dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
10
share rss forum feed


ccallana
Huh?
Premium,VIP
join:2000-08-03
Folsom, CA
reply to signmeuptoo

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

*nobody* is saying here that Intel is backing away from the general PC business. What *I* am trying to say, is that the analysts, you know, the ones who basically make the stock market move up and down (it has very little to do with the actual performance of the company) - say something to the effect, "we think that the general computer PC business is dead, and the only area that means anything for a CPU company is making Tablet and Phone processors, and if a company doesn't, they are crap, and we won't invest in them"

So those people, who may or may not know *anything* about a PC, or even the PC business, have a say so in how things happen, and companies *have* to respond.

Intel is investing *heavily* in the standard user base. True, the market for PCs is shifting. The plain black/beige desktop box is sliding away, laptops have been out pacing desktops for a *long* time. I think in the "normal" user environment you will see 2 types of systems leading the way: The "ultrabook" type systems - super thin, super light, but not lacking in performance; and the "All-in-one" desktop system, a PC in a Monitor basically. (which really is just an ultrabook with a 27" screen as far as the hardware is concerned.) Sure, the build-your-own crowd will frown upon both of these options as non-expandable, non-configurable - so there is still a market for individual components, but I think your standard user will shy away from such systems.

As has already been said, Haswell doesn't even go on sale for *months* and many people here are already writing it off as a loser part. Perhaps we can wait until real units, and real numbers are available.... I do not believe for one moment that the architects and design engineers for Haswell said, ever, "you know, we don't really *need* to make this CPU any faster, so let's not". That is *never* part of the conversation. But there are tradeoffs that have to be made - so *if* (and I say that because we don't really know at this point) the CPU gains are not as large as perhaps was expected by the know-it-alls who do *not* design chips for Intel, it is only because it was deemed more important to put effort elsewhere.

As far as I know, nobody here is an actual chip designer for Intel here in this thread - if you are, and you know more about this than I do, please, correct me.

(btw - for those who don't know, I *am* an Intel employee. Currently Software testing for tablet graphics drivers, but formerly a CPU and Chipset validation engineer. My comments are my own, based on public information - I do not speak for the company in any official or unofficial way, and nothing here should be construed as such)
--
"We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us.... We are far too easily pleased." C.S. Lewis



trparky
Apple... YUM
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:2

said by ccallana:

*nobody* is saying here that Intel is backing away from the general PC business. What *I* am trying to say, is that the analysts, you know, the ones who basically make the stock market move up and down (it has very little to do with the actual performance of the company) - say something to the effect, "we think that the general computer PC business is dead, and the only area that means anything for a CPU company is making Tablet and Phone processors, and if a company doesn't, they are crap, and we won't invest in them"

I love it how the people who know absolutely shit about the market get to drive the market that they know nothing about. It makes no sense at all. But then again, whoever said that this world makes any sense.
--
Tom
Boycott AT&T uVerse! | Tom's Android Blog | AOKP (The Android Open Kang Project)