Intel Chairman Says Company Had Lost Its Way

[MajinCry]

jimmysmitty, We're still waiting for your evidence on that "90% of software doesn't use the ICC".

 

[Avus]

So i guess Wintel passes its prime...

 

[realAMDfreak]

Great news. Go AMD !

 

[rush21hit]

ZolaIII, you simply put capitalism an understatement on your opinion. This is not that Intel wants to do, its what their shareholder wanted and questions. As in every capitalist system, all shareholders actually share common interest; more money. Which is why Intel goes into trouble explaining their mistakes on that very meeting. They're not referring as of why Intel makes mistakes to us as bystander, but try to explain to their shareholders why Intel could not make much more money than it should if they ever make in time for the mobile market growth. That in itself implicitly states that their shareholders were actually questions them about their late involvement in mobile market.

 

[ZolaIII]

@rush21hit you really are a comedian aren't you?
If i am investor ho wants make a profit first of all i need a good product, better then what competition can offer. Then secondly i need market for my product: that is wonted, desired by potential costumers & needed. If i can satisfy demand& if my product is really better so that i can price it little extra i will make maximal profit. On the other hand if i don't have product or i have bad product or even product that buyers don't want i will loose capital so GIVE ME BACK MY MANY. This was the investors point of view. So as a company i can make it only if i deliver so that i make profit keep my share holders happy & attractive to even more investors on stock market so that my shares can even more future grove making my company worth more. & that are the basics! Now mobile market will not collapse, you will change your handy every year or two & emerging markes are China & India so you will have to adjust your products & price policy's so that costumes can afford your product & rest is marketing.

 

[jimmysmitty]

You mean the compilers that are not even used in the majority (90%) of software?

I doubt that figure. Would you please provide evidence for it?

The same compilers that are designed to work best with Intels hardware

Read this.

much like CUDA/PhysX with NVidia or Mantle/ TressFX for AMD?

Quite fallacious.

That comparison doesn't even work. They're technologies tailored to each card. If you're going to use THAT method, you'd best use an API. Such as DirectX. Which doesn't hold water, due to NVidia (por ejemplo) not being able to do a "If != NVidia then Cripple()" at runtime.

If Intel does that then NVidia and AMD should open up their proprietary software/hardware as well, no?

If what, Intel removes the "Cripple AMD()" function from their compilers, NVidia and AMD should make their software/hardware open source?

Ladies and gentlemen, I quote you a non sequitur!

Guess what, it wont happen as that's how companies one up the others. Ford has Microsoft SYNC. Other companies have their own equivalent but SYNC has advantages.

Another completely, and utterly, fallacious comparison.

A more accurate one would be: Toyota has gained 80% of the oil marketshare and implemented a way to check if your engine is manufactured by Toyota or not. If your engine is a non-Toyota certified engine, it will use up twice as much oil than a Toyota engine. However, if you fool the check into thinking you have a Toyota engine, it uses up as much as a Toyota engine with no problems at all.

If Toyota were to do such a thing, you'd probably support it too.

Without them everyone would have the same hardware and there would be no reason to pick one over the other.

Without "them"? You mean different hardware manufactures or anti-competitive practices?

The majority of software uses Microsofts compiler. That was found out back when this first came to light. Most every game I have seen uses the .net framework unless its OGL which is few and far between. Of course I was just guesstimating but there is no way to know unless you have direct access to numbers gathered together, which I doubt you have as well. If you have the proof that Intels compiler is used in the majority of software, please provide it. Other wise we may never know for sure.

And NVidia did do the same thing with PhysX. Originally when they bought Ageia, you could have a AMD GPU and a NVidia secondary GPU as a PhysX PPU. NVidia then added in the drivers a way to disable that so that if the primary GPU is AMD, PhysX will not work on that system. This was something that happened a while ago yet no one cares because HavoK is better than PhysX much like the Microsoft compiler is more often used for programs than the Intel program.

