I'd like to see the list of things we've done that are so awful, because I don't recall going to work thinking what awful things I was going to help do that day. I thought I was more observant than that.
You didn't do anything wrong. I think you know that very well. You are just trying to protect Intel because you are working there. Saying that you have done anything wrong is like saying that all the people that live in Iraq are cruel criminals - just because Sadam is a criminal.
Again: I have nothing against Intel employee. I try to be rational. How could I have something against Intel employee?! IMO Intel's employees (especially the highly trained engineer) have created Intel. I have respect for them. I think that anybody would be proud to write in his own CV that he was worked for Intel. I assumed the problem is clear: nothing against the hard - working Intel engineer.
Let's see what I am remembering now - things that have disappointed me:
1. The P3 1,13Ghz launches; a total failure. It was not working. Some failure of this type from time to time is unavoidable, so why I am disappointed? Well, some 6-8 months before this paper launch Intel was making a prediction about the future in which they have compared a 650Mhz Athlon with a 1Ghz P3. They have assumed that the competition would not be capable of bringing anything against P3 1Ghz - AND THE COMPETITION was there first (Athlon was the first proc to reach 1Ghz). This is only happening because those who are managing Intel now are too proud; too proud to realize that the competition has good engineers too. Too proud to realize that in the last 2-3 years Intel has lost some of its image - image that was created by other managerial teams long before they get to work for Intel.
Here I would like to mention Intel's attitude with regard to this site. When Tom had discovered that P1.13 GHz was not stable he informed Intel on this matter and asked them to clarify the situation, because otherwise he would write about it.
Intel's reaction was something like:
<b>
if you have nothing better to do, then go ahead and write your article, because we are so BIGGGG anyway and we don't care. Loosing some customers is no big deal. They WILL come back because they have no option.
</b>
2. remember the bug that was found in Intel's infamous 'i820' or 'Camino' chipset?
Read this: (I will have nothing more to say on this matter)
Bad Information Policy = Official Intel Policy?
Since the MTH-announcement was made and the press releases went to the press, Intel has been trying to do a nice job to look good officially. We, the press people, know that Intel is planning to handle it this way: "The replacement option will include an Intel(r) VC820 Desktop Board and 128MB of RDRAM. Details of replacement availability will be communicated to your place of purchase in the near future." We have also been assured that every owner of an MTH- motherboard will get a replacement or refund if he should want that. You, the readers, read a different information at Intel's website "Intel Corporation today announced that it would replace motherboards that have a defective memory translator hub (MTH) component that translates signals from SDRAM memory to the Intel(r) 820 Chipset." How can you find out if your MTH is one of the 'defective' ones? Well, you basically can't, and you wouldn't have to, because in fact every owner of an MTH motherboard is entitled to a replacement or refund, even though Intel's official announcement sounds a bit different. I got tons of mails from upset owners of Intel CC820 motherboards, who told me that Intel-officials deny the replacement or refund categorically. The answers of those official Intel-spokespeople go from "We won't replace any memory" to "Only affected CC820 boards, which is about 15-20% of them, get replaced". Both statements are simply WRONG. Now if those kinds of comments were the sad exception, I wouldn't really say anything.
To read the whole story go to:
<A HREF="http://www6.tomshardware.com/blurb/00q2/000515/index.html" target="_new">http://www6.tomshardware.com/blurb/00q2/000515/index.html</A>
3. the P4 high frequency: tell me honestly: because you are working for Intel you may answer this question:
Who decided that P4 would have to reach high MHz numbers? The engineers decided that it is better to create an architecture with low IPC and high frequency, or the marketing department? Really, who decided that?
The latest proc from Intel - Itanium hasn't the same architecture (low IPC, high freq). Well... WHY? If this is the future: low IPC, high freq then WHY?
Well, it is enough for now. If you want to read more on the subject then go ahead and read my article from my web page:
<A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/mihaiu_razvan/7march2001/index.html" target="_new"> Intel's tricks </A>
The article is old but the facts remain the same.
despite the fact that ALL the benches showed it performing better.
?!! Rambus is performing better on P4. On P3 this was NOT true. I repeat: it was NOT true. Search this site's archive and get convinced. Rambus was not worth your money on a P3 platform because it was SLOWER that the SDRAM solution. There are many explanations for this behavior, but this is not the point. The point is that it was slower and more expensive, yet Intel claimed the OPPOSITE. What do you think?
Intel was using Rambus long before P4 was launched. Don't forget that.
Now as soon as a company tries to give people what they want, you see what happens? How quickly they turn....
Are you suggesting that Intel did that because they care about people's opinions? I'm sorry for this expression, but: quit the crap. They did it because they where loosing money; they did it because their evil monopoly that they tried to create with Rambus was a failure. If they would have succeeded in their intentions and Rambus would be all over the place WE (you, me and all the other comp users) would have to pay royalties to this company whenever we wanted or not. Because if Intel plans where to succeed we would have only one choice: Rambus. Quite an ugly future, in my opinion.
despite the fact that ALL the benches showed it performing better.
Just one more idea. Even if you are right: let's suppose that Rambus was a better performer - right from the start. Why forcing the market to use only one option? Perhaps I don't care about 10% of lost performance and I want to save money. This should be MY choice. I should choose that and not Intel's marketing dep. They should at least let other companies build chipsets that are supporting DDR. In the beginning Intel has not licensed anybody for the P4 bus tech and it has sued VIA for developing such a solution. It was clear that the users where needing that solution, yet Intel was against it. And now you are coming here and tell me that Intel is trying to give me what I want!? Unbelievable...
Razvan
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram