Intels in trouble..

Discussion in 'CPUs and Overclocking' started by Fx1, Feb 22, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. pyjujiop

    pyjujiop Senior member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2001
    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    0
    Indeed, an elephant in the room that a lot of people overlook. Even a low-power Atom CPU beats the ever-living crap out of anything ARM makes in CPU performance, and any mobile OS can easily be ported to run on such a processor. Heck, it can even run Android apps in emulation easily.

    Don't be surprised if you see Intel eating ARM's lunch within a couple of years. ARM only got where it is because it was "good enough" and had very low power consumption. If a company with Intel's reputation offers something significantly better with very low power consumption, and a vast existing body of software already in place...
     
  2. Unoid

    Unoid Senior member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2012
    Messages:
    462
    Likes Received:
    0

    No way tegra 4 is in trouble. It will blow away qualcoms chips.

    Only way qualcom has a benefit is that tegra 4i will be slightly slower CPU perf but have integrated LTE.

    Put it this way. Phones will use T4, and phones for att and verizon = 4i

    Tegra is mostly a tablet chip, teg 4 will bring them into phones even more so. = bad for qualcom.
     
  3. Enigmoid

    Enigmoid Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2012
    Messages:
    2,907
    Likes Received:
    22
    Agree. x86 is x86 and optimizations are not going to have a major effect for AMD.

    I doubt that 8 cores will be a major push on developers. Probably a number of those cores (2+ ) will handle background tasks (1 dedicated to the OS, one to the kinect/move/etc). The xbox 360 had a tri core cpu; how many games are optimized for even three cores today (such as skyrim, three cores on xbox, only two on pc)?. Most console ports are only running on two cores.

    Furthermore, 8 weak cores (1.6 GHz with jaguar IPC) are far worse than 4 strong cores (at 3.2 GHz) for several reasons, first multithreading costs efficiency, second optimizing for more cores takes time and time is money. When AAA games take millions to develop money and time are everything and this can make it harder on the devs to produce a game.

    Intel is playing it smart. Their lead on single thread performance is such that it will take several generations for AMD to catch up. Their power usage and die sizes are such that when AMD does manage to catch up they can simply release an 8 core cpu and AMD is back to where it was before.

    Its true that intel hasn't made many improvements on the desktop side. However, their mobile division has undergone tremendous gains. A quad core ivy i7 (say the i7 3630qm) is slightly better than the i7 920 at 45 watts compared to a tdp of 130 watts. While desktop hasn't changed significantly the difference between i7 2630 qm (2.0 ghz) and i7 3630qm (2.4 ghz) is around 25% from sandy to ivy (about 16 months time difference). Compare than to the first generation i7 quads 1.6 Ghz (i7 720 qm) and the difference is phenominal.

    ULV i7s (ivy) have about as much power as the quad core i7 720qm at about 40% the power usage!

    http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Processors-Benchmarklist.2436.0.html

    i7 3517U vs i7 720qm. cinebench r10 multi ~8700 for i7 720 vs 8500 for 3517U (32 bit). the 3630qm gets about ~18000. So mobile cpu performance has more than doubled in three years.
     
  4. Unoid

    Unoid Senior member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2012
    Messages:
    462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Regarding Intel:

    Intel's stock price is fairly low for the past 6 months. It's severely undervalued. Wait until Haswell rips out this June/July. Qualcom may be close in Market Cap but Qual is overpriced, Intel underpriced... Plus intel has BILLIONS of capital invested. How many fabs x 4-6billion each?


    If intel wanted to or was forced to abondon their 50-60% margins they could start running all fabs at 100% doing chip orders that will put TMSC and others at a disadvantage. Intels revenue would go up 20% a year aka stock price up as much

    By 2014 at 14nm I believe intel will finally start dominating mobile, Something about having the best chip processes on the planet mixed with the largest R and D spending of any chip company.
     
  5. IndyColtsFan

    IndyColtsFan Lifer

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Messages:
    32,295
    Likes Received:
    47
    Both are bad.

    And none of this shows that Intel is "in trouble."
     
  6. Gikaseixas

    Gikaseixas Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    Messages:
    2,704
    Likes Received:
    61
    Lazy to read the entire thread but in short, Intel is not in trouble. I don't understand why one would think they're after the proven track report they have, even if the overall picture is changing. They already have a foot in the mobile world and IPC wise they're ahead of the competition.
     
  7. Centauri

    Centauri Golden Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    Messages:
    1,543
    Likes Received:
    8
    On snap! :rolleyes:
     
  8. Xpage

    Xpage Senior member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2005
    Messages:
    449
    Likes Received:
    3


    yeah but who wants a phone with a battery that lasts 2 hours. Intel needs to get to sub 1W usage before it is even viable in smart phones. I doubt that will happen till they make their chips on 14nm or lower. Intel won't have anything competitive in the smart phone market for awhile, being just equal to ARM's offerings has no advantage they need to be superior to entice people away from their ARM strucutre
     
  9. ShintaiDK

    ShintaiDK Lifer

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    20,385
    Likes Received:
    118
    Maybe you missed the phones that already contain Intel.
     
  10. rich_

    rich_ Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    Add to this, that some extremely influential computing architects from intel were hired by AMD to help develop the 8000 series gpu's late 2012.
     
  11. FridayThe13th

    FridayThe13th Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2013
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0
    because when you prove him wrong he jumps ship to try to save his pathetic opinionated arguments lol

    just like AMD + Intel turned into QUALCOMM rofl
     
  12. piasabird

    piasabird Lifer

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    16,793
    Likes Received:
    15
    I dont see Intel failing any time soon. I work at a college and still do all my work on a desktop. Access to a keyboard and the database on a server is still going strong. I do see lots of tablets, but even tablet owners will eventually switch to faster processors. Intelligent users will demand access to real computers. The computer industry has always been going through changes. Many things could happen in the future. Maybe the phone will disappear and be replaced by small tablets. Some people may switch to tablets simply because they want something more mobile than a laptop. However, the desktop is still useful. I am using a desktop computer with a TV for a monitor as I type this. What I wish would happen is to see all this big boxes disappear to be replaced by smaller boxes. This standard ATX cases are just filling up landfills.

    Even phones need processors.
     
  13. jpiniero

    jpiniero Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2010
    Messages:
    3,818
    Likes Received:
    60
    Windows 8.

    That's true. But there's no need to upgrade anymore. They can just slash their PC buying budget to the point where they are buying nothing until the machine breaks or they hire new employees. And they are likely not hiring new employees given the economy.
     
  14. Ferzerp

    Ferzerp Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 1999
    Messages:
    6,176
    Likes Received:
    7
    Enterprises *rarely* buy to upgrade. They refresh based on age, not performance.
     
  15. jpiniero

    jpiniero Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2010
    Messages:
    3,818
    Likes Received:
    60
    That's another way of putting it. Say they had a 3 year cycle. They could move it to 6 or 7.
     
  16. ShintaiDK

    ShintaiDK Lifer

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    20,385
    Likes Received:
    118
    Windows 8 aint enough to decimate sales, people simply install WIndows 7 instead. Also WIndows 8 is gone by summertime and replaced with "Windows Blue". Same with Windows Server 2012.

    ARM companies combined shrinked at the same rate as Intel in 2012.
     
  17. ShintaiDK

    ShintaiDK Lifer

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    20,385
    Likes Received:
    118
    You never worked in corporate IT I assume. After 3 years any warranty is also gone. Not to mention HDs and such is in pretty bad shape at the time. Plus not upgrading means lost productivity.
     
  18. Ferzerp

    Ferzerp Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 1999
    Messages:
    6,176
    Likes Received:
    7

    This is done based on budget and quality of the overall system (how long they last). It has nothing to do with speed.

    The refresh cycles are an interplay between failure rates, budget (wrapping depreciation in to this one), and cost of downtime in lost productivity. CPU performance doesn't enter the equation at all other than it being a factor in what is purchased when replacement time comes.

    edit: so while your Dells, HPs, and Lenovos of the world keep using bargain basement components to save $5 on a PC, the CPU is never really going to factor in to refresh cycle length because that's the one part that they have to source from a high quality supplier. I've not seen many CPU failures.... ever.
     
