63 Quotes by Nathan Brookwood

My expectation is that Intel's new products are definitely going to narrow the gap with AMD, and in some cases may even close the gap.

Multi-core is the new megahertz. If you want more performance rather than ramping up the megahertz, now it's all about ramping up the number of cores.

I would say 18 months is not an unreasonable amount of time.

I don't know that Apple's market share can survive another architecture shift. Every time they do this, they lose more customers.

Based on what Intel said in December in their mid quarter update, they should know what's going on, so it's a real shock when they can't forecast four weeks in advance. That should be a slam dunk.

If someone came up with a 64-bit desktop application, then AMD would have an advantage. As soon as the application base on PCs demands more than 4GB to run any particular application, that's when you will start to see pressure on the desktop for 64-bit processors. But the average use for a Windows 98 configuration is just south of 128MB, so we still have several years, as that demand tends to crawl forward at around 50 to 100 percent a year.

He had a pretty good relationship with Dirk Meyer (AMD's No. 2 exec). It is hard to say who precisely was behind the (Athlon 64) development, but Fred certainly was a big contributor. Most of the technology changes that AMD has made while he was there turned out to be good ones.

Henceforth, those who need more performance must exploit parallelism -- multiple processors, often on a single silicon die. AMD is winning the dual-core server race.

What I'm hearing today is that AMD's performance advantage is going to narrow in the next six months, or AMD may even lose its performance advantage. That doesn't necessarily mean they're going to lose market share.