Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 10th Sep 2007 15:54 UTC, submitted by Josh Graham
AMD AMD has unveiled its first set of quad-core processors, three months after its original launch date. This 'complicated' design that resulted in the delay and puts the chip maker a full generation behind its archrival in terms of chip manufacturing processes.
Thread beginning with comment 270005
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: amd
by SReilly on Mon 10th Sep 2007 19:09 UTC in reply to "RE: amd"
SReilly
Member since:
2006-12-28

That triangle is no longer a reality I'm afraid. That's one reason why Intel rushed out they're quad core design in the first place.

While Intel was touting the Itanic as the only 64bit solution you would ever need, AMD brought out the x86-64bit extensions. What happened? Everybody, including Dell and MS, jumped on board the AMD train.

Now Dell, IBM and Sun sell Opteron based servers, it seems like MS is scaling down support for the Itanium and Intel has been rushing out x86-64 chip designs to try and regain some of the mind and market share they lost to AMD.

Sure, AMD are not in a position to take first place from Intel. But they certainly have taken away much of what used to be a rock solid Intel market.
Sure,

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: amd
by aliquis on Tue 11th Sep 2007 03:01 in reply to "RE[2]: amd"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

Microsoft really didn't jumped on AMD64, they seemed to pretty much ignore it until Intel went in and started using the instructions aswell. Sucks for AMD and pretty bad by Microsoft but it's what happened.

I hate when people say "omg AMD are so dead now, Intel rules!", wtf, Intel just have the lead for a short while, it's not that big of a deal. Also AMD have been in way worse positions earlier considering the started from nothing, didn't they? So sure it might not be as good of a position as it was 1-2 years ago but it's still better than what they started with. This is not the end of the world as we know it.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: amd
by smitty on Tue 11th Sep 2007 04:31 in reply to "RE[3]: amd"
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

That's not really true. Although MS didn't really put out a product until there was quite a bit of hardware out, Intel's original plan after seeing AMD64 was to create their own alternative like they did with SSE vs 3DNow. MS basically told them that they were only going to support 1 64-bit extension to x86, and that since they had already started on AMD64 that Intel could either use that or go without support from MS. Intel caved.

Edited 2007-09-11 04:34

Reply Parent Score: 3