Re: AMD offers no motherboard: why?


"Tony Hill" <hilla_nospam_20@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:bhscv1lfcpein4gjj189cf7sfsoc1b35u0@xxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 06:48:07 GMT, "tony" <tonynews@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Tony Hill" <hilla_nospam_20@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:smjav1ppqu28pc9of584qe15g1q6an2fp6@xxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 03:41:37 GMT, "tony" <tonynews@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"David Kanter" <dkanter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1139776439.571949.27920@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

You do
know that Athlon64/Opteron aren't tied as tightly to the chipset as is
Intel. How much money does Intel make selling chipsets?

I don't really know, nor do I really care. AMD's not in a position to
get back into the chipset business.

With CPUs being pretty much passe (pretty soon I'll be making them too in my
garage/basement? ;) ),

??? If anything it seems that the exact opposite is true, CPU
production seems to be continuously consolidating into a few
companies. Really it's down to just AMD, Intel and IBM at the high
end, with the possible addition of Fujitsu/Sun (who are in the process
of consolidating themselves). Some others like Toshiba and NEC are
carving out some niches, and there are still LOTS of players in the
embedded microcontroller market. However high-end CPUs are anything
but passe.

To the few who buy at the high end. Everyone else couldn't care less.

By "high-end CPUs" I'm including things like Semprons and Celerons.
While they're low cost as compared to the Athlon64 FX line and P4
Extremely Expensive Edition, they're still built using pretty similar
technology. Basically every CPU that AMD and Intel build for PC
purposes is high-end when compared to most of the IC market.

Well by "high-end" I meant at that end of the price scale. Sure a user will
proudly spew back at ya tech terminology like "yeah, I have a 3.0GHz PC!",
but they really care more about the functionality of the PC: PVR functionality
is a good example. (No need to continue this boring conversation I think).

some diversification seems prudent for AMD. Harder
to do if they're not in the chipset/MB/platform business.

Diversification can sometimes be beneficial, but often it's not. More
often than not it seems that specialization is often the way to go.

Specialize on processors? These days? Sounds like a losing game in these
days of GUI terminals and the imminent maturing of virtualization technology.

Let me know when that imminent maturing occurs,

I was thinking of virtualization and the soon to be processor support. (Hoping to
use Xen for WinXP so I don't have to buy VMWare or MS's software). It seems
a bit early to virtualize if you don't have to now. With the instruction support in
the CPU, more options (like free software!) become available.

With virtualization coming on strong though, I wonder how much it will affect
processor volumes (in the server space). (Not that I have any concern about it.
Seems topical here though.)

though I suspect that
both you and I will be rather old when it occurs..

Virtualization? Next year most likely.

I have to use a
remote server and a GUI terminal (Citrix) for a lot of stuff at work,
and it is utter crap. I really don't want to do the same thing at
home!

Well it's not for the "power user". But very valuable (cost reduction) for well-defined
office roles. It's still more expensive than it has to be, and that's what holds it
back in many settings. Most companies don't define roles narrowly enough but
rather build the company based upon individuals. There's no "right" way to do it
because it's not simply a technical problem. Nuff said.

All we need is some good software and there will be an abundance of leftover
MIPS (don't hold your breath for that though, 3D everywhere, all the time
promises to slow down computers once again). The marketing of unnecessary
"3D everywhere" is probably Intel/AMD's only saviour in the workstation
space ("desktops" are now terminals). "Hey look! I can rotate my browser
window sideways!". Give me a break, seesh.

I'm actually rather excited about some of the new things that 3D
desktops might allow. The current 2D paradigm seems to be getting a
bit long in the tooth and it may well be time for some real innovation
that helps us get things done more easily.

I'm in the other camp: I've used the same 2D interface since Win95? (windows
classic). It's not the best, but it is more than adequate. Even the WinXP new look
I didn't like and don't use. Continuous "evolution" of the GUI just keeps MS in
control of the computer (oh yeah, typical consumers like all the whiz-bang stuff
too). I've tried the GUIs on FreeBSD but I don't find that buying into that
underlying technology to be any better than buying into MS technology (they
both have shortcomings).

Anyway, there isn't a 3D desktop in my future unless it is imposed upon me.
My PC does everything fine in the GUI already. I'd rather see improvement in
the underlying technology rather than more bells and whistles in the GUI.

After all, we do live in a
3D world.. why not work in one as well?

Because in the real world you have hands to manipulate objects. On the computer
screen, all you have is a mouse and keyboard. What's that movie with Michael
Douglas where they don helmets, gloves and stand on some kind of platform
to interact with the computer? Well anyway, I don't want that at all. Seems
appropriate only for gamers.

Tony


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: AMD offers no motherboard: why?
    ... know that Athlon64/Opteron aren't tied as tightly to the chipset as is ... How much money does Intel make selling chipsets? ... get back into the chipset business. ... With CPUs being pretty much passe (pretty soon I'll be making them too in my ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips)
  • Re: building audio pc
    ... Intel chipset is the only serious choice for Intel CPUs. ... Since AMD doesn´t ...
    (rec.audio.pro)
  • Re: AMD offers no motherboard: why?
    ... How much money does Intel make selling chipsets? ... get back into the chipset business. ... With CPUs being pretty much passe (pretty soon I'll be making them too in my ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips)
  • Re: Chipset again
    ... chipsets often become known by ... In the days before Pentiums and Athlons, the CPUs at the heart of PCs were ... >> controller chip type is Intel 82845g. ... >> Intel852GM Chipset ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Intel buys McAfee -> Am I the only one here to notice?
    ... The customers for CPUs and AV software would be altogether ... Well, yes existing sales incentive models might suffice right now, but if Intel ever got the desire to gin up sales and/or marketshare for its McAfee division, then offering these additional incentives might enter its mind. ... to be aided greatly by the introduction of integrated GPUs, ...
    (comp.sys.intel)