Slashdot Mirror

I'll give you a hint: There are zero on the market. The only possible contender is that new intel pro-audio onboard thing, but NO ONE has plans to impliment it yet.

I'm not sure if this is what you're referring to, but from the Product Brief (pdf) on the Intel Audio Studio page:

Dolby* Digital Live
This real-time interactive content encoder allows 5.1 audio streams to be transported over an optical connection to your digital speakers or entertainment center.

Real-time 5.1 digital encoding: Send Dolby Digital 5.1 (AC3) encoded content to your digital speakers or home theater over an optical connection.

Yes intel publishes specs, just like these Centino technical specs here.

As for Nvidia's drivers being out of date, how long did it take them to fix the 4k stacks issues? months wasn't it? I also suspect my Matrox cards drivers are updated faster than the Nvidia drivers due to the fact they live in the kernel tree and get updated when everything else in the kernel tree does.

However all the refrence boards I've seen have fewer expansion and memory slots then the average ATX board.

In fact, the difference between picoBTX, microBTX, and standard BTX seems to be defined by the number of expansion slots. A previous Anandtech article has a nice illustration on this page: Three different BTX sizes

All three BTX sizes are the same length (10.5"), but their widths differ (8.0"-12.8") depending on how many PCI/PCIe slots are on the right edge of the motherboard. You can think of a picoBTX board as a standard BTX board with all but one of its PCI slots "chopped off."

Don't mention Celeron. I don't know why Intel keep on releasing it ... In today's market I just don't understand the need to have a low-end Celeron line.

They give low-budget a new low.

What's even worse are the laptop Celerons, which perform like 486 chips relabeled.

I'm not saying that Intel hasn't released some stinkers under their "Celeron" label. The Pentium 4-based Celerons sucked when they only had 128K of L2 cache, but now they have 256K and the Prescott core. Recent notebook Celerons had the same core as those sucky desktop Celerons, but now they use the highly-praised Pentium M core.

Two years ago, desktop and notebook Celerons did suck. But now, Dell offers a Celeron D desktop with PCI-Express (915G chipset) for $568. HP/Compaq sells a $599 notebook with a Dothan-based Celeron M. I think that's pretty good performance and technology for those prices.

Don't mention Celeron. I don't know why Intel keep on releasing it ... In today's market I just don't understand the need to have a low-end Celeron line.

They give low-budget a new low.

What's even worse are the laptop Celerons, which perform like 486 chips relabeled.

I'm not saying that Intel hasn't released some stinkers under their "Celeron" label. The Pentium 4-based Celerons sucked when they only had 128K of L2 cache, but now they have 256K and the Prescott core. Recent notebook Celerons had the same core as those sucky desktop Celerons, but now they use the highly-praised Pentium M core.

Two years ago, desktop and notebook Celerons did suck. But now, Dell offers a Celeron D desktop with PCI-Express (915G chipset) for $568. HP/Compaq sells a $599 notebook with a Dothan-based Celeron M. I think that's pretty good performance and technology for those prices.

Have you thought about the fact that these big companies are 'bankrolling' the new IP only company because they are just trying to protect themselves?

How very noble of them!

Of course, once they have the power, what is to stop them from using it? Oh, that's right! (litigous bastards) corporations don't sue other corporations over intellectual property.

For those who don't know what this is (I didn't), Intel's writeup on it is here. It doesn't look completely evil, but then it is their own marketing docs. Anandtech's writeup is similarly positive, more or less.

Monday Forbes reports Intel told software companies they should license a multi-core chip as one processor. Also on Monday, Intel compared their new Itanium to the "best published RISC" machine. Their graph indicates a 64-processor Itanium is about the same SpecIntRate as a 64-processor RISC machine. Now the funny part is for the RISC result they used the 32 chip Power5 SpecIntRate as 64-processors. So 64 Itanium-2 chips are really about the same as 32 Power-5 chips. So while Intel advocates per-chip licensing, they use per-core benchmarking. It is also interesting to note that this new Itanium-2 SpecIntBase of 1590 is just a bit faster than a 2 Ghz Pentium-M and much slower than a 2.6 Ghz Athlon-64-FX.

Monday Forbes reports Intel told software companies they should license a multi-core chip as one processor. Also on Monday, Intel compared their new Itanium to the "best published RISC" machine. Their graph indicates a 64-processor Itanium is about the same SpecIntRate as a 64-processor RISC machine. Now the funny part is for the RISC result they used the 32 chip Power5 SpecIntRate as 64-processors. So 64 Itanium-2 chips are really about the same as 32 Power-5 chips. So while Intel advocates per-chip licensing, they use per-core benchmarking. It is also interesting to note that this new Itanium-2 SpecIntBase of 1590 is just a bit faster than a 2 Ghz Pentium-M and much slower than a 2.6 Ghz Athlon-64-FX.

iam on FF 0.9.2. to be honest.Not yet tried ver1.0.
But This page https://jobs.intel.com/jobs/jobs.iccw still loads with error ( text overlap ) in FF. Perfect in IE.:(

I'm more interested in a video card ... with an HDTV output... it would be oh-so-nice to throw 1080 resolution to my 42" HDTV..

The HDTV output is supplied via a supposedly inexpensive ADD2 card which plugs into the PCI Express x16 port. I say "supposedly" because I haven't seen an HDTV-out ADD2 card yet. I've only seen DVI-D ADD2 cards as cheap options (around $10-20) from PC manufacturers. I don't know if the DVI-D output will work with your 42" HDTV.

Of course, I'm not really recommending Intel GMA 900 graphics for most Slashdot readers. But I think this is a good indication that easy HDTV output will soon be standard on all cards, even low-end cards.

I'm more interested in a video card ... with an HDTV output... it would be oh-so-nice to throw 1080 resolution to my 42" HDTV..

The HDTV output is supplied via a supposedly inexpensive ADD2 card which plugs into the PCI Express x16 port. I say "supposedly" because I haven't seen an HDTV-out ADD2 card yet. I've only seen DVI-D ADD2 cards as cheap options (around $10-20) from PC manufacturers. I don't know if the DVI-D output will work with your 42" HDTV.

Of course, I'm not really recommending Intel GMA 900 graphics for most Slashdot readers. But I think this is a good indication that easy HDTV output will soon be standard on all cards, even low-end cards.

For those that don't know, Intel's current dual-Xeon chipsets (E7520 and E7525) share a single 800MHz front side bus between both CPUs. AMD's Athlon MP platform has had dual, independent front side buses since 2001.

For those that don't know, Intel's current dual-Xeon chipsets (E7520 and E7525) share a single 800MHz front side bus between both CPUs. AMD's Athlon MP platform has had dual, independent front side buses since 2001.

Do they mean 802.11a, b, or g? Certainly not 'a', I hope not just 'b'. I bet they're struggling with heat dissipation and power consumption.

If Intel can get a tri-mode wireless card into a Centrino notebook, why would it be difficult to include their tri-mode wireless chip in a desktop chipset? Is it more difficult to deal with heat dissipation and power consumption when the wireless chip is in the chipset and on the motherboard, rather than on a separate mini-PCI card?

Also, according to an Inquirer.net article, it looks like Intel will be pushing the BTX form factor with these new chipsets. Maybe the improved thermal environment of BTX will solve any problems with heat dissiptation, if they exist.

Do they mean 802.11a, b, or g? Certainly not 'a', I hope not just 'b'. I bet they're struggling with heat dissipation and power consumption.

If Intel can get a tri-mode wireless card into a Centrino notebook, why would it be difficult to include their tri-mode wireless chip in a desktop chipset? Is it more difficult to deal with heat dissipation and power consumption when the wireless chip is in the chipset and on the motherboard, rather than on a separate mini-PCI card?

Also, according to an Inquirer.net article, it looks like Intel will be pushing the BTX form factor with these new chipsets. Maybe the improved thermal environment of BTX will solve any problems with heat dissiptation, if they exist.

It's fairly short and pretty generalized. Lots of pretty pictures though.

A quick search on Google ("silicon fabrication introduction") turns up arguably better links.

One from SGS Thompson
A basic one from Intel
From Bell Labs

And there are plenty more.

http://www.intel.com/research/silicon/mooreslaw.ht m

The Gentleman that came up with Moore's Law doesn't agree with you. I trust Gordon Moore more than almost anyone on /.

Kind of funny that way.

From the above link.

Gordon Moore made his famous observation in 1965, just four years after the first planar integrated circuit was discovered. The press called it "Moore's Law" and the name has stuck. In his original paper, Moore observed an exponential growth in the number of transistors per integrated circuit and predicted that this trend would continue. Through Intel's relentless technology advances, Moore's Law, the doubling of transistors every couple of years, has
been maintained, and still holds true today. Intel expects that it will continue at least through the end of this decade. The mission of Intel's technology development team is to continue to break down barriers to Moore's Law.

