3 ms·

>In reality, there is nothing that Apple or AMD are doing that Intel could not also do, isn't already doing, or isn't in a hurry to also do. On the contrary, I

>In reality, there is nothing that Apple or AMD are doing that Intel could not also do, isn't already doing, or isn't in a hurry to also do. On the contrary, Intel has refused to do any architectural innovation for nearly 20 years. They are capable, but overly conservative. They should have been in a hurry 10 years ago. It's well documented that they weren't and were resented for it. AMD came up with a winning strategy (multi-die packaging) and Intel still doesn't seem in a hurry to catch up. You could swap "AMD" in that sentence with "Apple" and maintain the meaning. When superscalar or simultaneous multithreading came out you didn't see competitors mill about waiting for the customers to forget about the advantages.

incrudible 6y ago
The question is, are they in a hurry to catch up? What is the market that AMD is actually taking over with its multi-chip packages, and at what cost? Just because AMD may be winning in Cinebench doesn't mean it's winning in the business side. Multi-chip packages have downsides that become obvious in certain enterprise workloads, so the question becomes: Is it worth giving up on the monolithic approach, or adding multi-chip products, in order to completely dominate the market, even when that is not more profitable? Clearly, the answer for Intel must be "no", otherwise they would being doing it.
- willis936 6y ago
  I think the reason Intel is not doing multi-die packages is because the R&D to make it work is large and they don't want to take on that risk. What are the downsides, exactly? Thread-to-thread latency is the key one that comes to mind. It is far cheaper to make a multi-die package because yields are so much higher for any given node. The business advantages are great. The bleak picture for Intel that is being painted is warranted.
  - galaxyLogic 6y ago
    AMD got downgraded today because Intel has new CEO. I don't know why the new CEO would be better, but they say fish rots from the head. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AMD?p=AMD&.tsrc=fin-srch https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AMD?p=AMD&.tsrc=fin-srch

incrudible 6y ago

The question is, are they in a hurry to catch up? What is the market that AMD is actually taking over with its multi-chip packages, and at what cost? Just because AMD may be winning in Cinebench doesn't mean it's winning in the business side. Multi-chip packages have downsides that become obvious in certain enterprise workloads, so the question becomes: Is it worth giving up on the monolithic approach, or adding multi-chip products, in order to completely dominate the market, even when that is not more profitable? Clearly, the answer for Intel must be "no", otherwise they would being doing it.

willis936 6y ago
I think the reason Intel is not doing multi-die packages is because the R&D to make it work is large and they don't want to take on that risk. What are the downsides, exactly? Thread-to-thread latency is the key one that comes to mind. It is far cheaper to make a multi-die package because yields are so much higher for any given node. The business advantages are great. The bleak picture for Intel that is being painted is warranted.
- galaxyLogic 6y ago
  AMD got downgraded today because Intel has new CEO. I don't know why the new CEO would be better, but they say fish rots from the head. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AMD?p=AMD&.tsrc=fin-srch https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AMD?p=AMD&.tsrc=fin-srch