Intel CEO to resign soon

[priyajeet]

While not a CPU oriented article, but relates to it, here a nice detailed interview with Craig Barett who resignes next may as intels CEO.

<A HREF="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/09/26/BUGV88SI8T1.DTL" target="_new">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/09/26/BUGV88SI8T1.DTL</A>

<i> :tongue: <font color=blue>I don't suffer from insanity.</font color=blue><font color=red> I enjoy every minute of it.</font color=red> :tongue: </i>
<b>He who laughs last thinks slowest!</b>

 

[lb19984]

I wonder if he is gonna get a "resign bonus".
Poor thing

System Spec's:
3.2e @3.8ghz
klipsch ultra's

"After careful deliberation i have concluded that i'm an idot"

 

[Mephistopheles]

I wonder if he's the one behind P4's "more clock than common sense" philosophy? Who is actually behind that?...

In any case, I think it's about time they rethink their product lineup. Quite frankly, I don't really care who's in charge, as long as we get good tech...

 

[raretech]

I hear that. At what point will intel stop living in fantasy land regarding the Itanic? That's what I want to know. I believe it's because of their Itanic focus that they've lost their edge in the x86 world.

If they don't pull off something substantial next year, the balance of power in the x86 world is going to shift substantially by years end and Intel's reputation will begin to change. Market dominance and past performance is good for 1 or 2 years in the chip market, after that, it won't help if your competitors are perceived as faster.

<i>Cigarettes - No cholesterol, high in fiber, low in fat, how could they not be good for you?</i>

 

[pauldh]

Sure, for enthusiasts their rep has been blemished already. I was surprised Intel can't put up a better fight now. I mean The P4-C chips were so good, but what have they been doing since besides killing projects after months of R&D.

Anyway, Not sure how long that(being considered to be behind in performance) takes to trickle down to the average Joes out there who know the name Intel, have seen the commercials, so they think <b>Intel</b> is what's <b>Inside</b> a computer. What's AMD?


ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 1GB Corsair XMS 4000 Pro Series, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt

 

[Crashman]

I don't know about the P4-C being "so good", after all the 3.06B has been around for 2 years and all they did was scale it up a bit and change the bus speed. 3.06 was an OK processor, but I just don't see any significant technological advancement in the P4-C.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[Brett4u6]

That's definitely a marketing idea. And while it won't work on the likes of people who frequent this forum, to joe average computer user the salesmanship works.

Like it or not, a chip company's job is to make money, not make the computer savvy few happy. And you've got to admit, Intel has made plenty of money

 

[Spitfire_x86]

P4C looked so good, because we were always used to see AXP outperforming P4s and this time they didn't.

------------
<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A>

<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig</A> & <A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/benchmark.html" target="_new">3DMark score</A>

 

[Mr5oh]

"more clock than common sense"

LOL, thats hilarious, but sadly, there is some truth to it.

My Desktop: <A HREF="http://Mr5oh.tripod.com/pc.html" target="_new">http://Mr5oh.tripod.com/pc.html</A>

 

[endyen]

The thing that the P4c did, was to feed that poor memory starved core.

 

[pauldh]

OK, agreed. I somewhat was thinking they fine tuned the P4 line to where it was the clear leader; performance-wise the clear champion of almost every benchmark. If you wanted a high end system a year ago, It was an 875/865pe and P4C period. Since that time, it's AMD that has released the next level of performance, not Intel. The EE to me doen't account for much because of price/performance.

ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 1GB Corsair XMS 4000 Pro Series, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt

 

[Mephistopheles]

Well, Intel should have equipped all their 6xx series Pentiums (due out next year or so, whatever) with the 1066Mhz FSB <i>and</i> 2MB L2 cache. If coupled with EM64T, they might even have managed competing with AMD. At least until they develop a completely new architecture that <i>isn't</i> based on more and more clock.

 

[Vapor]

What you're describing is the 700 series.

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.

 

[Mephistopheles]

Well, in any case, I hope 1066Mhz FSB doesn't come with EE price tags.

 

[Xeon]

Wow jeese not next may.

Xeon

<font color=red>Post created with being a dickhead in mind.</font color=red>
<font color=white>For all emotional and slanderous statements contact THG for all law suits.</font color=white>

 

[El_Jefe_77]

I have to say that Intel has put out a lot of crap besides the northwood and the tualatin. Maybe centrino is a good thing (since it actually is a slug speed, I cant really consider it a great idea anymore, kinda anyone could make a fast proc go crazy slow and then easy to cool.)

AMD came out with k5 and k6 thingies, and only until the k6-III 400, did they actually come out with something decent. Nothing worked with 3d-now besides one game that a lot of geeky types played, namely counterstrike/half-life. All of the board companies and chipset companies royally sucked and had problems up till recently. (worked with a buddy building many hundreds of Kwhatever machines, more than a 1/3 hosed)

So I think both companies are crap.


One might say, hey thats not fair, amd doesnt make the boards and chipsets, I say, hey, if they had any care about the quality to the end user of their product, they would have, like intel, been stricter about what board uses their chips, or partner with another company and design burned in, tried and true chipsets and mobos.
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by el_jefe_77 on 09/28/04 11:01 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Mephistopheles]

Wow, I think we just found our Forum <i>Intel and AMD</i> pessimist.

Centrino is crap? Really? I was under the impression centrino was a best-seller and widely acclaimed by critics as being an evolution in the way people think about notebooks. It's a dedicated notebook processor.

(since it actually is a slug speed, I cant really consider it a great idea anymore, kinda anyone could make a fast proc go crazy slow and then easy to cool.)

That's exactly what it isn't. And it's because Centrino's processors are not slowed down, easier to cool (***desktop***) chips, but rather well designed dedicated mobile chips, that they sell well.

Even the lowest-clocked mobile processor from AMD doesn't quite reach the <i>highest-clocked</i> Pentium M in terms of power, and that is saying something, because the 2.0Ghz Dothan has quite respectable performance for a mobile part! It doesn't look as if it's a half-baked product.

Now you can flame Intel for prescott, but not for Centrino.

Oh, and you have to hand it to AMD for designing such a great product like the A64 and further developing it with S939 infrastructure. A64's onboard memory controller is quite an evolution from the conventional northbridge architecture.

Is it really all crap? A64? Centrino? I don't think so. Could things be better? Yes! But hey, they could always be better. If they couldn't, I'd be quite disappointed as well...

 

[fishmahn]

>>> It's a dedicated notebook processor.<<<

Umm, not to get off-topic, but Centrino is not a processor at all. It's a code name for a combination of technologies, including the Pentium 4-M processor and Intel Wireless adapter in a notebook environment. Additionally, Centrino doesn't even use the best wireless technologies (even though the technology was available at the time) - it uses the older, slower technology of wireless (802.11a or b, I don't remember which - don't bother keeping up that closely with it), and not 802.11g. That said, it is still quality technology, perfectly acceptable for accessing web content and most normal usage, however heavy database usage will see the connection bottleneck pretty quickly. Wireless 'g' adapters are much better at that because of the 5x speed difference. (and wired is better still... but no need to go there)

A laptop that doesn't use Intel's wireless adapter, but uses a compatible adapter that supports the 'g' spec in addition to Intel's spec., cannot use the Centrino name, even if it has the same P4M CPU.

Mike

 

[Brett4u6]

Funny how this thread has meandered from talking about the CEO and what he has/hasn't done to talking about whose got the best chips.

Folks are definitely opinionated about their hardware and whose sucks and whose doesn't. What would you do if you were the CEO of AMD or Intel? Who on the thread has the chip design to go head-to-head with AMD or Intel and show them how to do it right?

 

[priyajeet]

yeah, thats called hijacking. Happens a lot here.

<i> :tongue: <font color=blue>I don't suffer from insanity.</font color=blue><font color=red> I enjoy every minute of it.</font color=red> :tongue: </i>
<b>He who laughs last thinks slowest!</b>

 

[FUGGER]

Itanium2 has its place with military, goverment, space and medical appliactions that outweigh everything else that your insignification mind can comprehend.

Maybe one day you will understand that there is more out there than you know about. To put this a better way (for you to understand), you are clueless.

Brett, Its called a circle jerk and they have them all the time here. The AMD fans pack up like wolves when they smell blood. Not pretty to watch and they will turn on you if you are pro Intel. You got gimps like raretech who rag on something he never owned or touched, let alone seen a picture of.

Just post the numbers net/profit for Intel/AMD, nothing to be ashamed of. Craig did a great job imo.

Dothan.

Yes, that is a one word sentance.

<A HREF="http://www.xtremesystems.org" target="_new">www.xtremesystems.org</A>

 

[raretech]

<i>Itanium2 has its place with military, goverment, space and medical appliactions that outweigh everything else that your insignification mind can comprehend.</i>

Yeah I know that dimbulb, I've posted that in other threads. The thing is, Intel has preached that Itanium was the future, over and over again, and they seem to be ignoring innovation in x86 and focusing on that chip.

<i>Maybe one day you will understand that there is more out there than you know about. To put this a better way (for you to understand), you are clueless.</i>

<YAWN> Sorry I insulted your favorite company fanboy. Next time you're going to attack me and call me clueless, do it with something I don't already know.

<i>Cigarettes - No cholesterol, high in fiber, low in fat, how could they not be good for you?</i><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by raretech on 09/28/04 06:07 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[pauldh]

Latest headline at the Inquirer. <b>Battling Gimps and Dimbulbs HERE at THGC</b>. LOL, sorry to interrupt. Dimbulb just cracked me up.

ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 1GB Corsair XMS 4000 Pro Series, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt

 

[raretech]

:lol: I don't normally call names like that, but after reading FanBoy Fuggers post, it was like WTF!?

He's gots to defend his one true Intel faith. Yeah, you're right fugger, Intel isn't screwing up at all. Itanium is going to ship, what, 100,000 units this year? Bravo, good on Intel for the Itanic's, uh, 'success'. Oh, and thanks Intel for your revolutionary design in Scotty and really uping the performance standards for all of us who can't afford your chip that does everything else my "insignification mind can comprehend."

ROTFL.

<i>Cigarettes - No cholesterol, high in fiber, low in fat, how could they not be good for you?</i>

 

[Brett4u6]

What are we talking about here again???