The death of Intel...maybe ATI?

So Intel have 65nm processors which are 20% cooler than current Prescotts but perform the same. And this is progress??

How is all this R&D sellable? Do consumers care if there fans don't come on all the time? With many companies providing alternate quiet solutions already to the heat issues of current P4's, why is Intel spending all this R&D on 65nm processors that are no better in terms of performance than current P4s??

So we now have Dual cores which are still slower than the fastest single core CPUs, and 65nm processor that show NO performance gains over current 90nm. What the hell is going on with AMD/Intel?

This R&D is great and good and I'm sure is needed, but if they don't do something about the bottom line -- aka pure performance then consumer technology has seriously stalled.

There are so many other bottlenecks in the global view of a PC, why are Intel/AMD wasting time on technologies that do nothing to help the end consumer?

Lets have DDR4 and just increase latency and timing values even more -- ugh! No wonder the technology industry is on life support -- help help help, maybe the Graphics card industry can save us....

Speaking of which, how could ATI be so far OFF target? 3 out of 7 products released and 5 months late at that?? What the heck were they doing with all the money they got from being the industry leader for at least 1 year?

Have all the intelligent people left Tech already and moved on or just retired on their millions? Are we left with empty shells of what once was? The future is NOT looking good.
12 answers Last reply
More about death intel maybe
  1. Kinda reminds you of Hollywood lately, putting out sequels and remakes, spinning their wheels, they need fresh ideas thats for sure!

    <font color=blue>AMD XP 3200+ / Asus A7N8X-E Deluxe / Corsair XMS PC3200 1024mb LLC2 / ATI X850 Pro / SoundBlaster X-FI / 2 Seagate SATA 7200rpm/8mb / Plextor PX-716A DVDRW</font color=blue>
  2. Do some research, moron.

    Some people are like slinkies....
    Not really good for anything but you cant help smile when you see one tumble down the stairs.
  3. >So Intel have 65nm processors which are 20% cooler than
    >current Prescotts but perform the same. And this is

    Wafer cost is also cut by around 50%; $400 CPU's soon selling for just $150, yes that is also progress.

    >What the hell is going on with AMD/Intel?

    Intel hit a brick wall with netburst. That spells as much doom about the future of CPU development, as the Pentium Pro's inability to run Win9x code at decent speeds did, once upon a time. If you think progress has stalled recently, then realize K8 has scaled from 1.8 GHz SC to 2.4 GHz DC at about the same TDP in just over two years, a 2.6x fold increase in throughput. Or has scaled from single core 1.8 Ghz 85W to dual core, 1.8 GHz 55W, a nice three fold improvement in throughput/W with just one shrink, and another one around the corner.

    >There are so many other bottlenecks in the global view of a
    > PC, why are Intel/AMD wasting time on technologies that do
    > nothing to help the end consumer?

    So.. your next PC will not have PCI-E, but PCI (or even ISA) ? You do not care about low power and variable clockspeeds, but prefer noisy fans ? And you will obviously stick to just 32 bits forever. Of course, since youll only run Win 95. Maybe you will also avoid USB and use serial and LPT ports instead ? While you"re at it, use 100 MHz SDRAM modules, just to make sure there is no progress at all..

    = The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
  4. obviously you have no idea how this business works. go take your hair brained bullsh!t back to your pokemon convention where it'll fly.
  5. Now Featuring: Return of the Troll-Tard

    Soon To Come: Ban the Lamer!

    <font color=red>"Battling Gimps and Dimbulbs HERE at THGC"</font color=red>

    "<font color=blue> Wusy</font color=blue> <-Professional sheep banger"
  6. How about this: People are tired of 58db fans whenever they apply high load to their P4. Maybe now the fans will only spin up to a speed that produces 48db.

    Performance? Intel does plan to clock higher now that they have a little more headroom in temperatures. That applies to both their single and dual-core solutions. So you're talking about raw performance increase, there you go, get back to 58db, but at a 10% higher clock speed.

    And before you go on about AMD having better thermal management, you're right, but Intel is doing whatever they can to reduce cost while providing the minimum needed improvements. Remember, they still have later cores in the works, but releasing them sooner would cost them more money.

    ATI was wasting that money on 90nm production technology, they've spent nearly everything and I'm fairly certain they're being sued by a group of investors for doing that. And the investors are just as mad as you about the late product launch, but they're rather ATI had saved the money and gone with 110nm technology and an earlier launch. Nobody knew the conversion was going to be so expensive, or take so long, so why don't you print the last 6 months of ATI news and send it via priority mail back in time to 2004.

    <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>
  7. I've been using water cooling for many years now (one of the early Koolance beta units) and temps remain relatively low even at full load (gaming rig).

    My DAW (Digital Audio Workstation) is as quiet as a mouse and it is uses a standard Fan. Since I'm Sonar 5 PE user that makes efficient use of Multiple CPUs and WinXP 64bit OS with oodles of memory, it still remains VERY quiet even with 32+ tracks and numereous VSTi/DXi instruments and plenty of FX processing. Building a quiet PC is just a matter of knowing what to get and how to fine tune a case to minimize sound.

    Increasing clocks speeds is great, but as I've pointed out before their is more potential performance to be gained from motherboard/chipset designs and just better CPU designs and more efficient instruction sets. Intel have lost some good people which may or may not have contributed to some of their problems. But AMD/Intel have chosen the same path as before "shrink and tweak" because that seemed to always work in the past, but I don't think this approach works any more and "alone" will NOT prove to be a profitable future for them. Intel's current dual core design is sophomoric at best, at least AMD tried to introduce some benefits beyond just squeezing two CPUs on a wafer. This is not AMD vs. Intel debate, both companies are lacking vision.

    Introduce a wafer that has 256 CPU's on it that can truely operated independantly with thread management logic built in and a full speed path to main memory (dump the cache) and now your talking progress -- 100% accurate audio/video recognition could become a reality -- full time security sniffers built into the OS running happily on their own thread eliminating any potential virus threats or security threats (self learning) -- I'm a software developer and I know what I'd love to produce if I knew PC hardware was up to the task (which it isn't).

    The sad reality is that 1 in 5 people use a PC and even worse is that the security threat and fear of a virus and keyboard miners, spyware, etc. is the #1 reason people don't use the Internet or get a PC. Unless these issues are solved (at a hardware & software level), market penetration will remain the same. At this point, PC market penetration should be the same as TV penetration -- 2 in 1 NOT 1 in 5.

    There is so much more potential if their vision was NOT so focused on the "shrink & tweak & reduce the heat".

    If the PC Tech industry wants to thrieve again, the burden of vision is on them all and their #1 goal should be to turn that 1 in 5 to at least 1 in 1.

  8. How about you sending an email to tell Intel and AMD that they are lacking vision? maybe that'll wake them up to develop a super 8GHz Processor..
  9. Did you not read my post at all?
  10. Didn't you read any of the replies at all, except Nights'.
  11. smaller die, cooler, and cheaper production cost = progress.

    <A HREF="" target="_new">"Like a scrotum, there it is in a nutshell."</A>
    <font color=red>Roll Tide!</font color=red>
    <A HREF="" target="_new">-={Apathetic As<i></i>shole.}=-</A>
  12. >ntroduce a wafer that has 256 CPU's on it that can truely
    >operated independantly with thread management logic built in
    >and a full speed path to main memory (dump the cache) and now
    > your talking progress

    Oh really ? How about such a beast would suck up upwards of 1KW, cost more than middle class car and perform like an absolute dog ? Dumping the cache is the most idiotic idea I have heard in a long time, never heard of the memory wall ? and creating a chip (not wafer) with that many cores is totally useless for 99.999% of the desktop apps out there. Programmers have a hard time making code that benefits from 2 cores, creating desktop apps that benefits 256 codes is pure nonsense. Its like building a car with 128 powered wheels, 64 engines and expecting it to somhow, be better than todays cars.

    But hey, if you think this is the way forward, by all means buy a Cell or Sun Niagra powered workstation next year, and let us know how happy you are with it.

    = The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Performance Intel Processors