Intel Says It WILL Command the Respect of ARM

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
People i hate to tell you but Intel didnt cause us to be stuck in x86 you can thank AMD for that becuase they decided to release the amd athlon x64 which was backwards compatible with x32. Intel was trying to push 64bit on with Itanium which was pure 64bit with no native support for x86 support but when AMD did this it forced Intel to abandon there plan and move forward with the x64bit instruction set for x86. Otherwise we would all be in a dif. instruction set as it sits right now. And this is coming from the guys at Intel that designed these things. i used to work in the eval lab at Intel in Portland and that was there plan around the P4 era when they were just releasing the itanium they had something else up there sleeve for the desktop space but scrapped it for fear it would fail due to AMD. So you can thank AMD for all this X86 crap. end rant

Now back to the subject at hand Intel spends more money in R&D than most chip manufactures make in profits so if they decide to do something they have the funds to throw at. If they want to they can trust me.
 
[citation][nom]wcooper007[/nom]People i hate to tell you but Intel didnt cause us to be stuck in x86 you can thank AMD for that becuase they decided to release the amd athlon x64 which was backwards compatible with x32. Intel was trying to push 64bit on with Itanium which was pure 64bit with no native support for x86 support but when AMD did this it forced Intel to abandon there plan and move forward with the x64bit instruction set for x86. Otherwise we would all be in a dif. instruction set as it sits right now. And this is coming from the guys at Intel that designed these things. i used to work in the eval lab at Intel in Portland and that was there plan around the P4 era when they were just releasing the itanium they had something else up there sleeve for the desktop space but scrapped it for fear it would fail due to AMD. So you can thank AMD for all this X86 crap. end rant Now back to the subject at hand Intel spends more money in R&D than most chip manufactures make in profits so if they decide to do something they have the funds to throw at. If they want to they can trust me.[/citation]
... maybe, but not... i think... M$ and other software builders is to blame... and AMD did right to put in backwards compatibility... when there would be just x64 itanium... what software would we use...? and linux waz not so popular jet...
 
[citation][nom]wcooper007[/nom]People i hate to tell you but Intel didnt cause us to be stuck in x86 you can thank AMD for that becuase they decided to release the amd athlon x64 which was backwards compatible with x32. Intel was trying to push 64bit on with Itanium which was pure 64bit with no native support for x86 support but when AMD did this it forced Intel to abandon there plan and move forward with the x64bit instruction set for x86. Otherwise we would all be in a dif. instruction set as it sits right now. And this is coming from the guys at Intel that designed these things. i used to work in the eval lab at Intel in Portland and that was there plan around the P4 era when they were just releasing the itanium they had something else up there sleeve for the desktop space but scrapped it for fear it would fail due to AMD. So you can thank AMD for all this X86 crap. end rant Now back to the subject at hand Intel spends more money in R&D than most chip manufactures make in profits so if they decide to do something they have the funds to throw at. If they want to they can trust me.[/citation]

yeah, and Itanium went over SO well. Chips costing 10 times or more over the x86 chips available, with performance falling far behind. Today it is being abandoned constantly by those using it in servers. It never caught on at the workstation level. IA64 was just Intel's grab for more power over the market. They would have had full control over the instruction set and nobody could make any competition. That has been their strategy from the start: control as much of the market as they can, preferably a monopoly.

AMD did the right thing. I'm glad AMD went this way.

Sure, ARM is better. it's more efficient and open. We had to wait for an instruction set like this to arrive. x86 and x64 worked well for us in the mean time. As long as we avoided getting pigeon holed into IA64, I'm glad for it.
 
[citation][nom]wcooper007[/nom]People i hate to tell you but Intel didnt cause us to be stuck in x86 you can thank AMD for that becuase they decided to release the amd athlon x64 which was backwards compatible with x32. Intel was trying to push 64bit on with Itanium which was pure 64bit with no native support for x86 support but when AMD did this it forced Intel to abandon there plan and move forward with the x64bit instruction set for x86. Otherwise we would all be in a dif. instruction set as it sits right now. And this is coming from the guys at Intel that designed these things. i used to work in the eval lab at Intel in Portland and that was there plan around the P4 era when they were just releasing the itanium they had something else up there sleeve for the desktop space but scrapped it for fear it would fail due to AMD. So you can thank AMD for all this X86 crap. end rant Now back to the subject at hand Intel spends more money in R&D than most chip manufactures make in profits so if they decide to do something they have the funds to throw at. If they want to they can trust me.[/citation]

The decision, that backwards compatibility was more important than a new, more modern architecture, was not made by AMD but by "the market".
If any single company had a say in this, it was Microsoft.
 
