Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!mips!apple!olivea!tymix!cirrusl!sunstorm!dhesi From: dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: AMD vs. Intel Arbitration Message-ID: <2592@cirrusl.UUCP> Date: 22 Oct 90 21:49:39 GMT References: <0093E147.DAED9F80@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU> <1990Oct17.031047.22909@amd.com> <1416@msa3b.UUCP> <1990Oct19.232725.4421@amd.com> <2780@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> Sender: news@cirrusl.UUCP Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc. Lines: 30 >| To begin with, IBM would not use a single sourced uP in the IBM PC. >| Suppose IBM had chosen the Z8000 or better yet, the 68K? Where would >| Intel be today? > a) Intel has more than one fab line if one fails > b) Intel is not likely to fold financially > c) IBM has the right to manufacture the 386. I think that back in 1980 or 1981, when IBM began designing the PC, Intel was a much smaller and less wealthy company. In fact, if IBM hadn't picked the 8086 then, it's quite possible Intel would be a much smaller and less wealthy company today too - the 80x86 series accounts for something like 85% of Intel's income (vague figure got from some TV program I once saw). I'm sure that at that time it made sense for IBM to insist on some sort of second sourcing. (Actually, back in those days, AMD was running lots of ads making fun of the 8086 and espousing the Z8000. Technically speaking, this was sound, because the 8086 was a fairly flaky design, while the Z8000 had a much more powerful and elegant instruction set. The real problem with Zilog was that it wasn't able to deliver debugged chips in quantities, and perhaps that its marketing wasn't as good as that of Motorola. The smart designers picked the 68000, the dumb designers picked the 8086, and nobody picked the Z8000. Some time later AMD switched to the 8086 camp, and the Intel vs AMD fiasco began later.) -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: oliveb!cirrusl!dhesi