Make Home Page
Add to Favorites
Print article
Send link to friend
Digg this
Post to del.icio.us
Post to Slashdot
1.
Well imo, if Intel can and doesn't introduce AMD compatible 64bit extensions in Q1 of '04, then they could be in big trouble. The lifetime of the current PC is not generally more than a couple years and many customers won't mind a "good" AMD chip, even given its occasional faults for that few year span. I'd suspect that it could be possible for Intel to cede as much as 30-40% of the market to AMD if they don't match the AMD64 chip. That may sound high, but people are moved by feature labels. That has often meant megahertz in the past. But that label of 64 bit desktop computing is going to sell. Intel SHOULD remember this since they did the same thing to AMD back in the 16 to 32 bit days, when they blazed all over the place about their "32 bit" chips.
The part that really we can't know right now is how such a Intel chip would perform in 64bit. The performance of the AMD 64bit chip is more than its 64 bitness, its a great performing chip. So the painful part would be that Intel does all it can to stave off the competition, enable AMD64 compatible chip code, make big 1-2gb L2 cache cpu's, and after that and more, AMD still manages to surpass 30% market share in 2004. THAT would scare them and their many multi billion dollar fab's in a big way. It could very well be that Intel is holding back because the 64 bit technology doesn't really do much for the chip, and it would be a move that would display a weakness, to give in to 64 bit and to be poorer at executing it. That would only add to the devastation in the market for them and would be a good reason to avoid enabling the technology.
I think a lot of Intel users are looking at AMD64, and in another quarter or two if there isn't a good reason not to go that way, they will. I don't think Intel knows or even suspects how many of its customers would be willing to trade sides for a "good" cpu. If they do, then they need to make serious changes, improvements rather, and they need to do it fast.
I'd bet they are already getting ready to lower their forecasts for 2004. After that I'd bet that a price war in 2004 is "extremely" likely. It might, in the end, be the only possible way for them to fight back.
Interesting year ahead...
The part that really we can't know right now is how such a Intel chip would perform in 64bit. The performance of the AMD 64bit chip is more than its 64 bitness, its a great performing chip. So the painful part would be that Intel does all it can to stave off the competition, enable AMD64 compatible chip code, make big 1-2gb L2 cache cpu's, and after that and more, AMD still manages to surpass 30% market share in 2004. THAT would scare them and their many multi billion dollar fab's in a big way. It could very well be that Intel is holding back because the 64 bit technology doesn't really do much for the chip, and it would be a move that would display a weakness, to give in to 64 bit and to be poorer at executing it. That would only add to the devastation in the market for them and would be a good reason to avoid enabling the technology.
I think a lot of Intel users are looking at AMD64, and in another quarter or two if there isn't a good reason not to go that way, they will. I don't think Intel knows or even suspects how many of its customers would be willing to trade sides for a "good" cpu. If they do, then they need to make serious changes, improvements rather, and they need to do it fast.
I'd bet they are already getting ready to lower their forecasts for 2004. After that I'd bet that a price war in 2004 is "extremely" likely. It might, in the end, be the only possible way for them to fight back.
Interesting year ahead...
[Posted by: Anemone 
| Date: 12/28/03 10:11:17 AM]
| Date: 12/28/03 10:11:17 AM]