Link to his 1965 paper ftp://download.intel.com/research/silicon/moorespa per.pdf

Link to info about the misuse of the 'law' http://gridcafe.web.cern.ch/gridcafe/Gridhistory/m oore.html

But then again, what does CERN, Intel, and Mr. Moore know about any of this?

http://www.intel.com/research/silicon/mooreslaw.ht m

The Gentleman that came up with Moore's Law doesn't agree with you. I trust Gordon Moore more than almost anyone on /.

Kind of funny that way.

From the above link.

Gordon Moore made his famous observation in 1965, just four years after the first planar integrated circuit was discovered. The press called it "Moore's Law" and the name has stuck. In his original paper, Moore observed an exponential growth in the number of transistors per integrated circuit and predicted that this trend would continue. Through Intel's relentless technology advances, Moore's Law, the doubling of transistors every couple of years, has
been maintained, and still holds true today. Intel expects that it will continue at least through the end of this decade. The mission of Intel's technology development team is to continue to break down barriers to Moore's Law.

Link to his 1965 paper ftp://download.intel.com/research/silicon/moorespa per.pdf

Link to info about the misuse of the 'law' http://gridcafe.web.cern.ch/gridcafe/Gridhistory/m oore.html

But then again, what does CERN, Intel, and Mr. Moore know about any of this?

http://www.intel.com/software/products/compilers/c lin/overview.htm

Yes we need a compiler, but for the time being AMD could just release optimized ("performance") libraries for selected application areas, just as Intel does. They are available for both Windows and Linux, and the Linux ones are GCC-compatible.

The 64 bit advantage will suffer thesame fate as the 32bit advantage did for the 486, pentium & especially the Pentium Pro.

What fate would that be? In 1985 I could see buying into a 286 simply because there was really no support for 32bit protected mode let alone expanded memory. Hell extended memory was barely supported. Even in 1990 I could see buying into a 286 if it would save you money. Dos 4.0 was a bug ridden piece of filth and there still was not alot of support for 32bit protected mode. By 1995 it was pretty clear that you would be totally SOL in a very short period of time.

I think you mean that microsoft implemented 32bit support so slowly that you barely noticed anything until WindowsNT.

Motorola on the other hand designed their 68000 was designed to be a 32bit chip from the get go, which I believe was first introduced in 1979 or so, at least according to my data book titled "break away from the past". Makes you wonder why anyone thought it was a good idea to use the 8086 for the PC.

And I'm also certian that the US didn't just complete the first non-government manned space flight and doesn't have billions of dollars going to develop private space flight.

Give me a break.

China is emerging as an ecenomic powerhouse, and it looks like it will continue down that path, provided their government doesn't screw up. However please don't pretend like all good things come from China. I gave just a small list of the US companies that produce advanced hardware, including what drives almost all the devices you listed. Your MP3 player may be built in China but it's usually using TI DSPs and AD opamps.

You know it's perfectly possible for China AND the US to be economic powers, and for both to benefit from trade with each other.

The truck is basically a WiMax to WiFi router. It doesn't just act as a WiFi repeater, since WiMax and WiFi are different radio signals. From an Intel site:

An implementation of the IEEE 802.16 standard, WiMAX provides metropolitan area network connectivity at speeds of up to 75 Mb/sec. WiMAX systems can be used to transmit signal as far as 30 miles. However, on the average a WiMAX base-station installation will likely cover between three to five miles.

WiFi is IEEE standard 802.11, usually 802.11b or 802.11g. It operates over short distances, usually under a mile. You can get lots further with paired line-of-sight antennae, but most uses are short range.

The simplest way to add more coverage in your house is connect a second base station by wire.

Not quite dead.
http://www.intel.com/labs/features/hw10041.htm
Intel has plenty of dollars devoted to research. They certainly didn't sacrifice the P4 in favor of the Itanium. Intel's engineers started to run into problems scaleing past 3Ghz that they hadn't forseen, and as a result they're in a bit of a tight spot with regard to how to handle the next year until they can produce a replacement chip. It is a bit premature to be pronoucing Intel dead just yet. The P-M is still the best low-power chip around, and intel is working. They'll be down a bit for most of 2005, but AMD probably won't be able to scale their current architectures much farther anyways. 2005 will probably just be a slow year.

SAF-TE: SCSI Accessed Fault-Tolerant Enclosures Interface Specification

This specification defines a set of SCSI commands for setting drive status information, including status for RAID arrays, into a disk drive array enclosure. The drive array enclosure may be a separate enclosure, or the same enclosure. The specification also defines commands for managing hot-swap drive slots and returning environmental health information for a drive enclosure.

Most (good!) SCSI RAID enclosures will speak SAF-TE, but not many people make use of it. Try it out with your own enclosures - you may be surprised!

How about IPMI?

The marketing blurb goes something like this:

[IPMI] will allow for remote monitoring, management and recovery capabilities, regardless of the status or health of the server. New features such as enhanced security using leading authentication and encryption mechanisms in combination with remote console viewing will help reduce operational risk by securing remote operations. Moreover, with IPMI being implemented at the silicon level, it deals with monitoring basic server parts such as power supplies, fans, voltage and temperature irrespective of the type or health of the CPU or operating system.

Supermicro have a sub $60 daughter card (for their motherboards only) that seems to offer console access over LAN using 'out of band' bandwidth, whatever that is. There are other vendors offering 'IPMI-enabled' mobos as well.

Has anyone used one of these? I'm considering getting a few cards for the SuperMicros I colocate. And wonder how the seial console access works over a WAN, getting it setup, securing it, etc. And what support, server-side, there is for IPMI based monitoring.

--
Hosting VPS servers with SSH console access

The article was written by Roy Want. I seriously doubt if a principle engineer at Intel, with a PhD from Cambridge, is that worried about promoting a short article on a minor website.

Forget about getting a de-jure standard.

First off power consumption for a processor = .5*C*V^2*F where c is capacitance, V is voltage, and F is frequency. So if you can find capacitance you can get a pretty good estimate of the processor's power needs.
From Intel's datasheets: P4 90 nm (prescott) 520-550 models 84 W of design power (what Intel recommends the heatsink be able to pull).
550-560 models 115 W of design power.

From AMD's datasheets: design power (measured with max amplitude and nominal voltage) is 89 watts for all power ratings 3000+ to 3700+.

I couldn't find a PPC 970 data sheet at IBM but ee times claims it pulls 97 watts, but speed was not specified. That seems consistent with the water cooling on the G5, my air cooled P4 is plenty loud.

I think Intel's least favorite simple equation is:

4195835.0 / 3145727.0 < 1.3338

Here
are
a
few
articles to refresh your memory.

• Does the school provide Web pages?
• Does the school stream audio or video of any courses?
• Does the school provide multimedia equipment?
• Does the school offer courses in emerging technologies?
• Does the school stream its campus radio or TV stations?

Intel most un-wired

So IMO, just another useless university poll that tries to generate revenue for a publication instead of reflecting the truth about a university.

You think that Intel cancelled LCOS so they could shift resources to their processor line? You think they cancelled LCOS because of AMD? You don't think that TI's extremely successful DLP has anything to do with it? That's absurd. You, sir, are a troll.

Basically AMD has the better server option over Xeon for the next year or two
Really? Please... substantiate this with facts. What the hell are you talking about?

Canceled - Next versions of the P4, Tejas
Tejas was cancelled. Next version of P4 will still come out. There will definitely be a dual-core solution out early next year to fill the void that the 4GHz P4 left.

Canceled - The Alviso chip for notebooks
Really? I heard it was only delayed. Here is a press release from a month ago indicating the Alviso chip set will be released with Dothan, the second generation Centrino, later this year. Since AMD chipset business is stagnated, and AMD has failed to gain market share in laptop processors, this will be a big win for Intel.

Realized they had to extend 64-bits to the Xeon/P4 line
They obviously realized this years ago. They just didn't tell you about it because they wanted to give more momentum to 64-bit Itanium.

Realized they had to make Itanium run x86-64
This is still a rumor, probably true, though. But since Itanium has always been able to run all P4 code in legacy mode, would x86-64 be an exception?

So go back to how is any of your FUD relevant to LCOS? It's not. Intel is obviously getting down to the fundamentals across the board. Trimming off projects that will not be successful, refocusing those that could, and pursuing only those that have growth potential in the future. LCOS is just another part of that.

This demonstrates that Intel is willing to play the survival game the way that AMD and other competitors play. What mileage will AMD get out of saying "we were the first ones to publicly announce an x86-64 solution"? Big deal. If they fail to execute on it, they got nowhere. If anything, AMD has more to be concerned about than before.

> Win2k saw the machine as a quad processor and forced you to install advanced server to get the full performance.

Don't use Hyperthreading under Win2K, it doesn't work. See this Intel article that indicates that Hyperthreading should be disabled if you are using:

* Microsoft Windows 2000 (all versions)
* Microsoft Windows NT 4.0
* Microsoft Windows Me
* Microsoft Windows 98
* Microsoft Windows 98 SE

But will work fine if you are using:

* Microsoft Windows XP Professional Edition
* Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition
* Red Hat Linux 9 (Professional and Personal versions)
* SuSE Linux 8.2 (Professional and Personal versions)
* Red Flag Linux Desktop 4.0
* COSIX Linux 4.0

John.

You might be able to get some info here.

Windows at present is mostly based on the 32-bit Intel architecture. Microsoft did its worst dirty tricks in the last dying days of the segmented 16-bit architecture, using DOS dominance to get market share for its 32-bit attempt. It's going to have to chose between AMD-64 and Intel-64 anyway, or support both, and binary application developers will need to make the same choice, so I guess the submitter would argue that PPC-64 (which has been around longer) is a viable option. However, there's a big movement away from software that's tied down to one platform or another, which is good for Linux, Java, and all the other OS, hardware and software vendors, programmers, and users.

The limited adoption and big troubles implementing Wine suggests to me that there would be little interest in a Microsoft port of Windows to yet another architecture. Windows 95 was probably the most-memorable MS-Windows version ever, and yet Microsoft has had to fragment even that identity to keep up its sales, starting with that crazy desktop in XP. The claim that Windows has excellent backward compatibility is bogus, too; for instance, the copy of TeraTerm that I carry around on a floppy has never worked on any NT2k or later system I've touched, and the default installation of Microsoft Word can't read files created by any version of Microsoft Works. I could contiue this rant...

Intel released their Q3 results late Tuesday. In their conference call they were evasive about a suprising drop in their tax rate and also about the amount of their inventory writeoff. Intel claimed their inventory was down $43 million to $3.2 billion with an unspecified writeoff amount. Investors were happy to see inventory did not go up again and the stock went up Wednesday. In several different articles people are working out the mystery of the writeoff amount. Normally Intel's "cost of sales" is a steady number. Any writeoff will add to this number. So you can estimate the writeoff just by seeing how much this increased. With this calculation, it seems Intel had a writeoff of $472 million.

Intel released their Q3 results late Tuesday. In their conference call they were evasive about a suprising drop in their tax rate and also about the amount of their inventory writeoff. Intel claimed their inventory was down $43 million to $3.2 billion with an unspecified writeoff amount. Investors were happy to see inventory did not go up again and the stock went up Wednesday. In several different articles people are working out the mystery of the writeoff amount. Normally Intel's "cost of sales" is a steady number. Any writeoff will add to this number. So you can estimate the writeoff just by seeing how much this increased. With this calculation, it seems Intel had a writeoff of $472 million.

No Intel chips are currently being sold that are 65nm, all current generation intel processors are 90nm. Pretty much every company out there is struggling to get 65nm to produce good yields.

here a little proof:
http://indigo.intel.com/compare_cpu/intro.aspx/

But what about Moore's law? Is nothing sacred?

Your ignorance certainly shouldn't be. It's the number of transistors not their switching speed.

Um... Intel realized that when they switched to Processor Numbers earlier this year.

Here's something that Montavista has contributed to the Linux kernel - PRAMFS. A quote (emphasis mine):

Many embedded systems have a block of non-volatile RAM seperate from normal system memory, i.e. of which the kernel maintains no memory page descriptors. For such systems it would be beneficial to mount a fast read/write filesystem over this "I/O memory", for storing frequently accessed data that must survive system reboots and power cycles. An example usage might be system logs under /var/log, or a user address book in a cell phone or PDA.

[...]

2. If the backing-store RAM is comparable in access speed to system memory, there's really no point in caching the file I/O data in the page cache. Better to move file data directly between the user buffers and the backing store RAM, i.e. use direct I/O.

They've described that they want to use this stuff in a cell phone or PDA, yet have described an NVRAM technology that does not exist (as fast as system memory?). Methinks that they're working with Intel on some new fangled NVRAM, (hint, look for Ovonic). Samsung appears to be working with PRAM as well.

So this MontaVista file system is a PRAM-File System, maybe...

you do not know how threads work, what SMP is and what HyperThreading really is.

I'll bite for the benefit of those reading at home. A process is defined here as well as elsewhere. Symmetric multiprocessing refers to running one process on one core and another process on another core, dividing kernel tasks roughly evenly among processors; multicore refers to SMP within one PGA package, especially on one die. Threads are like processes that share their code, globals, and heap. Simultaneous multithreading, such as Intel's Hyper-Threading technology, inserts one thread's instructions into another thread's idle functional units. Cache capacity makes a processor using SMT run faster when it runs processes that share memory; this is true of multicore as well in implementations that share cache. Which did I get wrong?

They already have.

You can buy 64bit Xeons right now, and if you are lucky enough to find one, buy a Pentium 4 with the F extension, then get a motherboard with the 925X chipset, and you are all set.

Dell even has some workstations with the 64bit Pentium 4 If I were you though, I would get an Athlon64 instead, power consumption and heat dissapation is WAY less than a Pentium 4 or Xeon chip

AMD looks way ahead in the 90nm process especially when it comes to power consumption.

I am not an engineer, so please tell me if I'm just talking out of my ass. ;-)

AMD looks way ahead in the 90nm process especially when it comes to power consumption.

I am not an engineer, so please tell me if I'm just talking out of my ass. ;-)

How many Pentiums do you know can run for 16 hours on a AA battery? Stupid donkey, you probably think there is a small PC motherboard inside your MP3 player?

No, but I strongly suspect ther is something like one of these in there, which ought to be more than capable of performing the decoding required.

I can only wish that PC hardware was designed so well.

Well designed PC hardware is available. You get what you pay for. PC hardware ranges from about $200 to $10,000 and beyond depending on the configuration. Frankly, I don't see too much of a need for too much extra engineering for one box. If something is that important your going to ensure reliability through redundancy. The best computer in the world can't do too much when some careless bozo spills coffee on it or if there is a, lord forbid, user error while the system is running

With computer components being as cheap as they are, this could change. All that's needed is a decent replacement to the PC BIOS infrastructure. Something like OpenFirmware would significantly improve the ability for the software to interface with the hardware.

This too is underway. Take a look here or here. However, I wouldn't hold your breath. People seem to like the 70s technology in most PCs, including Linus.

Xscale is not compatible with any normal motherboard afaik. It is also not x86 compatible. Yes, you can run linux on it, but that does not turn it into a desktop machine.

Besides that, it seems that 1 GHz is not available, let alone at 1 W. See also: Xscale processor line-up.
These parts are not that expensive probably, they are manufactured with a .18 process, not .13 or .9 (which are less expensive in the long run).

1) When the IA-64 design first became public, it was clear that they'd made some incredibly poor decisions. For example, the architectural design was based on the assumption that the chip would not do out-of-order execution in hardware. Such deficiences were to be remedied by a god-like compiler that would emerge at some later date. Unsurprisingly, it never has.

The Intel fortran, C, and C++ compilers for the Itanium for Windows and Linux are pretty godlike in my experience. Look at AMD benchmarks and usually they are done with the Intel compiler. Intel has also licensed the compiler technology to at least Microsoft for VC++.

2) These predictions were borne out by the fact that Itanium performance has always sucked, especially considering the enormous die size, cost and heat dissipation.

Your definition of sucked differs from mine. Yeah, the Itanium1s did suck. Yeah, the Itaniums put out tons of heat, but much of the current work at Intel is not with uping the MHz game, but in lowering power consumption and heat dissipation. Currently available examples are the PentiumM and the low voltage Itanium2 processors which are only available at 1GHz now, but the whole line is supposed to be available in 2005.

3) It looked like Itanium might win in the market despite its technical limitations, just because of Intel's vast marketing budget, its momentum, and its monopoly leverage forcing OEMs to stay away from technically superior alternatives like AMD64.

Coke does the same thing over RC cola. Windows does this over OS X. It just comes from being the market leader. People buy what they are familiar and comfortable with and can afford.

4) Thankfully this hasn't happened. The technically superior, open solution is winning. Thanks AMD.

No comment.