Remember when computers always got faster and cheaper

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: NA1NSXR
What bugs me is not Intel, it is the fact that children who know nothing about computers can create a ruckus nowadays. The comment about gamers driving technology is pretty funny too.

how is it funny?

What do you think telsa cards came from?? give ya a clue.. its a gaming card.

Why do you think we keep asking for faster videocards? Why are new systems tested under gaming conditions?

Maybe you dont know hardware enough, that you taken to the stereotype that gamers gear only means higher price tag?

High performance overclocking ram, not for gamers? What about keyboards, mouse? you think the "gamer" title is just a name? Gaming keyboards and mouse (and i mean the real ones, not cheap knock offs) have laser engraved letters so they dont wear out from constant pounding. The keyboards can take a lot more stress and not ghost. You can press more then 5 keys and have it register.

Im sorry your statement is so blanket... that it is funny.

Originally posted by: s44
This is why Intel fanboys are idiots.

At least they have the performance to back it up which is not said about AMD.

Originally posted by: amenx
Not any more than AMD fanbois, esp the type who say they buy AMD on moral grounds.

More budget reasons. Ask any AMD owner why they got a AMD over a i7. 95% of the time its $$$.

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Scotteq
At the risk of giving the Fanbois grist for further asininity: I highly doubt a C2D(Q), Neha, or Phenom chip/chipset could be made to fill the same role as an Atom.

Now THAT is sig worthy wordsmithing right there folks :thumbsup: Me likes!

Dude *sigh*

Intel Xeon ULV, and intel ULV series laptop processors. They cost a TON more then the atom, but there a TON faster, and drink only a little bit more power.

ULV = Ultra Low Voltage


Gah i so want to face palm this post. Its funny how the main arguement for i7 is price money expensive. AMD's main fanboi's arguement is cheaper, almost the same, more platform compatibility....

Whatever your niche is in, be happy with it. But if you are after the top 10%, its NOT AMD.

Originally posted by: Cogman
Intel wants the consumer to want a 5.8ghz 50core beast for every PC, because that's where they gain the most money.

I need 800 more mhz and 42 more native cores to beat that goal.

 

[Martimus]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
Even if we assume there were abuse of monopoly involved, you might be over-estimating the impact of that activity in determining whether it materially benefited Intel.

I speed, go over the posted speed limit just a tad, not enough to warrant being pulled over and given a ticket even when I pass by police watching traffic with radar guns, but nonetheless I am breaking the law. This crime is hardly of the same caliber as speeding 100mph thru a school zone at 8:30am. Both actions are speeding though, but severity is relevant too.

Did Intel cheat its way to the top? Or did it get there by shear virtue of having 5-6x the R&D budget as AMD for the past 20yrs and yes there were some hooligan side-activities by a handful of otherwise aggressive salesmen striving to snag that stretch goal bonus for themselves?

I don't personally know whether Intel cheated or is a dirty monopolistic company, in fact I bet 99% of its employees wouldn't know either (take Enron as an example)...executives weave a tight "circle of competence" and people outside are outside regardless whether they are employees or non-employees.

But I do personally know the firsthand impact of R&D budgets in determining the maturity, feature-set, and value of its product (be it a node or a cpu), and I'd argue AMD's situation today was a foregone conclusion that could have been made shortly after 1993 when Intel released the Pentium and they were already 5x the size of AMD revenue-wise.

Check out this EETimes article - AMD: Fighting the unbeatable foe - and pay particular attention to the data in this graph, also notice there are five pages to the article, its an interesting read.

I don't agree with Appopins argument that Intel cheated to get to the top, but I have to say that there is a proponderance of evidence that they cheated to stay there. What you are missing in your argument is not that Intel is better because it has 5X as much usable revenue, but that Intel appears to have engaged in illegal activities to enable them to keep that advantage. If they did not, AMD would have a much better revenue stream during the decade or more that they had a superior value available to OEM's and costumers. (IBM and Cyrix may fall into this pot as well) Whether they would have done better if they had that additional revenue that was denied to them is completely unknown, but to say that it doesn't matter seems rather short sighted.

 

[aigomorla]

For the last freaken time.... if they discontinue the 920...

Here is the price of a 920: 279.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16819115202

and here is a price of a W3520: 309.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...ver-_-Intel-_-19117213

a 30 dollar markup. If 30 dollars is a make it or break it point for you... then (as nice as id like to say this), intel is definitely not the platform for you.

Both chips are IDENTICAL. They will both have all the overclocking options unlocked in 90% of the X58 boards.

And the W3520 is a gaurentee'd D0 for 30 dollars more.

 

[s44]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: s44
This is why Intel fanboys are idiots.

At least they have the performance to back it up which is not said about AMD.

No one claims AMD has better performance now. But lots of folks seem to be cheering for Intel to crush AMD, which would make Intel's product roll-outs incredibly slow and more price-segregated afterwards.

Competition is good.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: s44

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: s44
This is why Intel fanboys are idiots.

At least they have the performance to back it up which is not said about AMD.

No one claims AMD has better performance now. But lots of folks seem to be cheering for Intel to crush AMD, which would make Intel's product roll-outs incredibly slow and more price-segregated afterwards.

Competition is good.

competition is great...

i totally agree with ya on this...

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: s44

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: s44
This is why Intel fanboys are idiots.

At least they have the performance to back it up which is not said about AMD.

No one claims AMD has better performance now. But lots of folks seem to be cheering for Intel to crush AMD, which would make Intel's product roll-outs incredibly slow and more price-segregated afterwards.

Competition is good.

I don't know anyone that is cheering for that. For me, my biggest fear is that Intel is going to crush AMD. Their products right now are pretty much head and shoulders above AMD's products.

I like AMD, I would love to have an AMD rig in the future. However, They simply aren't the best performers. Intel has them beat.

 

[aigomorla]

no i dont think so.

I think AMD will bounce back.. maybe after they gotten some stuff straightened out.

Im honestly hoping for the fusion platform to beat i5's. But they would need an awesome IGP implementation.

 

[smackababy]

I haven't considered an AMD purchase since they got Conroe'd. They need something that can compete in a sector other than price, despite that being a huge factor in times like these for most consumers. I wish AMD would release a chip that is comparible to the i7/i5. At least that way, Intel will be forced to cut prices and innovate once again.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Cogman
Its called and IMC. i7 has it and you can't get around it. When you make a CPU with an IMC your chipset and socket HAVE to change. i5 doesn't have an IMC, so there is no way to plug it into the i7 board.

No, i5 has an IMC just like i7. It's dual-channel instead of triple-channel.

Originally posted by: Cogman
For the general public, price / performance has never been the issue, ever.

I disagree. I think that is the primary factor in desktop PC sales. What kind of speeds can I get for my dollar.

Originally posted by: Cogman
Atom is not a step down. It is an opening into a new market.

Sorry. BZZT. Wrong. Desktop computers are certainly not a "new market". And Atom-powered desktops ARE "a step down" from current-gen dual-core machines.

Originally posted by: Cogman
The fact that people are using it as a desktop CPU speaks more about what the consumer wants, and less on what intel wants. The consumer wants a low power CPU that can surf the web.

You claim that the consumer doesn't care about price/performance for a desktop PC. Are you saying that they DO care about power utilization for a desktop PC? Are you kidding me? They don't even advertise the power draw of retail PCs.
I claim that the consumer wants a CHEAP CPU to surf the web. Power consumption be damned. But what the consumer is getting for that price, is LESS POWERFUL than slightly older current-gen parts. Thus, (desktop) computers getting cheaper, but NOT GETTING FASTER.

 

[daw123]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: Cogman
Its called and IMC. i7 has it and you can't get around it. When you make a CPU with an IMC your chipset and socket HAVE to change. i5 doesn't have an IMC, so there is no way to plug it into the i7 board.

No, i5 has an IMC just like i7. It's dual-channel instead of triple-channel.

Originally posted by: Cogman
For the general public, price / performance has never been the issue, ever.

I disagree. I think that is the primary factor in desktop PC sales. What kind of speeds can I get for my dollar.

Originally posted by: Cogman
Atom is not a step down. It is an opening into a new market.

Sorry. BZZT. Wrong. Desktop computers are certainly not a "new market". And Atom-powered desktops ARE "a step down" from current-gen dual-core machines.

Originally posted by: Cogman
The fact that people are using it as a desktop CPU speaks more about what the consumer wants, and less on what intel wants. The consumer wants a low power CPU that can surf the web.