    #193 Ferzerp, Feb 23, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2013
  19. jpiniero

    jpiniero Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2010
    Messages:
    3,818
    Likes Received:
    60
    Hence the "until it breaks" part. Thing breaks, give them a new machine then. HD dies, put in a new one. Obviously, it can't be forever as Windows 7 will eventually go out of support.

    It has everything to do with speed. You could count on the productivity gains from going to faster hardware. Those days are over for the kinds of tasks that the average corporate user does.
     
  20. Ferzerp

    Ferzerp Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 1999
    Messages:
    6,176
    Likes Received:
    7
    No, it really doesn't. Large organizations haven't refreshed based on speed in a very, very long time (unless a new project demands it). There may be outliers, but that's far from the norm. I know most of our stuff has been on 5ish year refresh for the last 6 or 7 years. This is not a new occurance.

    Unexpected outages as an impetus for hardware replacement is not prefered. It is generally cheaper to replace them once they are *likely* to die in a controlled, less disruptive fashion. Your staff doing the replacements has a steady source of work, and the end users don't have to reactively open a ticket to get a dead PC serviced (unless it breaks inside the normal expected life). Reactive replacement leaves the chance that a cluster of failures can cause a major disruption as your staff gets backed up on requests.

    This model will work in a thin client type scenario where spares can be kept and non-it staff can plug them in. However, this has a much larger backend cost, and so is not an easy place to get to.
     
    #195 Ferzerp, Feb 23, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2013
  21. Cerb

    Cerb Elite Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2000
    Messages:
    17,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    While you wait, however, you are paying for them, way more than their take-home pay, to twiddle their thumbs.

    If you have machines at the ready, then you are taking a cost on your IT side will, in the best case, be about even with just doing a refresh.

    They have also been gone. That's something that was gone for big businesses quite a long time ago. That HDDs, ODDs, mobos, and PSUs have a greater chance of unexpectedly dying as they get older is a really big deal.

    People that need performance will get it, but are you really going to be suffering from lack of productivity today with a 1st-gen i7 (or Xeon equivalent), and 8-16GB RAM? Probably not. You're going to get a new computer not because the new one kicks ass, but because you not being productive could cost multiple times your pay, which likely gets fairly expensive, compared to amortized hardware and IT support costs.
     
  22. FalseChristian

    FalseChristian Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Messages:
    3,325
    Likes Received:
    0
    Don't get me wrong as I love Intel and my i5 2500K that overclocks to 4.5GHz with hardly any extra voltage but AMD is doing better with their competitive FX line.

    Intel is way ahead of AMD because they have the money for R'nD whereas AMD does not so Intel will be just fine, IMHO.
     
  23. trivik12

    trivik12 Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    Laptops are refreshed every 3 years. Servers are beefed up around the same time and at times even quicker if capacity needs go up. I think that is Intel's biggest strength. If you look at all the big companies WW, majority of the hardware IT budget is spent on intel products. That might slow down a bit but that will continue to be the major driver of their revenue.

    On windows 8, I doubt any major company has migrated to it. We are still using Windows 7 and will probably continue to do it for a long time. Plus even Macbook pros are on Intel.

    haswell/broadwell/silvermont/airmont will tell us how intel will do in tablet/phone space. I think they will make some dent even though I doubt they will dominate like desktop/laptop space as ARM will be cheaper and fast enough for that space.
     
  24. badb0y

    badb0y Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,945
    Likes Received:
    10
    Troll thread?

    This is like one of those stupid threads that say Apple is in trouble while it posts billions of profit.
     
  25. grkM3

    grkM3 Golden Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    OP is insane thinking intel is any kid of trouble,he is pretending that they don't have the best state of the art fabs in the world and are 3-4 years ahead of everyone else.

    If intel wanted to they could open up there fabs to everyone and they could make chips that would blow away any other chip maker.

    and what is stoping intel going to arm and asking for a license agreement to make true A15 arm cores on there 22nm fabs?

    arm would love it as intel would build millions of chips and I can already see all the phone makers going to intel for arms latest arch because the intel node gets 40% better power saving over the comp.

    yeah intel is in trouble when AMD cant even make its own chips
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.