What if Intel had no competition

[Donnie27]

Only difference between the K6 and the K6-2 was the addition of 3dNow! and if I am not mistaken, the K6 ran at 3.3volts, where the K6-2 required two diffent voltages...1.5v on the core, and 3.3v on I/O.

Like I said, the K6 series, was not competition for the P2 series, and Intel new it and if you wanted a P2 you paid threw the nose for it. With the weak FPU of the K6, it suffered in games that did not support 3dNow!.

Again, that's not true. My K6-2 380MHz was $326 on sale. I bought it because it and the VIA Amptron mobo was a whole $110 or something cheaper than $389 P2 350 and Asus P2B (ATX version) that was $50 more at $129 instead of $89. $355 for the hard to find K6-2 400 at that time. Prices didn't fall until the mad rush to get P3 450 and Celeron A on BX that even AMD fans flocked to. Then AMD prices fell to those lows that all of a sudden Most folks remember. But again, they cut prices only when Intel well into kicking their ass already. AMD sales tanked. The sales didn't pick up again until the Athlon Classic shipped and then the fracking Dot Bomb (Dot Com Crash) happened. Fall of 2000 they cut prices again.

I don't know where in the hell you guys are getting these crazy twice as much stories and etc... from.

 

[Met-AL]

I am getting them from my wallet.

K6-2 333mhz I bought was around $150. P2 300mhz at the same time was around $300.

 

[Donnie27]

I am getting them from my wallet.

K6-2 333mhz I bought was around $150. P2 300mhz at the same time was around $300.

Sorry, that is BS! Now there maybe have been a time when price fluxed for a week or two or you didn't shop that well/smart but I built about 20 systems from between the time the 66MHz FSB P2 300 was out and the K6-2 333, also at 66MHz FSB. $133 for a K6-2 didn't happen during the same time=P The Pentium 350 was $250 by the time the K6-2 went below $150. Try again? Oh and the Pentium 350 kicked the crap out if the K6-2 333 LOL!

 

[Met-AL]

Well the best reference that I can find to any prices on the K6-2/K6-3 is this guide over at Anandtech back in 2000. http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=1346&p=16

I realize it was at the end of the Super7 series, but it does list the prices at the time.

f you are interested in pure 2D application speed have a slower processor, there is no question that a processor upgrade is perfect for you. With new K6-2 and K6-3 processors running anywhere from $50 to $100, a new processor won't set you back much and will help your system regain some of that speed that always put a smile on your face when the computer was new.

The last two CPU's I bought of the K6 series cost me right at $50. A 500mhz K6-2 for $50 and a K6-3+ 450 from Tigerdirect for $57 a few months later. I wonder what a P3 500mhz cost at the same time? If I remember correctly, I think at about the time I bought those, the Athlon was up to 600mhz and the goldfingers where the rage for overclocking them.

That K6-3+ was one hell of a chip. You could change the multi in Windows with a proggy called K6Speed.

 

[robberbaron]

Of course not. Sure it's smart but is it fair? Intel invested in one. They only get tax breaks.

http://www.semiconductor-technology.com/projects/intel/



Proves the Germans are smarter as well. But Fabs 30 and 36 has not other competition within AMD.

Just in case some may question these folks, here's their AMD view.
http://www.semiconductor-technology.com/projects/amd/

They're sort of like Dragnet, "Just the facts mam, just the facts?"

You're forgetting Israel, home of Yonah and Dothan and Banias.
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2005/tc20051129_860293.htm

http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0...4/edition_id/37/format/html/displaystory.html

Intel is the bigger Pig because they are 6 times larger than AMD. Intel doesn't have backing or a Safety Net from the German Government and the European Union that have backed AMD with about 6 billions in loans to pay for Fab-30, 36 and to upgrade Fab 30 to 38 status, or did we miss this?

Nope, as I showed, they have the backing of Isreal. Pentium M and Core Duo were practically given to them by Israeli dole. Both companies are guilty of disgusting corporate welfare.

