Intel disaster.

Progenix Oj101 said:
Intel at the moment is still in a better position than AMD was 10-15 years ago, and look at AMD now. AMD was so unwanted that not even SIs/OEMs were using their products.
Click to expand...
Very different. AMD’s task was to come back and compete with Intel. AMD had to execute perfectly and hope Intel was asleep at the wheel, and they were.

If Intel wants to come back, they have to compete with Apple, nvidia (who are building an ARM cpu) , AMD, a bunch of startups including ex staff, TSMC on the foundry side.

Could they do it? Yes, with people like Pat Gelsinger. Now?…
 
I should note that the guy who righted the ship at AMD quit Intel a couple of years ago over disagreements and is now himself a competitor. (Jim Keller, Jordan Peterson’s brother in law, lol)
 
joewashere said:
Very different. AMD’s task was to come back and compete with Intel. AMD had to execute perfectly and hope Intel was asleep at the wheel, and they were.

If Intel wants to come back, they have to compete with Apple, nvidia (who are building an ARM cpu) , AMD, a bunch of startups including ex staff, TSMC on the foundry side.

Could they do it? Yes, with people like Pat Gelsinger. Now?…
Click to expand...
AMD had to do that with constantly diminishing resources. Low budget = poor R&D = poor product = low sales = low budget and so the cycle continues. The release of Conroe on the desktop was supposedly the death-knell for AMD, and K10 was hardly an improvement over K8 - this at a time where they'd just recently spend billions acquiring ATi.

Intel doesn't have that problem, as desktop CPUs don't account for nearly 100% of their revenue as it did for AMD back then.

AMD had desktop CPUs, server CPUs, a few embedded options, and that's about it (with Radeon GPUs coming shortly after after the release of Conroe and Allandale), yet with those extremely limited revenue streams (as well as being against anti-competitive behavour from Intel) managed to get where they are today. Even when they had a superior product (they entire Netburst era) they had next to no market-share because of anti-competitive behaviour, so the size of their uphill battle is arguably the largest to be won in the industry to date.

Intel's biggest problem right now is themselves - prior to Raptor Lake issues and the Arrow Lake dumpster fire, what issues did they have? Very stiff competition on the high-end gaming front from 5800X3D / 7800X3D, but that's about it really? They're not in a situation where they have the vastly superior product but a slim fraction of the market. Imagine a 14901KE with 3D-stacked cache. I would imagine it would curb-stomp the 9800X3D. There's little stopping them from releasing such a product, but they're aiming for the NEXT generation, not improving on a previous generation.

Apple will never be a large threat to Intel for multiple reasons:

  • Apple will never allow SIs/OEMs to build Apple-powered laptops and PCs
  • Apple is almost impossible to maintain outside of its life-cycle - try buying a new motherboard for a 10 year old Apple, vs on the PC side it's quite easy
  • Apple will never have the equivalent of a $ 400 laptop or desktop

We will ignore x86-instructions as you can get around that with virtualization, but a problem for all ARM/RISC-based processors is the focus on power efficiency rather than raw power. RISC has a long way to go in proving itself a viable alternative for the x86 market, and Intel absolutely CAN recover in that time.

One last thing - you seem to think that Gelsinger is (was) the man for Intel. Keep in mind the following:

  • Alder / Raptop Lake were released during his tenure, but development did not start under him
  • Arrow Lake development and release were under him
  • The handling of the Raptor Lake situation was under him
  • 15,000+ jobs were cut
  • Intel stock value dropped by 50%

I would say Otellini or even Barret would be the right type of person. Intel's blunders under Gelsinger are possibly second largest to only to Swan turning down the opportunity to invest in OpenAI (a company that now has a larger marketcap than Intel). Overall, maybe second to Krzanich - who also saw more than 10,000 job cuts and Intel losing their spot as dominant chip-maker (both by revenue and technological lead) under him.

You could argue that he was handed a company in pretty rough shape to being with and that he could've done a better job given more time, but I would argue that the way he handled Intel's tough situations over the last year would indicate that time wasn't the problem.
 
A semi fab building costs R3.7 trillion to build, yes read that number again, and Intel is pumping in over R18 trillion into their new fabrication plants... the numbers are mind boggling. Now you can see why there are only 3 companies worldwide who make new advanced chips.

Intel's new 20A + 18A nodes are more advanced than TSMCs 3nm chips in a lot of aspects, in fact TSMC will eventually go that route. This is why Intel is pushing so hard in the R&D department, yes they were asleep at the wheel making cash so why advance... oops

There are only 3 companies in the world making 3nm chips, TSMC + Samsung + Intel.

This is why anyone who thinks Intel is dead doesn't know 💩💩💩
 
Progenix Oj101 said:
Intel at the moment is still in a better position than AMD was 10-15 years ago, and look at AMD now. AMD was so unwanted that not even SIs/OEMs were using their products.
Click to expand...

The age of the forum members are showing.....Most of them were still in diapers, when intel had the netburst disaster and AMD wiped the floor with them back in the very early 2000's. Intel released the core2duo and AMD was on the back foot for several years and had to sit with their bulldozer disaster.

This apparent "disaster" isn't anything new, both AMD and Intel has had release cycles in the past that were less than stellar and both just had to wait out their roadmaps.

If you want a real disaster......look no further...."cough" cyrix cough............
 
Progenix Oj101 said:
Or the mismanagement at 3dfx.

In fact, look how close Apple came to failing. That’s another story of a powerhouse coming very close to disappearing.
Click to expand...

I think the only mistake intel made, is when AMD and ATI merged wasn't investing in discreet GPU technology. Intel is playing catch up, their battlemage cards are pretty good, but it could have slayed if intel got involved a lot sooner, crypto mining, AI.

Intel in now trying to sell their HQ land to get more funding and to lease the building from the new owner.
 
Progenix Oj101 said:
AMD had to do that with constantly diminishing resources. Low budget = poor R&D = poor product = low sales = low budget and so the cycle continues. The release of Conroe on the desktop was supposedly the death-knell for AMD, and K10 was hardly an improvement over K8 - this at a time where they'd just recently spend billions acquiring ATi.

Intel doesn't have that problem, as desktop CPUs don't account for nearly 100% of their revenue as it did for AMD back then.

AMD had desktop CPUs, server CPUs, a few embedded options, and that's about it (with Radeon GPUs coming shortly after after the release of Conroe and Allandale), yet with those extremely limited revenue streams (as well as being against anti-competitive behavour from Intel) managed to get where they are today. Even when they had a superior product (they entire Netburst era) they had next to no market-share because of anti-competitive behaviour, so the size of their uphill battle is arguably the largest to be won in the industry to date.

Intel's biggest problem right now is themselves - prior to Raptor Lake issues and the Arrow Lake dumpster fire, what issues did they have? Very stiff competition on the high-end gaming front from 5800X3D / 7800X3D, but that's about it really? They're not in a situation where they have the vastly superior product but a slim fraction of the market. Imagine a 14901KE with 3D-stacked cache. I would imagine it would curb-stomp the 9800X3D. There's little stopping them from releasing such a product, but they're aiming for the NEXT generation, not improving on a previous generation.

Apple will never be a large threat to Intel for multiple reasons:

  • Apple will never allow SIs/OEMs to build Apple-powered laptops and PCs
  • Apple is almost impossible to maintain outside of its life-cycle - try buying a new motherboard for a 10 year old Apple, vs on the PC side it's quite easy
  • Apple will never have the equivalent of a $ 400 laptop or desktop

We will ignore x86-instructions as you can get around that with virtualization, but a problem for all ARM/RISC-based processors is the focus on power efficiency rather than raw power. RISC has a long way to go in proving itself a viable alternative for the x86 market, and Intel absolutely CAN recover in that time.

One last thing - you seem to think that Gelsinger is (was) the man for Intel. Keep in mind the following:

  • Alder / Raptop Lake were released during his tenure, but development did not start under him
  • Arrow Lake development and release were under him
  • The handling of the Raptor Lake situation was under him
  • 15,000+ jobs were cut
  • Intel stock value dropped by 50%

I would say Otellini or even Barret would be the right type of person. Intel's blunders under Gelsinger are possibly second largest to only to Swan turning down the opportunity to invest in OpenAI (a company that now has a larger marketcap than Intel). Overall, maybe second to Krzanich - who also saw more than 10,000 job cuts and Intel losing their spot as dominant chip-maker (both by revenue and technological lead) under him.

You could argue that he was handed a company in pretty rough shape to being with and that he could've done a better job given more time, but I would argue that the way he handled Intel's tough situations over the last year would indicate that time wasn't the problem.
Click to expand...
Couple of points:
  • Calling ARM vs x86 a RISC vs CISC arguement is a bit of a misleading distinction nowadays tbh.
  • The M4 Mac mini is the best priced desktop PC on the market by far. You cannot build a desktop PC with its performance for its price.
  • ARM has absolutely proven itself to be a viable alternative to x86 for desktop PCs. Microsoft has thrown themselves fully into ARM as well. Windows ARM runs very nicely on my M4 via UTM.
  • Power usage is also highly relevant for data center usage.

Reference for the part about the M4 Mac mini.

I would say strategically, I would say Intel's best bet would be to focus on fabrication rather than design. Reason being is that there are geostrategic forces at play that would very likely prefer a US company to manufacture microchips rather than one sitting on the border of China.

Then use that time to wait until you actually have something that can blow both Apple and AMD out the water. Releasing substandard products has proven to be a disaster for them.
 
Wrath of Khan MD said:
A semi fab building costs R3.7 trillion to build, yes read that number again, and Intel is pumping in over R18 trillion into their new fabrication plants... the numbers are mind boggling. Now you can see why there are only 3 companies worldwide who make new advanced chips.

Intel's new 20A + 18A nodes are more advanced than TSMCs 3nm chips in a lot of aspects, in fact TSMC will eventually go that route. This is why Intel is pushing so hard in the R&D department, yes they were asleep at the wheel making cash so why advance... oops

There are only 3 companies in the world making 3nm chips, TSMC + Samsung + Intel.

This is why anyone who thinks Intel is dead doesn't know 💩💩💩
Click to expand...
Just can't process those numbers mentally, that's incredible. Man CPUs are hard.
 
wizardofid said:
The age of the forum members are showing.....Most of them were still in diapers, when intel had the netburst disaster and AMD wiped the floor with them back in the very early 2000's. Intel released the core2duo and AMD was on the back foot for several years and had to sit with their bulldozer disaster.

This apparent "disaster" isn't anything new, both AMD and Intel has had release cycles in the past that were less than stellar and both just had to wait out their roadmaps.

If you want a real disaster......look no further...."cough" cyrix cough............
Click to expand...
Indeed, the forum is chock full with Gen Z that got lured into the front door in droves with all the click bait
I can also see in the responses to this thread who are coders and who aren't. I was going to write a long reply but it's a waste of my time.

I used to have an Athlon XP system I purchased in the early 2000s, I remember that machine fondly, it ran hot but it was a good machine. I still sold it for some money in 2011...

In recent months I've decided to just stop sharing knowledge because there's always some know-it-all that comes along with this MBA mindset or their freshly minted Stellenbosch indoctrination to tell us old-timers we're wrong.
I've been familiar with the Intel product since the 8085, 8086, and later. Intel have at several times even advocated for dropping the architecture because it is a drag on innovation, yet they keep finding ingenious ways to keep it competitive in terms of performance.

ARM is a superior architecture, in terms of every kind of metric, code execution, raw speed, and power consumption. Even Microsoft Windows has had ARM versions for ages now. It has not been so much about standards, rather about compatibility. The main thing today is that an awful lot of important software still runs on x86 hardware and the legacy will take a long time to shift. Trillions of lines of code need to be ported, you know how long that will take- decades.
 
Could the conversion of those trillions of lines of code be sped up using AI?
 
PaulGherkin said:
Indeed, the forum is chock full with Gen Z that got lured into the front door in droves with all the click bait
I can also see in the responses to this thread who are coders and who aren't. I was going to write a long reply but it's a waste of my time.

I used to have an Athlon XP system I purchased in the early 2000s, I remember that machine fondly, it ran hot but it was a good machine. I still sold it for some money in 2011...

In recent months I've decided to just stop sharing knowledge because there's always some know-it-all that comes along with this MBA mindset or their freshly minted Stellenbosch indoctrination to tell us old-timers we're wrong.
I've been familiar with the Intel product since the 8085, 8086, and later. Intel have at several times even advocated for dropping the architecture because it is a drag on innovation, yet they keep finding ingenious ways to keep it competitive in terms of performance.

ARM is a superior architecture, in terms of every kind of metric, code execution, raw speed, and power consumption. Even Microsoft Windows has had ARM versions for ages now. It has not been so much about standards, rather about compatibility. The main thing today is that an awful lot of important software still runs on x86 hardware and the legacy will take a long time to shift. Trillions of lines of code need to be ported, you know how long that will take- decades.
Click to expand...
Lol yeah ask them about, print master or norton commander or about pain :) I am pretty much from the 286 monchome era.

I was one of the larney kids because we had this beast....had a enough space a whopping 5mb at the time....:). You don't know what pain and suffering is unless you had a two floppy disk system, you boot from one and run whatever program from the other.

Ask them gen z what the turbo button did......wrong answers only.

PXL_20220127_192645726-scaled.jpg
 
wizardofid said:
Lol yeah ask them about, print master or norton commander or about pain :) I am pretty much from the 286 monchome era.

I was one of the larney kids because we had this beast....had a enough space a whopping 5mb at the time....:). You don't know what pain and suffering is unless you had a two floppy disk system, you boot from one and run whatever program from the other.

Ask them gen z what the turbo button did......wrong answers only.

View attachment 1780405
Click to expand...
The turbo button slowed the PC down as a backwards compatibility solution. See, I pay attention :p
 
joewashere said:
Could the conversion of those trillions of lines of code be sped up using AI?
Click to expand...
Not that simple, do you know how many system still use fortran today as an example a language developed in 1957.....there are some large industrial hardware that still run on 1980s, 1990s x86 hardware


The 737 max and airbus A320 STILL uses 286 single core cpus, these older CPUs and hardware, is about stability, safety and certification. In the aeronautical space 80286 is still very much a thing. In some instances, there simply isn't an alternative. You have no idea how many banking system across the world still rely on old 20th century computer hardware.

Sadly NEWER isn't always better.....
 
wizardofid said:
Lol yeah ask them about, print master or norton commander or about pain :) I am pretty much from the 286 monchome era.

I was one of the larney kids because we had this beast....had a enough space a whopping 5mb at the time....:). You don't know what pain and suffering is unless you had a two floppy disk system, you boot from one and run whatever program from the other.

Ask them gen z what the turbo button did......wrong answers only.


Lol yeah ask them about, print master or norton commander or about pain :) I am pretty much from the 286 monchome era.

I was one of the larney kids because we had this beast....had a enough space a whopping 5mb at the time....:). You don't know what pain and suffering is unless you had a two floppy disk system, you boot from one and run whatever program from the other.

Ask them gen z what the turbo button did......wrong answers only.

View attachment 1780405
Click to expand...
I remember that heavy hard drive, I had 1 in the early 90s, 20MB in size
I loved Print Master and Norton Commander on my 360KB floppys
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X