Slashdot Mirror
Intel Delays Dual-Core Processor, Plans New Server Chip
Kajakske writes "Intel said Thursday that it is pushing back the release of its first dual-core processor by a year to 2005 and adding a new microprocessor for servers to its Itanium II lineup. On the other hand, Intel is moving forward in the area of new technologies."
The thing is, this isn't a chip technology race. It's a chip fabrication/distribution/pricing race.
Intel's chips are not technologically superior to AMDs (I know Intel has some major technology assets, but they mostly don't affect the chips in production now). On the other hand, Intel's capital, fabrication capacity, distribution, and market clout are far superior to AMDs. Intel is concentrating on the areas where it has the advantage, which are also the decisive areas.
If only this *was* a technology race. But that's market forces for you.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
A CPU with hyperthreading enabled will never complete a task faster than two of the same CPUs running parallel with hyperthreading disabled.
Well, of course 2 processors will outperform a single one. Processors have a finite pool of resources. The point of HT is not to perform like dual processor, rather to act like them, increasing the performance of a single CPU at a negligible cost.
Buying 2 processors would cost you twice as much as a single processor, even more when you consider the cost of a motherboard and enough memory to make dual processors a worthwhile investment. You would get roughly double (OK, 1.6x) the performance at double the cost.
Buying a single HT-enabled processor, however, would only cost you 10 or 15% more, and you would be seeing a 20-30% performance increase across the board. I think that's a better deal.
"The image is a dream. The beauty is real. Can you see the difference?" -- Richard Bach, Illusions
I wouldn't count this too far. Unless it gets tested in the marketplace, new tech tends to get rather...inbred. Too many generations of "new tech held internally" and you'll find it simply can't be put to market, because it turns out to be irrelevant, or not well adapted to the current situation, or...
Been there, done that.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Intel is acutally run not by business men so you are very wrong.
Andy Groove and Gordon Moore (two founders of intel) are by far two of the most prominent semiconductor scientists of the 20th century.
Dr. Grove himself has written over 40 technical papers and holds several patents on semiconductor devices and technology. For six years he taught a graduate course in semiconductor device physics at the University of California, Berkeley.
How many people here can say they have taught 6 years in a graduate course at Berkeley?
Craig Barrett the current CEo of intel himself is nothign to scoff at either. He's a fulbright fellow that received his PHD in material science at stanford. He has 40 technical papers dealing with the influence of microstructure on the properties of materials.
So before you knock on Intel about how businessmen is run by businessmen do your homework.
These guys are Far from business men. They are first and foremost incredibly talented scientist who happen to be good at business.
Intel has one of the world's LARGEST cost in terms of research and development along with GE, MS and AMD.
I'm sorry but you are sadly mistaken if you feel that Intel is run by businessmen.