```
Turning specifically to process technology development, on Intel 18A, we will continue to make steady progress on our yield and performance targets. Intel 18A is the foundation of at least next three generations of Intel client and server products. And we remain committed to ramping this technology to scale. Intel 18A and Intel 18AP are critical nodes for Intel products and will drive meaningful wafer volumes well into the next decade. Our foundry and products teams remain focused on enabling Penta Lake to launch this year.
```
On mobile the formatting options are greyed out I thought this would work
Turning specifically to process technology development, on Intel 18A, we will continue to make steady progress on our yield and performance targets. Intel 18A is the foundation of at least next three generations of Intel client and server products. And we remain committed to ramping this technology to scale. Intel 18A and Intel 18AP are critical nodes for Intel products and will drive meaningful wafer volumes well into the next decade. Our foundry and products teams remain focused on enabling Penta Lake to launch this year.
```
On mobile the formatting options are greyed out I thought this would work
If 6.5Ghz NVL SKU happens than it's 14% ST Improvement from the frequency alone lolWell, 6.5 GHz 395KS on 18AP let's go!
fastandfurious6
Senior member
- Jun 1, 2024
- 619
- 794
- 96
they didn't get any customers for 18A? in this era with this insane semi demand?
sounds so bad................................
sounds so bad................................
Don't worry Intel alone will ship more 18A wafers than AMDN2+N3 Combined but 14A without proper funding will be minimalistic node or will not happen at all.
Looking at revenue and revenue trends... isn't this dubious?
fastandfurious6
Senior member
- Jun 1, 2024
- 619
- 794
- 96
Not really 18A ramping to scale means exactly this not to mention their 3 next gen products are 18A in the announcements
Intel CEO Letter to Employees
Lip-Bu Tan announces 15% workforce reduction
morethanmoore.substack.com
I don't see any support here. He says nothing of the scale except that it is a smaller scale than previously envisioned.
So why would it be more than AMD's products other than Intel is currently larger revenue than AMD?
Wouldn't one call this an optimistic projection based on a forecasted turnaround in current trends?
The scale is not Smaller for Intel products they have so many products and stuff on 18A they winded the scale down from external but their internal projection didn't change.
this doesn't happen unless you have backup plan for nodes for example if TSMC don't have capacity for PTL/NVL/DMR/CLW-F/RZL/WCL they are cooked as a product companyWhat if 14A is canned and 18A is a short-lived node?
I'm going to laugh because I hope this is a joke?
Of course they have to improve, cause it's hardware. Software doesn't benefit from Moore's Law rate of improvements. In hardware you could keep the design the same and just move to a new process and it'll be better.
Microsoft could have simply not rammed adware and telemetry in their software. It cost them money to do that. But alas they're malicious to their users.
You made a stupid comparison, there's no harm in giving it up.
No, I'm talking about how management from both companies make retarded decisions. You look at Intel in the past ten years and it's exactly that. Microsoft is the software side and Intel is the hardware side and they are representing both sides of the crappy coin.
They also both got completely blindsided by the mobile revolution.
I have to disagree. Microsoft is not making stupid decisions here. They prioritize features that push their other services even if it costs them money to do and makes Windows, the product, worse. Improving or lightening Windows is expensive to do and doesn't provide much room for revenue growth so it's a low priority.
Which is why Windows 11 has a new killer feature which makes it difficult to change the default browser. You might be in Europe where this was determined to be illegal anti-competitive behavior, and so Microsoft produces another build of Windows for Europe where this isn't hidden. But Windows also installs an adware executable written by Microsoft via msupdate. Its sole purpose is to detect if a user installs Chrome and shows them an Edge ad. Later they updated it to inject an ad within Chrome itself which could cause Chrome to crash and need to be restarted.
Intel's idiotic decisions come down to waah they can't PPA for crap and Pat bought too much machinery too quickly the impairments are gonna kill us all! But they have some great value parts for the DIY PC market and have for years even now that Moore's Law is rolling in its grave.
Last edited:
In theory software should get better over time just from compiler improvements, but 99% of time developers add more bloat which slows things down faster than compiler improves.
No they didn't. But they weren't going to enter mobile except from a position that reinforced their core business. That's what incumbents do and that's why they get their ass handed to them. Microsoft built mobile off of Windows and Intel built mobile off of x86, both were terrible ideas because neither was interested in making a great mobile product, but in making sure mobile didn't hurt the thing they were most reliant on.
One of Jobs core strengths (less so Cook) was the willingness to let a new product segment cannibalize their bread and butter. The Lisa team competed against the Apple II team for the Mac - which provided no wake for the Apple II to survive in. iPod was a complete break from everything in the Mac and that's why they won mobile - iPod team competed against the the Mac team for the vision for iOS and the iPod team won. They didn't worry about the iPad cannibalizing the Mac even with a $499 price point. Hell, it was the Mac that had to adapt to iPhone/iPad silicon because it was about to get eclipsed.
