6 ms·
> There's just no way that's true. Their roadmap in 1996 was moving everyone to ia64/itanium. That was an unmitigated disaster and they were forced to license x
by antod 8y ago
> There's just no way that's true. Their roadmap in 1996 was moving everyone to ia64/itanium. That was an unmitigated disaster and they were forced to license x64 from AMD.
Yup, and their x86 backup plan (Netburst scaling all the way to 10GHz) was a dead end too.
- gpderetta 8y agobut their plan C (revive the pentium III architecture) worked perfectly. We will have to see if they have plan C now(plan B being yet another iteration of the lake architecture with little changes).
- m_mueller 8y agodoesn't it look like they're shifting to do chiplets as well at the moment? copying AMD might be their plan C, but it won't help if AMD can steam ahead with TSMC 7nm while Intel is locked to 14nm for a couple of years. That's going to hurt a lot.
- pitaj 8y agoTSMC's 7nm and Intel's 14nm are about the same in actual dimensions on silicon IIRC. The names for the processes are mostly fluff.
- jplayer01 8y agoTheir plan C was a complete fluke and only came together because the Israelis managed to put out Centrino. I don't think such a fluke is possible when we're at the limits of process design and everything takes tens of billions of dollars and half a decade of lead time to implement.
- gpderetta 8y agoHaving multiple competent design teams working on potentially competing products all the time is one of the strengths of Intel, I wouldn't call it a fluke. Things do look dire right now, I agree.
- bogomipz 8y agoI'm not that up on Intel at the moment. Why are they stuck at more iterations of the lake architecture with little changes? What was the plan "A"?
- gpderetta 8y agoGet 10nm out.