You claim that the consumer doesn't care about price/performance for a desktop PC. Are you saying that they DO care about power utilization for a desktop PC? Are you kidding me? They don't even advertise the power draw of retail PCs.
I claim that the consumer wants a CHEAP CPU to surf the web. Power consumption be damned. But what the consumer is getting for that price, is LESS POWERFUL than slightly older current-gen parts. Thus, (desktop) computers getting cheaper, but NOT GETTING FASTER.

Both my mum and my day (which I would consider to be the average desktop PC consumer), just look at the bottom line price. They don't know the difference between a C2D, C2Q or an I7 system and they don't particularly care provided that its good enough for word processing, web surfing and watching the occassional movie. In my experience, this is what a typical consumer looks at; they may use the assumption that higher numbered components are better, but they won't neccessarily know what the (real world) differences are between the components.

 

[GEOrifle]

Originally posted by: aigomorla
For the last freaken time.... if they discontinue the 920...

Here is the price of a 920: 279.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16819115202

and here is a price of a W3520: 309.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...ver-_-Intel-_-19117213

a 30 dollar markup. If 30 dollars is a make it or break it point for you... then (as nice as id like to say this), intel is definitely not the platform for you.

Both chips are IDENTICAL. They will both have all the overclocking options unlocked in 90% of the X58 boards.

And the W3520 is a gaurentee'd D0 for 30 dollars more.

If Both chips are IDENTICAL why noone is buying Intel Xeon W3520 Bloomfield with D0 ??

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Topic Summary: not anymore, thanks to Intel

Intel's decisions makers have a fiducial responsibility to their shareholders, not future would-be customers.

Are you honestly trying to argue the position that a for-profit business should have decision maker's at the helm who willfully ignore their fiduciary responsibilities?

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
I guess what I'm trying to say is, say goodbye to the days of relatively unified platforms, in which both the high-end and low-end shared the same architecture, in which the joe-six-pack people effectively subsidised the R&D necessary for the enthusiast-class machines.

So it's good news for the millions of joe-sixpacks who have, until now thanks to Intel, been disproportionately footing the bill and subsidizing the top-5% enthusiast market with cheap(er) leading edge CPU's than they would have otherwise been.

Sounds like joe sixpack owes Intel a thank-you going forward, and we all owe joe six-pack a thank-you for the past 20 yrs.

We don't owe Intel anything except a big F-YOU!
--they are a dirty monopolistic company that cheated its way to the top

Even if we assume there were abuse of monopoly involved, you might be over-estimating the impact of that activity in determining whether it materially benefited Intel.

I speed, go over the posted speed limit just a tad, not enough to warrant being pulled over and given a ticket even when I pass by police watching traffic with radar guns, but nonetheless I am breaking the law. This crime is hardly of the same caliber as speeding 100mph thru a school zone at 8:30am. Both actions are speeding though, but severity is relevant too.

Did Intel cheat its way to the top? Or did it get there by shear virtue of having 5-6x the R&D budget as AMD for the past 20yrs and yes there were some hooligan side-activities by a handful of otherwise aggressive salesmen striving to snag that stretch goal bonus for themselves?

I don't personally know whether Intel cheated or is a dirty monopolistic company, in fact I bet 99% of its employees wouldn't know either (take Enron as an example)...executives weave a tight "circle of competence" and people outside are outside regardless whether they are employees or non-employees.

But I do personally know the firsthand impact of R&D budgets in determining the maturity, feature-set, and value of its product (be it a node or a cpu), and I'd argue AMD's situation today was a foregone conclusion that could have been made shortly after 1993 when Intel released the Pentium and they were already 5x the size of AMD revenue-wise.

Check out this EETimes article - AMD: Fighting the unbeatable foe - and pay particular attention to the data in this graph, also notice there are five pages to the article, its an interesting read.

Just to set some things straight...

1. Intel didn't "cheat it's way to the top"...it pretty much started at the top.
2. Joe Six-Pack has far too small a marketshare to subsidize anything.
3. Intel is certainly a monopoly (don't know what a dirty one is), but that's not illegal.
4. The effect of Intel's reputed abuse of the monopoly has been calculated at ~$60 Billion+ to the consumer (not to AMD...), but the study was done by a firm hired by AMD.
5. The most astounding part of the Intel/AMD story is that AMD actually far surpassed Intel for many years with an R&D budget that was 1\5th their size!

I would bet that Virtual Larry is correct in spirit about Intel's business practices costing consumers a significant amount through illegal practices...however none of us can say for sure this has happened in the US until it goes to court (though it's pretty much been established in Korea, Japan, and probably the EU).
The big question is how much...was the AMD study anywhere near accurate?

ERS Group Study article

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Viditor
.
.
.
3. Intel is certainly a monopoly (don't know what a dirty one is), but that's not illegal.
.
.
.
The big question is how much...was the AMD study anywhere near accurate?
.
.
.

I think the big question is "what is to be done with Intel?".

Do you bust them up like Standard Oil and AT&T or do you just fine them and tax their consumers (over and over again, as often as the government coffers need to) like Big tobacco?

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: Cogman
Its called and IMC. i7 has it and you can't get around it. When you make a CPU with an IMC your chipset and socket HAVE to change. i5 doesn't have an IMC, so there is no way to plug it into the i7 board.

No, i5 has an IMC just like i7. It's dual-channel instead of triple-channel.

Originally posted by: Cogman
For the general public, price / performance has never been the issue, ever.

I disagree. I think that is the primary factor in desktop PC sales. What kind of speeds can I get for my dollar.

Originally posted by: Cogman
Atom is not a step down. It is an opening into a new market.

Sorry. BZZT. Wrong. Desktop computers are certainly not a "new market". And Atom-powered desktops ARE "a step down" from current-gen dual-core machines.

Originally posted by: Cogman
The fact that people are using it as a desktop CPU speaks more about what the consumer wants, and less on what intel wants. The consumer wants a low power CPU that can surf the web.

You claim that the consumer doesn't care about price/performance for a desktop PC. Are you saying that they DO care about power utilization for a desktop PC? Are you kidding me? They don't even advertise the power draw of retail PCs.
I claim that the consumer wants a CHEAP CPU to surf the web. Power consumption be damned. But what the consumer is getting for that price, is LESS POWERFUL than slightly older current-gen parts. Thus, (desktop) computers getting cheaper, but NOT GETTING FASTER.

And as I pointed out earlier, your claim is retarded. You point at a specialty CPU and then claim that CPUs as a whole are getting slower for the price. I just have to point out the Celeron 430-L as an example, $29, and it performs better then most P4s will. Saddle it with a $80 MoBo and you have a combination that easily rivals the atom in price, and rocks it in speed.

Quit pointing out specialty CPUs and claiming they are the baseline for CPU speed, they aren't. You might as well point out an ARM processor and complain that it is slow to a pentium. It doesn't matter that people are using it as a desktop PC, intel still hasn't dropped its bottom of the line celerons. Until they do you complaint is unwarranted.

If tomorrow intel announces that they will no long produce celerons, then I might listen a little to your argument.

[edit]Did I say $80 MoBo, try $39.99. For roughly the same price you can get a celeron system that will stomp its Atom counterpart[/edit]

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Cogman
And as I pointed out earlier, your claim is retarded. You point at a specialty CPU and then claim that CPUs as a whole are getting slower for the price. I just have to point out the Celeron 430-L as an example, $29, and it performs better then most P4s will. Saddle it with a $80 MoBo and you have a combination that easily rivals the atom in price, and rocks it in speed.

And that's a good example of my point. The Celeron 430 was an example of a unified platform. Back then, computers got both faster and cheaper. But you're quite wrong to label the Atom as a "specialty" CPU. It's appearing in desktop computers, therefore it's a desktop CPU just like any other. It's not "special" in any way... well, unless you want to consider that it rides the short bus, because of it's performance relative to other desktop CPUs.

Originally posted by: Cogman
Quit pointing out specialty CPUs and claiming they are the baseline for CPU speed, they aren't. You might as well point out an ARM processor and complain that it is slow to a pentium.

Your example is retarded. There are desktop PCs with Atom CPUs. Last time I checked, there were no PC desktops with an ARM chip in them (as the main CPU).

Originally posted by: Cogman
It doesn't matter that people are using it as a desktop PC, intel still hasn't dropped its bottom of the line celerons. Until they do you complaint is unwarranted.

If tomorrow intel announces that they will no long produce celerons, then I might listen a little to your argument.

[edit]Did I say $80 MoBo, try $39.99. For roughly the same price you can get a celeron system that will stomp its Atom counterpart[/edit]

I don't think that it matters one bit whether or not Intel still produces celerons or not. What matters is what PC makers choose to include. The market decides. The companies that sell PCs at retail compete on price, and right now, that means Atom. Even with all of it's performance deficiencies. So the final end result is that end-users get a PC that is CHEAPER, BUT NOT FASTER. My point exactly.

Just remember, that even if Intel isn't making a lot of profit on Atom, they are still retaining marketshare at the extreme low end, at the expense of AMD.

Edit: And just a note, if the Celeron 430 was $30, and the AMD dual-core 2.1Ghz AMD64 chip was $36, which would you choose? Clearly, for price/performance, you would choose the dual-core. But Atom is undercutting all of that, but at the price of decent performance. Atom is crippled, it will not even play Blu-ray. In 6 months, OEM computers will ship with Blu-ray drives standard. But not on their Atom desktops.

 

[mozartrules]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarryI don't think that it matters one bit whether or not Intel still produces celerons or not. What matters is what PC makers choose to include. The market decides. The companies that sell PCs at retail compete on price, and right now, that means Atom.

And that decision is fully up to the PC makers. One argument for making an Atom desktop is that it can be made small and silent, both points are desired by enough customers (have you tried to convince your mom that she should have a PC?) to make the PC maker think it will be profitable. I do not think Intel designed the Atom for the desktop (but it is pretty decent for the embedded market), did you expect Intel to refuse to sell Atoms for desktop use?

The Atom is actually not a particularly cheap part. You can combine a 775 motherboard ($40) with a Celeron ($40 retail) for the same money that Intel charge for the MB+Atom 330 combination ($84). There is no reason to expect that the PC maker faces a different economic situation as the typical NewEgg shopper, so their reasons to use the Atom must be a different reason.

The market will ultimately decide whether the Atom as a desktop is feasible. My thinking is that the next version combined with a better chipset like the ION will be a good enough machine for the majority of users. That majority probably excludes the people posting on this site.

Originally posted by: VirtualLarryThe Celeron 430 was an example of a unified platform

It was unified for the processors that YOU are looking at. The Core 2 generation of processors have at least three different platforms (P for laptop, 775 for desktop, 771 for servers). That will now increase to four (laptop, mainstream 1156, highend/server 1366 and large servers 1567) with each step increasing complexity and implementation price. I see people complaining about the 1156/1366 split, but that is needed to support both affordable chipsets/motherboards and highend features. My guess on the latter part is that QPI was developed more for multi-CPU server use and that the ability to get the high bandwidth graphics connection was little more than an added benefit.

 

[OCGuy]

Doesnt i5 preform pretty much the same as i7 in what most people use computers for (games, web, etc) ?



Fail thread.


Why do you want or expect the best of the best for cheap? What else in life works like that?


If you can overclock a Q9550, there is no need for a $1499 (at launch) QX9770.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: Cogman
And as I pointed out earlier, your claim is retarded. You point at a specialty CPU and then claim that CPUs as a whole are getting slower for the price. I just have to point out the Celeron 430-L as an example, $29, and it performs better then most P4s will. Saddle it with a $80 MoBo and you have a combination that easily rivals the atom in price, and rocks it in speed.

And that's a good example of my point. The Celeron 430 was an example of a unified platform. Back then, computers got both faster and cheaper. But you're quite wrong to label the Atom as a "specialty" CPU. It's appearing in desktop computers, therefore it's a desktop CPU just like any other. It's not "special" in any way... well, unless you want to consider that it rides the short bus, because of it's performance relative to other desktop CPUs.

Originally posted by: Cogman
Quit pointing out specialty CPUs and claiming they are the baseline for CPU speed, they aren't. You might as well point out an ARM processor and complain that it is slow to a pentium.

Your example is retarded. There are desktop PCs with Atom CPUs. Last time I checked, there were no PC desktops with an ARM chip in them (as the main CPU).

Originally posted by: Cogman
It doesn't matter that people are using it as a desktop PC, intel still hasn't dropped its bottom of the line celerons. Until they do you complaint is unwarranted.

If tomorrow intel announces that they will no long produce celerons, then I might listen a little to your argument.

[edit]Did I say $80 MoBo, try $39.99. For roughly the same price you can get a celeron system that will stomp its Atom counterpart[/edit]

I don't think that it matters one bit whether or not Intel still produces celerons or not. What matters is what PC makers choose to include. The market decides. The companies that sell PCs at retail compete on price, and right now, that means Atom. Even with all of it's performance deficiencies. So the final end result is that end-users get a PC that is CHEAPER, BUT NOT FASTER. My point exactly.

Just remember, that even if Intel isn't making a lot of profit on Atom, they are still retaining marketshare at the extreme low end, at the expense of AMD.

Edit: And just a note, if the Celeron 430 was $30, and the AMD dual-core 2.1Ghz AMD64 chip was $36, which would you choose? Clearly, for price/performance, you would choose the dual-core. But Atom is undercutting all of that, but at the price of decent performance. Atom is crippled, it will not even play Blu-ray. In 6 months, OEM computers will ship with Blu-ray drives standard. But not on their Atom desktops.

What does specialty mean to you? Would you qualify the geode, or via's eden as specialty cpus?

And yes, Atom is special in several ways. It is not an Out of order processor, it runs in a 5W thermal envelop, I would call that pretty special. The fact that it can run windows XP and x86 applications has nothing to do with the fact that it is still a specialty CPU.

Look at intels ULV chips, they are also specialty CPUs. they where designed for a specific purpose beyond being used in as the average joes CPU.

As for the arm, it is actually an excellent example. Guess what you can install on an arm based system.. Linux. And guess what you can install with linux? Everything you us on a desktop. It would be VERY slow, but it could be used as a desktop CPU. Just because most people don't use it as such, doesn't preclude it from being one (since only one person has to use it by your definition for it to be a desktop CPU.)

Now, as for the comment on PC makers using the atom in their desktops. I challenge you to find 1 PC manufacturer that sells a full desktop based on the atom architecture. My quick search shows that the low end for all major PC manufactures that mom and pop will buy uses a celeron (with the exception of gateway that uses a sempron.)

You might find a netbook with the atom in it, but you'll be hard pressed to find someone seriously marketing a full desktop. Which, isn't that your argument, that the cheapest PCs have atoms in them?

As for the celeron comment, I would go with the E1400 which is dual core for $40 over whatever athlon64 chip you are talking about.

The only people using atoms as desktops are people that know that it is a specialty CPU designed for low power. Nobody is getting swindled into the lower performance atom like you seem to be fantasizing.

[edit]Hey, I found one, Compaq still makes desktops, who would have thought? Either way, its a far cry from being either the cheapest PC or a major manufacturer.[/edit]

 

[iCyborg]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Your example is retarded. There are desktop PCs with Atom CPUs. Last time I checked, there were no PC desktops with an ARM chip in them (as the main CPU).

It is a "specialty" CPU in the sense that people aren't buying them in desktops for just performance. To call it a step back, you should really compare whether it loses to "current-gen dual cores" in something like performance-per-watt, and not just performance. And couple that with the fact that for many people Atoms' performance may be more than adequate for what they do.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Cogman
What does specialty mean to you? Would you qualify the geode, or via's eden as specialty cpus?

I wouldn't call them specialty CPUs if they were shipped in a desktop from a major OEM.

Originally posted by: Cogman
And yes, Atom is special in several ways. It is not an Out of order processor, it runs in a 5W thermal envelop, I would call that pretty special.

I wouldn't call it special based on that. It's still an x86 CPU, so what if it's not OOO.

Originally posted by: Cogman
Look at intels ULV chips, they are also specialty CPUs. they where designed for a specific purpose beyond being used in as the average joes CPU.

I wouldn't call Intel's ULV chips specialty CPUs either. They are regular C2D chips, just binned at the extreme edges of the shmoo plots for ULV operation.

Originally posted by: Cogman
As for the arm, it is actually an excellent example. Guess what you can install on an arm based system.. Linux. And guess what you can install with linux? Everything you us on a desktop. It would be VERY slow, but it could be used as a desktop CPU. Just because most people don't use it as such, doesn't preclude it from being one (since only one person has to use it by your definition for it to be a desktop CPU.)

Yes, but is there any major PC maker building Linux desktop PCs with an ARM inside? Find me one.

Originally posted by: Cogman
Now, as for the comment on PC makers using the atom in their desktops. I challenge you to find 1 PC manufacturer that sells a full desktop based on the atom architecture.

I linked to it in my OP.

Originally posted by: Cogman
You might find a netbook with the atom in it, but you'll be hard pressed to find someone seriously marketing a full desktop. Which, isn't that your argument, that the cheapest PCs have atoms in them?

Yes, it's a desktop PC that retails for $200. The cheapest that I've ever seen a retail desktop for.

Originally posted by: Cogman
The only people using atoms as desktops are people that know that it is a specialty CPU designed for low power. Nobody is getting swindled into the lower performance atom like you seem to be fantasizing.

[edit]Hey, I found one, Compaq still makes desktops, who would have thought? Either way, its a far cry from being either the cheapest PC or a major manufacturer.[/edit]

How about Lenovo? Wouldn't you call them a "major" mfg?

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Viditor
.
.
.
3. Intel is certainly a monopoly (don't know what a dirty one is), but that's not illegal.
.
.
.
The big question is how much...was the AMD study anywhere near accurate?
.
.
.

I think the big question is "what is to be done with Intel?".

Do you bust them up like Standard Oil and AT&T or do you just fine them and tax their consumers (over and over again, as often as the government coffers need to) like Big tobacco?

I can't think of a way to bust up Intel that would change anything...
As to fines, I would bet a large sum that the Justice Dept has been gathering every bit of disclosure they can get their hands on from the AMD lawsuit for just that purpose. I strongly doubt we will see anything from them until after the AMD decision has been rendered so as to avoid prejudice on the case.

 

[zsdersw]

VirtualLarry,

One crucial area of the performance puzzle that I think you're missing is this: the CPU/motherboard/RAM is not the bottleneck for the vast majority of tasks performed by the vast majority of PC users.

Hard drives and other non-volatile storage are the biggest bottleneck.

The CPU/mobo/RAM part of the picture is indeed getting faster and cheaper, but that doesn't mean that increased speed is showing through when it's saddled by a relatively slow hard drive subsystem.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Martimus
I don't agree with Appopins argument that Intel cheated to get to the top, but I have to say that there is a proponderance of evidence that they cheated to stay there. What you are missing in your argument is not that Intel is better because it has 5X as much usable revenue, but that Intel appears to have engaged in illegal activities to enable them to keep that advantage. If they did not, AMD would have a much better revenue stream during the decade or more that they had a superior value available to OEM's and costumers. (IBM and Cyrix may fall into this pot as well) Whether they would have done better if they had that additional revenue that was denied to them is completely unknown, but to say that it doesn't matter seems rather short sighted.

I'm not trying to argue the case as to whether or not evidence paints a guilty picture for Intel, I am trying to say that Intel's current market position hardly required them to do anything but exist and operate for 20yrs with a 5:1 economic advantage.

In other words I don't take their market size as indicative of proof that some shenanigans has gone on, to me its an unavoidable consequence of the math.

That isn't to say that shenanigans did not (or could not have) go on in the background. But I think it is a fair question to ask oneself "if you already have 5x the resources as your nearest competitor, just how difficult is it going to be to merely maintain your lead over the competition?".

I'm not saying the shenanigans (if they occurred) don't matter. I'm not sure of your age so the example I am going to use may be outdated to you, but the irony of the Nixon watergate scandal was that it was (in hindsight) entirely needless as Nixon was nearly assured the win even without the aid and assistance of his criminal hi-jinx that went on in the background to his successful re-election campaign.

At this time this is kinda how I view the Intel situation, if the allegations are true then my opinion is that at worst the actions were entirely needless and had little effect on Intel's bottomline or their marketshare. (not to say they didn't have an unequalled antogonistic/moral sapping effect on AMD though)

That wouldn't make the crimes any less offensive, nor would it make for a diminutive argument on AMD's damage from the situation, its merely to say that whomever orchestrated the anti-competitive actions really chose a needless path to sustaining an otherwise already marketshare dominating revenue generating business model.

It is not beyond Intel's resources to fund marketing/advertising as well as lower prices in such a way as to bring an equal amount of damage to AMD over that decade, its just a matter of whether the damage inflicted is viewed as competitive (marketing and pricing) or anti-competitive (rebates and exclusivity).

 

[gorobei]

it has very little to do with cpu technology or intel/amd pricing. the divergence in technology/performance to price has to do with the education of the consumers.

way back before netbooks, the public uninformed pc buyer got whatever was packaged into a turnkey system. this meant a low to mid range cpu(i.e.: e6300, slightly better amout of ram at slower speed, a very minimal older chipset M/B, usually integrated video, a larger hd than they would ever need, and an oem dvdrw.) the cpu was the only thing worth anything, as the rest of the parts were usually the cheapest last gen parts. this meant that a lot of people were buying cpu's that were way more powerful than they would ever need. this drove prices down artificially.

now that most non homebuilders/power users/enthusiasts are more familiar with their cpu uses and needs, they realize that most of them can get by with a far more minimal setup. browsing, email, and online video are all they are looking for. so they are no longer buying the $200 cpu bundled into desktops. less demand in the desktop/performance lines means higher prices. a $20 atom means far less money is driving the desktop segment tech than before. prices may rise, get used to it. no one is going to go back the the good ol' days where they bought whatever the salesman at the bestbuy told them was right for them.

right now the i7 and x58 are enthusiast parts, intel is supposed to gouge the "at any cost" market because they are early adopters. this is normal business practice. the p55 chipset and mainstream nehalem will drop prices, so just wait.

 

[Martimus]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Martimus
I don't agree with Appopins argument that Intel cheated to get to the top, but I have to say that there is a proponderance of evidence that they cheated to stay there. What you are missing in your argument is not that Intel is better because it has 5X as much usable revenue, but that Intel appears to have engaged in illegal activities to enable them to keep that advantage. If they did not, AMD would have a much better revenue stream during the decade or more that they had a superior value available to OEM's and costumers. (IBM and Cyrix may fall into this pot as well) Whether they would have done better if they had that additional revenue that was denied to them is completely unknown, but to say that it doesn't matter seems rather short sighted.

I'm not trying to argue the case as to whether or not evidence paints a guilty picture for Intel, I am trying to say that Intel's current market position hardly required them to do anything but exist and operate for 20yrs with a 5:1 economic advantage.

In other words I don't take their market size as indicative of proof that some shenanigans has gone on, to me its an unavoidable consequence of the math.

That isn't to say that shenanigans did not (or could not have) go on in the background. But I think it is a fair question to ask oneself "if you already have 5x the resources as your nearest competitor, just how difficult is it going to be to merely maintain your lead over the competition?".

I'm not saying the shenanigans (if they occurred) don't matter. I'm not sure of your age so the example I am going to use may be outdated to you, but the irony of the Nixon watergate scandal was that it was (in hindsight) entirely needless as Nixon was nearly assured the win even without the aid and assistance of his criminal hi-jinx that went on in the background to his successful re-election campaign.

At this time this is kinda how I view the Intel situation, if the allegations are true then my opinion is that at worst the actions were entirely needless and had little effect on Intel's bottomline or their marketshare. (not to say they didn't have an unequalled antogonistic/moral sapping effect on AMD though)

That wouldn't make the crimes any less offensive, nor would it make for a diminutive argument on AMD's damage from the situation, its merely to say that whomever orchestrated the anti-competitive actions really chose a needless path to sustaining an otherwise already marketshare dominating revenue generating business model.

It is not beyond Intel's resources to fund marketing/advertising as well as lower prices in such a way as to bring an equal amount of damage to AMD over that decade, its just a matter of whether the damage inflicted is viewed as competitive (marketing and pricing) or anti-competitive (rebates and exclusivity).

My point is that it did matter, since what Intel did was keep their market advantage with these tactics. They had 500% more resources, but kept AMD or any other competitor from gaining any market share. (Although at the time in question here it was only AMD, but that isn't to say they didn't use similar tactics in the past to kill of the other competitors; and since they did in fact die off it would seem quite feasible.) The immediate consequences were minute, but what it enabled was the long term consequences that AMD would be unable to sustain any advantage that it held (and they were unable) since they were unable to capitalize on said advantages with higher revenue which would have ate into that 500% advantage. The point I am making is that if these illegal activities did not take place, then AMD could have a higher revenue, which would mean that Intel's revenue advantage would be decreased regardless of how Intel did. This may have dropped the advantage to a 3-1 ratio, or a 4.9-1 ratio, or even possibly led to a disadvantage of some ratio, but my point was that this advantage that is the most likely source of dominance would not be assured without those illegal activities.

I am up way past my bedtime, so please excuse my grammar, or if I did not quite convey my point coherently.