Intel is in major trouble!!!

Sazar

F@H - Is it in you?
Staff member
Political User
#2
sse3 is not as major as sse2... I think they are incl as compatability and nothing more...

intel still has hyperthreading which continues to give them a MT advantage...
 
#3
but AMD is narrowing the gap on how many features Intel has over it, HT is proving ot be useless in most cases due to the fact that hardly any software uses the feature, in fact some applications are slower with it turned on.
 

j79zlr

Glaanies script monkey
Political User
#4
Intel is not going anywhere.

Hyperthreading is good for SMP enabled software, but does very little in actuallity, kinda like a 64-bit processor for 32-bit programs.........................
 

LeeJend

OSNN Veteran Addict
#5
ARRRRRRRGH! Intel by definition can not be "in trouble".

They have the market share and resources to smash into oblivion any competitor that annoys them. Think not? AMD rose to a CPU market share of ~25 percent. This annoyed Intel so they smashed them back down into the teens, made them totally consume there cash reserves (spelled research capital) and only stopped because it is better to have one semi plausible competitor than to be a government regulated monopoly (ask Bill Gates about that).

Intel has 70-80 percent of the video chipset market (nvidia and ATI squabble over the rest). Intel again has over 80% of the CPU market. I haven't seen any numbers on the MB chipset market but assume they are in the 70-80's there too. And Intel is now muscling in on the flash memory market where AMD was dominant.

Intel screws up regularly (PIII, some wimpy chipsets, now using silicon on silicon process for their 90 nm FABs) which gives AMD a small window to grab some market share back but AMD does not have the financial muscle (especially after their recent beating by Intel) to maintain that lead.

All Intel has to do is switch to a silicon on insulator 90 nm process (or just sell crap until their next smaller geometry process is ready). These corrective acts only require a mountain of cash to survive and a little time. Intel has plenty of both.

Intel has hyperthreading, higher clock speeds, an FSB 2-2.5 times higher than AMD, money and expertise to switch processes anytime they want, 64 bit x86 designs in the storage cabinet, on chip multiprocessing, and who knows what else. But they don't even need all that extra technology. They can just drop the price of a Celeron to $5 and the P4 Extreme to $100 for the 3.2 gig chip and they will annihilate AMD and still make lots of money selling MB and video chipsets.

Intels only problem right now is their inability to control (or even expect limited competency from) Microsoft. Intel needs hyperthreading and multiprocessing enabled OS's and that's just too much for MS to produce in a timely manner. Look for IBM and Intel to make Linux the dominant operating system for desktops and servers.

Intel in trouble, ROFLMFAO.

The AMD killer - 4 gig, 90nm silicon on insulator, hyperthreading, 1gig FSB, 64 BIT x86 CPU, 512MB L2 cache selling for $100. Every AMD owner in the country would toss their old machine and be standing in line to buy Intel. There is nothing in that list that Intel can't have into full scale production by 4Q this year. The only thing discouraging them is the US Department of Justice.
 
#6
The PIII was not a mistake... the original P4 was (williamette core).

the sad thing is yes Intel does have faster FSB, and higher Clockspeeds... but they aren't faster!! AMD owns the CPU crown.... you are forgetting one thing about IBM gettin on the Linux bandwagon and co-operating with Intel on it... IBM and AMD are right together!

But Prescott is terrible right now, it's a space heater, requires a 8 pound heatsink to cool it correctly. The quick release of the P4 EE shows that Intel does not have everything on the shelf like you say. If Intel had everything undercontrol they would not have released such a obvious stop gap measure like the P4EE.

They don't have working 64 bit X86, they just announced they were looking into it, it's all been rumours out of Intel, and actual silicon from AMD...

All Intel has to do is switch to a silicon on insulator 90 nm process
they already have, it's called Prescott and it runs hotter and slower than Northwood did.

Enough said, Intel Fanboys are just worried cuz the speed crown is gone from their side of the street, and AMD now has 64 bit, faster CPU, better DRAM controller, faster SSE intructions, and is completely on track to switch to SOI 90 nm, They also posted a large profit in their last quarter.
 

Sazar

F@H - Is it in you?
Staff member
Political User
#7
LeeJend said:
ARRRRRRRGH! Intel by definition can not be "in trouble".

They have the market share and resources to smash into oblivion any competitor that annoys them. Think not? AMD rose to a CPU market share of ~25 percent. This annoyed Intel so they smashed them back down into the teens, made them totally consume there cash reserves (spelled research capital) and only stopped because it is better to have one semi plausible competitor than to be a government regulated monopoly (ask Bill Gates about that).

-snip-

Intel in trouble, ROFLMFAO.

The AMD killer - 4 gig, 90nm silicon on insulator, hyperthreading, 1gig FSB, 64 BIT x86 CPU, 512MB L2 cache selling for $100. Every AMD owner in the country would toss their old machine and be standing in line to buy Intel. There is nothing in that list that Intel can't have into full scale production by 4Q this year. The only thing discouraging them is the US Department of Justice.
that machine would not help :)

amd has higher clocked systems coming out for socket 939 which will easily outperform prescott even with a 1ghz advantage... intel has a design problem... they have chosen to do less work per clock than even the northy in order to quickly ramp up clock speed... as of right now the prescott is no where near what it was expected to be... time will only tell what happens..

in the interim amd is looking more and more attractive and it is faster :)

-edit-

btw the smaller process for prescott is not helping it out in terms of thermal dissipation... the jokes about amd being hot by intel fanboi's are now true the other way round :D

plus features like cool n quiet will make OEM's happy...
 
#8
Heh, I seriously doubt Intel has anything to "worry about."
The whole CPU game is a cycle. Just because one is better than the other today, it doesn't mean it's going to stay the same way tomorrow. Intel's had the "crown" as you call it, for the longest time, and the ball is now in AMD's court. It won't be too long before the trend changes again.

Besides, Intel still has the mobile market. The Pentium-M is unmatched when battery life and portability are key factors, and the upcoming Dothan core only promises to make it better than it already is.

Just for the record, I wouldn't consider myself a "fanboy" with a bias towards any one side. It's just that the Intel being "in trouble" statement was quite amusing. I think it's great that AMD's line-up is getting better everyday. Competition is good for the customer, after all...better products, better prices. :)
 

Sazar

F@H - Is it in you?
Staff member
Political User
#9
intel has made some bad design choices this gen.. amd has made solid design choices... amd might well be able to keep its momentum longer once it ramps to 0.09 micron process and implement sse3...
 
#11
LOL@dreamliner. ATi owns nVidia :p
C'mon people...it's not like AMD never made bad choices. Those bad choices didn't kill the company, did they?
 
#13
Some things to look forward to? ;)

Intel is Heading Towards Dual-Core Desktop, Mobile, Server Processors
Dual-Core Era to Start Next Year?

by Anton Shilov
02/29/2004 | 05:37 PM

Leading microprocessor makers, Intel and AMD, added multitude of technologies into their x86 microprocessors recently, including massive things like x86-64, Hyper-Threading and plethora of micro-architectural improvements. However, this is only the beginning of massive increase of CPU computing power! Next year Intel is rumored to start making dual-core chips, not only for servers, but for desktops and even mobile computers, according to reports from PC Watch web-site!

There are dozens of ways to improve performance of central processing units. Microprocessor makers have been utilizing nearly all of them throughout the history of chip making. The main factors that drive CPU performance up are core-clocks, cache sizes, I/O speed. At some point it becomes inefficient and insufficient to add more frequency improvements and chipmakers have to improve the micro architecture of their products by adding media/vector processing extensions, branch and memory pre-fetch, out of order execution mechanisms, security and virtualization features, etc.

Eventually, processors become so powerful that increasing its speed is trickier than adding extra processing cores and enable the chip to handle more than one thread at the same time. The first implementation of such approach is virtual multiprocessing, e.g. Intel’s Hyper-Threading, when one processing core uses different units to handle different threads; a more powerful implementation is multiply cores on the same microprocessor. Historically, multi-core and multi-threaded architectures have not been in the mainstream market. Nowadays Intel already offers a family of processors with Hyper-Threading technology – virtual multiprocessing – it now looks like in 2005 Intel will start to offer microprocessors with 2 cores.

Intel’s first product with dual-core capability will be the Itanium 2 chip code-named Montecito scheduled for mid-2005 launch that will come with 24MB of L3 cache and will serve in high-performance MP machines. The Montecito will be complemented by lower-cost Millington and LV Millington CPUs. The follower of Montecito will be Tukwila – Intel’s first multi-core chip – targeted for 2006 release at 65nm nodes.

Surprisingly, but sometime in mid-2005 or later Intel is anticipated to add a processor with two cores in its Pentium M family intended for notebooks. Apparently, the code-named Jonah chip is projected to contain two Dothan cores and to be made using 65nm fabrication technology. The central processing unit is said to disable the second core when functioning on battery power and will enable both cores once the computer is plugged to power outlet. Thermal Design Power of Jonah is likely to be about 45W, while die size is expected to be 100 – 120 square millimeters. The successors of Jonah are Merom, Conroe (2006) and Gilo (2007) processors, all featuring brand-new architecture with 64-bit extension technology. Conroe may become Intel’s first dual-core IA32e processor for desktop computers.

Intel’s IA32e dual-core chip currently known as Tulsa will emerge in late of 2005, as Intel stated originally. This will be the first Xeon MP microprocessor with two cores. Thanks to the Hyper-Threading technology, the chip will be able to handle four or more threads at once, competing with solutions from other server chipmakers. There is no information about infrastructure for Intel Xeon “Tulsa” at the moment.

In performance desktop and DP server/workstation markets dual-core chips are only said to emerge in 2006 along with Nehalem architecture that also boasts with IA32e extensions.

In 2003 Intel uncovered plans to implement its special “arbiter” bus into the chip code-named Montecito to manage how the cores collaborate between themselves, how they utilise their processor system bus and cache. No actual peculiarities of the design have been presented by Intel officials so far, but we can pre-suppose that the “arbiter” bus architecture may be utilised in all multiple-core CPUs from Intel that will come in future.

The culmination of Intel’s multi-threading will be the companies Vanderpool technology that will let personal computers to be split into several “virtually independent machines”.

Intel officials did not comment on the story.
Goodness...dual-core Pentium-M's sound like fun :D

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20040229173249.html
 

Sazar

F@H - Is it in you?
Staff member
Political User
#14
tejas is currently producing 50% MORE heat than prescott @ SLOWER clocks... something to look forward to ? that is basically a dual core processor too :)
 

dreamliner77

The Analog Kid
#16
NetRyder said:
LOL@dreamliner. ATi owns nVidia :p
C'mon people...it's not like AMD never made bad choices. Those bad choices didn't kill the company, did they?
I meant more like how long until nvidia starts making cpus.
 
#17
I still stand by my original statement though. Things are bound to change. It's a cycle. You must remember that AMD has had a history of "hotter" processors than the Intel counterparts. Where were all of you then? All I see is Pentium-III bashing :)
Anyways, that didn't stop AMD from improving their manufacturing process to come up with their current offering. It's going to be the same case with Intel as well. Experimentation is not always successful, and mistakes only lead to better products in the end. All these "victories" are just short-term. Look at the big picture...

Just pointing out that saying Intel is in trouble is quite a ridiculous statement. They're not going anywhere, especially since they still take the cake in the mobile and server markets. :)
 

Sazar

F@H - Is it in you?
Staff member
Political User
#18
nvidia is a fabless company... they won't be making cpu's unless they change that.. and it is highly unlikely to happen with their company structure...
 

chastity

Moderator
Staff member
Political User
#19
Well Intel has had to reverse course as a result of AMD more then once but the biggest was the x86-64 though based on the fact those chips from Intel are due to hit the market next quarter makes you wonder if Intel had already figured out that it might be a good idea to go this way instead of the Itanium way. Yes they for all we know could have most of those things in labs testing etc even if they don't they do have resources to change that. As was state I think Intel hasn't really tried to forcely remove AMD from the cpu market just so it looks like there is another company that is standing up and fitting Intel so DoJ isn't on Intels back. As for Nvidia as Sazar said they don't own any fabs so it wouldn't work real well for them to enter the cpu market. Amd is the leader in some areas and Intel is in others who really cares other then fanboys as for the most AMD and Intel chips are fairly equal and offer a chioce and keep prices down.

To be honest where would we be if it wasn't for Ibm Intel and Microsoft? As they are the sole reasons Apple doesn't rule
 
#20
I didn't mean that Intel was in trouble as a company, I was so Naive to think that they would go bankrupt, I meant their current generation of CPUs was in trouble of being out paced by AMD's current offerings.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Latest profile posts

Perris Calderon wrote on Electronic Punk's profile.
Ep, glad to see you come back and tidy up...did want to ask a one day favor, I want to enhance my resume , was hoping you could make me administrator for a day, if so, take me right off since I won't be here to do anything, and don't know the slightest about the board, but it would be nice putting "served administrator osnn", if can do, THANKS

Been running around Quora lately, luv it there https://tinyurl.com/ycpxl
Electronic Punk wrote on Perris Calderon's profile.
All good still mate?
Hello, is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me ...
Xie
What a long strange trip it's been. =)

Forum statistics

Threads
61,971
Messages
673,300
Members
89,016
Latest member
Poseeut