AMD also wrote software years ago, the dual core optimizer, that doesn't work with Intel CPUs (it actually causes massive system issues when installed on a Intel based system as its optimized for AMDs instruction sets) but no one complained because it was AMDs software written for their hardware and not for Intels hardware much like that 64bit patch for Far Cry was written for AMDs Athlon 64 processors and not Intels.

My whole point was that Intel cannot be held responsible for optimizing its software for AMD CPUs much like AMD is not responsible for making sure its software/hardware is going to work best with nVidias hardware etc.

The overall issue is moot as the compiler is mostly used in benchmarks, which any regular to THG would know that benchmarks are normally synthetic and not something to go by. The majority of consumers don't ever look at those they see marketing and price.

BTW, by them I meant proprietary hardware/software. The truth is a company has to have an advantage and if you expect Intel to spend time and money to optimize their products for AMDs hardware then you are forgetting the whole point to a capitalist market that allows for wider competition. This is like what happened to Microsoft in Europe. They have to offer their competitors browsers in their own software because its considered unfair to not. When was the last time you went to a, lets use your example, Toyota only dealership and looked at a Camry and they also had right next to it a Fusion, Mazda6, Accord etc and gave you the options? They don't because that's how competition works. They want you to buy their products, use their products not their competitors.

Intel optimizes their software and compilers for their specific hardware and while some of the SSE is shared between Intel and AMD, there are variances that AMD has that Intel does not and ones Intel has that AMD does not which means Intel would have to spend time and money making something they designed work better on a competitors product. Its the complete opposite of an open competitive market.

The real question I ask you is what software do you use that was compiled using Intels compiler that has wronged you so? Has Intel personally wronged you this way?

Or has, a better example, McDonalds secret sauce that they optimized for their burgers only made you stop going to their restaurants until they optimize that sauce for all burgers? (BTW, this is a joke so don't take it super seriously).

AMD has had a rough journey. Honestly they have had ups and downs caused by a lot of things, a lot of it was caused by their bad timing in buying ATI and closing one of their only two FABs they had open when their CPUs were better.

But they will survive and press on and if they try I am sure they can keep Intel on the right path to better technology. Look at NVidia. They seem to be doing very well in the GPU market.

 

[danwat1234]

14nm Atoms and core CPUs will be awesome. Maybe 6 cores for laptops and serious performance per watt all the way around

 

[tomfreak]

Get the non-Atom Ultrabook battery life exceed a tablet ones @ tablet price. NOT $1000.

 

[Gurg]

Can Intel compete long term with low cost foreign fabs in producing low performance highly price competitive APUs? How many puny smartphone and tablet APUs does Intel have to sell vs the potential profit margin on an extreme performance desktop CPU with knock your socks off numbers and priced to entice older i5-7 CPU owners to upgrade? A CPU designed to be cooled by at least a 120mm closed water loop system leaving the graphics to Nvidia and AMD.

 

[wdmfiber]

Starting to seem like they don't care about desktop cpus anymore, leaving us that still build our own and upgrade every 2 years in the dust. Im still using my 2600k from 2 years ago since the 4700 series just wasn't worth the upgrade to save a few degrees of temperature...

Frig, it's the other way around. A 2600K is soldered goodness. Your likely running 20 degrees cooler.Wish Intel would release a soldered 4770K, call it the 4770X ??? A Haswell i7 screaming @5+ GHz would be killer.
Although overkill and not really needed from their point of view I suppose.

 

[knowom]

Intel failed with the Netbook design they are a good idea, but need more power when needed typically plugged in along with more efficiency along with better graphics

The other thing a Netbook form factor design could use is a touch screen that can swivel and lay flat like a tablet or open up to be used like a laptop plus a hdmi connector and sd card slot are important.

 

[knowom]

Intel tried too hard to be the bully for so long rather than innovating and now bleeding slowly to the hand it cut off long ago when they felt like they were in a good position of control. They burned a lot of bridges along the way so not much sympathy for them.

 

[Tomtompiper]

4 years ago I warned them that the British are coming, and they laughed. Seems that that laughter was premature and ill considered. ARM has an almost unassailable lead in the mobile market. PowerVR is vying with Qualcomm in the Mobile GPU market and Intel is tied to MS and Surface, a steaming turd of a tablet. Intel has one chance, use the ARM licence it has and their advantage in the die shrink race to join the battle. If they snooze ARM and Samsung will eat them for breakfast.

 

[pug_s]

Intel is really a one trick Pony. It makes a bucketload of money from selling x86 cpu's. It tried other ventures, but ultimately gave up because they didn't put enough effort into it. At least Microsoft gave a good effort in developing and maintaining its business, putting money in Internet Explorer, Xbox, Microsoft Exchange, and so on.

 

[Duckhunt]

Wow. Intel CEO comes up with the idea that Internet Tv is not a winner. Wow. This guy is a genius and obviously worth his money that he funnels out of Intel ( sarcasm).

I could of told them that on a salary of US$100k. .

 

[MajinCry]

The majority of software uses Microsofts compiler. That was found out back when this first came to light. Most every game I have seen uses the .net framework unless its OGL which is few and far between.

Ooh. Evidence please.

Of course I was just guesstimating but there is no way to know unless you have direct access to numbers gathered together, which I doubt you have as well. If you have the proof that Intels compiler is used in the majority of software, please provide it. Other wise we may never know for sure.

You're putting words in my mouth. I never made any claims on the percentage of software that uses the ICC. You need to read people's posts properly.

And NVidia did do the same thing with PhysX. Originally when they bought Ageia, you could have a AMD GPU and a NVidia secondary GPU as a PhysX PPU. NVidia then added in the drivers a way to disable that so that if the primary GPU is AMD, PhysX will not work on that system. This was something that happened a while ago yet no one cares because HavoK is better than PhysX much like the Microsoft compiler is more often used for programs than the Intel program.

When you are corrected once, you shouldn't perpetrate the same fallacy again. Stop being stupid.

Also, using Havok in your example is not helping your cause; it's owned by intel, and a hundred pounds says that it uses the ICC.

AMD also wrote software years ago, the dual core optimizer, that doesn't work with Intel CPUs (it actually causes massive system issues when installed on a Intel based system as its optimized for AMDs instruction sets)

Because it was to resolve an issue with AMD processors.

but no one complained because it was AMDs software written for their hardware and not for Intels hardware much like that 64bit patch for Far Cry was written for AMDs Athlon 64 processors and not Intels.

Now you'll be harking on NVidia because they didn't make their drivers compatible with AMD hardware, or harking on AMD because they didn't make their drivers compatible with S3, etc.

Come on man. You're a moderator.

My whole point was that Intel cannot be held responsible for optimizing its software for AMD CPUs much like AMD is not responsible for making sure its software/hardware is going to work best with nVidias hardware etc.

Good job not reading this link that completely dismisses your pathetic excuse.

The overall issue is moot as the compiler is mostly used in benchmarks, which any regular to THG would know that benchmarks are normally synthetic and not something to go by. The majority of consumers don't ever look at those they see marketing and price.

Despite Toms heavily using synthetic benchmarks in comparisons between AMD and Intel CPUs? Please.

BTW, by them I meant proprietary hardware/software. The truth is a company has to have an advantage and if you expect Intel to spend time and money to optimize their products for AMDs hardware then you are forgetting the whole point to a capitalist market that allows for wider competition.

I can excuse ignorance when discovered for the first time, but self perpetuated ignorance is utterly deplorable. Go look at that link which I've given to you TWICE now, and googling "Anti competitive practices" will enlighten your fallacious position.

This is like what happened to Microsoft in Europe. They have to offer their competitors browsers in their own software because its considered unfair to not. When was the last time you went to a, lets use your example, Toyota only dealership and looked at a Camry and they also had right next to it a Fusion, Mazda6, Accord etc and gave you the options? They don't because that's how competition works. They want you to buy their products, use their products not their competitors.

