ELmer: Re: I guess that explains the flood of Opterons...
I'm not really sure what you mean by this. If you are trying to say that Opteron acceptance and design wins have not come as quickly as some had hoped, that is a valid argument, and has merit. I would even be inclined to agree with you. If that's what you meant, though, you need to pick another word other than "unmanufacturable"
If, by "unmanufacturable", you mean unable to produce in sufficient quantity, with good enough yields and with sufficient margins to turn a profit, I would submit that the metric of "manufacturability" is impossible to measure in a company that has numerous product lines. One could speculate that several of Intel's products are "unmanufacturable" by the same criteria. It is doubtful that the few thousand Itaniums sold to date have recouped the massive R&D investment. One would be hard-pressed to argue that the Itanium product line has turned a profit by itself.
Let's just look back for a moment to find out exactly how *you* define "manufacturable".
Do I need to provide a definition of manufacturable? It's something that can be produced at a profit, and it usually requires some repeatability and meeting of schedules.
Interesting definition. Did they teach you that at semiconductor school? How exactly did you come across that particular definition, and why exactly is it so different from the definition that the rest of the world uses? Using your definition, the products of more than 40% of the semi industry are "unmanufacturable". The products of virtually all of the telecom industry are likewise "unmanufacturable". Are you sure that is what you meant?
Later on, you clarified the "Elmer Phud" definition of "manufacturable" by saying this: Manufacturability is unproven by definition as they have not yet demonstrated the ability to produce this device. Why are there no production Hammers, only demo systems, if it is manufacturable?
You also said: This doesn't mean that Hammer can not be manufacturable tomorrow, but forgive me if I say "show me the production Hammers". So far AMD hasn't.
This seems to strongly imply that you would consider Opteron manufacturable if there were production units available. There are. Whoops! Time to redefine "unmmanufacturable" again.
The device is now being produced, and has been for many months. There arecertainly production Hammers, yet somehow, your elusive definition of "manufacturability" has not yet been satisfied.
Please try to stick to areas where you have some knowledge. You don't on this one.
Typical Elmer response. Rather than tell me why a product that is currently being manufactured could somehow be "unmanufacturable", you just fire off another patented ELmer sideways insult, make the claim that the topic is too arcane for the average guy to understand, and hope that deflects the issue. Why not enlighten me? Please (re)define what you mean by "manufacturable". I amy not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but I bet I can follow your definition.
Oh, and let me just throw in one more quote from you: No need to be condescending. It takes all the fun out of discussing things with you.
