3 ms·

I disagree. With AMD no longer contentious, Intel has, quite literally, stopped trying. Look at Netburst era Intel vs modern Intel. Behind the 8-ball Intel ca

by zelon88 10y ago

I disagree. With AMD no longer contentious, Intel has, quite literally, stopped trying. Look at Netburst era Intel vs modern Intel. Behind the 8-ball Intel can show you what Intel looks like when it's trying.

Jweb_Guru 10y ago
Or maybe Intel is having trouble moving to 10nm and there's little it can do at this point? I have no idea why when it comes to Intel people feel the need to phrase engineering problems in moralistic terms (and conversely, when it comes to politics people often want to turn moralistic problems into engineering ones).
- zelon88 10y ago
  If that were the case they wouldn't release a mediocre interim product that fails to significantly build-upon any existing performance and features of the existing product. If you do decide to build that mediocre chip, you don't price it like a top-shelf one. We're not talking about when Saab had to keep their new models secret to sell the rest of the old ones for survival. This is Intel. They control their market and have no competition. Selling crappier products than you're capable of is a moralistic problem. And it's one that the industry is complacent with. Just ask Apple. If all remaining Intel competition were to disappear tomorrow Intel wouldn't stop selling chips. They would just stop making them any better. Cost reduction is just business. If a business doesn't have to spend on research to stay afloat it shouldn't and it won't.
dx034 10y ago
Or they tried and failed. Unless you have inside information you can't know what happened. And as no one else seems to be able to produce 10nm CPUs, it's not unlikely that Intel had problems shifting to it as well. Intel has done very well in the past by always being one step ahead of the competition. I'm sure that they didn't stop doing so.

3 ms·

I disagree. With AMD no longer contentious, Intel has, quite literally, stopped trying. Look at Netburst era Intel vs modern Intel. Behind the 8-ball Intel ca

by zelon88 10y ago

Jweb_Guru 10y ago
Or maybe Intel is having trouble moving to 10nm and there's little it can do at this point? I have no idea why when it comes to Intel people feel the need to phrase engineering problems in moralistic terms (and conversely, when it comes to politics people often want to turn moralistic problems into engineering ones).
- zelon88 10y ago
  If that were the case they wouldn't release a mediocre interim product that fails to significantly build-upon any existing performance and features of the existing product. If you do decide to build that mediocre chip, you don't price it like a top-shelf one. We're not talking about when Saab had to keep their new models secret to sell the rest of the old ones for survival. This is Intel. They control their market and have no competition. Selling crappier products than you're capable of is a moralistic problem. And it's one that the industry is complacent with. Just ask Apple. If all remaining Intel competition were to disappear tomorrow Intel wouldn't stop selling chips. They would just stop making them any better. Cost reduction is just business. If a business doesn't have to spend on research to stay afloat it shouldn't and it won't.
dx034 10y ago
Or they tried and failed. Unless you have inside information you can't know what happened. And as no one else seems to be able to produce 10nm CPUs, it's not unlikely that Intel had problems shifting to it as well. Intel has done very well in the past by always being one step ahead of the competition. I'm sure that they didn't stop doing so.