Competition to Intel and AMD

wizardmaxx · 17 Sep 2006 at 13:08

Do you guys think there's any chance of a third major player in CPU production in future. Mabye the likes of Nvidia for example ? Or mabye even Microsoft with a CPU that is optemised for their operating system ?

Jokester · 17 Sep 2006 at 13:15

I doubt it to be honest, though you've got Via and IBM operating in the same area, I can't see any other company being able to compete with Intel and AMD in the very top end performance market for a long time.

Jokester

wizardmaxx · 17 Sep 2006 at 13:19

I know it would take a huge amount of money, tech knowhow and a fair amount of risk, but take cell technology for example. Its not meant for computing, but it has the capability, at least in teory. It would be nice to see another superpower enter the arena.

wizardmaxx · 17 Sep 2006 at 13:32

Just been googling a bit and got these headlines.

IBM Makes First Cell Processor-Based Computing Systems Available

PlayStation 3 chip to debut in IBM desktop

It sounds like they will initially be for workstation and graphics intensive applications, but at least its a step forward. High powered computers are used for this purpose today as it is anyway. Interesting times ahead I hope.

Jokester · 17 Sep 2006 at 13:33

The problem with Cell technology is that it won't run x86 code without running some form of emulation (big performance penalty normally). Of course this isn't to say that someone couldn't release an alternative platform (the equivalent of Apple Macs to IBM PCs). Ironically Apple has shifted to x86 type processors recently. The major problem is that x86 is a mature processor platform with all the OSes and other software to go with it so someone starting with totally new architecture is going to be severly disadvantaged.

Jokester

Stelly · 23 Oct 2006 at 10:30

Jokester said:
The problem with Cell technology is that it won't run x86 code without running some form of emulation (big performance penalty normally). Of course this isn't to say that someone couldn't release an alternative platform (the equivalent of Apple Macs to IBM PCs). Ironically Apple has shifted to x86 type processors recently. The major problem is that x86 is a mature processor platform with all the OSes and other software to go with it so someone starting with totally new architecture is going to be severly disadvantaged.

Jokester

The problem with cell technology is that there is only a 30% success rate, which is appaulling

Stelly

Virdi · 23 Oct 2006 at 14:14

Whatever happened to 'Cyrix'?

...also there is VIA...

Tetras · 23 Oct 2006 at 14:24

VIA only sell low power, low noise (mostly SFF) stuff and I don't think they have any intention of trying to be competitive processing power wise.

deadeyedic30 · 23 Oct 2006 at 14:28

Cyrix is VIA. They bought them a coupl of years back. They do the very small nano atx pc's.

Sylver123 · 23 Oct 2006 at 15:05

It would be nice to have an other CPU competitor in the market that would wipe out Intel and AMD in performance/price!

spb251272 · 23 Oct 2006 at 15:11

Surely one of the main obstacles in competing with Intel and AMD is the cost of FABs. They cost billions of dollars, and I can't see a fabless company like nvidia being able to seriously compete. It would be nice to see some competition, but I just don't think it will happen. The best we can hope is that AMD come back with something better than core2 duo, because if it wasn't for a64 we wouldn't have core2 duo now.

Devious · 23 Oct 2006 at 16:26

Funny you should ask this.

Seems Microsoft want to get in on the game.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/19/technology/19soft.html?_r=1&ref=technology&oref=slogin

FrankJH · 23 Oct 2006 at 18:49

Devious said:
Funny you should ask this.

Seems Microsoft want to get in on the game.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/19/technology/19soft.html?_r=1&ref=technology&oref=slogin

Thats very interesting as a footnote - but to my mind thats small change compared to the amounts even AMD produce, let alone Intel.

If I remember correctly the PS2 is one of the highest selling consoles of all times with around 20 million units, compare that with the market sold of Intel and Amd cpu's over the same period and its peanuts

The cost of one or two fab plants would put a noticable dent into even MS's massive pockets - I personally think while they have the capability and design know how to produce a type of (probably) highly specific cpu on paper they will I would guess have a partner in place to actually fabricate it.

Edit - In the article it clearly states "design" several times, rather than production - no disrespect to MS at all, but I take that as clear indication they arent planning on physically producing it

Uriel · 23 Oct 2006 at 19:11

I thought Microsoft's effort was likely to be just the CPU for a likely successor to the Xbox 360?

NathanE · 23 Oct 2006 at 19:19

Microsoft is most interested in making chips to execute .NET MSIL instructions natively. They've been trying for years to work with third parties but have been getting no where and obviously have got a bit fed up.

A chip that can run .NET code natively instantly makes it attractive for application in mobile phones and other hand held devices. This is something that is prerequisite and essential if Windows Presentation Foundation, or WPF/E, is to replace HTML/CSS as the defacto web presentation format.

A .NET chip could also be a performance accelerator for X86 to off-load the CPU in Hypertransport and Intel CSI architectures.

Plasmoid · 23 Oct 2006 at 22:49

The shear effort needed to get up to an Intel or AMD level is simply to great to be worthwhile.

It's not hard to make a good cpu, and a lot of companies are doing just that but no in the x86 arena. If a cpu isnt x86 these days then its resigned to linux servers and consumer electronics.

The only reason anyone would want to get into x86 processors is for the return on top range processors costing more then £350, which is the hardest market to crack as you need to have actual performance gains. Given the war between AMD and Intel no one could get close as they have been pushing each other on for a decade.

That being said, if something unusual happened like we hit a wall in cpu performance, windows was released for another archeitecture or there was some breakthrough that gave an instant advantage to somone else then we could see something. Not in the next 5 years though.

nickinmarbella · 25 Oct 2006 at 13:42

i would love to see 4 or 5 of the big boy's in the cpu market place, might bring the prices even lower. the only problem with this, the quality that we have at the moment might be lost. If this is quality.

ATIorNvidia · 25 Oct 2006 at 14:23

nickinmarbella said:
i would love to see 4 or 5 of the big boy's in the cpu market place, might bring the prices even lower. the only problem with this, the quality that we have at the moment might be lost. If this is quality.

I thnk its going to be AMD vs Intel untill the end of time :O

GinG · 25 Oct 2006 at 14:59

ATIorNvidia said:
I thnk its going to be AMD vs Intel untill the end of time :O

Or the way Tesco are diversifiying - Tesco Finest

...Ok i will get my coat!!

locutus12 · 26 Oct 2006 at 00:35

Virdi said:
Whatever happened to 'Cyrix'?

it died a horrible, drawn out, and well deserved death. it wasnt untill the MII 400 that they finally shoved a floating point on the die. :rolleyes:

at one point i could buy there chips for about £18 a pop from brand new lol.

another company called IDT had a crack at the cpu market too, they were called IDT WinChip. it overclocked very very well as i recall, they just didnt have enough customers to continue and were eventually bought by VIA.

http://tomshardware.co.uk/1997/10/09/the_idt_winchip_c6_cpu/index.html