But they're NOT moving away from the CPU market. It may become a smaller source of revenue for them, but they'll still be in it, one way or the other.
Personally I think it extends even further. The Slot 1 question, Was it even needed? When Intel first released their Pentium 2 line, people were rather shocked that the CPU was in a cartridge, whereas everything else in the market was still a socket format. They wanted to pull away and distinct themselves with their own patented cartridge format to sell their CPUs in a branded format, nobody else could do it except them. Did Intel have to make it this way? Was it all packaging? AMD and Cyrix didn't have anything that matched Intel at the time, which in turn caused a huge Intel uprise in the personal computers market. What I'm trying to say is that they basically used lowsy tactics in the first place, its about time AMD has taken their piece of the pie that they deserve. You now see that Intel has gotten back to a socket format with their P4s and Coppermines. People might argue that there wasnt the technology to produce chips with the cache on the CORE, however the Pentium Pros were pure example that the technology was there. Making chips is far cheaper without the PCB and cartridge, why they do it?
Anyways, I'm probably just guessimating here, it just makes me wonder. No hard facts here..
Another controversy was when they threatened Taiwanese Motherboard manufacturers not to produce any motherboards for the Athlon platform when it was first introduced. I remember only having less than 5 different boards. FIC, Abit, Asus, MSI and some other manufacturer. Most memorable was with the ASUS board not even having a support page on their company website or even having the ASUS brand printed on the PCB part or on the Manual at all. All the doings of the Intel monopoly. Intel was basically using unlawful business practices, and such a company will fall eventually(which we are seeing now).
Anyways, I'm probably just guessimating here, it just makes me wonder. No hard facts here..
Another controversy was when they threatened Taiwanese Motherboard manufacturers not to produce any motherboards for the Athlon platform when it was first introduced. I remember only having less than 5 different boards. FIC, Abit, Asus, MSI and some other manufacturer. Most memorable was with the ASUS board not even having a support page on their company website or even having the ASUS brand printed on the PCB part or on the Manual at all. All the doings of the Intel monopoly. Intel was basically using unlawful business practices, and such a company will fall eventually(which we are seeing now).
I just want to comment on one thing:
<<You now see that Intel has gotten back to a socket format with their P4s and Coppermines. People might argue that there wasnt the technology to produce chips with the cache on the CORE, however the Pentium Pros were pure example that the technology was there. Making chips is far cheaper without the PCB and cartridge, why they do it? >>
True enough, they had the technology to integrate Level2 Cache on the CPU, but the reason why they didnt keep using that method is because it was cost too much. And further more, the cache on PPro was NOT on die, you can clearly see from the bottom that the cache and the core are separated, and it was very difficult and expensive to produce a chip using this technique. Due to die size limitations and a various reasons, by moving the cache outside, and using a PCB, it greatly decreased the difficulty and expenses to produce a CPU with high speed Level2 cache. After all, I think it was the right choice because they werent trying to shove those expensive Ppros down to our throats.
<<You now see that Intel has gotten back to a socket format with their P4s and Coppermines. People might argue that there wasnt the technology to produce chips with the cache on the CORE, however the Pentium Pros were pure example that the technology was there. Making chips is far cheaper without the PCB and cartridge, why they do it? >>
True enough, they had the technology to integrate Level2 Cache on the CPU, but the reason why they didnt keep using that method is because it was cost too much. And further more, the cache on PPro was NOT on die, you can clearly see from the bottom that the cache and the core are separated, and it was very difficult and expensive to produce a chip using this technique. Due to die size limitations and a various reasons, by moving the cache outside, and using a PCB, it greatly decreased the difficulty and expenses to produce a CPU with high speed Level2 cache. After all, I think it was the right choice because they werent trying to shove those expensive Ppros down to our throats.
Dang, you guys are as fast as vultures on roadkill ... 
Maybe I'll have cable or DSL available here in a few years.
I don't mean that they are abandoning microprocessors totally, just that they are going to concentrate more of that business in to the server market, and less on the desktop. Intel + HP + Compaq are determined to topple SUN by offering cheaper servers. Look up Andy Grove's keynote speech on 10/12/00 from the eXchange conference for a better idea of their plans.
Why would they give up some of the 80% of the desktop CPU market. Because of what I just stated in the last post, desktop CPUs are becoming a commodity item, and the profit margins are being sliced to the bone in this business. Did you see what AMD's stock did on Friday when almost every other semi company was skyrocketing? That was because of fears that AMD has cut prices (and therefore their profit margins) too far, too fast. I posted some remarks to this effect (on AMD) from Salomon SmithBarney's head of technical research in a prior thread yesterday. Bottomline, Intel wants no part of that scenario.
Maybe I'll have cable or DSL available here in a few years. I don't mean that they are abandoning microprocessors totally, just that they are going to concentrate more of that business in to the server market, and less on the desktop. Intel + HP + Compaq are determined to topple SUN by offering cheaper servers. Look up Andy Grove's keynote speech on 10/12/00 from the eXchange conference for a better idea of their plans.
Why would they give up some of the 80% of the desktop CPU market. Because of what I just stated in the last post, desktop CPUs are becoming a commodity item, and the profit margins are being sliced to the bone in this business. Did you see what AMD's stock did on Friday when almost every other semi company was skyrocketing? That was because of fears that AMD has cut prices (and therefore their profit margins) too far, too fast. I posted some remarks to this effect (on AMD) from Salomon SmithBarney's head of technical research in a prior thread yesterday. Bottomline, Intel wants no part of that scenario.
And to add to what LXI said as far as to why Intel had not integrated cache sooner, the transistor size at that time had not yet been shrunk enough to fit both core and cache in to a reasonably sized die. 256K of cache on the P3 added something like 27M transistors.
Also, another note to Beatmania: AMD is somewhat concerned about Duron cutting in to Athlon. They are curtailing Duron production in the fourth quarter. Although Sanders cited some other reasons for this, part of it is certainly to protect the Athlon sales numbers.
Finally, also of interest. Do you guys realize that some high end Athlons are actually retailing for less than AMD's "official" price for quantities of 1000 or more? There is some serious gray marketing of AMD CPUs out there, that's making a huge contribution to the outrageously low pricing we are seeing. Here's a linkfor the poop on that. Some Intel CPUs are also selling below "official" cost too, although they're obviously not as cheap.
Also, another note to Beatmania: AMD is somewhat concerned about Duron cutting in to Athlon. They are curtailing Duron production in the fourth quarter. Although Sanders cited some other reasons for this, part of it is certainly to protect the Athlon sales numbers.
Finally, also of interest. Do you guys realize that some high end Athlons are actually retailing for less than AMD's "official" price for quantities of 1000 or more? There is some serious gray marketing of AMD CPUs out there, that's making a huge contribution to the outrageously low pricing we are seeing. Here's a linkfor the poop on that. Some Intel CPUs are also selling below "official" cost too, although they're obviously not as cheap.
<< True enough, they had the technology to integrate Level2 Cache on the CPU, but the reason why they didnt keep using that method is because it was cost too much. And further more, the cache on PPro was NOT on die, you can clearly see from the bottom that the cache and the core are separated, and it was very difficult and expensive to produce a chip using this technique. Due to die size limitations and a various reasons, by moving the cache outside, and using a PCB, it greatly decreased the difficulty and expenses to produce a CPU with high speed Level2 cache. >>
Well thats we hear from Intel; there reasons and excuses. I wonder if thats the same reasons from a Intel PR developer. LXI it still doesn't explain that nice black plastic cartridge made to look like a sophisticated hand held calculator, with a eye glaring holographic sticker. Not like anyone would admire such a thing, other then us computer nerds. Then again we overclockers found out it worked better without it. What I'm trying to say is that I'm starting to question their credibility of Intel Press releases and papers(what we are seeing alot of lately).
I fail to see your point. Do you really think that they're trying something ambitious with that black little case?
I think that black case did it for them for that time LXi. Back then they had posters everywhere with that case, that was their front advertising line.
So?? I think the bare FC-PGA look cooler than those black cases. The Tbirds look the best hands down though.
Dexion: Combine the reasons LXi and I gave, those are the real reasons the cache wasn't integrated sooner. There was no conspiracy, at least not that time ... :Q
Well, I agree that the FC-PGA and colored Tbirds look cool. Times have changed, and the black case loving syndrome wore off. Not that this topic is really the killing point of Intel, but the point is, Intel is damn smart with marketing. They did some really dirty tactics with the computer industry to repackage their products to take a nice chunk of the market. Apple did this as well with their bubble iMac.
<< Combine the reasons LXi and I gave, those are the real reasons the cache wasn't integrated sooner. There was no conspiracy, at least not that time >>
Well there is definately no proof of what I'm saying. I'm just throwing a bunch of questions in the air. It just makes you think... Just throwing some "What iF" questions, nothing to spew blood about. I completely agree with you as well, and maybe their wasn't a conspiracy.
<< Combine the reasons LXi and I gave, those are the real reasons the cache wasn't integrated sooner. There was no conspiracy, at least not that time >>
Well there is definately no proof of what I'm saying. I'm just throwing a bunch of questions in the air. It just makes you think... Just throwing some "What iF" questions, nothing to spew blood about. I completely agree with you as well, and maybe their wasn't a conspiracy.
Maybe their marketing department went somewhere else? =p
Anyway, can marketing direct whether the CPU is slot or socket? Wouldn't that be an engineering decision?
Anyway, can marketing direct whether the CPU is slot or socket? Wouldn't that be an engineering decision?
That still doesnt justify the reason why they used cartridges and black cases. After all, Athlon had to use them too.
<< That still doesnt justify the reason why they used cartridges and black cases. After all, Athlon had to use them too. >>
More reason to believe the that it was just a trend and not a manufacturing process.
No no, I was saying your statements dont justify why they use cartridge and black case. After all, they have better things to worry about than stylish looks.
I think image is everything(then again I am a graphic artist). Seriously! Look how well Apple is doing with their new G4, Cube and their iMacs. For Apple, stylish looks is every reason why they didn't go belly up. Besides the fact that they have good technology as well, its their style that sells.
To analyze Intel again, what was with their holograms(you think its a remarking or anti-replica ploy)? Why didn't they ship their P2s without a case then?(like the Celerons) Why were they so concerned about their P2 Logo as well? If they didn't care about their image, why bother with all this packaging? I really hope you understand what I'm trying to get at LXi, this is getting kinda long winded.
To analyze Intel again, what was with their holograms(you think its a remarking or anti-replica ploy)? Why didn't they ship their P2s without a case then?(like the Celerons) Why were they so concerned about their P2 Logo as well? If they didn't care about their image, why bother with all this packaging? I really hope you understand what I'm trying to get at LXi, this is getting kinda long winded.
Yes, Apple is selling style instead of speed. Who cares anyway, they suck and pretty case wont cover the facts. I really think that using cartridge+case was an engineering decision and not the marketting decision. Now it's up to the marketting guys to design the case and make it look sleek and stylish.
<< Yes, Apple is selling style instead of speed. Who cares anyway, they suck and pretty case wont cover the facts. I really think that using cartridge+case was an engineering decision and not the marketting decision. Now it's up to the marketting guys to design the case and make it look sleek and stylish. >>
Yes I agree. However, more than 80% of the people out there aren't hardcore computer guys like us. Who are the ones buying into Apple? I bet these were the same people who wanted the fancy looking Compaq with the P2 logo on their computer case.
Compaqs look fancy? Oh my, they look like crap, they look like some fancy-wannabes. Micron and HP make some real nice looking cases. Compaqs are works of devil, just like Apple. The 20% hardcore people like you and me, usually dont care about how the case looks, you see, Im running with my case open, ugly but I dont care.
<< Compaqs look fancy? Oh my, they look like crap, they look like some fancy-wannabes. Micron and HP make some real nice looking cases. Compaqs are works of devil, just like Apple. The 20% hardcore people like you and me, usually dont care about how the case looks, you see, Im running with my case open, ugly but I dont care. >>
LOL well, back then they were the best looking computers placed everywhere in your local franchised computer store. Maybe why their sales rose like hotcakes and fell like them as well.
For me, as long as it has more than 4 fan holes in the case and added personal spray paint to the case, I'm a happy camper. The thing not only runs cool, it looks cool.
LOL BTW.. . Sorry all, we went completely off topic! My fault.
Back then? Like how long ago? I bought a Compaq in 1996 and I greatly regret it, they're huge, heavy and they look really bad. The only reason I bought it is because it's cheap, what a crappy computer. Nowadays the HPs look a lot nicer, more elegent, and the Microns look sleek and sharp.
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: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter