How long can intel maintain such a large process lead over rivals?

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,785
6,187
126
I think you have alittle too high faith in cloud ;)

Not to mention remote gaming has been anything but a success.

Latency is one of the things you cant fix.

Why not? Latency is just distance/speed.
Even if you can't increase speed beyond speed of light, you can decrease the distance. If you have enough volume, you can have a datacenter per region, instead of a single global datacenter.
 

pelov

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2011
3,510
6
0
Why not? Latency is just distance/speed.
Even if you can't increase speed beyond speed of light, you can decrease the distance. If you have enough volume, you can have a datacenter per region, instead of a single global datacenter.

Except the big telecomms controlling the wires are heading in the opposite direction. Cloud computing only works if we're moving towards faster speeds and higher caps, instead we've stalled on speeds (I love seeing the 4G monikers. Always get a giggle out of those) and telecomms enforcing data caps because of bandwidth and routing issues. We're essentially hitting a point where we have more devices connected that could potentially benefit from cloud computing but the people holding the wires aren't just saying they won't play ball but are actually penalizing you for using your device.

Cloud computing isn't the answer at the moment, certainly not a viable answer if we keep ignoring the 800lb gorilla in the room.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,785
6,187
126
Except the big telecomms controlling the wires are heading in the opposite direction. Cloud computing only works if we're moving towards faster speeds and higher caps, instead we've stalled on speeds (I love seeing the 4G monikers. Always get a giggle out of those) and telecomms enforcing data caps because of bandwidth and routing issues. We're essentially hitting a point where we have more devices connected that could potentially benefit from cloud computing but the people holding the wires aren't just saying they won't play ball but are actually penalizing you for using your device.

Cloud computing isn't the answer at the moment, certainly not a viable answer if we keep ignoring the 800lb gorilla in the room.

That's mobile computing. Bandwidth on cable and fiber connections is going up up up. If we are talking about PC replacement, that's the relevant connection.
 

pelov

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2011
3,510
6
0
Are you sure about that?

http://fastnetnews.com/dslprime/42-d/2637-fios-buildout-is-dying

I live in NYC and Verizon will never offer me a fiber optic line. They haven't even increased my data speeds (8 years) but they have increased my bill. Their coverage in NYC is relegated to the extreme outer edge of the outer boroughs. TWC hasn't increased their speeds in years either but their bills have gone up as well.

I'd expect cloud computing on mobile before desktop despite the bandwidth hurdles and that's because of hardware limitations and size. I'd rather stream video/gaming on my phone and tablet if it means it's cheaper and will actually run more smoothly. On the desktop I'm not TDP or size constrained so I won't have the same issues.
 

jpiniero

Lifer
Oct 1, 2010
14,510
5,159
136
FiOS was never about internet... it was always about Cable TV. Now that Cable TV turns out is a dying business, they want out.
 

dagamer34

Platinum Member
Aug 15, 2005
2,591
0
71
FiOS was never about internet... it was always about Cable TV. Now that Cable TV turns out is a dying business, they want out.

They want out of FiOS because it's far easier and cheaper to cover an area with a 4G LTE tower than it is to dig up and lay expensive fiber to each home. And when you can get a speed like this one a phone, it's not hard to see why:



And that's just with 20Mhz of spectrum. Imagine what can happen when you've got 100-200Mhz at your disposal.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,785
6,187
126
Verizion could make money hosting local data centers for low latency cloud computing/gaming. Then it can monetize it's network investment.
 

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,118
58
91
FiOS was never about internet... it was always about Cable TV. Now that Cable TV turns out is a dying business, they want out.

Yep. I remember when they first came around my neighborhood looking for FiOS subscribers (early adopters). It was all about on-demand content, basically what netflix kinda does only it was supposed to be much more lucrative for the providers and content owners.

When that didn't pan out to be as lucrative as it was initially thought it was going to be that is when Verizon bailed on further deployments of FiOS.

When FiOS was announced in ~2005 my first thought was that it was going to be nothing short of the sort of colossal capital investment, and subsequent failure, that was Motorola's Iridium satellite cellphone venture.

And you know what killed Iridium? (rhetorical question, it was done in by the same thing that is killing FiOS internet, the terrestrial wireless basestations)
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,785
6,187
126
Most people still have cable and FIOS for internet, not 4G. But regardless of the connection, all three are fast enough for cloud computing.
 

pelov

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2011
3,510
6
0
But we're seeing more data caps being put in place than being taken away. Land lines for those who have had broadband for years are actually paying more per-GB (infinite as it may be) than they used to.

Big telecomms won't have cloud computing until they can ensure their iron grip means they make more money. At the moment we're seeing a tightening and more limitations around data caps (more money) than we are an opening up (what's needed for cloud computing). I don't disagree with you, I just think the buck stops at those who control the routers and lines and not the hardware makers and content providers.
 

blastingcap

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2010
6,654
5
76
But we're seeing more data caps being put in place than being taken away. Land lines for those who have had broadband for years are actually paying more per-GB (infinite as it may be) than they used to.

Big telecomms won't have cloud computing until they can ensure their iron grip means they make more money. At the moment we're seeing a tightening and more limitations around data caps (more money) than we are an opening up (what's needed for cloud computing). I don't disagree with you, I just think the buck stops at those who control the routers and lines and not the hardware makers and content providers.

Bandwidth caps/throttling/downtime/additional security risks/higher latency/counterparty risk (their going out of business)/privacy risk vs sync'ed data/mobile convenience/easier sharing/lower client computer costs/lower disaster risk (if your house burns down and takes HDDs with it).

I'm staying off the Cloud as much as possible. Security and privacy mean a lot to me.

I also think this thread is turning into a discussion about cloud computing and not so much Intel, now. :)
 

WhoBeDaPlaya

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2000
7,414
401
126
AMD is already producing better chips than Intel. Intel sell more chips due to slick marketing. Not everyone is a gamer, and those who are should just focus on the GPU not CPU. Reviews that show Intel ahead are from pro-Intel sites and the benches they use are cherry picked to favor Intel. These are 'bentmarks'. Those who buy Intel are just sheep who were fed misleading information or plain out fanbois. So goes the arguments at AMD Zone, the last bastion of feel-good-about-my-AMD-CPU-and-spit-on-Intel remaining on the internet.
3590-dafuq.jpg
 

WhoBeDaPlaya

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2000
7,414
401
126
I sure people said the same thing around the 386. What could we possible need more performance for.
For the same reason we need more CPU, more GPU, more memory, more storage and so on.
It's telling that, when as enthusiast, I can comfortably use my dinky little Alienware M11x with its 1.7GHz C2D and GT335M for lots of apps, VMs, Photoshop and gaming (not cutting edge stuff, but the GT335M is more than sufficient for TF2, Guild Wars, Portal 2, etc.).

Do I feel more comfortable using my i7 920 @ 4.1GHz w/6970 and tripple 24" monitors? You betcha, but most of the time, I'm not fully using its computing power.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,785
6,187
126
Like I said, computers reached "Good Enough" with C2D. If Intel wants to keep people upgrading their PC for reasons other than wear and tear, it needs to get developers to use more CPU computing power. My work just upgraded me from a 5 year old Athlon something or other to a Core i something or other, it basically didn't make any difference in my usage, and what little it did improve was primarily from having more RAM. Where Intel customers can use more performance is in the cloud, where you want as much throughput as possible to serve as many people as possible with one CPU. Of course, the flip side of that is that in the cloud you are selling one CPU per many clients instead of one per client. As far as how long Intel can keep its process advantages, it depends. If there is more consolidation in the industry, other foundries will get the sort of scale and pricing power that will let them invest more in R&D to catch up.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
What's missing right now is the next "killer app".

Once that appears -- whatever form it may take -- suddenly "good enough" will no longer be, and millions of people will become disillusioned with their toy computers overnight.
 

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,118
58
91
Most people still have cable and FIOS for internet, not 4G. But regardless of the connection, all three are fast enough for cloud computing.

Oh definitely, hope my post wasn't taken to mean I disagree with you.

I just think that the future of "the last mile" was supposed to about fiber, and FiOS was a step in that direction, but now it looks more and more likely that the infrastructure improvements that are to be made in the last mile are going to come from wireless baseband advancements.