 

[Yraen]

Regarding the pricing information about K6-2 and PII.

AMD Press Release, May 28, 1998

The AMD-K6-2 processor is available now. The AMD-K6-2/333 is priced at $369; the AMD-K6-2/300 at $281; and the AMD-K6-2/266 at $185, each in 1,000-unit quantities. AMD expects to offer a 350-MHz version in the third quarter and a 400-MHz version in the fourth quarter of 1998.

Techweb article, June 1, 1998

AMD said it will keep its K6-2 pricing at 25 percent less than Intel, with performance comparable or superior to the P6-II product line.

Linux Gazette article, July 1, 1998

As we all know, absolute performance is just part of deciding which processor to get. If cost was no object, we would all be running Kryotech Alpha 767's, or dual PII-400's. For reference purposes, here are some prices, in US$, as 1:14pm PST of July 5 from PriceWatch.

CPU		233		266		300
Cyrix		$49		$74		$96
AMD K6-2	n/a		$113		$163
AMD K6		$68		$93		$125
Pentium II	$158		$177		$235

Off the top of my head it looks like the K6-2 was about 30% cheaper rather than the 25% that AMD stated it would be.

 

[uniwarp]

Whether we stand closer to Intel or AMD camp the question should be "is AMD being a competitor to Intel helping us get better products at better prices?" which in my opinion the answer to is a big fat "YES". The degree of this is open for debate as it requires specific calculation based on figures from pre AMD era progress rate of Intel in terms of production levels, production technology and processor speed.


Some folks have valid points in saying that Intel has to improve to sell more products but take a look at it this way : they are spending billions of dollars in research and development which is a big part of their budget. Without an external competition, Intel solely will determine the rate of the progress according to how much they feel like investing in R&D. Back in the days a 33MHz increase from 266 to 300 could convince people to buy new systems, remember this when looking at the bigger picture.

Imho, there is no way that the rate of progress could have been this fast if it wasn't for the performance crown race to show the end customer who had the best product at hand. Come to think of it, if we can buy dual core processors at extremely competitive prices from Intel lately, it is because AMD pushed them into doing so by producing better processors in X2's and Opteron Dual Cores. Heck, if there is such a thing as dual-core processor, it has dervied from the competition between Intel and AMD without a doubt.

 

[Donnie27]

You're forgetting Israel, home of Yonah and Dothan and Banias.
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2005/tc20051129_860293.htm

http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0...4/edition_id/37/format/html/displaystory.html

Nope, as I showed, they have the backing of Isreal. Pentium M and Core Duo were practically given to them by Israeli dole. Both companies are guilty of disgusting corporate welfare.

That's peanuts compared to the money AMD has gotten from the Germans and EU and unlike D1D and other places, AMD all but Shut Austin down.

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-5109686.html
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3111941

I say again, the Germans BUILT Fab 30 for 2 Billion Porkbarrel Project that was made of loans but mostly Grants. These made up about 1.5 Billion from the Germans and the EU. Compared to 535 mill Intel got breaks on while INTEL spent 3 billion? Am I missing something here? AMD still owes both the Germans and the EU, Intel owes Isreal NOTHING! It is pumpping money in. In fact that 5 billion in R&D with the 1000's of companies. Th's different that the 4+ billion that went into plants and so on.

When Intel asked Ireland for the same measley 535 million, they refused as the Link I showed backs up. IMHO, I have no proof, all Intel gave them was a P3 Tualatin

 

[Donnie27]

Regarding the pricing information about K6-2 and PII.

AMD Press Release, May 28, 1998

Techweb article, June 1, 1998

Linux Gazette article, July 1, 1998

Off the top of my head it looks like the K6-2 was about 30% cheaper rather than the 25% that AMD stated it would be.

Thanks for the blast from the past!

