3 ms·

You've said this isn't correct a few times but nothing you've said in between contradicts anything you seem to disagree with.

nl 10y ago
I read your point as being that they can manufacture large volumes ("only Intel was able to deliver in sufficient quantity"). This wasn't the case during the x64 transition, which was the example you used. To quote Wikipedia: In commercial terms, the Athlon "Classic" was an enormous success not just because of its own merits, but also because Intel endured a series of major production, design, and quality control issues at this time. In particular, Intel's transition to the 180 nm production process, starting in late 1999 and running through to mid-2000, suffered delays. There was a shortage of Pentium III parts.[citation needed] In contrast, AMD enjoyed a remarkably smooth process transition and had ample supplies available, causing Athlon sales to become quite strong[1] However, that was during the early 2000s. Since 2007, Intel has continually improved their processes and architectures on a reliable timeline[2], and haven't had any significant problems delivering those continual improvements. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athlon#Athlon_.22Classic.22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athlon#Athlon_.22Classic.22 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tick-Tock_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tick-Tock_model
- projectramo 10y ago
  Yes, that is what my point was. And yes, your most recent response clarifies your counterargument. I assume you meant to say "Since 2007, AMD has continually improved..." So I stand corrected in that I didn't realize AMD had closed the gap. However, my point was about the relative manufacturing ability of Intel and its competitors. Am I to understand your claim that AMD's manufacturing is (approximately) as good as Intel's at the moment? I don't have any new information, but its a very, very hard problem. And a brief google search seems to indicate that AMD has faced more recent challenges: http://www.wired.com/2012/03/amd-global-foundries/ http://www.wired.com/2012/03/amd-global-foundries/
  - nl 10y ago
    I assume you meant to say "Since 2007, AMD has continually improved..." No, Intel is the one with the reliable continual improvement process. That is their advantage, not ability to manufacture large volumes.

nl 10y ago

I read your point as being that they can manufacture large volumes ("only Intel was able to deliver in sufficient quantity"). This wasn't the case during the x64 transition, which was the example you used. To quote Wikipedia: In commercial terms, the Athlon "Classic" was an enormous success not just because of its own merits, but also because Intel endured a series of major production, design, and quality control issues at this time. In particular, Intel's transition to the 180 nm production process, starting in late 1999 and running through to mid-2000, suffered delays. There was a shortage of Pentium III parts.[citation needed] In contrast, AMD enjoyed a remarkably smooth process transition and had ample supplies available, causing Athlon sales to become quite strong[1] However, that was during the early 2000s. Since 2007, Intel has continually improved their processes and architectures on a reliable timeline[2], and haven't had any significant problems delivering those continual improvements. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athlon#Athlon_.22Classic.22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athlon#Athlon_.22Classic.22 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tick-Tock_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tick-Tock_model

projectramo 10y ago
Yes, that is what my point was. And yes, your most recent response clarifies your counterargument. I assume you meant to say "Since 2007, AMD has continually improved..." So I stand corrected in that I didn't realize AMD had closed the gap. However, my point was about the relative manufacturing ability of Intel and its competitors. Am I to understand your claim that AMD's manufacturing is (approximately) as good as Intel's at the moment? I don't have any new information, but its a very, very hard problem. And a brief google search seems to indicate that AMD has faced more recent challenges: http://www.wired.com/2012/03/amd-global-foundries/ http://www.wired.com/2012/03/amd-global-foundries/
- nl 10y ago
  I assume you meant to say "Since 2007, AMD has continually improved..." No, Intel is the one with the reliable continual improvement process. That is their advantage, not ability to manufacture large volumes.