Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Phot0n
In the past 5 years, Intel has made mistakes and left itself vulnerable. AMD has managed to punch us in every soft spot. Being first to x86, security technology, and dual core are big examples. Intel got lucky by having Centrino when the market realized that 90nm P4's turned your desktop into a roasting oven.
|
I think you mean 64-bit. Intel invented the x86 processor, but IBM wouldn't use it initially, as they required two vendors. Intel had to basically fund their competition.
The Centrino is a mobile processor; which shares a lot with the PIII, which is related to the PII and that is related to the Pentium Pro.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Phot0n
90nm was a tough move for Intel. It was also the first time we switched from 8" to 12" wafers. I was on the the 90nm P4 design team, Prescott, which is practically considered one of the toughest ill-managed products at Intel. The rest of the industry followed the 90nm route but Intel hits the tough issues first. It's the price they pay for being ahead as far as having a production-quality process is.
|
What do you call Ti? Ti had a second-generation 90-nm processor available shortly AFTER Intel released its first 90nm processor. Ti had none of the issues the rest of the industry had. Maybe that's because they've been using newer technology before most of the others do. Partly due to making products for mobile phones and other low powered devices. That means that they re going to use technology that reduces power consumption as well as heat. Wouldn't to correct term be 300mm wafers?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Phot0n
"Itanic" was definitely a good idea not executed well. AMD really hit Intel where it hurt by expanding to 64 bits on x86. Early in Prescott, when we learned about it, we decided to throw in 64 bit as well to compete. It hurt Itanium because it now lost its goal for becoming the general 64 bit arch from Intel. Now, it's slated for only large servers and directly competes with it's 64-bit Xeon cousins and is losing. 64-bit x86 will eventually "sink" the Itanic to farther depths.
|
Itanic is already as low as it can go, it's hardly moved off the bottom; it was sunk before its maiden voyage. Intel had the competitive advantage in the x86 space for the longest time as companies were not willing to try something new, so when PeeCee's needed to be upgraded, they always looked at systems with Intel processors. Using one of the competitors looked cheaper upfront, but it was the possible hidden issues. Intel decided that it wanted to compete with the likes of Sun and IBM in the big iron arena. Intel got to see what the likes of AMD have to go through everyday. Most companies were not interested in looking at a new processor design for critical apps; too much effort in porting applications over with a big risk and price tag. Even without 64-bits being added to x86, it would never have been taken seriously. If EPIC was such a good idea, then why was it used in the 70's and didn't make any headway then either?