I'm surprised that intel hasn't been more aggressive before now, the mobile market is a HUGE opportunity for them.Maybe it was the 22nm and 14nm designs that were holding them back.
 
Could Eden be referring to Moorestown, or perhaps something else entirely for the low-power market?
Click to expand...

Most likely, he was referring to cadence is the sense of 32nm, 22nm, 14nm combined with Intel's current thought process on the topic of how to build the best low energy use cheap core (a 22nm perspective). If you understand the relationship of Popeye to spinach, that's kinda how Intel guys feel about process shrinks. A process shrink means you reduce your cost per transistor by about 50% and your transistors work faster and consume less energy. While Intel has to pick up the pace to get there, the basis of Eden's optimism is tick tock. Has it ever failed Intel? If Intel can stay a process generation ahead or better, they will always be working with transistors priced about 50% off and the transistors work better and cheaper always. It requires either a seriously dropped ball or trans-formative innovation to overcome this sort of pricing advantage. I have not yet seen any credible argument that ARM can offset the benefits that result from Intel's process advantage as it maintains its tick tock.
 
wcooper007 :
People i hate to tell you but Intel didnt cause us to be stuck in x86 you can thank AMD for that becuase they decided to release the amd athlon x64 which was backwards compatible with x32. Intel was trying to push 64bit on with Itanium which was pure 64bit with no native support for x86 support but when AMD did this it forced Intel to abandon there plan and move forward with the x64bit instruction set for x86. Otherwise we would all be in a dif. instruction set as it sits right now. And this is coming from the guys at Intel that designed these things. i used to work in the eval lab at Intel in Portland and that was there plan around the P4 era when they were just releasing the itanium they had something else up there sleeve for the desktop space but scrapped it for fear it would fail due to AMD. So you can thank AMD for all this X86 crap. end rant Now back to the subject at hand Intel spends more money in R&D than most chip manufactures make in profits so if they decide to do something they have the funds to throw at. If they want to they can trust me.
Click to expand...

The difference between Intel and ARM is that ARM will sell a license to ANYONE who wants to make an ARM cpu. Intel on the other hand wanted the whole pie to itself with IA64 and we would have ended up with 2000$ stupid cpu's! No thanks! We should ALL THANK AMD for stepping in with x64 and giving us competition! Thanks AMD! And you're not too bright if you think otherwise!
 
why would anyone want the chip-maker with the fastest CPU's fail? that would slow down chipset advances across the board...are you guys really that stupid?

..
Click to expand...

It's the same reason ignorant red necks and ignorant ultra liberals want to see Democratic Presidents or Republican Presidents fail.. How can any American President failing be good for any of us.

These jack asses minds think winning and losing about all else, not what's best for everyone.

I like to refer to these people as "el monos estupido"
 
[citation][nom]Verio[/nom]He wears a beret AND a turtleneck, so he must be charismatic. LOL[/citation]
best quote of the day! good job, sir!
 
[citation][nom]wcooper007[/nom]People i hate to tell you but Intel didnt cause us to be stuck in x86 you can thank AMD for that becuase they decided to release the amd athlon x64 which was backwards compatible with x32. Intel was trying to push 64bit on with Itanium which was pure 64bit with no native support for x86 support but when AMD did this it forced Intel to abandon there plan and move forward with the x64bit instruction set for x86. Otherwise we would all be in a dif. instruction set as it sits right now. And this is coming from the guys at Intel that designed these things. i used to work in the eval lab at Intel in Portland and that was there plan around the P4 era when they were just releasing the itanium they had something else up there sleeve for the desktop space but scrapped it for fear it would fail due to AMD. So you can thank AMD for all this X86 crap. end rant Now back to the subject at hand Intel spends more money in R&D than most chip manufactures make in profits so if they decide to do something they have the funds to throw at. If they want to they can trust me.[/citation]
Dude, Itanium's performance was terrible and was a server chip. AMD chose to have 32bit compability because their chips were consumer orientated and the likes of Intel didn't want to release x86-64 CPUs for consumers. This together with the poor Windows XP 64bit version lead to 32bit compability to be a must.

