Hmm sounds like your AMD stock isn't doing too well.

Kate


hobold (hobold@informatik.uni-bremen.de) on 2/3/03 wrote:
---------------------------
>David Kanter (dkanter@realworldtech.com) on 2/2/03 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>As of 1:42am, CST, Paul DeMone's new article, The Battle in 64 bit Land, 2003 and
>>Beyond is now up. It's a great read, and I hope everyone enjoys it as much as I did.
>>
>I bet his fellow Intel shareholders will enjoy it a lot ...
>
>But first, credit where credit is due. Paul has done great
>work as usual: the article is complete, detailed, based on
>sound data, and very well written.
>
>However, it is not unbiased. The bias is subtle, though,
>and I don't want the following observations to be regarded
>as an accusation.
>
>Observation 1: the author is very selective when giving
>benefit of doubt to anyone. It is actually one of his
>strong points to always stick to hard facts. He breaks his
>own rule when he speculates about Intel's failure to reach
>their own projected frequency target for Itanium-2.
>
>Observation 2: the author is very careful not to spread
>Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. It is actually one of his
>strong points to always stick to hard facts. He breaks his
>own rule a few times, for instance when he conjures up
>images of an agonizing AMD.
>
>Observation 3: the author sometimes uses very different
>presentations for very comparable situations. For example
>he goes to great length to explain conceptual limitations
>of IBM's Power4 core, which he explicitly relates to
>limitations of VLIW architectures. When he does present
>VLIW processors as sold by Intel, though, he merely names
>in passing their much stricter conceptual limitation of
>being in-order-execution designs.
>
>Another example is the paragraph where the author laudes
>the Alpha design team (now employed at Intel as he
>mentions) and muses about the mythical improvements these
>demigods of the semiconductor world will bring to future
>implementations of Intel's 64 bit architecture. The other
>half of ex-Alpha designers, who happen to work at AMD, are
>doomed to oblivion.
>
>Yet another example can be seen when the author talks about
>the practice of leveraging existing chip designs for future
>derivatives. Both HP and SGI are presented as slow and
>undedicated, because they were using the same basic CPU
>core design for a sequence of products. The author even
>subtlely ridicules SGI by calling this timespan 'half a
>decade'. Intel, however, is not at all blamed for the fact
>that their roadmap uses the Itanium-2 core for four years.
>
>I could make a few more minor points, but those would have
>to be about things so subtle as to be virtually
>nonexistant. As I said, this is not an accusation; I know
>very well how hard it is to notice and avoid one's own
>bias (the few who know me can tell I am biased as well to
>PowerPC in general and Motorola's chips in particular).
>
>I would expect, though, that the author's credibility
>would be helped a lot if he'd choose to mention his
>interest in Intel stock value in some legible footnote.
>Especially considering the reach of publications like RWT.
>Otherwise, more suspicious people than me might devalue
>the author's competent writings and regard them merely as
>elaborate pieces of Intel marketing.
>
>Holger Bettag
>