 

[Donnie27]

Whether we stand closer to Intel or AMD camp the question should be "is AMD being a competitor to Intel helping us get better products at better prices?" which in my opinion the answer to is a big fat "YES". The degree of this is open for debate as it requires specific calculation based on figures from pre AMD era progress rate of Intel in terms of production levels, production technology and processor speed.

I'd much rather hear or read folks saying "AMD and Intel being competitors helps us all". The way far too many folks make sound, it's just goodguy white hat wearing Luke (AMD)keeping the evil Darth (INTEL) in Check, sorry, that's BS! Not saying that's what you're doing. But when you say "AMD being a competitor to Intel helping us get better products at better prices?" it is just wrong. They BOTH Keep eachother honest on pricing and technology.

Some folks have valid points in saying that Intel has to improve to sell more products but take a look at it this way : they are spending billions of dollars in research and development which is a big part of their budget. Without an external competition, Intel solely will determine the rate of the progress according to how much they feel like investing in R&D. Back in the days a 33MHz increase from 266 to 300 could convince people to buy new systems, remember this when looking at the bigger picture.

Same goes for AMD but just on a smaller scale. Give me 10% of Intel's R&D over 15% of AMD's anyday. Intel and AMD have done Great and Wonderful things, then turned right aroud and did something stunk! While many on the Market begged AMD to build its own Chipset dept., AMD complainded they were strapped. The very next Quarter they bought Alchemy and another company.

Imho, there is no way that the rate of progress could have been this fast if it wasn't for the performance crown race to show the end customer who had the best product at hand. Come to think of it, if we can buy dual core processors at extremely competitive prices from Intel lately, it is because AMD pushed them into doing so by producing better processors in X2's and Opteron Dual Cores. Heck, if there is such a thing as dual-core processor, it has dervied from the competition between Intel and AMD without a doubt.

NO ONE can say where Intel would be without not only AMD, but NEWER technologies invented like Smaller Masking, materials and etc..,. Hell, even if some smuck nailed where Intel would be, how would know they're right?

And if you buy an X2 for a much more affordable price, remember why you're paying that good price. Again, all I'm saying is that THEY push eachother, not just AMD pushing Intel.

 

[uniwarp]

I'd much rather hear or read folks saying "AMD and Intel being competitors helps us all". The way far too many folks make sound, it's just goodguy white hat wearing Luke (AMD)keeping the evil Darth (INTEL) in Check, sorry, that's BS! Not saying that's what you're doing. But when you say "AMD being a competitor to Intel helping us get better products at better prices?" it is just wrong. They BOTH Keep eachother honest on pricing and technology.

The reason I stated my opinion as such depends on the very fact that AMD entered the market later than Intel did. Thus, It is correct for me to say that AMD having entered the market is a good thing and that it "created" the competition. It is merely based on chronological order of events as you might also agree. So stop looking for some alternative motive in what I write, I am in favour of "competition" which didn't truly exist before AMD became a force in the semiconductor industry. Ultimately what I wrote wasn't wrong, the way you interpreted is WRONG.

Same goes for AMD but just on a smaller scale. Give me 10% of Intel's R&D over 15% of AMD's anyday. Intel and AMD have done Great and Wonderful things, then turned right aroud and did something stunk! While many on the Market begged AMD to build its own Chipset dept., AMD complainded they were strapped. The very next Quarter they bought Alchemy and another company.

Although I am more than happy with the desktop line of chipsets available for the AMD platform, I am disappointed that AMD has neglected the workstation segment lately and all good mobos come out with nvidia pro chipsets (like the one I own). I feel that it is not healthy for AMD to completely divert its attention away from workstation/server chipset arena.

NO ONE can say where Intel would be without not only AMD, but NEWER technologies invented like Smaller Masking, materials and etc..,. Hell, even if some smuck nailed where Intel would be, how would know they're right?

Ever heard of simulation, it is not exact but you can calculate a scenario based upon general trends and based on huge sums of data by using a vast array of parameters which also allows you to determine the degree to which your calculation is accurate. If there is a will, there is a way.

And if you buy an X2 for a much more affordable price, remember why you're paying that good price. Again, all I'm saying is that THEY push eachother, not just AMD pushing Intel.

I'm on the same page with you on this issue. It's a game of ping pong, AMD did something which forced Intel to do something and Intel's responce forced AMD to respond in some way. Anyhow, if one of them had failed to respond for one time too many, we wouldn't be talking about competiton anyways, right?

 

[Donnie27]

I called it speculation, not simulation.

All I'm saying is there is NO AMD making Intel good and thank goodness for AMD thing here. AMD and Intel make each other better because Competition is very much a TWO-WAY street=P They are business' and in business to make money. Both have proven propensity to be greedy bastards when given a chance. IF people who prefer AMD on some misplaced moral ground knew what they were talking about, AMD X2 wouldn't have NEVER sold for those SKY high prices for that long.

Intel has built in more obsolescence than AMD because they need to turn over more products to keep shipping larger numbers of processors, or market growth. (That’s BAD thing) Intel or AMD if given a large enough lead couldn't just sit there. Northwood C gave Intel a false sense of security and X2 did the same for AMD.

 

[coldpower27]

If AMD didn't exist I would expect Intel to be a bit slower with their MHZ ramping. Though process changes will continue. This is just my prediction of what could have happened.

Northwood would top out at 3.2GHZ instead of 3.4GHZ that we had, and the 90nm transistion would be tad more smoother though it would have arrived in Q2 or Q3 of 2004. Later then original the Prescott wouldn't contain x86-64 extensions. Not to mention it wouldn't have such a massive extension of it's pipeline so it may have actually performed allright on 90nm. The 4.0GHZ/4.2GHZ would have been a reality, however it would still be farily hot.

65nm would still arrive Q2 of 2006 or so. Though I can't say what Intel would have done with it, would Intel had begun switch to Core 2 Duo on desktop, as the 65nm Yonah would still exist I would think. I would just think Yonah would slowly be migrated to desktop and be the first Dual Core forn Intel, some marketing line about saying how Dual 2.33 is just as good as the 4.6GHZ P4.

Hehe who knows, this is just my way of seeing a possible future.

 

[robberbaron]

I called it speculation, not simulation.

All I'm saying is there is NO AMD making Intel good and thank goodness for AMD thing here. AMD and Intel make each other better because Competition is very much a TWO-WAY street=P They are business' and in business to make money. Both have proven propensity to be greedy bastards when given a chance. IF people who prefer AMD on some misplaced moral ground knew what they were talking about, AMD X2 wouldn't have NEVER sold for those SKY high prices for that long.

Intel has built in more obsolescence than AMD because they need to turn over more products to keep shipping larger numbers of processors, or market growth. (That’s BAD thing) Intel or AMD if given a large enough lead couldn't just sit there. Northwood C gave Intel a false sense of security and X2 did the same for AMD.

If the X2's were overpriced, nobody would have bought them. I have no idea why you constantly harp on that.

 

[MaXimus]

RDRAM would be dominate

edit: i love rdram

edit2: i still have a 1.7ghz willy with rdram

RDRAM was the best I ever used! I felt that I had so much system bandwidth to play with!

It's a shame it was phased out

 

[Least]

The reason why AMD was given so much money for fab36 is because it benefits Germany. The new fab creates more jobs in an area that is otherwise still recovering. The more educated people in the area, the larger that area of Germany will build up.

Is this concept that difficult to understand?

Ireland is about 10x less dense population-wise than Germany. Maybe that has something to do with how money is being spent? Maybe it is that Germany has been in a recession for a very long time? This sorta thing has potential to help a lot. If Intel had built their fab in Germany, they would have likely recieved the same sorta special treatment with grants and the like.

I think some people are failing to look at certain angles and drawing conclusions with little basis other than the suspicion that Intel is being conspired against.