2 ms·
You do realize that Intel themselves were the upstarts once, right?
by notacoward 8y ago
You do realize that Intel themselves were the upstarts once, right?
- ajross 8y agoAnd unlike the literally dozens of semiconductor failures that littered the valley of the 1970's, they succeeded. This doesn't help your point. I'm not saying Cavium cannot succeed, I'm saying delivering a chip to a reviewer that doesn't actually beat a Xeon probably isn't enough, no matter what price tag you invent.
- notacoward 8y agoLet me tip you off about something people with actual business experience know: if you don't get your stuff in front of reviewers, flawed as it may be, you fail. Hardware has long lead times. To get design wins, you have to sell on promise. Even some of Intel's own foundational products were objectively worse than contemporaries (e.g. even the IBM PC designers knew that the 68K was a better chip than the 8088) but got better over time. They got better because they had the wins due to selling on promise, and therefore have the funds. Any Intel competitor who waits until their product is better than Intel's on every metric, beyond any doubt, before they show anything to anyone, will run out of funding and quietly die. As I said, one has to make educated guesses about what kinds of problems are likely to be fixed before full launch. Dogmatic statements based on experience limited to irrelevant domains aren't useful to anyone, and plain old pro-Intel FUD even less so.