Intel's Secret...how to keep "market share"

[randy48]

-- EDS UPDATE: Original story posted 6/25 at 5:00AM --> In a major boost to Intel's Itanium chip, Compaq Computer will license its Alpha chip technology to Intel and will use Itanium in its servers as the PC giant looks to consolidate its operations to focus on software and computer services.

http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5093197,00.html


Do you think it will help?

[wyvrn]

It will help Intel with name recognition. And I am sure this will make some of the pro-intel bigots even more biased when it comes to major purchasing decisions.

[This message has been edited by wyvrn (edited 06-25-2001).]

[CMonster]

Competition is good for us non-bigots.

[Ritalin Kid]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the 433 Alpha chip beat out the Beta 667 Itanium chip in some beta benchmarking tests???? Maybe Intel is now trying to buy out their way out of failure.. tisk tisk tisk... how pitiful.. but even now alot of people who used to be extremly pro-intel are starting to change their ways and cringe when they see the bald blue men.. I meet fewer and fewer Intel fans everyday..

[Fingers]

Just curious, what is the definition of a "pro-intel bigot"?

[Kuasimodem]

Pro-Intel Bigot: Person who will only purchase and/or endorse Intel processors and chipsets, regardless of the number of benchmarks and tests that prove the superiority of AMD and VIA products. Known to be stubborn to the point of making a mule seem amiable.

(Is this pretty close?) http://www.sysopt.com/forum/wink.gif


[This message has been edited by Kuasimodem (edited 06-25-2001).]

[jokostel]

yes http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif
viva amd!
jokostel

[elroy]

Back when there was a considerable price difference between Intel/AMD and Cyrix. I built a lot of machines with Cyrix chips. I was amazed at the "horror" stories I was constantly being told by pro-intel bigots. Such as Cyrix chips wouldn't run Windows or many other software programs, etc. I never had a single problem with Cyrix chips, ever. I use AMD now since their prices are very competitive these days.

[Dputiger]

Hmmm. Big difference between now and when Cyrix was a major player.

Back then, AMD truly didn't have a CPU capable of standing up to overall P2 performance, though the K6-2 DID do very well in business apps and when 3DNow! instructions were used.

It was not being a bigot to claim back in 1997 that P2 processors (made by Intel) offered great performance and were faster than the competition (though yes, more expensive).

Today the situation is different--its the P4 that only shines in special situations and is generally outperformed.

As to Cyrix:

The only CPU's I've ever seen fail were made by Cyrix. Considering how many PC's I've worked on, I don't like that margin.

[nilknarf]

I never had a problem with Cyrix. They typically were more difficult to configure back in the 486 days. And that was the last of their chips I ever saw.

AMD, on the other hand, I've never had any success with after the 486. I used them quite a bit back in the 486 days, just because they were less costly. But, I always had problems with their Pentium equivalent (K5 I think), and that's when I stopped using them.

I've never once had a problem with Intel, they're just more expensive. I use them because I know 100% of my software will work on the Intel platform. I could care less that AMD has better performance. My multimedia use is dependent on the A/V capture/playback abilities of my high tech A/V systems, and the HD performance.

Now that Intel has access to the Alpha technologies, they should be able to build some kick-***** processors, affordable to the small business and home user.

Tim