that's your theory, why don't you buy Cyrix - they need all the help they can get???

Re:You're joking right??? by TerryMathews · 1999-07-05 05:24 · Score: 1

Simple. Cyrix sucks. Their processors aren't very good. Personally, I have seen 25% of Cyrix chips we sell at our store go bad. You want to know how many bad K6-2s we get? 0%. We have never had to return an AMD chip, although we did have to return an Intel. :0

As far as your statement that the laws of supply and demand dictate which companies survive and which don't, that is true for bottom-feeders. But, not every person is a bottom-feeder. It's a lot easier to get someone on the phone from AMD than it is to get someone from Intel. We can order wholesale processors from AMD in much smaller quantities than we can from Intel. Personally, that kind of support and willingness to work with the small vendors is worth a lot to me.

--
-- Terry

Do you really think cost == quality? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 12:20 · Score: 0

It may be true in this case, but in general, that's a rather bad assumption to make.

Let's help AMD by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 12:22 · Score: 0

Let's help AMD no matter what happens.

This is not only for AMD, but also for Alpha.

Re:About time... by KingBob · 1999-07-05 04:22 · Score: 1

It's a pity we have to wait for things to be fire-saled before they get competitive though, eh?

Two households, both alike in dignity... by tenatious · 1999-07-03 12:26 · Score: 2

I know /. is a place for computer enthusiasts, but lets be real. If the PIII 600 serves your needs and it costs less than the Athlon, you'll buy the PIII. If you need more power (that is speculation--no independent tests yet), and you don't mind spending a few dollars more (again, speculation--I don't know what the chips will cost consumers), you'll buy the Athlon.

Me? I'm plugging away on a P5 150. All I do is HTML editing, usually with a little old text editor, some word processing, a few small spreadsheets, some coding, and websurfing. What the hell do I need a PIII or an Athlon for? (Umm, oh yeah, so I can get SETI@home blocks done in under 24 hours[snicker]) It'd be like buying a Ferrari to haul trash to the dump. The vehicle just doesn't fit the task.

Once in a while I catch myself saying, "Man, you've got to get a new machine." But then I remember that for a few seconds longer on boot and load of applications, I save myself a couple of hundred dollars. I just can't bring myself to spend the $ on a machine that'll do my text editing 10 times faster.

I may not get a new machine until the one I have just plain dies.

Is that cheap, or is it just sensible?

-When the world is running down
you make the best of what's still around.

--
The men who hold high places must be the ones who start to mold a new reality... closer to the heart - RUSH

Re:Two households, both alike in dignity... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 12:50 · Score: 0

It really depends on what you want to do with your computer.

If you're using your computer to make money, try to stay reasonably current. I really appreciate that it takes less than a minute to compile something huge (like the 2.2.x Linux kernel) on my machine - it's worth the $5K I paid for it, because time is money for me.

But if you're not using your computer to make money, and you find its performance acceptable, why upgrade?

I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 12:27 · Score: 0

Intel decides to charge a reasonable price for a top of the line chip, and you all whine about it?

silver corrodes by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 12:28 · Score: 0

I think silver corrodes too easily.

off topic... by itachi · 1999-07-05 06:09 · Score: 1

but where did you find an alpha and mobo for that little? Spread the wealth, please!

itachi

Re: Processor ID!! by Reason. · 1999-07-05 06:13 · Score: 1

I don't understand why everybody is so concerned about this Processor ID thing. If your computer has an ethernet NIC, it already has a unique ID. If you have a static IP address, you have a unique ID. Whats so different about a CPU ID?

Re:Apples and Oranges - no, CPU and CPU by SEE · 1999-07-03 12:32 · Score: 1

Cost/performance comparisons are valid, yes. But cost/MHz, no. Or would you really rather have a 133 MHz 486 (what AMD called a 586 because it was as fast as a Pentium 75) than a 120 MHz Pentium if both were offered for the same price?