You're basically looking at it the wrong way. Without 32bit compability there would be no x86-64 chip! Also you seem to misunderstand x86 which makes me wonder how you can even comment on this. x86 is Intel's prioprietary architecture. You can have it on 32bit or 64bit. x86 or x86-32 is often 32bit whereas the 64bit is referred to x86-64. 64bit doesn't gives us very little software improvement but software is getting there. x86 in itself is what keeps competition from entering the desktop/laptop market. Now with Windows also being branched to work on ARM things will get interesting. Lastly, if there's one beef you have it's against Windows that will continue with x86-32 on the next version of Windows. If they were smart they would let it go.

Lastly, it seems you're an Intel fan. Assuming that I don't even get how you can hate on AMD. If it weren't for AMD you wouldnt be able to afford Intel. You can just see what happens to Intel prices in a market where AMD is not present. I mean have you seen the high-end Intel CPU prices? They're outrageous. And no, it's not R&D justified prices. The reason is that AMD can't compete there.

Lastly, support the underdog (AMD) as in the end it won't matter to you want brand you have. But if AMD can get a bit of help it will help them greatly.
 
I'd like to see Intel bring x86 SOCs to the mobile space.

I'd also like to see Nvidia/ARM desktop CPUs running Windows for ARM.

AMD getting involved in mobile is great too.


The CPU and GPU desktop market has seen some less than competitive behavior in the past few years. Things were a bit stale... but with ARM entering the mix it should really spice things up.
The mobile market has seen fierce competition and that has pushed developement to look like Moore's Law on steroids. Nvidia already has successfully entered that market, and I think Intel and AMD could contribute much.
The thought of X86 on mobile could revolutionize the tablet/smartphone software industry.
 
Nvidia and AMD both have next gen products targeting the cell/ultra mobile market. AMD using X86, Nvidia using ARM. Intel definitely has the resources to make this happen.

I think using Tri-gate tech with a new low power chip will blow away the performance per watt of any current gen or next gen ARM cpu in the CPU department. Although we have yet to see Intel make anything worth a squat in the GFX Department...
 
Ive heard many a comment on this, and have a history of seeing this day coming as well
Problem here is the numbers
Billions of chips, and yes Intel can sell em cheap, make tons of em, and maybe be a compelling product, but just as they rpotected Atom from doing just what ARM plans to do, going into larger designs, also, their margins will suffer in a true battle at this point and going forwards in the near future.
Stock owners wont like it
 
[citation][nom]marraco[/nom]Intel needs to throw away a lot of decades-old x86-compatibility.It hinders back x86.[/citation]
So you want to see compatability of millions of pieces of software that we have all been using for the best part of 20 years just thrown away?
All your games?
Are you sure that's what you are saying?
 
[citation][nom]dgingeri[/nom]Sure, ARM is better. it's more efficient and open.[/citation]

Depend on use really, the Arm architecture are good in devices that don't require much computational power and are on a strict power budget like surf pads & smart phones - Arm is much like the computer worlds smart car. The smart car is efficient and cheap to produce just like the Arm but it also gets boring to drive and more time consuming since it takes you longer time to get where you want to go. I personally like the equivalent of a Ferrari, this is especially true in the computer world since its no speed limits and thank god - no speed-tickets for fast computers!

Both types have their places and both does their work well so no one can say the other is better than the competition since their targeted at different market segments!
 
while i don't want to see intel fail, i like intel, i may not like the things intel does to milk the market or dilly daly over including features, i have loved intel since the day i had my first intellivision.
i do like the competition, i love AMD also, and while i don't love ARM yet, i love the fact that ARM comes in way below 95W's while still providing 2001 era performance and on a device that's not in a tower pc case and is mobile and plays nice with batteries.
unless of course we all want to build more coal and nuclear plants to provide more power to our dwindling electricity reserves and pay 15 cents a KWH or have to rely on the solar panel and wind turbine to power them on the roof of our own homes and only play on them when it's windy or sunny out (apartment dewellers are screwed and thank gawd i have a hydroelectric generator on the mighty mississippi).
point is competition is good for intel, look what it did in the 90's all the way up to the mid 2000's. if it wasn't for AMD your cpus alone would be the same cost as tri sli video card set ups are now!
 
[citation][nom]wcooper007[/nom]Intel spends more money in R&D than most chip manufactures make in profits so if they decide to do something they have the funds to throw at. If they want to they can trust me.[/citation]
larrabee

(or did you mean they can throw money at stuff if they wanted but they couldn't neccesarily get it to work??)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom