Intel is anti-progress
I fully agree with this guy. The only reason Microsoft created a 32 bit version of Vista is because of Intel. The only reason that there is a crappy 2D version of Vista is because most Intel IGPs are incapable of Vista premium.
Why does the industry have to accommodate Intel for its backward and obsolete technologies?
The only reason is that AMD is capacity constrained. Once AMD can supply 100% of the chips, the world will break free.
BTW, it seems that AMD and Intel will move to 45nm at the same time.
posted by Sharikou, Ph. D. @ 1/30/2007 04:10:00 PM
45 Comments:
I had a response to this but nahhh.....this blog is dead. PERIOD!!!!!
Sharikou
I fully agree with this guy...
Don't kid yourself, you agree with anyone who has something negative to say about Intel.
Why does the industry has to accommodate Intel for its backward and obsolete technologies?
What year was Vista concieved, and in a direct link what market share percentage did AMD have?
There is your answer.
Once AMD can supply 100% of the chips, the world will break free.
...
It's over. Intel has won.
Come on shark you don't want an AMD only world. Competition is good for users. Just think what Shitsta would be without having OS-X around to clone.
Crap, I just agree with Sharikou. Vista should have been 64-bit only and should of had 3 versions, basic, home, pro.
Any update on the 40% market share runrate prediction? I believe you now should have all the #'s to calculate an actual #.
Also any analysis on AMD Q4 earnings? Cash flow trends, debt trends, inventory trends, you know the usual analysis you've been doing with Intel.
Oh I forgot you only analyze things that are favorable to AMD or unfavorable to Intel... good to see your (lack of) journalistic integrity.
Of course, nevermind the fact that most of the hardware devices in existence don't have 64-bit drivers. Also remember that most computers out there are using older Pentium 3 or Athlon XP chips, Microsoft can't just leave them in the dark now, can they?
Also, I would like to remind you that the 2D version of Vista only runs if your hardware can't support 3D. This is called "backwards compatibility," since 90% of computer in existence are running very old video cards that are no DX9.
Once AMD is supplying 100% of chips, they will turn into the same monopolistic pigs Intel is. ;)
"Why does the industry has to accommodate Intel for its backward and obsolete technologies?"
Once again your PHD is in Engrish I take it. Learnt to type in proper sence.
So...if intel's grappy IGP graphics can't run Aero, then explain why my laptops with GMA 900 and GMA 950 are both running vista Aero just fine, with no slow down AT ALL.
Some people also have to understand that many people are still using non 64bit chips in their computer and don't upgrade every 6 months. ALso i'd like to see some solid proof that using a 64bit OS let alone 64bit software that has A) good drive support and B) a large enough performance increase to make it worth while to upgrade. Right now there is NO compelling reason to upgrade.
Maybe a year from now there will be, but not yet.
My god you really ARE that stupid.
"The only reason is AMD capacity constrained." (BTW - after you decide to edit this blog again you may want to throw in another "is" instead of using broken English and has should be have in your second paragraph)
If this is true than AMD's Q4'06 capacity was ~25% of the overall market? This doesn't match up very well with your previous capacity calculations.
By your math, even assuming 100% dual core (which obviously is not the case), F30 and Chartered can produce 14.3Mil of the quarterly 57mil output (reference - 12/19/06 Sharikook blog)
This alone is 25.1% and would be even bigger if you factor in that AMD is only selling 30% dual cores (this would probably mean >30% of the market capacity by your astute calculations)
Is F36, nearly a year into its ramp, really producing ~0.2% or less of the market?
Care to revisit your capacity analysis from just ~1 month ago? Perhaps yield is not as high as you think? Perhaps # potential die/wafer is not as high as you think?
Oh well....what's the point, you don't have the guts to own up to your mistakes.
Remember Dr. Ge's blog? Just wander why you are still posting here.
Yo Doc, you a PhD or a PhD...
Intel is anti-progress
Did you miss the annoucments this week about some minor little things INTEL annouced? Things like revoluationary and pushed out the wall for silicon technology. Biggest change in silicon in 30 years, WOW. Note the nice article in the NY times this past saturday:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/27/technology/27chip.html
Sorry to see you missed this little insignficant tid bit.
Another brilliant deduction by the doctor!!!
Can you not comprehend when you read or are you just retarded?
I have a 64 bit processor but if I was going to buy Vista (and I am not until it is ironed out and the prices come down) then I would still use the 32bit version until 64bit driver support was fully up to scratch.
It's a relief that there is a transitional 32bit version while things are sorted out fully.
Ther is more to a PC than the cpu playing one Mark Reins games.
InorganicMatter said...
Of course, nevermind the fact that most of the hardware devices in existence don't have 64-bit drivers. Also remember that most computers out there are using older Pentium 3 or Athlon XP chips, Microsoft can't just leave them in the dark now, can they?
People with old systems such as PIIIs or AthlonXPs wouldn't switch to Vista anyway. If you don't upgrade your Hardware, you usually don't upgrade your OS either, so no market share there to justify 32bit version.
I am sure that if there were no 32bit version of Vista, Hardware manufacturers would put a lot more effort in releasing suitable 64bit drivers.
Anónimo dijo...
Yo Doc, you a PhD or a PhD...
Intel is anti-progress
Did you miss the annoucments this week about some minor little things INTEL annouced? Things like revoluationary and pushed out the wall for silicon technology. Biggest change in silicon in 30 years, WOW. Note the nice article in the NY times this past saturday:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/27/technology/27chip.html
Sorry to see you missed this little insignficant tid bit.
Oh my god!! Intel got 45nm!! Biggest change in 30 years!!! Well, you must know that AMD is getting 45nm too, so i guess they both made the biggest change in 30 years (by the way, this statement comes from Gordon Moorde, current Chairman Emeritus of Intel, (link)).
This article sounds more like propaganda coming from Intel than any other thing, at least to me.
I have a Turion 64 laptop. I tried the 64-bit version of Vista RC1 and in terms of software and driver compatibility it was an absolute disaster, and there's no way I would have been able to use it on a day-to-day basis. I tried the 32-bit version however... and I'm still running it, and probably will continue to do so until late May, when it expires.
That's the real reason why they're releasing 32-bit and 64-bit versions. A 32-bit version for most people to use for the time being, and a 64-bit version that'll hopefully be a lot more secure WHEN the software and drivers for it are here.
The 64bit Vista may be good for the technology industry in that it would spur hardware sales.
The 32bit Vista is good for the consumer as it will allow users move to Vista immediately when the 64bit software (drivers etc.) is yet to mature.
I feel sorry for all those who bought AMDs 64bit technology a couple of years ago but couldn't use it 64-bit till now. Now the 64 bit software is available. But if they want to use it, they will be forced to upgrade in spite of having the 64bit CPUs, because the RAM (DDR2) & Graphics (PCI-E) technologies have moved on.
Mercury Research:
Intel = 74,4% (-1,6%)
AMD = 25,3 % (+2,0%)
And AMD will make much more money bcs i ordered two Asus M2R32-MVP and two x2 3800, each with 4 GB DDR2 Ram ;)
Board + CPU = 250$ in Europe.
Awaiting the birth of the K8L to upgrade then.
I agree, only three versions of Vista 64 should be on the market!
64 Bit = Vista
32 Bit = Win XP
it's laughable to read all these comments every time the doc post something. all these intel fanboys are either bored with their c2d or has nothing better to do then write rude comments. for once i like to read more well formed and educated criticism than "you're stupid", "where did you get your phD", etc.. it's getting old people or should i ask how old are these intel fanboys again. i think MS is not pushing hard for 64bit is simply because the average pc user can't tell the difference between 16bit and 32bit, let alone 64bit. it's the simple K.I.S.S rule(keep it simple for stupid). where you'll see more 64bit computing will probably be in industrial design, movie industry, scientific research, financial industry, game development, etc.. it'll take a long for everybody to embrace 64bit computing, but it'll happen eventually.
"Also remember that most computers out there are using older Pentium 3"
And also remember that most computers based on that processor can’t have (and don’t have) more than 256/512MB of RAM.
Don’t even think in upgrading one of those machines to run Vista.
I think this is a very interesting and debatable topic.
However most of the posts are trash.
I don’t understand why sharikou you keep publishing stupid posts.
I think someone screwed things and that someone was Intel.
Intel didn’t release Prescott on time and with x64 enabled. And the new Core Duo was just an old obsolete 32 bit design.
They “forced” Microsoft to keep the 32 bits. If we see the memory equipments of Vista we see that most of older systems don’t have 512MB and most of them can’t be upgraded.
Maybe a year from now there will be, but not yet.
Bah. Ubuntu 64bit (and certain others) ran quite nicely even on very vintage socket 754 athlons or even semprons for years.
As if I care for Vista.
It doesn't matter, Vista is a cash grab for MS. It's going to tank in a serious way.
Can you imagine the confusion in the average PC user's head when he sees six hundred different versions of Vista sitting on a shelf? And all of them costing an arm and a leg? And all of the versions perform the same function as Windows XP, without the driver support as of yet.
Vista is a fucking mess. There should be ONE version of Vista, with purchasable/downloadable modules for corporations that want different things.
> The only reason Microsoft created a 32 bit version
> of Vista is because of Intel.
That is not the only reason. The main reason is that Microsoft is not able to produce a 64 bit (working) operating system.
SurJector
Because Microsoft is interested in market share and revenues.
If there was only a 64-bit version, what would all the people with old CPUs do?
Its exactly the same reason why XP still supports a classic skin, to accomodate to users with older hardware.
Plus I really cant see something bad about a 32-bit version.
Having it, doesnt stop you from "breaking free", since theres still the 64-bit version which you can choose to buy anytime you like.
Sharikou said: "Once AMD can supply 100% of the chips, the world will break free."
You need to stop listening to Queen.
This comment has been removed by the author.
OMG! They betrayed us!
http://tinyurl.com/3bsr47
AMD enjoys a 64bit and graphical advantage, but it won’t be realized for a few quarters in the near future. Intel’s fast 32bit was a tactical win with humongous financial gains today.
I’m not a fanboy, I appreciate good technology when and wherever it comes from. Intel’s market share keeps shirking which will make for solid duopoly in a few years. AMD’s K8L should raise the bar significantly and make the war even more exciting, which is a win-win for everyone.
Intel & IBM’s new manufacturing technique for 45nn will be fantastic; again I say win-win.
Intel is holding back the industry and milking it because they know that they cannot compete with AMD on 64-bit processors. Intel has once again proved that they are incapable of forward thinking.
not penix said...
So...if intel's grappy IGP graphics can't run Aero, then explain why my laptops with GMA 900 and GMA 950 are both running vista Aero just fine, with no slow down AT ALL.
I believe your data to be inaccurate or falsified.
Here is a quote from Wikipedia describing the poor performance of the GMA chipset:
GMA systems use the computer's main memory for storage, which imposes a serious performance penalty as both the CPU and GPU have to access memory over the same "pipes". In order to reduce the performance hit, the GMA series uses tile based rendering, which aims to ensure that only pixels that will end up on-screen will flow through the rendering pipeline. The advantage of this approach does not appear to be visible in the performance of the GMA. Additionally, GMA systems generally support only a few functions in hardware, and rely on the host CPU to handle at least some of the graphics pipeline, further decreasing performance. GMA performance has been widely criticised as being too slow to run computer games released at the same time as the chips, and are generally only useful for non-gaming tasks.
I don’t understand why sharikou you keep publishing stupid posts
A). How about freedom of speech - and to put things into perspective to those who actually do some analytical thinking. Posts speak for themselves.
reference link for B).
B). I asked on a couple of forums WTF is happening with IBM's 65nm process and funny predictions - as that the Power6 will run at 5GHz (I suspect on the very similar or even identical process as AMD's). AMD guys must know something about it and they keep it hush-hush. To me, their Barcelona claims seem overconfident regarding it's announced surprisingly low clockspeed/projected headroom.
Something doesn't quite fit in the grand picture - to me at very least. Gut feeling, I guess.
Is there a possibility of a "hidden reserve" that AMD keeps "just in case"? Like "premium series" they could introduce with latter core revisions? Anybody in the know keen to answer that?
Come on ...
Sharikou said...
BTW, it seems that AMD and Intel will move to 45nm at the same time.
I would like to clarify on this matter. AMD will be launching 45nm. Intel will be stumbling out 45nm.
Penix - shut up. Intel's graphics are more than capable of running Aero - we have dozens of machines, all based on Intel procs, all with Intel embedded graphics running in our lab as we set up images for our corporate desktop on Vista Enterprise...
oh yeah...and some of them are laptops....oh and guess what - nothing exploding there...
Test it for yourself - or are you just another idiotic fanboy riding on Sharidouche's coat tails? If you have *any* technical ability at all then you'd not post the dribble you do...go back to playing Hello Kitty Adbenture Island and leave PC's to those that understand and work with them on a daily basis...
"BTW, it seems that AMD and Intel will move to 45nm at the same time."
