Why Intel get pissed?

[TKH]

After some critical thinking, I start to wonder why Intel get so pissed up on mobo manufacturers enabling PAT on Springdale. Now Intel classifies Canterwood as workstation chipset while Springdale is consumer chipset. If PAT is enabled on Springdale, it will boost the sales of Springdale a lot. Hey, consumer market is the place where they make money. Don't tell me Intel is relying on Canterwood to bring them a lot of profit other than workstation market when they say,"It's a workstation chipset, it's not meant for normal use". Or Intel is thinking to trick their customer by telling them even consumers have to buy Canterwood to get performance so don't buy Springdale. Springdale, Canterwood, all made by Intel.

It is morally wrong to allow suckers to keep their money
<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=22996" target="_new">My System Rig</A>

 

[Kemche]

I think you are missing the point. PAT is not the Only difference between Canterwood and Springdale. Since Canterwood is a workstation chipset it has support for ECC memory and other workstation features. And that's why it costs more.

KG

"Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity." - Sarah Chambers

 

[sabbath1]

You say "other workstation features". But with the exception of ECC, what other features of Canterwood in favor of Springdale are there?

My system: AMD Athlon XP 3000+ / TwinMOS 1Gb DDR400 / Soltek 75FRN-RL /
Sapphire Radeon 9800 Pro / Antec True Power 550W / Western Digital Raptor / Hercules GTXP SC /
Samsung DVD / Lite-On CDRW

 

[smitbret]

Wrong. Enterprise applications and big business are a huge (if not majority) of the profit center for the hardware and software developers that go into these markets. The profit potential is far greater here than in the consumer market. When was the last time that an end-user spent $3000 on a computer and $5000 on software? When was the last time a business or corporation did? That's why Intel gets angry.
-Brett

>>>>>Hey, consumer market is the place where they make money. Don't tell me Intel is relying on Canterwood to bring them a lot of profit other than workstation market when they say,"It's a workstation chipset, it's not meant for normal use".<<<<<

 

[Tommunist]

I was just about to post something similar. Good show.

"Don't question it!!!" - Err

 

[eden]

I don't understand where the 5000$ software comes into play against Intel here.

--
If I could see the Matrix, I'd tell you I am only seeing 0s inside your head! :tongue:

 

[eden]

Ahhh, I see.

--
If I could see the Matrix, I'd tell you I am only seeing 0s inside your head! :tongue:

 

[slvr_phoenix]

So if a third party mobo manufacturer makes changes to a platform that has not been thoroughly tested to work with software and a corporation spends hundreds of thousands of dollars upgrading to a new platform based on the third party mobo and it is not reliable the corporation is going to blame Intel not the third party mobo maker.

Except that it is both highly unlikely that PAT will cause any software problems and highly unlikely that any corporation is going to buy the Springdale-based systems and then enable PAT on those systems.

If anything Intel would be pissed because not all Springdale chipsets can survive running PAT. They may become unstable. Intel doens't like it when 3rd party manufacturers make their products look unstable, no matter how little it is Intel's fault for that instability. It'd be truly awful if companies like Asus finding a way to enable PAT were to cause the i865 to go the way of the i820 + MTH.

"<i>Yeah, if you treat them like equals, it'll only encourage them to think they <b>ARE</b> your equals.</i>" - Thief from <A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=030603" target="_new">8-Bit Theater</A>