4 ms·
I disagree. Reason: I think the problem with Intel is that they are more of a manufacturing company than design company. What I hear from insiders (anyone at In
by ztan 16y ago
I disagree. Reason: I think the problem with Intel is that they are more of a manufacturing company than design company. What I hear from insiders (anyone at Intel care to validate/correct?) is that the company's culture as a whole value their design arm much less than their manufacturing. Their main advantage (also strategy) has always been that they can out manufacture their competition. (ie faster shrink, better yields) Intel does not have a good track record for processor design outside of the x86 CPU space. (and even in that space the P4 is pretty much a failure in terms of design) Looking at their repeated failed attempts at being significant in the graphics space. And then there is Xscale. They had a lot of potential with the StrongARM group when they acquired them from DEC, but they just ended up selling them to Marvell (who is now doing amazing stuff with them). Also how they are now capitalizing on their superior manufacturing capabilities by venturing into producing lower tech products like SSDs. Combine all of that with the notion that the x86 architecture simply does not offer any value on a mobile CPU, (another debate, but one I strongly believe) I really don't think Intel will have anything competitive against ARM "shortly". (Xscale was sold in 2006...)
- ajslater 16y ago...and they broke up and misused the Alpha design team.
- kbob 16y agoI have no inside knowledge of Intel. But I've always thought it interesting that they use "tick" for their process upgrades and "tock" for new architectures. That appears to corroborate your point, that processes are perceived as more important.