Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:09:14 03/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 04, 2003 at 22:06:53, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >On March 04, 2003 at 00:24:27, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On March 03, 2003 at 22:33:57, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >> >>>On March 02, 2003 at 23:24:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>And I'm going to buy the fastest thing I can at the time I purchase. If they >>>>lag with clock speeds, I may well go with someone else. And I believe they >>>>know that. >>> >>>Funny then, that you've never had an AMD machine, since they were faster than >>>Intel machines for quite some time. >> >>As I mentioned, we _had_ a few K5 processors. They left a _terrible_ taste. >>I helped a Ph.D. student debug for a couple of weeks, only to find it was an >>unreliable AMD processor. Ran fine on equivalent Intel chips. Not on K5. >>We later find that that batch of K5's had some problems. > >I never claimed anything about the K5. K5, by all accounts, pretty well sucked >anyway. I'm talking about the last couple years, where Athlon was clearly >dominating performance numbers everywhere. Fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on _me_. Sound familiar? That is a problem for AMD, IMHO. > >>>The issue is that _nobody else has anything faster_. Intel releases just enough >>>to be faster than the competition. >> >>If you believe Intel is that much better than AMD in terms of design and >>fab, they why bother buying AMD as they _must_ be grossly incompetent to be >>unable to keep up in speed? > >If you have 100x less cash than a competitor, and R&D, engineering, and >marketing budgets several times smaller as well, would you expect to remain >anywhere in the same league as that competitor? > >Maybe Intel is the one who is grossly incompetent, because they can't blow the >competition away in performance. Or maybe the simpler explanation, that it's >all about marketing, is the correct one. > >>You offer _zero_ evidence. Engineers say they push as hard as they can. >>You say they don't. So why would I admit I am wrong when you offer _nothing_ >>to _prove_ that I am??? >> >>I can't find an engineer to support your theory. Because it makes no sense from >>any angle. You might try asking a couple to see if you get different answers >>from what I got. > >Again, engineers don't control marketing. Engineers don't have anything to do >with marketing. Marketing people often have no clue about engineering. Just >read a few Dilbert comics, and you'll see satire which is often remarkably close >to the truth regarding marketing. > >You're trying to use engineering as explanation for marketing. That will fail >100% of the time, especially when dealing with a huge marketing machine like >Intel. Using marketing in place of engineering also fails. Remember that bigwigs at Intel _are_ engineers.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.