how-to block ads
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| Re: Anyone surprised? "Slot A"? You're a few years behind there. Up until Intel came out with Core 2, Intel was badly behind the curve. AMD is currently in the position Intel was with the end of the P4, lame excuses for dual core CPUs. It is because of AMD that Intel finally realized that Mhz wasn't the only measure of CPU power. Intel isnt too far ahead, though AMD needs to dump or fix Phenom soon or that will be the case. The last thing we need as customers is for Intel to be the only performance CPU maker. | |
|  Surfinusa
Premium
join:2001-02-08
|  Re: Anyone surprised?
said by JakCrow  : The last thing we need as customers is for Intel to be the only performance CPU maker. Double Agreed on that! | |
| 
PGHammer
join:2003-06-09
Accokeek, MD
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| However, Core has been a blockbuster for Intel. In fact, the Core microarchitecture is popping up in places you wouldn't have expected to find Intel *anything* even two years ago. I'm not just talking desktops, but HPC workstations and servers (lest anyone forget, every XEON is Core-based), laptops, notebooks, UMPCs, even Macs (from super-lightweight to ultra-heavyweight). Core hasn't just clobbered AMD; Core is also directly responsible for chasing National Semiconductor out of the general-purpose CPU business entirely. Core 2 has simply extended Intel's lead to the supremely silly; Intel is now basically competing with *itself*. Intel is at the point where they are getting ready to EOL a processor that is too powerful for general-purpose use that is priced for for such use (I'm referring to the Q6600, formerly known as Kentsfield; a server processor in desktop clothing at desktop-processor prices.)
Yes; AMD is in serious trouble, but it can't blame all its woes on the acquisition of ATI Technologies; besides, ATI had their own issues (competing with nVidia) that simply could not be wished away. nVidia hasn't exactly had a walk in the park; the short supply of 8800GT GPUs (and the issues with their own 6-series chipsets) didn't help their positioning as an Intel-chipset alternative.
Motorola? The one area where Motorola *may* be in trouble is their cell handset business (thanks to the encroachment of LG and Samsung at the low end, and Apple's iPhone at the high end); however, Motorola still occupies the solid midrange with the RAZR and RAZR2 lines and their derivatives. Moto may actually be the most likely of the four companies to survive either mostly or completely unchanged (also Moto still has the cash cow of their broadband business, especially cable modems and STBs, not to mention their mobile communications business, none of which will be going away anytime soon). Moto's ace-in-the-hole (as far as their cell-handset business)? Believe it or not, it's the CDMA handset business (specifically with VZW), where the RAZR and variants show no signs of slowing up.
Sprint is under fire (but not due to Motorola), primarily due to encroachment from VZW and (somewhat) AT&T Mobility. Sprint has to find a way to re-differentiate itself as a carrier (in a positive way); unless it does, it's screwed. | |
| |
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| Re: Anyone surprised? said by PGHammer :However, Core has been a blockbuster for Intel. In fact, the Core microarchitecture is popping up in places you wouldn't have expected to find Intel *anything* even two years ago. I'm not just talking desktops, but HPC workstations and servers (lest anyone forget, every XEON is Core-based), laptops, notebooks, UMPCs, even Macs (from super-lightweight to ultra-heavyweight). Core hasn't just clobbered AMD; Core is also directly responsible for chasing National Semiconductor out of the general-purpose CPU business entirely. Core 2 has simply extended Intel's lead to the supremely silly; Intel is now basically competing with *itself*. Intel is at the point where they are getting ready to EOL a processor that is too powerful for general-purpose use that is priced for for such use (I'm referring to the Q6600, formerly known as Kentsfield; a server processor in desktop clothing at desktop-processor prices.) I don't understand this. Why wouldn't Intel have used their current CPU tech in these devices? Both Intel and AMD have always done this, so it's a non-issue. And the first run of Core wasn't that great and didn't do dual core and couldn't even do decent dual CPU. Like I said, their roles are currently reversed. I think AMD will eventually come out with something that will leapfrog Intel. It's not like there isn't a history of this happening. | |
| | | |
|