Nonsensical example. Refer back to my Toyota hypothetical.

Intel optimizes their software and compilers for their specific hardware and while some of the SSE is shared between Intel and AMD, there are variances that AMD has that Intel does not and ones Intel has that AMD does not which means Intel would have to spend time and money making something they designed work better on a competitors product. Its the complete opposite of an open competitive market.

Read that link I've offered to you TWICE. You've clearly not bothered to click it, lest your bubble be burst.

The real question I ask you is what software do you use that was compiled using Intels compiler that has wronged you so? Has Intel personally wronged you this way?

Havok's a good example.

And personally wronged me? I need not be personally wronged to take issue with deplorable acts. For example, I've not been raped, but I'll damn well call out any rapists I discover.

Or has, a better example, McDonalds secret sauce that they optimized for their burgers only made you stop going to their restaurants until they optimize that sauce for all burgers? (BTW, this is a joke so don't take it super seriously).

Oh your nonsensical examples...

AMD has had a rough journey. Honestly they have had ups and downs caused by a lot of things, a lot of it was caused by their bad timing in buying ATI and closing one of their only two FABs they had open when their CPUs were better.

Utterly irrelevant.

But they will survive and press on and if they try I am sure they can keep Intel on the right path to better technology. Look at NVidia. They seem to be doing very well in the GPU market.

That may very well be true. But that's got NOTHING to do with this current discussion.

 

[nforce4max]

@ legokangpalla

The problem isn't power alone no performance per watt but overall cost per unit is much higher than amd and with the trend of moving data centers to arm (much cheaper to use). Most people who build large sever farms and data centers usually only look at total core count with cost not performance.

 

[Robert Bradford]

Intel is in direct competition with Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD) in the market for microprocessors, even though it is far ahead of AMD. In the semiconductor market though, Intel has been a market leader for the last 21 years, and its current market share is 16.4%.http://bit.ly/1fZpNSH

 

[catfishtx]

ARM woke up the sleeping giant. Now that Intel is focused on the mobile market, you can be sure that Intel will be competitive on power and efficiency. Look how far the lowly Atom has come in a couple of years. Once them and AMD start pumping out the chips, I think x86, along with iOS, will dominate the tablet market.

I have a decent Android tablet that I use often. It's a nice tablet with a great screen and a battery that last a long time. But I would gladly upgrade to a Win8 tablet that I can run Office on and do real work on.

 

[timaahhh]

Knights landing may be a game changer in the HPC market. In the Application Server market Intel already rules the roost. No matter how many tablets and phones there are in the world Servers will still be needed (and in increasing numbers as more server move off end user hardware to the 'cloud'). I love AMD and the price/performance in HPC is always attractive, but in the App Server world you have to look at your watt draw. Not only the Power bill but how many PDUs you need how many UPS you need, as well as generators and coolers. Since Uptime becomes more important everyday as more services move to the datacenter low wattage high performance is increasingly important. No one can match intels watt/performance right now. ARM is great but since its only in 32 bit flavors it can only be used for low performance solutions (like webservers). Even when the 64 bit Arm comes to town no one knows if it will scale as well as Intel when you are putting the screws to it running very large databases, or huge application farms. Sure Arm will work in your webserver, ftp server, and for storage array controllers, but will it run your mission critical database and apps? Can it scale to a 100+ node application farm and provide the same or better performance? Can it run your hadoop nodes? Eh... maybe???

 

[anti-painkilla]

I think they mean that they had the resources to compete and dominate the market but they let ARM get a comfortable position and now they are the ones playing catch up.

Intel does not like playing catch up.

 

[wdmfiber]

For my own knowledge, just did a little research on ARM (Advanced RISC Machines Holdings Limited).

Based on today's closing numbers the stock market values ARM at 23 billion dollars.
Intel is close to 118 and AMD at 2.6 billion (yes, less than 3).

Some of the big software companies: Microsoft, Apple, Google, ect.. are worth several times more than Intel.