Yes, generation is a vague term. But although there have been some engineering changes, the PPro/PII/PIII/Celeron/Xeon are basically variants on the same P6 design. And the K6/6-2/6-III are similarly all variants of the design that was started at NexGen as the Nx686, and are comparable in performance per MHz to the P6 chips.

The Athalon, however, is radically different in design than the Nx686 chips, much like the P6 was very different than the Pentiums and the Nx686 was from the Nx586. Accordingly, giving it the moniker of being "seventh generation" seems to be reasonable.

Re: Processor ID!! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-05 10:03 · Score: 0

Many reasons... I'm not sure where I read this, but a suggestion made was to encrypt software sold online, and ftp'd thru the internet, based on the ID of your processor. Not only would it work (unlike the CD copy 'protection' schemes of late) _but_ you'd have to repurchase that software for when you decided to upgarde your CPU... :-(

(Less flamage, more reason... Please) As a student I can't afford to pay the Micro$oft tax (even for the damn overpriced student vewsions) on various software required for my College course... (well, I lie, now I can, I have a full time summer job... But I refuse to work full time for one company so I can give _all_ my money to another). So, I'll admit, I get that software in "different" ways... So any copy protection worries me. :-)

I've always said it, and will say it again... I used to pay, AT MOST, $40 for my software for my Commodore 64 (I rarely saw more expensive software for sale!). I figure, with inflation, I should NEVER pay more than $55-$65 for a current, new, quality, piece of software. I remember paying $20 (full version) for Pocket Writer, one of the better word processing packages for the C64... hy should I pay $80 (student) or $600 (full version) for Word? :-)

Re:Apples and Oranges - no, CPU and CPU by h2odragon · 1999-07-03 12:57 · Score: 1

umm, the 486sx came out AFTEr the 486dx... The FPU unit (not too different from a 387) was on the die, but disabled.

IIRC, IANA semiconductor historian.

Nonsense! (Re:this is just silly) by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 12:57 · Score: 0

Intel makes a profit off of all of their chips?
How do you know this little tidbit, pray tell?
Have you looked at the depreciation schedules for
their fabs? Amortized their capital costs on a
3 or 5 year basis? The fact is that any company
as cash-rich as Intel can make their books say
anything they want, and Intel certainly does not
disclose enough details about their financials to
say anything at all about their profitability in
discrete market segments. If you believe Intel when they say that they are profitable for all chips they ship, then you are a fool.

the US has a market economy by gavinhall · 1999-07-03 05:14 · Score: 1

Posted by jojie_v:

In the face of strong competition, Intel is forced to drop their prices. It's called market forces.

It's a good thing.

About time... by KingBob · 1999-07-03 05:24 · Score: 1

AMD was on a real winner when they released the K6 series - a great chip at bargain prices - substantially lower priced than it's Intel equivalent.

That's what got them the market share they have, bang for bucks.

Lately their prices have been creeping up to the point where (at least in Oz) there is little or no cost saving in using AMD over Intel, and this will seriously hurt them, I guarantee it! I think that I am fairly indicative of most users and my feeling is that I will use the chip that provides the best performance for the money, I owe no allegiance to either company.

I have used AMD quite happily for this reason for a number of years now, but for them to try to compete in the high end with a giant like Intel is sheer corporate suicide.

I hope for the sake of the average user they wake up to themselves and get back to the market that they *can* make a difference in.

Re: shocked by Anonymous Coward · 1999-07-03 05:25 · Score: 0

you forgot to sniff for sarcasm!

This is laughable by Stickerboy · 1999-07-03 05:32 · Score: 1

People are arguing over an unsubstantiated rumor with no sources or even hard facts even quoted.

Look over the article. Does it even say what price Intel is supposedly asking for after the cut per 1000 units? Does it say what "inside source" gave them this lovely tip?

While it does seem credible that it could happen, the best FUDs out there are those that do seem credible.

--
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

209 comments