Quote Originally Posted by informal View Post
Reference point is the latest roadmap and latest server schedule update.
You know, there is huge pink elephant on the sofa and nobody seems to notice it.

You apply a logical fallacy called "circular reasoning" : since the reference point is the latest roadmap, a project can never miss the target because the target is linked to the latest roadmap.

Roadmap -> target -> new roadmap -> new target. You're always on target.

Is it that hard to grasp ?

Bulldozer @ 45nm was a scraped project and it is known for 3 years.The new BD core is improved version,you can call it Version2 if you like and although it's related to the one you linked,is another project done on a smaller node.Changes are done on the various core parts(fpu being the most obvious one) and it truly warrants a new name.
You need to inform yourself better before getting inside these kind of arguments.Remember,this is not AT forumz or THG forumz.
I don't frequent any of those, but you seem much more familiar to them. Guess it explains the reasoning then.

Quote Originally Posted by richierich View Post
So how many of the Pro-Intel guys in this thread are like savantu; guys who are linked to Intel projects? Seems like way too many on here.
Who said I'm linked to Intel projects ? I'm not. I work in a different industry.There are other Intel employees around here, some even posted in this thread.


Quote Originally Posted by Solus Corvus View Post
The current target is 2011. So when we are talking right now about the product being on track we are talking about in reference to the current target.

Your "but what if it changes" objection is irrelevant to the CURRENT discussion. Of course it could change in the future, and if it does then BD would be late in reference to the date in the current discussion and on track in reference to the future target. But since we don't know if it will be rescheduled in the future the most logical use of the term on target is in relation to the most current estimates and not on old estimates or future hypotheticals.

By your logic any company that has to reschedule a project can never be on target again. As if companies can't decide on more realistic targets when the real world doesn't cooperate.
Precisely, that's how things work in real life. It's late compared to the original plan. Having to reschedule means missing the target.
It is true for Boeing 787 Dreamliner, Airbus 380, Tesla Volt, Intel cpus, AMD cous, tin cans, etc, etc.

There was a game I saw being discussed here which was scheduled to arrive something like 2004 and they constantly changed it and adapted it to new features and it dragged on for so long that they had to cancel it this year and the developer closed. According to your reasoning, they were always on target up to the last moment. Very reassuring....

This is a false dichotomy. A person could easily could easily take something on faith and end up being right without having come to that conclusion through logic or magical powers. My team is so great I'm sure they will win. When they do it's proof that I was right all along regardless of how it happened and when they don't it's an exception. Sound like any sports fans you know?
We agree here. That's why I said " he is either a new Nostradamus ( works on blind faith that AMD will screw up ) or he has excellent critical thinking and feels the way things are going.

What "mid" 2011 plans? Last I heard it was all of 2011 so it could be Q1 through Q4 and not be late in reference to the current timetable. That encompasses both my estimate and his (except the 2012 part), but he has yet to acknowledge that. Neither have you.
True, I would say the consensus went for Q2/Q3 which is mid 2011.