- Jul 1, 2008
- 4,491
- 0
- 22,780
Intel's Panther Point to Bring USB 3.0 Support
- Thread starter Marcus Yam
- Start date
- Status
dgingeri
Distinguished
- Dec 4, 2009
- 2,123
- 1
- 20,460
[citation][nom]campb292[/nom]Isn't that still another year away? The Sandy processors are great, but they are gimped by the lame chipset. 3rd party USB3? 2 SATA Gb/s ports? WHAT? Get moving INTEL![/citation]
get moving?? Remember the P4 fiasco? AMD couldn't compete with the Athlon FX series, so Intel stalled the whole industry for 3 years. in 3 years we got a whopping %30 increase in processor speed. it took them another 2 years after the Athlon 64 came out to bring up something to really compete.
Now AMD doesn't have anything to compete again, and they're slowing down again. If Bulldozer doesn't compete with Ivybridge in performance, they'll continue to stall, and we'll have another 5-7 years before we see any significant performance increase while Intel rules the roost. If AMD dies, we'll never see improvement in processor performance in the desktop.
Yes, AMD should have had Bulldozer out by now, but because of Intel's damage from their anti-competitive practices, AMD hasn't had the money to get the engineering staff to get the product ready.
get moving?? Remember the P4 fiasco? AMD couldn't compete with the Athlon FX series, so Intel stalled the whole industry for 3 years. in 3 years we got a whopping %30 increase in processor speed. it took them another 2 years after the Athlon 64 came out to bring up something to really compete.
Now AMD doesn't have anything to compete again, and they're slowing down again. If Bulldozer doesn't compete with Ivybridge in performance, they'll continue to stall, and we'll have another 5-7 years before we see any significant performance increase while Intel rules the roost. If AMD dies, we'll never see improvement in processor performance in the desktop.
Yes, AMD should have had Bulldozer out by now, but because of Intel's damage from their anti-competitive practices, AMD hasn't had the money to get the engineering staff to get the product ready.
Ogdin
Distinguished
- Jun 14, 2007
- 284
- 0
- 18,780
[citation][nom]dgingeri[/nom]get moving?? Remember the P4 fiasco? AMD couldn't compete with the Athlon FX series, so Intel stalled the whole industry for 3 years. in 3 years we got a whopping %30 increase in processor speed. it took them another 2 years after the Athlon 64 came out to bring up something to really compete. Now AMD doesn't have anything to compete again, and they're slowing down again. If Bulldozer doesn't compete with Ivybridge in performance, they'll continue to stall, and we'll have another 5-7 years before we see any significant performance increase while Intel rules the roost. If AMD dies, we'll never see improvement in processor performance in the desktop. Yes, AMD should have had Bulldozer out by now, but because of Intel's damage from their anti-competitive practices, AMD hasn't had the money to get the engineering staff to get the product ready.[/citation]
Better watch out,all that feverish typing might dislodge your tinfoil hat.
Better watch out,all that feverish typing might dislodge your tinfoil hat.
LuckyDucky7
Distinguished
- May 5, 2010
- 303
- 0
- 18,780
"News Flash: Intel Gets With The Times (even though they're a technology company to begin with)".
First of all, AMD's already ahead of Intel on this. They've already baked USB 3.0 into their Fusion chipsets (they're hitting the stores in about 3 months IIRC).
Intel, on the other hand, is so eager to drag its butt on issues like upgradeability, that it has cost itself about a billion dollars. Not on USB 3.0, but on its unwillingness to incorporate new technology into its products and not rely on "good enough".
Remember the issue that SATA II ports degrade in performance over time? If they had gone full-on SATA III when they had the chance they wouldn't have had this problem. They cost themselves a billion dollars because of their unwillingness to go completely to the new technology.
So who cares? It's already here, and Intel is once again behind the game.
First of all, AMD's already ahead of Intel on this. They've already baked USB 3.0 into their Fusion chipsets (they're hitting the stores in about 3 months IIRC).
Intel, on the other hand, is so eager to drag its butt on issues like upgradeability, that it has cost itself about a billion dollars. Not on USB 3.0, but on its unwillingness to incorporate new technology into its products and not rely on "good enough".
Remember the issue that SATA II ports degrade in performance over time? If they had gone full-on SATA III when they had the chance they wouldn't have had this problem. They cost themselves a billion dollars because of their unwillingness to go completely to the new technology.
So who cares? It's already here, and Intel is once again behind the game.
[citation][nom]dgingeri[/nom]get moving?? Remember the P4 fiasco? AMD couldn't compete with the Athlon FX series, so Intel stalled the whole industry for 3 years. in 3 years we got a whopping %30 increase in processor speed. it took them another 2 years after the Athlon 64 came out to bring up something to really compete. Now AMD doesn't have anything to compete again, and they're slowing down again. If Bulldozer doesn't compete with Ivybridge in performance, they'll continue to stall, and we'll have another 5-7 years before we see any significant performance increase while Intel rules the roost. If AMD dies, we'll never see improvement in processor performance in the desktop. Yes, AMD should have had Bulldozer out by now, but because of Intel's damage from their anti-competitive practices, AMD hasn't had the money to get the engineering staff to get the product ready.[/citation]
and what's so performance demanding that you complain about the current status ? for 95% of people an athlon II x3 is plenty. why should Intel bother ? except server market there's nothing much to improve that's realy needed.
and what's so performance demanding that you complain about the current status ? for 95% of people an athlon II x3 is plenty. why should Intel bother ? except server market there's nothing much to improve that's realy needed.
[citation][nom]haplo602[/nom]and what's so performance demanding that you complain about the current status ? for 95% of people an athlon II x3 is plenty. why should Intel bother ? except server market there's nothing much to improve that's realy needed.[/citation]
I like to play my console ports with dual 6990's and i7 2600's at 5ghz.
I like to play my console ports with dual 6990's and i7 2600's at 5ghz.
geekapproved
Splendid
- Dec 10, 2010
- 8,766
- 0
- 31,460
geekapproved
Splendid
- Dec 10, 2010
- 8,766
- 0
- 31,460
the associate
Distinguished
- Jun 3, 2008
- 338
- 0
- 18,780
[citation][nom]pelov[/nom]I like to play my console ports with dual 6990's and i7 2600's at 5ghz.[/citation]
I lawled, +1
At least we have Metro 2033, multi screen setups and 2560x1600
I lawled, +1
At least we have Metro 2033, multi screen setups and 2560x1600
dgingeri
Distinguished
- Dec 4, 2009
- 2,123
- 1
- 20,460
[citation][nom]Ogdin[/nom]Better watch out,all that feverish typing might dislodge your tinfoil hat.[/citation]
no tinfoil hat here. it's simple:
Intel cares more about profits than their customers.
In order to make more profits, they drive out competition, reduce spending on R&D, release technology slower for more cost effectiveness.
This is quite simply their business plan. In a world without anti-trust laws, it is commonplace. Just look at the 1800-1930 time frame in business. this tactic was commonly used. The business leaders were just overly greedy that way.
Normally, I'm pretty conservative about business and economic matters, but when it comes to competition, I'm in favor of a 2-5 party competition system with different parties changing up who is in the lead. It works better for everyone that way. Sure, it means business leaders don't make as much overall profit when there's competition, but money alone shouldn't be the goal of any businessman.
Anyone who's goal is profit alone is going to drive everything he touches into the ground. It's like locusts. they eat and eat and move on. they are nothing but destroyers.
as I said, not a conspiracy or anything secret. they're just greedy, and this is what greed brings. we need more engineers and less accountants in charge of the world's companies.
no tinfoil hat here. it's simple:
Intel cares more about profits than their customers.
In order to make more profits, they drive out competition, reduce spending on R&D, release technology slower for more cost effectiveness.
This is quite simply their business plan. In a world without anti-trust laws, it is commonplace. Just look at the 1800-1930 time frame in business. this tactic was commonly used. The business leaders were just overly greedy that way.
Normally, I'm pretty conservative about business and economic matters, but when it comes to competition, I'm in favor of a 2-5 party competition system with different parties changing up who is in the lead. It works better for everyone that way. Sure, it means business leaders don't make as much overall profit when there's competition, but money alone shouldn't be the goal of any businessman.
Anyone who's goal is profit alone is going to drive everything he touches into the ground. It's like locusts. they eat and eat and move on. they are nothing but destroyers.
as I said, not a conspiracy or anything secret. they're just greedy, and this is what greed brings. we need more engineers and less accountants in charge of the world's companies.
Pretty funny that Panther Point doesn't have Thunderbolt built-in....guess all the media edit stuff will still be done on Macs unless USB 3.0 really is closer to firewire/thunderbolt speeds (USB2.0 was twice as slow because of all the handshaking in the protocol)-:
[citation][nom]kenyee[/nom]Pretty funny that Panther Point doesn't have Thunderbolt built-in....guess all the media edit stuff will still be done on Macs unless USB 3.0 really is closer to firewire/thunderbolt speeds (USB2.0 was twice as slow because of all the handshaking in the protocol)-:[/citation]
That's actually quite interesting and I can see the application of something like that to be the future, but I also think it's a bit ahead of its time. I wouldn't blame them for not trying to pushing that in the next ~3-5 years. Don't get me wrong, I'll be the first to /drool when I see significant improvements in that tech, but it's just not ready/time for that stuff.
That's actually quite interesting and I can see the application of something like that to be the future, but I also think it's a bit ahead of its time. I wouldn't blame them for not trying to pushing that in the next ~3-5 years. Don't get me wrong, I'll be the first to /drool when I see significant improvements in that tech, but it's just not ready/time for that stuff.
Apple (launch partner along with Sony and Lenovo) has "monopoly" over Thunderbolt (which is actually Light Peak from Intel) so you won't see it outside Apple laptops and desktop computers.
It's a move designed to differentiate Apple and make them feel like "multimedia editing" machines again.
Otherwise, Intel delayed USB 3 precisely for this. Now that Apple has managed to integrate it and launch the new generation, they can launch the chipsets.
It's a move designed to differentiate Apple and make them feel like "multimedia editing" machines again.
Otherwise, Intel delayed USB 3 precisely for this. Now that Apple has managed to integrate it and launch the new generation, they can launch the chipsets.
@dgingeri
So when Intel updates product lines every six months, you complain because you just bought the "old" tech. And when they want to extend the life of their product lines you complain because they are not updating fast enough. Please make up your mind.
So when Intel updates product lines every six months, you complain because you just bought the "old" tech. And when they want to extend the life of their product lines you complain because they are not updating fast enough. Please make up your mind.
kinggremlin
Distinguished
- Jul 14, 2009
- 574
- 41
- 19,010
[citation][nom]dgingeri[/nom]no tinfoil hat here. it's simple:Intel cares more about profits than their customers.In order to make more profits, they drive out competition, reduce spending on R&D, release technology slower for more cost effectiveness.This is quite simply their business plan. In a world without anti-trust laws, it is commonplace. Just look at the 1800-1930 time frame in business. this tactic was commonly used. The business leaders were just overly greedy that way.Normally, I'm pretty conservative about business and economic matters, but when it comes to competition, I'm in favor of a 2-5 party competition system with different parties changing up who is in the lead. It works better for everyone that way. Sure, it means business leaders don't make as much overall profit when there's competition, but money alone shouldn't be the goal of any businessman. Anyone who's goal is profit alone is going to drive everything he touches into the ground. It's like locusts. they eat and eat and move on. they are nothing but destroyers. as I said, not a conspiracy or anything secret. they're just greedy, and this is what greed brings. we need more engineers and less accountants in charge of the world's companies.[/citation]
As opposed to AMD, who only cares about you the customer, and has no interest in money. The goal of every company is money alone. That's why they exist. The only reason AMD isn't doing what you perceive Intel as doing, is because AMD is in a market position where they can do it. If Intel and AMD swapped places, AMD would be doing the exact same thing Intel is doing now. If AMD didn't exist, Intel wouldn't suddenly stop innovating, despite what the tinfoil hat club members like you want to think. It probably won't move along at the same pace, but it will still continue, because people aren't going to buy the same thing forever (or even more than once really). Microsoft has no real competition despite what the Apple fans might think, but MS still continues to regularly churn out new releases of their software. Why? Because in order to continue making money, they have to continue developing new products that the consumer will want to upgrade too.
The same goes for Intel, no one is going to buy a new computer that uses the same parts as their current computer just because it is a few years old. There has to be incentive, be it greater performance, or more features, for the consumer to spend the money for a new computer.
As opposed to AMD, who only cares about you the customer, and has no interest in money. The goal of every company is money alone. That's why they exist. The only reason AMD isn't doing what you perceive Intel as doing, is because AMD is in a market position where they can do it. If Intel and AMD swapped places, AMD would be doing the exact same thing Intel is doing now. If AMD didn't exist, Intel wouldn't suddenly stop innovating, despite what the tinfoil hat club members like you want to think. It probably won't move along at the same pace, but it will still continue, because people aren't going to buy the same thing forever (or even more than once really). Microsoft has no real competition despite what the Apple fans might think, but MS still continues to regularly churn out new releases of their software. Why? Because in order to continue making money, they have to continue developing new products that the consumer will want to upgrade too.
The same goes for Intel, no one is going to buy a new computer that uses the same parts as their current computer just because it is a few years old. There has to be incentive, be it greater performance, or more features, for the consumer to spend the money for a new computer.
kinggremlin
Distinguished
- Jul 14, 2009
- 574
- 41
- 19,010
superguyincognito
Distinguished
- Apr 13, 2011
- 3
- 0
- 18,510
[citation] The goal of every company is money alone. That's why they exist.[/citation]
I hope not. I hope some people take pride in what they do. I'm pretty sure Shigeru Miyamoto, Stevo Jobs and the like, chose their professions in part because they wanted to create (what they think are) cool things.
I hope not. I hope some people take pride in what they do. I'm pretty sure Shigeru Miyamoto, Stevo Jobs and the like, chose their professions in part because they wanted to create (what they think are) cool things.
[citation][nom]phatboe[/nom]...and yet still no PCIe 3.0.[/citation]
That's exactly what I was thinking...I will not be upgrading until PCIe 3.0 is integrated. I'll never forget when I bought my P4 3.2 machine 6 or 7 years back with AGP and then PCIe 1.0 came out and suddenly I couldn't upgrade my video card at all so I want a little future proofing this time around. I used to build a new machine every two years or so but with a family now, my wife would kill me if I did that...so PLEASE INTEL, get with the program and put on PCIe 3.0 before this time next year!
That's exactly what I was thinking...I will not be upgrading until PCIe 3.0 is integrated. I'll never forget when I bought my P4 3.2 machine 6 or 7 years back with AGP and then PCIe 1.0 came out and suddenly I couldn't upgrade my video card at all so I want a little future proofing this time around. I used to build a new machine every two years or so but with a family now, my wife would kill me if I did that...so PLEASE INTEL, get with the program and put on PCIe 3.0 before this time next year!
Intel won't release usb 3.0 because they have such big connections now with the entertainment and software industries, probably some kickbacks came their way to slow things down because you know, all of us pc users are pirates and we would just be able to pirate things faster with usb 3.0 so the mafiaa had to put a stop to that. Also that ipt garbage will probably be required to be able to log into ANY website in the future even message boards so political correctness can be asserted further into our society and free speech can be stifled:-( They tried that mess with the PIII serial number and it didn't work because of public outcry but these days the public is just a well distracted herd of lemmings and docile consumers, nobody can be bothered to complain this time.
maestintaolius
Distinguished
- Jul 16, 2009
- 719
- 0
- 18,980
[citation][nom]pelov[/nom]I like to play my console ports with dual 6990's and i7 2600's at 5ghz.[/citation]
lol, just wait until you're using that same system to play tablet ports
lol, just wait until you're using that same system to play tablet ports
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question Is there a real difference between 16 gb and 20 gb of video ram for gaming
- Started by briblo1982
- Replies: 5
-
Question New build wont post Gigabyte B650M Gaming Plus wifi , AMD Ryzen 5 7600X CPU, 32GB T-Force RGB DDR5. Need help!
- Started by Notmiserable
- Replies: 26
-
[SOLVED] PCIe Question Related to Graphics Cards and NVME Drives
- Started by sshuttle
- Replies: 5
-
-
Discussion PSU recommendations and power supply discussion thread - Tom's hardware- Started by Darkbreeze
- Replies: 2K
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
Latest posts
-
-
Question Gaming laptop struggling with modern games cutscenes while providing smooth gameplay- Latest: GeorgeGeorgington
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram