-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Intel Rebadges 10nm Enhanced SuperFin Node as "Intel 7," Invents Other Creative Node Names
- Thread starter Purgatory
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 32,582
- Location
- Rutland
200IQ move there Intel.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 5,154
- Location
- South Wales
Guess it doesn't matter much if they perform well.
I'll go back to Intel if they have better latency and ST perf in the next couple of years
I'll go back to Intel if they have better latency and ST perf in the next couple of years
Intel is way to big to fail. Intel win by default.
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 966
Now that they want to become a foundry for other chip designers, I suppose they feel the need to align their process naming more with the competition.
On the one hand it's an irrelevance, but at the same time it shows a break from the past, even if on the surface.
Sometimes you need to make little statements like that.
So if they do manage to get back in the game, the naming change will support showing them as being on a different path.
So I think it's a positive move and maybe they should think about a new naming convention for their CPUs also.
Now they just need to get their processes on track and release some decent scalable architectures.
The easy stuff.
On the one hand it's an irrelevance, but at the same time it shows a break from the past, even if on the surface.
Sometimes you need to make little statements like that.
So if they do manage to get back in the game, the naming change will support showing them as being on a different path.
So I think it's a positive move and maybe they should think about a new naming convention for their CPUs also.
Now they just need to get their processes on track and release some decent scalable architectures.
The easy stuff.
Intel dominate the, graphics, networking, server, OEM market, storage and many others. Intel’s legal department is bigger than AMD. When I say big I mean huge. It’s actually difficult to fully comprehend the size difference between Intel and everyone else.
No it wouldn't.
However, while the share might be 80/20 in Intel's favour, the profit has - until very recently - more like 95/5 split.
In a two-way race, closer to a 50/50 split is healthier.
Yes, shorter term for the consumer AMD then Intel then AMD etc. is best.
However, longer term that is probably not enough to head toward a true 50/50 split.
Not that 50/50 is an requirement. After all Intel's monstrous profitability allowed them to squander tens of billions the last few decades. But healthy competition does require multiple players to be able to afford and have decent R&D budgets, multiple teams, and multiple different designs going.
The last time Intel were doing badly with their P4 missteps, it was one of their side project design which was turned into Conroe and saved them. On the other hand, the last time AMD made a big mistake with Bulldozer it almost killed them because they were the smaller player - the far too much smaller player.
No one wants them to fail (it is bad for us as customers), it's just comical what they are doing and how they have monopolised an industry for decades and now after all that rubbish they pulled for decades deliberately giving us tiny increases it has backfired on them, they got lazy because there was no competition back then and now when they have serious competition they can't get back up and have to use silly marketing tricks and deliberately trying to confuse their customers with marketing lies and confusion that they know will confuse many and make them buy their goods because they don't really understand the marketing and deliberately putting out fake benchmarks for their products.
This is why it is comical as I stated, they have become snake oil salesman.
I have being saying for years now process node names are marketing not fact or science. People think that 10nm or 7nm actually means some of ahort of scientific principal
it's all marketing rubbish
I'd like to think a vocal minority. The majority of us bend both ways. Intel/AMD, nV/ATI. Even Sega/Nintendo!!
Tho blind fanboyism sure is annoying when you experience it.
Intel's got big enough bank account to be the captain of failboat for next half dozen years and survive.
And for long term would be better for AMD to keep upper hand for still couple years.
Sure, but I wonder what kind of generational improvements we'd see from AMD, should Intel be stuck in the Suez canal for another 5-10 years.
Seems like 15% per generation and doubling of cores plus 20% every 3rd.
Unlike Intel has been for quite long time, AMD isn't lead by bean counters and marketroids.
So we would be getting improvements instead of rebranding.
And we have to also remember competition from ARM.
Unless x86 makers want to see their markets erode away, they need to keep pushing performance forward.
"Full x86 compatibility" won't go forever, if performance and efficiency stagnate too much.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2019
- Posts
- 460
Nobody wants or really expects Intel to fail. But Intel haven't been under enough pressure long enough to deliver a long term trend in the CPU market that will favour consumers. Far more likely Intel regain market share after bringing some solid architecture, starving AMD of money with some underhand tactics, then going back to maximising shareholder value at any cost with minimal innovation, high margin products.
AMD revenue $17 Billion by the end of 2021.
Intel revenue $70 Billion by the end of 2021.
When that turns on its head we can stop #### posting about them.
I think Intel will survive a few more years of very much deserved ridicule.
Last edited: