-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Intel says WHAT???
- Thread starter LordOfAll
- Start date
Maybe they are starting to realize that clock speed is not the be all in making a good CPU. Look at AMD vs Intel... how do those little AMD's manage to compete with the big bad hyper clocked P4's with sometimes half the clock speed....
Maybe they are going back to the drawing boards... can't hurt.
Or maybe they are just trying to throw everyone off and then they will come out with a 4ghz CPU and we will all be wow'd and surprised.
Who knows....
Maybe they are going back to the drawing boards... can't hurt.
Or maybe they are just trying to throw everyone off and then they will come out with a 4ghz CPU and we will all be wow'd and surprised.
Who knows....
!
So, what are they going to do? What is Dell going to say? 'Now cheaper! With a Dothan 755! (Equivalent to Athlon64 3200+)'?
The model number is hella confusing. I think each processor should be assigned a performance rating. Like, the 'Intel Dothan 3200'. Or something. And use Intel's internal benchmark. On the first chipset for it's FSB speed. Atleast *TRY* to keep continuity.
Plus, the P-M isn't built for speed. It has massive trouble ramping. You can't just say, 'Oh, we're gonna bump the P-M up to 2.2GHz by may'. No. Most P-M speed bumps happen on a process change.
I agree, but the real problem is that all AMD has to go for the throat with is a spork :laugh: Just take a look at the latest Centrino commercial with the Blue dudes, primary colors and simple visual methaphors are the way to sell things to the mouthbreathers watching 😉 AMD must advertise on TV again, and much more agressively this time if they want to make real inroads on public mindshare.
I respectfully disagree with your conclusion.
Looks like water off a duck's back to me Intel is still large and in charge regardless of what is happening 🙂
AMD is pumping on all cylinders right now while Intel is faltering far worse than Nvidia ever did with NV30. However, Intel has brand name recognition amongst the stupid public, and that's where the big money is. I doubt they'll lose much market share.
This is good for AMD and neutral for Intel. AMD is picking up a lot of street credit - which is what counts. They're making a LOT of friends in the OEM and server markets. Look at IBM - they make great processors, but their market share is tiny (basically, Macintosh). Is IBM short on funds? God no - they have DOD contracts out the wazoo, just built the world's fastest supercomputer and world's largest radio telescope. IBM is arguably more at the top of the heap than Intel, simply because they've solidified their position in markets that are far more stable than consumer electronics - and that's the direction AMD is moving.
I've long said AMD had the better strategy. Ever since the Athlon came out and walked all over the Pentium 3, I have been saying that the immediate future of processing (next ~10 years) is in efficiency, not clock speeds. Why it took Intel so long to realize this is beyond me.
This is good for AMD and neutral for Intel. AMD is picking up a lot of street credit - which is what counts. They're making a LOT of friends in the OEM and server markets. Look at IBM - they make great processors, but their market share is tiny (basically, Macintosh). Is IBM short on funds? God no - they have DOD contracts out the wazoo, just built the world's fastest supercomputer and world's largest radio telescope. IBM is arguably more at the top of the heap than Intel, simply because they've solidified their position in markets that are far more stable than consumer electronics - and that's the direction AMD is moving.
I've long said AMD had the better strategy. Ever since the Athlon came out and walked all over the Pentium 3, I have been saying that the immediate future of processing (next ~10 years) is in efficiency, not clock speeds. Why it took Intel so long to realize this is beyond me.
thermalpaste
Senior member
Agreed, its just like people flock to buy a Sony rather than buy other products that are cheaper and better at times. The good thing is AMD is used mostly by the enthusiast community, wheras a very few enthusiasts actually use intel. Intel abandoned the P-6 architecture because the cores were maxing out. All they needed to do was deepen the pipes a bit and add SSE2 with support for DDR (like they did in the pentium-M) . Now they are going to focus on the p6 architecture again for their future processors, with the Tejas core being scrapped(I read this somewhere ages back, correct me if Im wrong).
Intel Q3 Sales $8.4 billion and a profit of $1.9 Billion(up 15% from last year)
AMD Q3 Sales $1.2 billion and a profit of $44 million(up 17% from last year)
Oh yeah AMD really is putting a dent into Intel. 5 years? Not likely. I cannot believe some of the statements said in this thread.
Corporate Thug
Lifer
what do you expect? the fourm is polluted with AMD fanbois :laugh:
rshoemaker
Junior Member
seems like both AMD and Intel have kind of reached the limits of what they can do speedwise with silicon. Be interesting to see what the next big thing is in processors over the next 5 years.
Elcs
Diamond Member
AMD's major problem is that they are selling processors nearly as fast as they can sell them... with more customers turning their hands towards AMD looking for the best. As was stated on some thread recently, unless AMD can produce more processors, they will only grab so much market share away from Intel by the time Intel can introduce their competition.
Here's the internal Intel memo: http://www.hardocp.com/image.h...5DZXRoT2dfMV8xX2wuZ2lm
[+1 insightful] 🙂 It will be interesting to see what happens next.
Another interesting question is whether or not customers (and I don't mean this forum) have largely reached the point where they don't need any more performance too.
If performance is not the primary differentiator, then it will be interesting to see what replaces it. In mobile products it will be battery life and form-factor size. But what will companies use to differentiate in the desktop industry? The next step will be multiple cores. But for most customers this will likely not be a compelling selling point - at least not without a "killer app" that uses multiple cores. And what will happen after CPU's have 4+ cores, or 8+ virtual cores? It will be interesting to see how things progress in the next 5 years.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