So now AMD will have 45nm products in Q1'08? Link please...
I see another 65nm type AMD "release" (ship parts but nothing available) in ~Q3'08. It will also be a process that is not hitting mature process targets (I'm not talking yield) - much like the current AMD 65nm process which is still ~1 year from hitting mature process targets.
Also AMD/IBM share TECHNOLOGY, if IBM intends to manufacture 45nm in 2008 (was it H2'08 I forget?), doesn't mean AMD will do it at the same time.
"Here is a quote from Wikipedia describing the poor performance of the GMA chipset"
Why do so many people quote Wikipedia as an accurate source? Granted it may be a little better than the Inq, but common folks...
"I believe your data to be inaccurate or falsified.
Here is a quote from Wikipedia describing the poor performance of the GMA chipset:"
First, he's never going to believe Wikipedia when its against his belief. Second, he doesn't care about running programs; he just wants to run the desktop of Windows Vista (which I suppose is much more useful than any program).
ed said...
First, he's never going to believe Wikipedia when its against his belief. Second, he doesn't care about running programs; he just wants to run the desktop of Windows Vista (which I suppose is much more useful than any program).
Yes, Intel IGP graphics are sufficient for idling at the desktop.
Anonymous idiot said...
Penix - shut up. Intel's graphics are more than capable of running Aero - we have dozens of machines, all based on Intel procs, all with Intel embedded graphics running in our lab as we set up images for our corporate desktop on Vista Enterprise...
oh yeah...and some of them are laptops....oh and guess what - nothing exploding there...
Send me an Intel based test machine and I will personally evaluate your claims.
That is not the only reason. The main reason is that Microsoft is not able to produce a 64 bit (working) operating system.
You mean like XP Pro and Windows Server for Itanium.
There is no way that Intel and AMD are going to deliver 45nm at the same time.
The latest that Intel will produce 45nm is Q1 08. The earliest that AMD can deliver any 45nm is mid 2008. Intel will have 45nm a minimum of a quarter ealier but most likely closer to 6 months. Actually though it wouldn't really suprise me if limited production of 45nm began at D1D in Q4 07.
It does get a little bit tricky because FAB 32 and FAB 38 will both be ramping. However, we are talking about two FAB's and both of these FAB's should have more capacity than FAB 36. It is not certain at this point if AMD will begin converting FAB 38 to 45nm at the same time or it will convert later. I would imagine too that Intel will start converting at least one other FAB at mid 2008. So, I would expect Intel to have 45nm sooner than AMD, ramp faster than AMD, and have a higher ratio of 45nm by the end of 2008.
"There is no way that Intel and AMD are going to deliver 45nm at the same time...."
Scientia - a very good and objective analysis. I think the other factor that needs to be considered is Intel's process at ramp will be meeting mature process targets, while AMD's process will be about a year into the ramp before it starts to hit mature targets.
While AMD may be PRINTING the smaller node, much like 65nm (whose process right now is very close to to 90nm performance and is at least 3 quarters away from hitting mature performance) the process will be nowhere near final spec.
So, I would expect Intel to have 45nm sooner than AMD, ramp faster than AMD, and have a higher ratio of 45nm by the end of 2008.
What are you talking about? Intel will be BK by 2Q08! lolololol
I would like to clarify on this matter. AMD will be launching 45nm. Intel will be stumbling out 45nm.
Of course. Since it took AMD two months after "Launching" 65nm for any products to actually be available!
If it wasn't for IBM's assistance AMD would still be stuck at 180nm. AMD has no expertise at die-shrinks, so they have no choice but to work with IBM.
IBM should demand free AMD Opteron processors in return for their help with process shrinks. If AMD refuses then AMD gets no help and will have no way to compete with Intel. Then they will be begging for IBM's assistance.
I predict there is good reason for no AMD Barecelona benchmarks. AMD's 65nm process is so broken that they go through 10 wafers to get one working chip.
Every big company is anti-progress. The larger you are, the more anti-progress you become.
But that doesn't mean you are against change. Merely that you control the change so that it works for you.
There are hundreds of innovations that the PC/PC-server world needs. But neither Intel or AMD seems motivated to implement any of these innovations.
Much like telecom has hit an innovation brick wall, we have seen processors do the same.
Progress is dead. The only thing that is worth watching in the processor market is the financials. And so far, Intel is winning that game.
Post a Comment
<< Home