3 ms·
I should have clarified this earlier. Personally I'm interested in how competitive Intel will be in the future (their stock took a massive dive recently). Righ
by omegalulw 5y ago
I should have clarified this earlier. Personally I'm interested in how competitive Intel will be in the future (their stock took a massive dive recently).
Right now, it seems to me that Intel is behind both on the node and on the architecture vs M1 (and AMD). I expect them to eventually fix the node (or just buy from TSMC) but if they don't fix the latter that's a big deal.
From the POV of buying a CPU/laptop today, absolutely, power comparison and performance both are essential.
- klelatti 5y agoThat’s a very fair perspective. I’m an Intel bear on their existing markets - mainly because even if they achieve parity with TSMC the lead is gone and others will take market share. I’m more positive on the Intel GPU business though given the potential huge demand for ML compute.
- kergonath 5y agoYou've got a point, but the discussions are most of the time not about the theoretical characteristics of an architecture on a process node that it will never use. It's people beating each other on the head about which mega-corp has CPUs a few percents faster than the other. From a historical point of view, a systematic shift to hotter, more power-hungry chips was never a good sign (see for example the various Pentium 4s and the successive incarnations of Bulldozer and Piledriver). I hope it's a stopgap and that they have a new Core 2 masterpiece being readied, but let's not kid ourselves: it does not look good. the Physics of heat transfer put a limit to the gains in performance you can achieve if you don't also increase efficiency. It's cold comfort to know that your CPU would be wonderful if cooled with liquid nitrogen when your desktop throttles under load.