Kevin Krewell Quotations

The performance numbers look good to me, and the power consumption is reasonable -- as opposed to unreasonable with many other servers.

One is as a money scheme and the other is to produce useful technology.

IBM says they can balance both and still get these higher speeds, but there's still lots of details yet to be revealed. It sounds great, but you could have stripped down a whole bunch of functionality to get that higher speed, which wouldn't be so great.

Fundamentally, we think AMD will have the performance advantage through most of this year. But later in the year and into 2007 it will start to get interesting as Intel tries to go head-to-head with AMD again.

If you absolutely, positively need a dual-core Xeon today, they'll sell it to you. But it won't be cheap.

Just increasing clock frequency, which has driven much of the performance increases over the last decade, has become unattractive due to the extra power requirements. Slower clocked dual-core processors can still offer performance increases with multi-threaded applications.

The 1-GHz was a total win for AMD.

Most designs take years. But it was very important for them to get back in the game and have a road map.

You might as well do some good with it.

They've done that in the past with their Celeron lines for lower-priced PCs.

AMD's architecture was really a well-thought, modern, balanced approach. Intel has to catch up. They're getting there, but they're still struggling to get more performance.

There will always be a demand for the super-big and super-fast boxes. But slimmer, and smaller, and more efficient is what the PC companies are looking at right now.

They're recognizing that in some market segments like telecom, mobile handsets and handhelds, the parts tuned for faster speeds are too difficult to use and too power-hungry.

It's disappointing that something they hoped would provide a greater kicker couldn't be there and that they delayed the launch for nine months to close to a year.

It took a little bit longer for these to launch; they said they would be launching them sooner.

It's really not an Apples to Apples comparison, if you will.

The Intel chipset is much more complex. What they don't talk about is that the cost of the chipset will go up significantly.

In many ways, it looks like a server on a chip.

Intel's philosophical emphasis is swinging from one extreme to the other. We haven't seen many details yet, but it may be even more efficient than the AMD chips, and Intel has been hinting at a lot of performance.

In order to sell the leftover older chips, you have to cut prices.

How can the industry come up with standards if companies don't reveal their patents in committee?

The IBM 970MP is locked, loaded and ready to go. There's no reason why Apple would forgo putting that chip into its systems,