Perhaps I should have replied only to exdeath, but since you concurred with him, I replied to both which is why I included exdeath's original post which isn't specific to this singular point (Hector's comment).You quote a conversation revolving around a singular point (the 65nm development and Hector's public comments about intentionally slowing down R&D) only to cite something that is also true but no more relevant (that AMD spends a disproportionate amount of revenue on R&D compared to Intel) as if Point A is somehow rendered irrelevant or untrue because Point B exists.
No one is disagreeing with Point B (the data you cite), but the conversation about Point A is one worth engaging in a conversation like this IMO.
Overall, Merom may not be as big of an upgrade to Yonah as Conroe was to NetBurst, but the bottom line is that you get equal or better performance in every test without increasing cost or decreasing battery life. Owners of Core Duo laptops really have no reason to worry about upgrading for now, and waiting for the Santa Rosa platform before your next laptop upgrade seems reasonable.
If they were at par or better before Conroe, it doesn't seem so crazy for AMD to try to make some cash too by having their R&D budget more aligned with the rest of the industry.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2045/19
Intel's Core 2 processors offer the sort of next-generation micro-architecture performance leap that we honestly haven't seen from Intel since the introduction of the P6.
But you're entitled to your opinion...
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2045/19
Intel's Core 2 processors offer the sort of next-generation micro-architecture performance leap that we honestly haven't seen from Intel since the introduction of the P6.
But you're entitled to your opinion...
But how is throwing significantly more revenue into R&D than your competitors and losing money/breaking even eternally any better business strategy?I disagree, it was crazy. The phrase "resting on your laurels" exists for a reason, and its use is rarely invoked as a means of bestowing accolades.
AMD's key decision makers - with Hector at the top - figured out how to literally buy ATI at its absolute peak price/premium while electing to intentionally slow down their R&D and allow for the very possibility that Intel would catch up and surpass them.
There's a word for that - arrogance.
It ran entirely counter to Intel's mantra - only the paranoid survive.
And if Hector's criminal involvements are any indication of the character of the man, he was clearly not paranoid enough given that he was caught out
Its not that Hector himself was inconsistent, on the contrary he was remarkably true to his nature, but its only in hindsight that we outsiders piece together the puzzle and then step back and realize what it was that Sanders unleashed on the company.
Consider the very reasons he torpedoed the AMD/NV merger - ego and not wanting to let Jensen take the helm of AMD despite the fact that Jensen had a much better track record of being able to successfully manage a company in this industry.
Rather than set his personal ego aside and do what was best for shareholders and employees, he forced everyone else but himself to accept second-best by going with the ATI deal and proceeded to literally throw billions of dollars away on the buyout.
Bah, at any rate the point is that excuses do not make up for lost business, and lots and lots of excuses do not make up for the loss of lots and lots of business. Regardless Hector's excuse for intentionally slowing the development of 65nm, it came as no surprise that it was a fatal mistake.
So why did Intel develop Prescott instead of just doing a desktop Pentium M? It it was visible "from a mile away", Intel should have seen it from 2 miles away. Of course AMD should have expected that Intel won't like being behind performance-wise for long. The part where I disagree is that "not developing products competitive with someone who has 5-10x the resources years after years" == "doing nothing".Core2 was a small performance gain over Core. While Intel was running Netburst against K8 on the desktop and loosing horribly, the CoreDuo processors at much lower power consumption and clock speeds were beating most of AMDs and Intels desktop processors. AMD knew for some time that Intel had a vastly superior architecture and did nothing, than got crushed when Intel released the Core2 for desktop.
So why did Intel develop Prescott instead of just doing a desktop Pentium M?
But how is throwing significantly more revenue into R&D than your competitors and losing money/breaking even eternally any better business strategy?
I 100% agree.Its not, but if you intend to remain competitive with a competitor that has 6x your revenue then you have no choice.
The difference between AMD's reality and their desire is the same thing that made all the difference (in a negative way) for Cyrix/Via. Cyrix/Via made their choice, and they reaped what they sowed.
AMD sowed. Now theyweepreap.