James Knott wrote:
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
Intel and AMD won the CPU wars. (and the field can't
be reduced below two, because every competent military
purchasing department on the planet requires that all
electronic components be "2nd-sourced" -- so if AMD
fails, then Intel is cut out of that lucrative market
until such time that another company is up and running
as a "2nd source" of Intel-like CPUs -- This is why
Intel keeps AMD abreast of their future designs --
if AMD can't duplicate Intel functionality, then Intel
loses).
According to an IBM Linux presentation I attended a couple of years ago,
IBM manufactures many CPU's for AMD. This means that even if AMD fails,
the chips are still being made elsewhere.
Chips these days are designed using standard libraries, which make it
easy for another company to start producing CPU's from a failed company.
IIRC, in the 64 bit world, it's Intel following AMD, not the otherway
around.
Kind of ironic, isn't it.
And AMD is generally less expensive, too.
Other than this laptop I'm on, I've never owned an
Intel CPU... my first machine was Cyrix, and then
I switched to AMD. Intel has always had the worst
price/performance evaluation.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
