-
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 says 3.2GHz is enough for 2008 (no competition = no innovation)
- Thread starter something_totally_different
- Start date
Actually, they just carried on with what they were doing with Pentium M anyway. They'd been improving the IPC on that thing long before AMD released the Athlon 64. If anything, Intel probably just noticed how their 2Ghz Pentium M processors were besting 3Ghz Pentium 4's and decided that was the way to go.
I would have thought Intel would not have taken this stance so quickly and so publicly. Did they not learn from the P4 vs AMD64 era? 
Looks like the giant has become a little sleepy again.
That said, MHz means very little anyway. Nehalem is still coming - but I suspect that will be delibrately delayed until Q1'09 now, at least on the desktop.
Looks like the giant has become a little sleepy again.
That said, MHz means very little anyway. Nehalem is still coming - but I suspect that will be delibrately delayed until Q1'09 now, at least on the desktop.
Their much vaunted "tick-tock" yearly release plan is starting to slip already.
Much as people may laugh at the (frankly pathetic) efforts of AMD/ATI in both the CPU and graphics arenas of late, their underperformance is only a bad thing for we consumers, leading to delayed launches of new technology from both Intel & NVidia. It now looks highly possibly that we won't see a truly next-generation technology from either of these players in 2008
Much as people may laugh at the (frankly pathetic) efforts of AMD/ATI in both the CPU and graphics arenas of late, their underperformance is only a bad thing for we consumers, leading to delayed launches of new technology from both Intel & NVidia. It now looks highly possibly that we won't see a truly next-generation technology from either of these players in 2008
And once again people blame Intel because AMD are not up to the job.
This reminds me so much of the Netscape Vs IE debates.
So much was put on the "unfair bundling of IE" and "charging nothing for IE" and "Microsoft are just bad" when the truth was that Netscape compared to IE (once IE 4 was released) was utter ****.
If I was Intel I would consider delaying the 45nm mainstream quad-cores simply because AMD isn't able even to match the existing 65nm designs.
Currently Intel has the edge on the desktop in every possible area - bang per buck, performance per watt and outright speed.
Why push things even further when you really don't need to.
This reminds me so much of the Netscape Vs IE debates.
So much was put on the "unfair bundling of IE" and "charging nothing for IE" and "Microsoft are just bad" when the truth was that Netscape compared to IE (once IE 4 was released) was utter ****.
If I was Intel I would consider delaying the 45nm mainstream quad-cores simply because AMD isn't able even to match the existing 65nm designs.
Currently Intel has the edge on the desktop in every possible area - bang per buck, performance per watt and outright speed.
Why push things even further when you really don't need to.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,581
- Location
- London
if you can then do it, in every situation
Not when money is at stake. Market conditions define everything. Don't you think Intel would raise there prices if they could in the current climate?
It makes good business sense for intel not to release better processors before the competition requires them too. Its a better return on investment for their current designs.
It makes good business sense for intel not to release better processors before the competition requires them too. Its a better return on investment for their current designs.