Everything else in the infrastructure will still be landline based, that is where the cost/performance benefits fall to the copper and fibers still.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,226
9,990
126
They want out of FiOS because it's far easier and cheaper to cover an area with a 4G LTE tower than it is to dig up and lay expensive fiber to each home. And when you can get a speed like this one a phone, it's not hard to see why:



And that's just with 20Mhz of spectrum. Imagine what can happen when you've got 100-200Mhz at your disposal.

But when 10,000 subscribers are in your area, and all on your tower, what speeds will you get?

FIOS is a lot more consistent in terms of real speed, I think.

I have FIOS, and other than the expense (it is expensive), it's pretty decent.



Edit: And as you can see from the respective screenshots, my FIOS has about 1/3 the latency of your 4G connection. FIOS (well, wired internet in general) will ALWAYS be superior for online gaming than wireless, IMHO.
 
Last edited:

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,118
58
91
http://www.speedtest.net
Edit: And as you can see from the respective screenshots, my FIOS has about 1/3 the latency of your 4G connection. FIOS (well, wired internet in general) will ALWAYS be superior for online gaming than wireless, IMHO.

Regarding the "ALWAYS" comment...surely you'll agree that such a statement is true only provided the efforts to advance the technology of wiring up the last mile to the home continue on a pace that parallels that of the advancements made to improve the wireless realm.

The way the wheels come off that "ALWAYS" comment is when wireless develops to the point where it becomes "good enough" to supplant wired technologies and at a lower cost per house for the last mile. Then the bulk of R&D will shift over into the "make 6G, and 7G, and 8G even better, faster, sooner, and cheaper" mantra, pushing them past the stalled out capabilities of land-line hookups for the last mile.

10 yrs from now I'll be surprised if the cable line to my house is used for anything. The POTS line hasn't been connected to anything in this house for over 5 yrs now.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,226
9,990
126
Regarding the "ALWAYS" comment...surely you'll agree that such a statement is true only provided the efforts to advance the technology of wiring up the last mile to the home continue on a pace that parallels that of the advancements made to improve the wireless realm.

The way the wheels come off that "ALWAYS" comment is when wireless develops to the point where it becomes "good enough" to supplant wired technologies and at a lower cost per house for the last mile. Then the bulk of R&D will shift over into the "make 6G, and 7G, and 8G even better, faster, sooner, and cheaper" mantra, pushing them past the stalled out capabilities of land-line hookups for the last mile.

10 yrs from now I'll be surprised if the cable line to my house is used for anything. The POTS line hasn't been connected to anything in this house for over 5 yrs now.

That's the same tired argument that supporters of IGPs use. Sure, IGPs are getting better and faster, but it's a false equivalency to say that therefore, IGPs will finally pass discrete graphics capabilities.

Likewise, it's a false statement to suggest that just because wireless is getting better, and is finallly in the "acceptable" range, than it will somehow leapfrog over wired networking technologies. Just like the idea of an IGP leapfrogging ahead of discrete graphics.

Sure, perhaps the market for discrete graphics will shrink, just as the availability of cheap "acceptable" wireless (4G today) will likely slightly cut into the market for wired internet, but discrete graphics and wired internet will not lose their technological edge.

I recall seeing a comment from someone on this forum, who has a 50 Gigabit metro fiber connection.

That's what wired networking is capable of. Not wireless. Wireless will never catch up, IMHO.
 

WhoBeDaPlaya

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2000
7,414
401
126
What's missing right now is the next "killer app".
Once that appears -- whatever form it may take -- suddenly "good enough" will no longer be, and millions of people will become disillusioned with their toy computers overnight.
It's been missing for a looooong time now. ;)
 

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,118
58
91
That's the same tired argument that supporters of IGPs use. Sure, IGPs are getting better and faster, but it's a false equivalency to say that therefore, IGPs will finally pass discrete graphics capabilities.

Likewise, it's a false statement to suggest that just because wireless is getting better, and is finallly in the "acceptable" range, than it will somehow leapfrog over wired networking technologies. Just like the idea of an IGP leapfrogging ahead of discrete graphics.

Sure, perhaps the market for discrete graphics will shrink, just as the availability of cheap "acceptable" wireless (4G today) will likely slightly cut into the market for wired internet, but discrete graphics and wired internet will not lose their technological edge.

I recall seeing a comment from someone on this forum, who has a 50 Gigabit metro fiber connection.

That's what wired networking is capable of. Not wireless. Wireless will never catch up, IMHO.

Interesting.

You are honestly taking the argument that the cost for deploying successive advancements in hardline technology for the last mile will not become prohibitive in the face of rapidly declining costs of deploying successive advancements in wireless technology for the last mile?

My mom happens to be a clearwire subscriber for her internet at home. When I visit her I cannot distinguish between her internet responsiveness and mine here with cable. And that is today, not 10 yrs from now.

Whoever spends the money to run a mile of fibre optic cable to her house is wasting their money digging up the road, they'd be much better off to just continue upgrading the clearwire baseband as time rolls on.
 

Lonbjerg

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2009
4,419
0
0
Interesting.

You are honestly taking the argument that the cost for deploying successive advancements in hardline technology for the last mile will not become prohibitive in the face of rapidly declining costs of deploying successive advancements in wireless technology for the last mile?

My mom happens to be a clearwire subscriber for her internet at home. When I visit her I cannot distinguish between her internet responsiveness and mine here with cable. And that is today, not 10 yrs from now.

Whoever spends the money to run a mile of fibre optic cable to her house is wasting their money digging up the road, they'd be much better off to just continue upgrading the clearwire baseband as time rolls on.

I beg to differ.
But then again I only work with this stuff.

and I hope you didn't use browsing and your eyes and a gauge for the difference btween wired fiber..and wireless Clearwire

The only company in Denmark that supplied ClearWire technology just folded up ( http://translate.google.com/transla...8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http://skyline.dk/)...and we are sucking up a lot of their customers.

Their problem:

For people just needed mobile broadband on the go 3G/4G is sufficient.

For people that need more (lower lantency/more bandwith)..xDSL/Fiber was the obvious choice.

We don't have capped internet in DK either...you pay for the speed...not the amount of data you use.

Add vectoring to xDSL and interference to wireless...combined with the differences in lantecy and bandwith...I don't want sunspots to be the master of my internet...if you do, that is fine.

But your post was below you normal standard.
 

2is

Diamond Member
Apr 8, 2012
4,281
131
106
If they continue to invest money into wireless technologies and stop developing traditional wired technologies I'm sure there will be a point where wireless will surpass what wired mediums are currently capable of. At least for general consumers. I doubt backbones are going to go wireless anytime soon. If they developed both, I doubt wireless would ever end up being the superior medium. Bottom line is they're going to do what makes them the most money and costs the least. Wireless certainly isn't there yet IMO. I mean yeah, LTE is nice, particularly the upstream but its certainly not consistent and the only reason upstream looks so impressive is because the cable companies have artificially limited traffic in that direction.
 
Last edited:

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,226
9,990
126
Interesting.

You are honestly taking the argument that the cost for deploying successive advancements in hardline technology for the last mile will not become prohibitive in the face of rapidly declining costs of deploying successive advancements in wireless technology for the last mile?

My mom happens to be a clearwire subscriber for her internet at home. When I visit her I cannot distinguish between her internet responsiveness and mine here with cable. And that is today, not 10 yrs from now.

Whoever spends the money to run a mile of fibre optic cable to her house is wasting their money digging up the road, they'd be much better off to just continue upgrading the clearwire baseband as time rolls on.

I was talking about performance, not cost, and I did mention for gaming.

Sure, you can NEF on a 4G connection just fine, just like you can NEF on an IGP. But when it comes to pro-level gaming, nothing beats a FIOS (or metro fiber) connection, and nothing beat a discrete graphics card.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
If they continue to invest money into wireless technologies and stop developing traditional wired technologies I'm sure there will be a point where wireless will surpass what wired mediums are currently capable of.

Not likely. Remember that wireless is pretty much always "last hop" -- all those access points have to be connected up and need to handle aggregated amounts of bandwidth. And they do so using wires.

Some things are just inherently more efficient than others. And copper/fiber are more efficient than radio waves.

Of course, I'll be happy to be proven wrong. :)