Intel needed to break with x86 way back when Apple wanted them to make iPhone processors and they couldn't do it. Microsoft couldn't not shove Windows into PDAs and Phones. They weren't blindsided - they saw the market, they just blew it because they were cowards.
That's not it. Moores law requires demand for the increased compute. Making your word processor faster doesn't do anything for the customer, so you have to invent reasons to use that compute so the customer will want to buy it. A lot of those reasons are stupid. That's where the bloat comes from. Without it, demand for compute would fall off and Moores law would stall.
I'll tell you why they got blindsided.
My first Windows computer was Windows 95 with Plus! extension. It had a feature that could have been a predecessor to current mobile OSes.
It was called something like Internet feature. When you enabled that, the icons went from double clicking to open it to single click.
Apple basically pioneered the Icons, but who popularized it? Microsoft, with Windows. And it's ironic that Microsoft went against that altogether and went with the wildly space inefficient Tiles while Android/iOS continued on the tradition and used Icons.
There's no real GUI difference between Android/iOS and Windows 7 except the start menu!
Windows 8 could have been Icon focused OS just like the mobile competitors, and wouldn't have needed a skin on top of it for the useless tiles, while keeping Start Menu for everyone else.
They didn't need to break from x86 either. Medfield showed that it can be very efficient.
The biggest issue is not pivoting to such a big advancement earlier, because they were so narrow-minded in offering for inefficient platform such as PCs.
Medfield was introduced in 2012. Atom was available in 2008 to the utter fail called MIDs or Mobile Internet Devices. Medfield uses the same In order architecture as the 2009's Bonnell Atom. Remember that they claimed 2010's Moorestown would have been enough for mobile, but the truth was it wasn't. Because they weren't ready. Let's say if the integration and power management on Medfield was truly ready in 2010 with Moorestown? I bet you Intel would be a player in the phone space today.
As a premier merchant vendor of CPUs across computers, and by the spirit of Moore's Law, it's natural to expect cheaper CPUs(Celeron, which was a reaction to Cyrix) and lower power computers over time. Intel resisted this. This the result, thus the haphazard reaction of contra revenue.
Tiles is also a haphazard reaction to being blindsided, except on MS's side. Windows 8/8.1/10's "mobile" button is nothing but a skin on top of it. It loads another thing on top of the existing ones! It didn't need to!
Last edited:
Tiles are not why Windows Phone failed. It failed because Microsoft charged royalties for it, while Google charged nothing for Android. Microsoft enforced minimum hardware standards for Windows Phone, while Google didn't for Android. Worse yet, Microsoft reacted more slowly than the Android team after Jobs introduced the iPhone in realizing that's the future and hardware keyboards were going the way of the buggy whip.
Microsoft had a window (no pun intended) since Android was targeting a Blackberry type design until Andy Rubin saw the iPhone and redirected the whole team's effort towards that new target. So the first (already in development at the time) Android phones released had a slide out keyboard, it wasn't until fall 2009 when Apple was already on their 3rd rev that the first all screen Androids came out. Had Microsoft reacted as quickly, Windows Phone 7 could have been introduced alongside the first all screen Androids. Perhaps even sooner, given the resources Microsoft could have brought to bear.
But because they charged royalties, and enforced minimum hardware standards which priced them out of the lower half of the market, they had FAR fewer OEM design wins compared to the constantly growing list of Android OEMs. By the time they realized royalties were a mistake it was too late, Android was entrenched. If you're an OEM at that time you can't do better than "free", you already have experience working with Android, and it allows you to load all the crapware on the phone you want (I don't remember if Microsoft allowed that or not) and developers were cranking out dozens of Android apps for every Windows Phone app. The battle was already lost.
Tiles didn't matter. If Microsoft had realized Steve Jobs changed the whole game the moment iPhone was announced like Rubin did, made Windows Phone free, required the hardware standards only for some sort of special "premium" labeling, and allowed shovelware I think they would have a double digit market share today. Android, by virtue of being open source, would have still won China but Windows Phone could have competed on equal footing everywhere else except maybe the very low end (because Microsoft has never written anything that runs well on low spec hardware)
Of course the Ballmer directed Microsoft of 2009 could never have done this. Expecting them to release royalty free software in 2009 is like expecting the proverbial scorpion to not sting the frog swimming him across the river. It was their nature.
adroc_thurston
Diamond Member
- Jul 2, 2023
- 6,175
- 8,698
- 106
oh no, that's not the reason.
It failed because they pressed the reset button on the entire software ecosystem twice in a span of two years, just as Android/iOS duo were reaching critical mass in devices shipped and ISV support.
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 Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter