Slashdot Mirror


Intel Shipped 1 Billionth Computer Chip

murat submitted linkage to a simple little story that proclaims that Intel has recently shipped it's One Billionth Chip. Quite an impressive accomplishment... it took them 25 years to reach the billions, but they estimate that they will hit 2 billion by only 2007.

350 comments

  1. 1 billion chips by SpanishInquisition · · Score: 5, Funny

    any beer to go with that?

    --
    Je t'aime Stéphanie
    1. Re:1 billion chips by jo42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Just imagine all of the pollution and garbage that had to be produced for those billion chips...

    2. Re:1 billion chips by gilesjuk · · Score: 1

      Now is it 1 billion working chips or just 1 billion?

      What's the yield like on modern CPUs?

  2. obligatory jokes about intel by rootofevil · · Score: 4, Funny

    blah blah blah 999999999th chip blah blah blah divide error blah blah blah

    all futher jokes are now redundant

    --
    turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
    1. Re:obligatory jokes about intel by FroMan · · Score: 2

      Well, my question is similar, but does it count the chip recalls for those?

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
  3. I'd like to congratulate them but... by frieked · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...Unfortunately their count was thrown off a bit during the early Pentium years... They've really only shipped 999,999,999.999239230823 processors

    --

    I have often regretted my speech, never my silence.
    -Xenocrates
    1. Re:I'd like to congratulate them but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But wait...what did the previous comment (#6160736) say?
      -1, redundant.

    2. Re:I'd like to congratulate them but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if you look at the time the two comments were posted you'd see they were at the same time.

    3. Re:I'd like to congratulate them but... by PenguiN42 · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between the FP bugs in the early pentiums, and normal rounding error due to the binary representation of fractional parts in the IEEE floating point format.

      Besides you're redundant as the AC said :)

      --
      The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
    4. Re:I'd like to congratulate them but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excuses, excuses...

      "A lie is a lie" - Alan Partridge.

  4. Who dares... by helleman · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    To post the One BILLIONth post?!

  5. That is amazing!!! by Arbogast_II · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Intel is to be applauded for advancing the computer industry!

    --


    HenryJamesFeltus.com
    1. Re:That is amazing!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yes, congratulations to a company of hard-nosed, take-no-prisoners marketing alchemists for turning awkward and obtuse silicon technology into pure gold.

      One can only wonder where things would be if IBM had used a technically superior alternative in the original PC.

      There seems to be a vague analogy in the software arena, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

  6. And by 2009 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    3 billion, and by 2010, 4 billion, and by the year 2020, they'll be shipping over a billion a day.

  7. The article never really said it... by MikeXpop · · Score: 1, Interesting

    ...which chip was it? Centrino, P4 or Xeon?

    --
    Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
    1. Re:The article never really said it... by temojen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Probably a microcontroller. Most of the manufacturers make way more of those than any other type.

    2. Re:The article never really said it... by KDan · · Score: 2, Informative

      The article said it:
      From the 8086 to today's Intel Pentium 4 processor, Intel Xeon and Intel Centrino mobile technology ...

      They're lumping together all the CPU chips they've ever shipped, from the 8086 to the latest. I imagine they must have shipped a lot more of other types of chips, though.

      Daniel

      --
      Carpe Diem
    3. Re:The article never really said it... by rabidcow · · Score: 1

      But would a microcontroller be a "computer chip"? I'd classify it more as an "embedded device chip."

    4. Re:The article never really said it... by HowlinMad · · Score: 4, Informative

      Probably not. Ripped from intel.com:

      Based on combined desktop, laptop and server shipment data from industry analyst firm Mercury Research*, Intel has shipped over one billion x86 CPUs as of April 2003, roughly 25 years after the debut of the first 8086 microprocessor on June 8, 1978.

      It was from the x86 family. Have a nice day, thanks for playing.

    5. Re:The article never really said it... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 3, Informative
      But would a microcontroller be a "computer chip"? I'd classify it more as an "embedded device chip."

      Heck, the term "computer chip" is so generic that a BCD converter or a DAC fits the definition (sneaks under the wire, barely). A microcontroller most certainly qualifies. Microcontrollers are usually simple CPUs with registers, instruction sets, etc. just like a big CPU. Moot point, though, because they're talking about Intel shipping its billionth x86 family chip.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    6. Re:The article never really said it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gee, thanks for not answering the question at all, nor showing any comprehension of what it was.

    7. Re:The article never really said it... by stanmann · · Score: 2, Informative

      Except the article is wrong. the 8086 was not the first CPU Intel built... that was the 4004, the 8086 wasn't even the first CPU built for use in Personal computers that was either the 8008 or the 8080.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    8. Re:The article never really said it... by Open_The_Box · · Score: 1

      Sorry, no. You're missing the question. To clarify: Which particular type of chip was the billionth? Was the billionth one shipped a Xeon or a Centrino or what?

      Not that it matters 'n all but it WOULD be kinda cool to know.

      --
      If you can't think of something nice to say then don't say anything at all. No, REALLY.
    9. Re:The article never really said it... by mark_lybarger · · Score: 1
      <obligatory> did you read the fricking article</obligatory>
      they're only counting x86 cpu's not every fricking cpu off the fab line. the article continues to state "The original IBM PC shipped with a version of the 8086". they don't even say which version, but a version. again, this mark is counting x86 chips. not 4004's or 8080's (neither of which really took off much that i recall) or co-processors, or the cpu in my watch that has intell's name stamped on it.

    10. Re:The article never really said it... by stanmann · · Score: 1
      And I quote from the article.

      Remember the 8086? That was Intel Corp.'s first microprocessor for personal computers in 1978.
      What part of

      Except the article is wrong. the 8086 was not the first CPU Intel built... that was the 4004, the 8086 wasn't even the first CPU built for use in Personal computers that was either the 8008 or the 8080.
      didn't you understand. Perhaps you should have read the article.
      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    11. Re:The article never really said it... by mark_lybarger · · Score: 1, Insightful

      i read the article. a little to close and critically i might guess.

      was the 4004 a microprocessor for personal computers? did it come out in 1978? no it came out in 1971 and it was "for the Japanese company Busicom to create a single chip for a calculator" . the 8080 wasn't a microprocessor for personal computers either and it also didn't come out in 1978. what was intel's first microprocessor for personal computers that came out in 1978?

      so, yes, your facts were right that intel had microprocessor's prior to the 8086, but the article author was also right on target with their wording.

    12. Re:The article never really said it... by KDan · · Score: 1

      Well, when they say they've shipped a billion, they really mean they've shipped a billion plus or minus a few hundred thousand, so that's a pretty hard-to-anwer question, heh :-P.

      Daniel

      --
      Carpe Diem
    13. Re:The article never really said it... by JCMay · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      The plural form of "microprocessor" is "microprocessors," and not "microprocessor's" which is the singular posessive form. The plural posessive form would be "microprocessors'"

    14. Re:The article never really said it... by stanmann · · Score: 1

      The 8008/8080/Z80 were Personal Computer processors. Oh, and that is of course according to intel in 1974 or 72, depending on how you wish to define Personal computer.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    15. Re:The article never really said it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me check, I have it right here.

    16. Re:The article never really said it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But of course 8080 was a microprocessor for personal computers. It's what CP/M was made for, and CP/M was the "industry standard" small-business operating system before IBM PC and PC-DOS. And no, IBM did not invent the phrase "personal computer" for the PC.

    17. Re:The article never really said it... by mark_lybarger · · Score: 1

      oops sorry, forgot that altair. regardless i believe, the article is still correct in its wording.

    18. Re:The article never really said it... by Z0mb1eman · · Score: 1

      Even without knowing anything about how Intel works internally, it doesn't take much to guess that they produce and ship chips in pretty big batches... chips aren't produced sequentially, one by one, so there's no one "billionth" chip that can be sold on Ebay (hmm, I've just given myself an idea).

      Would be interesting to know which batch went over the limit... but even then, there's probably batches of different processors produced more or less simultaneously at different locations.

      --
      ClutterMe.com - easiest site creation on the Net. Just click and type.
    19. Re:The article never really said it... by rabidcow · · Score: 1

      Heck, the term "computer chip" is so generic that a BCD converter or a DAC fits the definition (sneaks under the wire, barely).

      Yeah, I know... I'm just being a jerk 'cuz people call opamps and logic gates "computer chips." :6 It's a good way to distinguish from potato for people who don't know silicon, but still...

      Moot point, though, because they're talking about Intel shipping its billionth x86 family chip.

      Right, most people use the term too loosely, here it's being used too specifically. That's a sure recipe for confusion.

      Ah well.

    20. Re:The article never really said it... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Yeah, I know... I'm just being a jerk 'cuz people call opamps and logic gates "computer chips." :6 It's a good way to distinguish from potato for people who don't know silicon, but still...

      heh, yeah. I've given up. I've tried explaining basic electronics and computer theory to my boss, but he's one of those guys who goes through the directories of our computer in the shop looking for files to delete (usually 1K-3K files!) in order to "free up memory 'cause this computer is SLOW!" It's a pentium-200 you fool! Hard disk isn't memory! 1K icon files are irrelevant! Buy a new computer! ARGH!

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  8. Billions served! by mb12036 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Would you like fries with that?

    1. Re:Billions served! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Or, as we would say in England, would you like chips with that?

      zazink, boom

    2. Re:Billions served! by Graspee_Leemoor · · Score: 1

      " Or, as we would say in England, would you like chips with that?"

      Except that we don't. Our fast food scum joints are perfectly ready, able and willing to say "Would you like fries with that?".

      graspee

  9. Yeah but... by happosai_tendo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Call them the McDonalds of the chip world.
    Soon, their slogan will be "Billions and Billions of chips shipped" (then maybe McDonalds could sue Intel for trademark infringment! woo!)

    My question is how many of those chips are stil actually being used today? huh? How many of those 8086 chips are in use today? (maybe NASA still uses a few, eh?)

    And of course, my final question: Sure, 1 billion chips.. but how many transistors have you shipped on those 1 billion chips?

    1. Re:Yeah but... by HowlinMad · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well the original had 29,000 transistors, and the P4 has about 55 million... so to sum it up... a shitton (thats is a technical term for the number).

    2. Re:Yeah but... by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 5, Funny

      define 'in use'

      I have ancient/old PCs currently serving in a security mode...

      i.e. piled from floor to ceiling infront of the only window with ground access ;-)

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    3. Re:Yeah but... by kotj.mf · · Score: 1
      Soon, their slogan will be "Billions and Billions of chips shipped" (then maybe McDonalds could sue Intel for trademark infringment! woo!)

      ...or the estate of Carl Sagan.

      --
      hang brain.
    4. Re:Yeah but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually a lot of 8086 are in use today as microcontrollers.

    5. Re:Yeah but... by Galahad · · Score: 1

      That would be 1 Sagan of transistors.

      --
      --jdp Maintainer of VisEmacs
    6. Re:Yeah but... by yatest5 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      WHY is that your question? Why is that not the DUMBEST question in the world ever?

      --
      • Mod parent up! [a] by Anonymous Coward (Score:5) Thurs, June 31, @13:37
    7. Re:Yeah but... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      How many of those 8086 chips are in use today?

      I would say hundreds of thousands and increasing daily.

      what do you think is the processor in the SMC barricade router/firewall... and 8086/8088 hybrd that intel still manufacturers to this day.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    8. Re:Yeah but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen to that. I know that most street lights were running 8088's........

    9. Re:Yeah but... by ContemporaryInsanity · · Score: 1

      So you've got a load of PC's stacked up in front of a ground floor window for 'security' ?
      Sounds more like you're baiting f**kwits to me...

    10. Re:Yeah but... by ncc74656 · · Score: 1
      So you've got a load of PC's stacked up in front of a ground floor window for 'security' ? Sounds more like you're baiting f**kwits to me...

      No, he just hasn't gotten around to assembling his Beowulf cluster yet...

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    11. Re:Yeah but... by ContemporaryInsanity · · Score: 1

      Perhaps he could relocate to Soviet Russia and assemble it there.

    12. Re:Yeah but... by TwistedGreen · · Score: 1

      but if he did that, it would assemble him!

    13. Re:Yeah but... by arunkv · · Score: 1

      Just wondering - what are you referring to as "the original" when you say "Well the original had 29,000 transistors, ... "? If you start from the 4004, then according to Intel, the 4004 has the following specs:
      Clock speed: 108 KHz
      Date introduced: Nov. 1971
      Process: 10-micron
      Transistors: 2,300
      Addressable Memory: 640 Bytes

    14. Re:Yeah but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars case people :-D

      Uhm, huh?

  10. Puts pinky finger to lips by numbski · · Score: 5, Funny

    "But why have billions when we can have.....millions?"

    --

    Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).

    1. Re:Puts pinky finger to lips by FroMan · · Score: 1

      Okey, we can do that.

      Intel Shipped 1,000 Millionth Computer Chip

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
  11. Just like McDonald's by Lothar+0 · · Score: 1

    Maybe they should start putting any backlogged 486 processors in Happy Meals.

    --
    "Anonymous Coward" is for whistleblowers, not unpopular opinions.
  12. In other news... by Loki_1929 · · Score: 5, Funny

    AMD released it's AMD-1Billionth today, which the company states is actually rated as it's 17,275,000th processor.

    --
    -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    1. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMFGLMFAO, damn you! Coffee all over the keyboard! Coffee all over the keyboard!!

    2. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But surely the number of processors shipped doesn't matter! Or do you choose your car by the number of vehicles the manufacturer has shipped? AMD just has chosen another marketing methodology, with more hooplah per processor shipped, and there's nothing inherently inferior about that.

    3. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      How come everyone just happens to be drinking coffee or some other liquid when they read something funny? I call bullshit. We want to see pictures of the keyboard post haste.

      Thank you.

    4. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does bread always land butter-side down?

      Some things we will never know.

    5. Re:In other news... by wfberg · · Score: 2, Funny

      AMD released it's AMD-1Billionth today, which the company states is actually rated as it's 17,275,000th processor.


      However, the RIAA announced that actually AMD shipped the equivalent of 3 billion MP3 encoders, mostly straight to music pirates.
      --
      SCO employee? Check out the bounty
  13. China Syndrome by rwiedower · · Score: 1

    Now if only they could sell a chip to everyone in China...they'd surpass that 2007 estimate handily!

    1. Re:China Syndrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chips aren't much good without 'lectricity you dolt. Why are people always so interested in selling a billion of something in China .... most of rural China would be more interested in safe running water, reliable food other modern "conveniences" than counting FPS in Quake.

  14. Grats to them by Xenius · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I suppose congrats are in order for Intel. Wonder if AMD will ever reach one billion? The real question is....when are they releasing the 3.2Ghz and some price cuts to go along with it?

    --
    - Xenius
    1. Re:Grats to them by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      "The real question is...."

      The real question is when will the Athlon64 (aka Clawhammer) CPUs be in full production? The survival of AMD is not riding on the AthlonXP 3200+; it's riding on the success of the Athlon64. The K7 has just about reached its architectual limits, and is fast becoming a legacy product that's more trouble than it's worth to AMD. The K8 is where AMD has poured much of its R&D into over recent years, and it's probably the biggest gamble they've ever taken. K7 was designed extraordinarily well, but it was never intended to be pushed into competing with 3GHz chips. The effort to continuously modify the CPU to compete simply isn't worth it. K8, on the other hand, is designed to scale much better than the K7, making it a very good prospect for AMD's future, assuming it works as advertised.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
  15. Chips with everything by Vollernurd · · Score: 1

    I wonder how many of them got buried?

    Conversly, I wonder how many of the early ones (8088, et al) are still being used?

    --
    Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules.
    1. Re:Chips with everything by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      "Conversly, I wonder how many of the early ones (8088, et al) are still being used?"

      Look to NASA for your answers to questions such as this. They're still using a lot of the old, old parts because that's what the equipment and the software were designed to work with. Aside from that, they've had ample time to fully test the old stuff, making sure that their CPU isn't going to fail or perform unexpectedly when human life and multi-billion dollar projects are on the line. I seem to recall reading about NASA looking to eBay amoung other places for the old 8086's and such to replace old parts. The problem is that they haven't been made in so long, it's virtually impossible for them to find replacements for parts which are beginning to wear out after so many years and so much use.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    2. Re:Chips with everything by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
      That begs the question of course: rounding up really dirt old parts and verifying that they work is a very labor intensive process.

      Now ask yourself: are the running a museum or a space program? I realize a board requires thousands of dollars worth of labor to re-design and certify. But we are spending BILLIONS on the project every year. If that money is not going into R&D, where is it going?

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    3. Re:Chips with everything by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      If that money is not going into R&D, where is it going?

      It's a decades old Government Program. Do you even need to ask if there's fat, sloth, and 'organized labor' involved in the bloated cost? Stuff like that grows like moss on anything involving government funding.

    4. Re:Chips with everything by JCMay · · Score: 1

      Bzzt! Try again!

      The reason why these programs use old parts is very simple: when the design process started, those parts were what was available. Complicated systems or systems that have high reliability requirements take years to fully design and qualify. Commercial products don't have these kinds of restrictions and evolve much faster. To keep a space or military system up-to-date with the commerical world would render the system unfieldable; it would never get qualified!

      Take the RAH-66 Comanche helicopter. The prototype flew in 1996. It's not scheduled to enter active duty service until 2006!

    5. Re:Chips with everything by Doppler00 · · Score: 1

      I doubt they are using old 8088's. They have been manufacturing previous generation CPU's but in much smaller form factors for embedded systems. So the original 8088 CPU's you would find in say a home PC are being put to use in landfills.

    6. Re:Chips with everything by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      "Now ask yourself: are the running a museum or a space program?"

      They're running a space program on a museum budget. Seriously, while NASA's been trying to go further into space and explore deeper than ever, we, the people, have been trimming their budget down steadily since the 1970s.

      "I realize a board requires thousands of dollars worth of labor to re-design and certify."

      For space travel? Are you joking? Think about it for a moment; they're dealing with millions, if not billions of unknown variables in outter space. NASA's looking for stuff that works; stuff they know. You're telling them that every few years, they need to tear everything apart and start from scratch? Who's going to strip down every single space shuttle and replace every board and chip in the entire thing? Who's going to redesign the chassis so it still fits? Who's going to rewrite all the software and test it tens of thousands of times under tons of different conditions to ensure that when and if it fails, it fails in such a way that the mission continues if possible. Failing that, it has to fail in a predictable enough manner that human life is not lost. Furthermore, the hardware/software has to be known well enough by everyone involved (from the engineers to the astronaughts) that massive systemic failures can be bypassed and/or worked around in such a way as to make it work long enough to get our people home safe. Look at Apollo 13 for an example of a bunch of people who knew enough about what they were working with to make it all come together. Now you're telling them to redo it all every few years? How could anyone, save a few select people involved in a very specific role keep up?

      The thing is, NASA folks know this hardware - they know every little problem, every fix, how it reacts under extreme conditions, and they know how to make it work in space. Intel couldn't tell you how a P4 will work in space. Nor could they tell you how a P4 mainboard will work in space. They can't tell you how it'll react after being bombarded with tons of EM interference, nor can they tell you every single problem you can face with it.

      Then you look at cost. It's much cheaper for NASA to replace existing, albeit old, parts than it is to redesign the entire system. You can't have part of the system designed for an 8088 and another part running with a P4. Well, you can, it just will crash/explode/do nothing/kill the astronaughts. Or it might do something entirely different, getting back to the previous paragraph. How on Earth can you expect NASA to retool all their equipment with the piss-poor budget they're running on? You've got champagne tastes and they're on a beer budget.

      And finally, you also need to look at engineering. The processors and boards at the time were not designed for the masses, by any stretch of the imagination. The stuff NASA's using, while it may be old, was very well manufactured. It was designed at a time where the consumer $60 mainboard and $70 microchip weren't even a figment of someone's sick imagination. In other words, people were actually paying for something back then. This gave Intel and the board makers a whole lot more room to work on things like quality, and it means that the parts tend to be much more reliable and much better tested. What you end up with is the "heavy duty" version of what we have now, only much, much slower. Fact is, though? It works.

      "But we are spending BILLIONS on the project every year. If that money is not going into R&D, where is it going?"

      Well, let's see. We've got the top scientists in the world, working with the top engineers in the world, working with top notch management, working on a very wide range of ultra high-tech stuff. Much of it is going into R&D, but not the kind us consumers are used to. We look at Intel or AMD R&D and we see them pushing the limits of the technology. This isn't what NASA's trying to do, as they don't have the luxery of having the whole thing screw

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    7. Re:Chips with everything by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
      I was not trying to say the Nasa should drop into every stinking latest and greatest fad. But suffice to say that Civilian and Military aviation have developed a long way since the early 1970's. Now you want to talk about 2 industries where a mistake will cost billions of dollars!

      In both industries old equipment is constantly being retrofitted with new technology as parts stop becomming available. Look at the B-52. The design has been flying since the 50's. They carry nuclear weopons. They have to operate on a budget. When a new bomb comes out, or they need a plane to do recon instead of bomb, they design the new technology into the existing spaces.

      To be fair, the Space Shuttle has had a lot of improvements over time. I recall they are in the process of overhauling the computers and installing glass cockpits. But to read the review board's report, it sounds like a lot of the talent has been run out of the organization. And now it seems that a lot of the contractors are doing the same.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    8. Re:Chips with everything by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      "Look at the B-52. The design has been flying since the 50's. They carry nuclear weopons. They have to operate on a budget. "

      $300 - $400 Billion spent annually on defense.

      NASA operates on $10billion - $15billion.

      I'll bet the boys down at NASA would just love to switch up budgets with the Dept of Defense. You'd have your wish and more. Give NASA $400Billion annually and we'll have space colonies on Pluto within 20 years and a brand new fleet of state-of-the-art Space Shuttles that are 10 times better than what we have now. Until you find $400Billion to give NASA every year, they'll just have to do the best they can with what they've got.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    9. Re:Chips with everything by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      " I doubt they are using old 8088's."

      Incorrect.
      Quoth the article: "Auction sites such as eBay and Yahoo! sell just about everything and have been used by NASA for some of the more hard-to-find items."

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    10. Re:Chips with everything by croddy · · Score: 1

      For space travel? Are you joking? Think about it for a moment; they're dealing with millions, if not billions of unknown variables in outter space. NASA's looking for stuff that works; stuff they know. You're telling them that every few years, they need to tear everything apart and start from scratch? Who's going to strip down every single space shuttle and replace every boar well, I'm sure they could get some 8088 chips manufactured for them. I can think of a couple of companies in texas that would do it if intel wouldn't. this 'NASA buying XT boards on ebay' business stinks of rumor.

  16. McIntel by endemic0 · · Score: 1

    McIntel
    over 1 billon served.
    I don't know if thats a comparison intel would like. Mcdonalds isnt exactly known for quality.

    1. Re:McIntel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      neither is intel

    2. Re:McIntel by yatest5 · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      I don't know if thats a comparison intel would like. Mcdonalds isnt exactly known for quality.

      It's a good job the only one making it is some gormless fucktard such as yourself then.

      --
      • Mod parent up! [a] by Anonymous Coward (Score:5) Thurs, June 31, @13:37
    3. Re:McIntel by jeepliberty · · Score: 1

      Over a billion SERVERS. But...Are they counting the Pentium-I's that were recalled with the internal floating point error?

    4. Re:McIntel by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      due to bizzare circumstances, your posts get rated as a 5. you leave some really bizzare and odd replies, not really worthy of being called a troll.... why do you do this? spare time? boredom? i'm really curious; do you really not have anything better to do with your time?

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
  17. Chips? by Gay+Nigger · · Score: 0

    Do they call them chips in England too?

    1. Re:Chips? by MojoMonkey · · Score: 1

      No, microfries.

      --

      ----- "Blame the guy who doesn't speak English." -- Homer J. Simpson
    2. Re:Chips? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, we call them War Crisps.

  18. Accuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it took 25 years to reach the billions
    I just hope they didn't use THEIR chips to do the math, anyone remember the original pentiums?

  19. Moore's Law by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

    Some peddler^Wsalesman running Intel will no doubt formulate his own version of the sales curve. Seems like the peddlers always take over, even the fun stuff.

  20. In other news... by select+*+from · · Score: 5, Funny

    Intel ships its 100th Itanium processor.

    By 2007 it should reach the 200 milestone.

  21. Billionth x86 chip, not chips in general by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The article is talking about the billionth x86 chip, not just the billionth chip of any kind. If you included ALL the IC chips that Intel has made since being founded, the number would be closer to 10 billion I would predict.

    1. Re:Billionth x86 chip, not chips in general by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO it isn't the billionth x86 chip!

    2. Re:Billionth x86 chip, not chips in general by LinuxInDallas · · Score: 1

      That makes sense given everything they do: processors, memories, networking ICs, bla bla bla. To be honest I am surprised that they have only shipped a billion x86 chips.

  22. Microsoft launching an investigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Citing Intel's recent announcement that they have shipped over 1 billion CPUs, and the fact that they have not licensed a billion copies of DOS/Windows, Microsoft has launched a piracy investigation. "It's clear that there are CPU's out there running Windows illegally. The numbers simply do not match up." said Microsoft counsel Mike Rebadow. "We've of course accounted for IBM DOS and DR DOS sold in the 80's, as well as OS/2 which licensed Windows, but that still leaves hundreds of millions of CPUs unaccounted for. Piracy is the only way to explain this."

    1. Re:Microsoft launching an investigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And of course the BSA will tell you that statistically, half of all computer owners intend to upgrade Windows but don't go through with it. That's another 500 million stolen copies.

  23. Craig Barrett (CEO) by Faust7 · · Score: 1

    (You know the pose.)

    "One billyun chips..."

  24. AMD effect ... by Mr.+Mai · · Score: 1

    >but they estimate that they will hit 2 billion by only 2007
    They had already hit the 2 billion by now if AMD hadn't appeared in the scene as it has.

    1. Re:AMD effect ... by tempmpi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They had already hit the 2 billion by now if AMD hadn't appeared in the scene as it has.
      Why ? AMD hasn't shipped a billion x86 chips yet, so even combined they wouldn't have shipped two billion chips yet. And without competition from AMD their CPUs would still be a lot more expensive and a bit slower, not exactly something that lets you sell more CPUs.

      --
      Jan
    2. Re:AMD effect ... by Loki_1929 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "They had already hit the 2 billion by now if AMD hadn't appeared in the scene as it has."

      x86 wouldn't be the dominant chip without AMD. Intel never would have landed the life-giving government contracts without AMD, as government regulations regarding purchasing required that a backup distributor be available with compatible products in case the primary distributor fell on hard times. Intel should be thanking AMD wholeheartedly for their help in securing x86's, and of course, Intel's future as market leaders.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    3. Re:AMD effect ... by TummyX · · Score: 1


      Intel never would have landed the life-giving government contracts without AMD, as government regulations regarding purchasing required that a backup distributor be available with compatible products in case the primary distributor fell on hard times.


      Hmmm..why doesn't that apply to software?

    4. Re:AMD effect ... by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      "Hmmm..why doesn't that apply to software?"

      Probably because you don't manufacture software. Once the software is written, you only look for upgrades and/or bugfixes from the vendor. Switching software is a hell of a lot easier than switching hardware. Besides, alternate sources for "compatible" software (as in: will do the same thing on the same hardware) is usually widely available anyway.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    5. Re:AMD effect ... by Syberghost · · Score: 1

      So, who's the backup distributor with a compatible product for Windows?

      And don't use anything that requires a functioning Windows installation in your answer, because if one could still purchase Windows there'd be no need for the backup.

    6. Re:AMD effect ... by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      " So, who's the backup distributor with a compatible product for Windows?"

      You're asking me this on a site overrun by Linux junkies? Heh.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
  25. Statiscal propaganda for the borg.... by adzoox · · Score: 1, Insightful

    That's a slight bit of propaganda. That would make the average person (note average person not a /. reader) think that they have shipped 1 billion CPUs. That's graphic chips, CPU's, et al. It also is a combination of ALL the units they have bought out like Chips & Technologies (80,000 PowerBook Duos used their graphic chips before the Intel buyout) It also accounts for their USB controller chips etc etc. This is propaganda to show that Intel is in everything so you might as well buy Intel based stuff for " compatibility & to keep up with the Jones' " They know that no other chip producer could even come close to this total, so it's a marketing ploy to even let this information leak to any type of press. Nothing wrong with that, but it 's just as any other statistic, skewed to say whatever the hand in the sock puppet wants it to say.

    --
    Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
    1. Re:Statiscal propaganda for the borg.... by HowlinMad · · Score: 1

      Based on combined desktop, laptop and server shipment data from industry analyst firm Mercury Research*, Intel has shipped over one billion x86 CPUs as of April 2003, roughly 25 years after the debut of the first 8086 microprocessor on June 8, 1978.

      Taken from the intel news release on Intel.com

      Propaganda? maybe, but not like you thought.

    2. Re:Statiscal propaganda for the borg.... by adzoox · · Score: 1
      The article is errant. It is GPUs CPUs BCUs (Bus Controller Units) - The article had its facts wrong, maybe on purpose. Intel might have released the information very ambiguously.

      There's hardly more than a billion CPUs (any variety for computer appliucation) sold PERIOD! Intel doesn't make the only CPUs and they also don't make the only x86 (there have also been lots of companies that produced x86 variants in a sizeable portion of the total x86 shipments.. So NO, it's not 1 billion x86 CPUs ... that would be close to impossible in my eye.

      --
      Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
    3. Re:Statiscal propaganda for the borg.... by HowlinMad · · Score: 1

      Maybe they are full of it, maybe not. The information was from Mercury Research. I am jsut staing what they released.

    4. Re:Statiscal propaganda for the borg.... by CPUGuy · · Score: 1

      And I suppose you are the alimighty chip counter?

      Seriously, come off your high horse.

  26. yeah, but how many transistors is that? by elwinc · · Score: 1

    OK, the article actually says 1 billion computer chips. The early CPUs only had 29000 transistors; the new ones have about 50 million. Some of the support chips don't have so many transistors. But I think we can safely assume an average of 1 million transistors/chip over this time period. So we get an amazing one trillion (10^15) transistors! WOW!

    --
    --- Often in error; never in doubt!
    1. Re:yeah, but how many transistors is that? by Bigby · · Score: 1

      "So we get an amazing one trillion (10^15) transistors! WOW! Often in error; never in doubt!"

      I see the you are often in error...10^12 is 1 trillion. 10^15 is like a quadrillion.

    2. Re:yeah, but how many transistors is that? by be-fan · · Score: 1

      Um, even assuming the minimum number of transistors (29,000) that makes 29 trillion transistors. There are 1000 billions in a trillion.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    3. Re:yeah, but how many transistors is that? by nolife · · Score: 1

      This whole thing about "XX amount of transistors" is bogus anyway. It should be stated as an "equivelent of XX transistors" or simply "XX NPN and PNP junctions". They did not shrink down a bunch of transistors and stick them on a single silicon wafer or add individual junctions one at a time. These junctions are created as a system by etching down or buiding up the product.

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    4. Re:yeah, but how many transistors is that? by elwinc · · Score: 1

      You caught me there; I had the right exponent, but the wrong name. Doesn't even work according to the British naming convention (in Britain, a billion officially means a million million. It's so confusing the Brits rarely use the term). But I learned something important: if you want to get a lot of replies on slashdot, then introduce a small error that lots of folks can spot and correct!

      --
      --- Often in error; never in doubt!
  27. 8086 not the first processor... by pir8garth · · Score: 5, Informative

    The intel family of PC processors actually started with the 8080. It was released in April 1974 running at 2MHz, and is generally considered to be the first truly usable microprocessor design. It was used in many early computers, and formed the basis for machines running CP/M. The first single-board microcomputer was built on the basis of the 8080. The 8088 was actually released before the 8086, but as the article states the 8086 was developed first.

    --
    Something clever...
    1. Re:8086 not the first processor... by VAXcat · · Score: 3, Informative

      Gez, you youngsters! The first Intel processor chip of any note was the 8008! There was an active hobby community built around it, before the 8080 came out. Scelbi Computer Consulting sold systems & software, as well as many others.

      --
      There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
    2. Re:8086 not the first processor... by pir8garth · · Score: 1

      I'm talking in practical terms what has lead to the "modern" chip architechture. The 8008 was acceptable for controller and CRT terminal use, but was too difficult to use for most other tasks. A few early computer designs were based on it, but most would use the later and greatly improved Intel 8080 instead (how's that for youngster?).

      --
      Something clever...
    3. Re:8086 not the first processor... by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      I imagine that some people did something with the 4004, but I'll go with the Mark-8. (7 layers of hardware stack, but cute.)

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    4. Re:8086 not the first processor... by richwmn · · Score: 1

      Three strikes -- you are out -- Intel first used the term microprocessor on the 4004 and 4040 processors, both had "computers" designed around them in the early '70s

    5. Re:8086 not the first processor... by Zocalo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Confused me too, but having actually *read* the Intel PR - it's the one billionth x86 CPU specifically. So that excludes all the other silicon not classed as CPUs as well as other non-x86 CPUs shipped by Intel. They must have shippped a few 10m of the i[89]60 "RISC" chip for intelligent peripherals over the years as well.P. Anyway, you didn't mention the 4004 either... :P

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    6. Re:8086 not the first processor... by eggplantpasta · · Score: 1

      young whippersnapper....
      it was the 4004 in 1971

      --
      "Don't forget the prunes." L. Francis Herreshoff
    7. Re:8086 not the first processor... by 3waygeek · · Score: 1

      Let's not forget the 4004, which was designed for the Busicom calculator in the early 70s, but ended up being used in other applications, including the SIM-4 microcomputer.

    8. Re:8086 not the first processor... by pir8garth · · Score: 1

      You are correct that the Intel 4004 was the first CPU designed and manufactured by Intel in November, 1971. However the chip (limited by its 16 pin DIP packaging) had a single 4-bit bus was originally designed for Busicom for use in their calculators. For calculator and controller use this was a very effective design. There are even a few older traffic light control systems in use built with these chips, but I still think we're talking about different frame of references here as far as the article is concerned...

      --
      Something clever...
    9. Re:8086 not the first processor... by leshert · · Score: 1

      I suppose it hinges on what you mean by "of any note", but I'd call the 4004 noteworthy, being the first microprocessor and all that.

      Granted, it was used mostly in calculators and device control, but they did built a microcomputer board around it as well.

    10. Re:8086 not the first processor... by rogerl · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The 8088 was actually released before the 8086, but as the article states the 8086 was developed first.

      No, the 8086 did come out first. It had a full 16 bit bus. The 8088 came out later with an 8 bit bus (I think the memory bus, but I am not sure about that) because manufactures were finding it was to expensive to make motherboards based on the 16 bit bus.

    11. Re:8086 not the first processor... by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      Actually, it was more of a technological issue. Check here for more info on the topic.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    12. Re:8086 not the first processor... by KingRamsis · · Score: 1

      bzzzzzt..! wrong
      the 4004 processor is the first one, Intel was contracted by a japanese calculator manufacturer.

    13. Re:8086 not the first processor... by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Informative
      from about.com
      In November, 1971, a company called Intel publicly introduced the world's first single chip microprocessor, the Intel 4004 (U.S. Patent #3,821,715),
      It was used in several computers, including a build-it-yourself from heathkit, that ran payroll packages, and boxes from several other manufacturers.
    14. Re:8086 not the first processor... by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      Yes, the 8088 and 80188 were both 16-bit processors with 8-bit data busses. This is because [well I think so anyways] at the time processors like the 8080 and 68xx family were popular and only interfaced with 8-bit data memory mapped devices.

      Of course I actually prefer the 68xx series anyways. Not a huge fan of accumulator based processors but it has the coolest indexing modes [specially the 6809].

      Not having owned a 8088 [though I can proudly? say I owned a 8086] I'm not sure if this is entirely correct.

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    15. Re:8086 not the first processor... by Loki_1929 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This site actually has a lot of good info on the early microprocessors, complete with pictures. They've even got info and pictures of the 4004! :)

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    16. Re:8086 not the first processor... by pir8garth · · Score: 1

      Wow...did I get reamed for that one :-). Notice that I did say "considered to be the first truly usable microprocessor design"

      --
      Something clever...
    17. Re:8086 not the first processor... by reflective+recursion · · Score: 1

      From x86 manual:

      The developments leading to the Intel Architecture can be traced back through the 8085 and 8080 microprocessors to the 4004 microprocessor (the first microprocessor, designed by Intel in 1969). However, the first actual processor in the Intel Architecture family is the 8086, quickly followed by a more cost effective version for smaller systems, the 8088.

      I do believe they are counting from the first 8086, rather than from the 4004. And if you read the article is does mention X86 specifically at the end.

      --
      Dijkstra Considered Dead
    18. Re:8086 not the first processor... by Graspee_Leemoor · · Score: 1

      "mod me up and you will either go to heaven or date Natalie Portman."

      I think the latter implies the former.

      graspee

    19. Re:8086 not the first processor... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget about the 2002, 4004, and 8008. Oh wait, Billy didn't sell software for those, so they can't possibly count!

    20. Re:8086 not the first processor... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I clicked the link - I saw the 404, but no info and pictures. What gives?

    21. Re:8086 not the first processor... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This site is also a very good read on the 4004 history and it's architect - Federico Faggin.

    22. Re:8086 not the first processor... by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 1

      Just think, we preserved backwards compatibility with all that shit rather than move to a better processor design. Fuck that, I'm getting a PPC 970. If there's one thing open source promises, it's an end to being tethered to an archaic platform for the sake of backwards compatibility.

      --

      In Soviet America the banks rob you!
    23. Re:8086 not the first processor... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1
      Perhaps so, but what an x86 bigot! Take this, for example:
      If you want to nit-pick, a dwindling, almost extinct, handful of reasonably modern machines used CPUs that were quite unrelated to the 8080â"mostly the Motorola 68000 family, the DEC Alpha, or the PowerPC. Examples included the Apple Mac, Commodore Amiga and Acorn Archemedes.
      Apple would be severely upset to find out that they're "almost extinct".
      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    24. Re:8086 not the first processor... by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      "Apple would be severely upset to find out that they're "almost extinct"."

      If Steve Jobs read that, he'd immediately respond by raising the prices on all Apple computers. Heh.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
  28. How can this be? by kinnell · · Score: 1
    it took them 25 years to reach the billions, but they estimate that they will hit 2 billion by only 2007.

    According to Moores law every quantity in the semiconductor industry doubles every 18 months, so they should reach 2 billion by the end of 2004. Are the laws of nature themselves being defied? What does this mean for the quest to find the universal field theory? Let's hope they've just done their sums wrong.

    --
    If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
    1. Re:How can this be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good thing Moore's Law has shit-all to do with SALES of anything. Moore's Law only refers to the number of transistors that can be put on a chip.

    2. Re:How can this be? by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      what an awful troll. sigh. i'll bite (obviously)... moore's law says transistor density will double every 18 months. not speed, not sales, not size of your penis, and obviously not your capability to troll.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    3. Re:How can this be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      >According to Moores law every quantity in the >semiconductor industry doubles every 18 months

      Um, no. Moore's law has to do with chip complexity and speed. Nothing to do with the number of hotdog vendors in the cafeteria or Nike shoes in the cleanroom...
      Secondly, despite everyone calling it a "law", it is not a law like gravity or jaywalking. It is a very nice theory that so far has matched the data is is supposed to model. There is nothing magical about it.

  29. Intel Corp.'s first microprocessor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "the 8086? That was Intel Corp.'s first microprocessor for personal computers in 1978"

    So I suppose the 8080 was a heating element, used in electric fires ?

  30. I get the sarcasm just fine by gazbo · · Score: 3, Funny
    And as such am allowed to post under your strange ad hoc rules.

    However, that doesn't stop your "joke" from "sucking donkey cocks" and being "-1, Offtopic".

    1. Re:I get the sarcasm just fine by Artemis+P.+Fonswick · · Score: 1

      You, sir, are a gentelman and a scholar.

      --


      Kudos to you, my good man.
    2. Re:I get the sarcasm just fine by sporty · · Score: 0, Troll

      Your mom sucked my cock. Tell her to stop her dentures though.

      --

      -
      ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

    3. Re:I get the sarcasm just fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you a retard or what? What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Are you some immigrant?

    4. Re:I get the sarcasm just fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nah, he's probably some fremch dude. Stupid fremchmen...

    5. Re:I get the sarcasm just fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      please people what are we doing????

      At least the frenchmen (and some others) are against the war, so maybe they're not that stupid.

    6. Re:I get the sarcasm just fine by AllenChristopher · · Score: 1
      What war are they against? There is no war. There was a war.

      Maybe you need to check your ping.

  31. 10^9th CPU by cperciva · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It sounds like this is actually the billionth *CPU* from Intel, not the billionth chip. Intel produces quite a lot of other silicon in addition to the CPUs it is best known for, and I suspect that Intel actually passed the billion *chip* mark many years ago.

  32. How many has ARM shipped? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aren't they supposed to have higher volumes than Intel - in mobile phones / handhelds / washing machines / toasters etc

    1. Re:How many has ARM shipped? by Scorchio · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think I can safely say that ARM has shipped approximately 0 processors. They have, however, licenced their technology to a whole range of semiconductor manufacturers, including Intel, who do all the mucking about with silicon and god-knows-what.

      Ok, I'm being a little pedantic.. I'd be interested to know how many ARM processors had been produced by all these manufacturers - must be quite a few!

  33. More than one per second by suso · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That's more than 1 per second since 1 billion seconds is almost 32 years.

    1. Re:More than one per second by Veranix · · Score: 2

      I guess running that one press that fast explains those pesky little Pentium bugs.

    2. Re:More than one per second by tomstdenis · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not surprising. Since

      a) They own more than one fabs

      b) They print [cut, etch, whatever] more than one processor per waifer. Its called mass production :-)

      Otherwise we'd be buying a P4 2Ghz processor at a bargain 9500$ or so.

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    3. Re:More than one per second by micromoog · · Score: 4, Funny

      Unless you're in England. Then 1 billion seconds is almost 32000 years.

    4. Re:More than one per second by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      Unless you're in England. Then 1 billion seconds is almost 32000 years.

      Actually, it only seems that long.

    5. Re:More than one per second by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've got a talent in taking the fun out of a statistic / life.

    6. Re:More than one per second by Graspee_Leemoor · · Score: 2, Funny

      " Unless you're in England. Then 1 billion seconds is almost 32000 years."

      Wrong, England changed from 1 billion as a million million to the American standard of a thousand million many years ago.

      graspee

    7. Re:More than one per second by Firestorm_Rising · · Score: 1

      To make one billion chips in twenty-five years you would have to make one chip every .7889184 seconds. (((19 * 365) + (6 * 366)) * 24 * 60 * 60) / 1000000000 = .7889184 Does someone really buy a new Intel CPU every .7889184 seconds?

    8. Re:More than one per second by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, no we didn't!

  34. a billion eh? by pschmerg · · Score: 5, Funny

    I hear they're planning on releasing a new chip to celebrate this milestone. The chip will be based on the p4 architecture, and will be known as the p4 Type S. It will feature speed increasing kanji stickers, sporty wing, and a custom fan guaranteed to dull your hearing.

    All these new features will come at a bit more of a cost but are guaranteed to increase your cpu's power by 50%.

    1. Re:a billion eh? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      You forgot the fact that it will also be painted bright yellow. Intel will provide buyers of the chips with VTEC stickers to plaster all over their computer cases too.

    2. Re:a billion eh? by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1

      Cool. Do I get the coffee can exhaust too? And does the sound system strip paint off of wood at it's lowest setting?

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    3. Re:a billion eh? by Kintanon · · Score: 1

      SWEET! Now my computer can match my 1984 Honda Civic Hatchback! YEAH!

      Kintanon

      --
      Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
    4. Re:a billion eh? by jkusar · · Score: 1

      However, for those who want to save some money, you can also just buy the sticker and place it on the outside of your box. Since we all know this basically provides the same performance increase as the actual modifications, why would anyone want to actually buy the product.

      Proof is here

    5. Re:a billion eh? by EpsCylonB · · Score: 1

      Will it make my interweb faster ?

  35. AMD Helped Intel with Sales by WC+as+Kato · · Score: 3, Insightful

    AMD gave them a run during the 1GHz era but Intel is now ahead of the competition. I'm sure that the competition helped Intel reach this billion mark faster than it would have without competition. AMD with its once faster and cheaper chips helped lower the prices of Intel chips.
    Competition is good for the consumer. Let's see what happens with Intel's prices now that there're on top.

    --
    --- I'm Green Hornet's sidekick not Inspector Clouseau's!
    1. Re:AMD Helped Intel with Sales by toddestan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, while Intel does have a firm hold of the high end chips, AMD is still killing them in the lower end chips. If you want the fastest computer around, get Intel. But for everyone else, who is looking for the biggest bang for their buck, is buying AMD.

    2. Re:AMD Helped Intel with Sales by Loki_1929 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      " AMD gave them a run during the 1GHz era but Intel is now ahead of the competition."

      I'm sure you don't mean to imply that Intel is far out front of AMD, right? I mean, every bench I see puts the AthlonXP 3000+ pretty close to the P4 @ ~3GHz. The newest P4 on the 800MHz FSB pulls ahead slightly more, but then you have to look at the AthlonXP 3200+ on the 400MHz FSB, which is due out soon and competes quite well with it. There's no doubt that Intel has the performance crown right now, but AMD is most certainly not far behind them. Quite impressive when you consider that the K7 chips were competing with the first PIIIs, and are now in good competition with the latest and greatest P4s.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    3. Re:AMD Helped Intel with Sales by tomstdenis · · Score: 3, Informative

      I disagree on the basis "fast" is subjective. For example, Athlon XP processors kick the P4 at doing bignum math [something I'm active in]. My 1.53Ghz Athlon would routinely beat out a P4 2Ghz by 25% or more.

      There are really only three good reasons to buy a P4

      1. Cost. It comes with a Dell

      2. Heat. P4s are wickedly better at managing heat.

      3. Multimedia. SSE2 when used properly can woop an Athlon.

      Outside of those three reasons there isn't any other real reason to use a P4. The ALU and FPU of the Athlon are wickedly optimized making it an all around faster processor.

      15 cycle MUL on the P4, nuff said. [hint: the same multiply takes 6 cycles on the Athlon] :-)

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    4. Re:AMD Helped Intel with Sales by ncc74656 · · Score: 1
      I disagree on the basis "fast" is subjective. For example, Athlon XP processors kick the P4 at doing bignum math [something I'm active in]. My 1.53Ghz Athlon would routinely beat out a P4 2Ghz by 25% or more.

      Another consideration is that you can't buy a dual-P4 system, but dual Athlon MPs are available and not that expensive. They kick ass at video encoding. (Dual Xeons might well be faster at this point, but I suspect that just one Xeon costs more than a pair of Athlon MPs.)

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    5. Re:AMD Helped Intel with Sales by MrNemesis · · Score: 1

      Minor quibble, but I was under the impression that the latest P4's (3 GHz+) had more heat output than their equivalent Athlons...? I could be wrong (can't find a comparison chart), and it's a while since I was in the market for a new CPU.

      --
      Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
    6. Re:AMD Helped Intel with Sales by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I think what he means is that the computer reacts better when the processor overheats. The P4 has a much better system, clocking the CPU down until it cools off, letting the system continue run. If the heatsink/fan is removed with the system on, the computer will still run (though *very* slowly) allowing the user to save their work, etc.

      AMD is not as good when it comes to that. I know the newer chips are improved to where the computer will halt if the fan stops and the chip gets too hot. You lose all your work etc. I'm not sure if they are quick enough to handle the heatsink suddenly being removed though. Older AMD chips with no overheating circuitry on the motherboard would literally burn up if they got too hot, frying the chip and usually the motherboard at the same time.

      But the poster is right, the newer P4's do produce slightly more heat than the newer Athlons (they both produce far too much).

    7. Re:AMD Helped Intel with Sales by cowbutt · · Score: 1
      You forgot:

      4. You can't plug AMD CPUs into Intel-chipset motherboards.

      That's my reason. I don't believe that AMD-supporting chipsets are any worse than Intel's, but they do seem to be less well documented, which in turn means more quirks and bugs in drivers.

      --

    8. Re:AMD Helped Intel with Sales by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 1

      The new AMD CPUs (ever since the first Athlon XP) have a thermal diode that reads the temperature inside the core. You need a motherboard with thermal protection (just about every Athlon motherboard today) for it to do any good. The motherboard kills the system power as soon as the temp hits 95C, ant it is fast enough to respond to a heatsink being removed.

      Now, the real question is - why would you want to remove your heatsink while the system is running? A properly installed heatsink should never fall off.

    9. Re:AMD Helped Intel with Sales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck, this pisses me off too. I want a dual P4-800FSB system, but Intel may not make a CPU for it anymore. All their consumer stuff looks to be using hyperthreading, ie, porr man's SMP. But, since AMD doesn't have a chip to go head to head, Intel can jack up the price. Joe Blow thinks he's getting two CPUs (couldn't be further from the truth) and AMD may be forced to bring the price down so a dual Athlon system will be closer to a P4 HT CPU. I certainly don't wanna spring for Xeons, especially since they're NOT getting the 800FSB treatment anytime soon.

    10. Re:AMD Helped Intel with Sales by Ben+Hutchings · · Score: 1

      Heatsinks can come loose during shipping, apparently. I'm not sure how - those things clip tight enough to make me worried I'm going to snap the processor or motherboard when putting them on.

  36. According to the RIAA.... by Lord_Slepnir · · Score: 5, Funny

    There have actually been 50 billion chips shipped. "Some of these chips, such as the 3.06ghz, are as much as 100 times faster than others, allowing pirates to encode music 100 times as fast. Thus, for our numbers, Intel has shipped over 50 billion chips" said RIAA president Hilary Rosen.

    1. Re:According to the RIAA.... by Bigby · · Score: 2, Funny

      There have actually been 50 billion chips shipped, because everyone on earth (~6 billion) wants an average of about 6 computers running on the intel chipset; 2 of which are dual processing machines. Therefore 49 billion have been pirated.

  37. Yes, but how many are still in use vs in landfills by MadHungarian · · Score: 1

    The subject says it all.

  38. The real source of global warming by Lord+Grey · · Score: 1
    Now we know.

    And next up from Apple: A computer with a CPU that's shipped only 2/3 of a billion, but feels like a billion.

    --
    // Beyond Here Lie Dragons
  39. Special Features by teledyne · · Score: 0

    I heard that the 1 Billionth Intel CPU has some added instructions that will without a doubt help the typical user:

    - Unlocked multiplier. Everyone knows this obviously means more freedom for overclocking!

    - Super Hyper Threading. This allows the user to predefine how many processing threads he/she prefers. Now you can play Solitaire with your 16-faux processor machine.

    And most importantly...
    - Beer and pizza dispenser. This once in a lifetime on-die feature allows the user to easily serve parties when the occassion needs it. Intel reports that a mobile version of this processor will be out soon.

  40. Hmm... they need a new corporate slogan then... by Bvardi · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm thinking they should go with
    "Over 1 billion Server'd" ;)

    1. Re:Hmm... they need a new corporate slogan then... by TeknoHog · · Score: 1
      Would you like chips with that?

      (hint: in Britain, French fries are called chips.)

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    2. Re:Hmm... they need a new corporate slogan then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (hint: in Britain, French fries are called chips.)

      hint: you brits are wrong.

    3. Re:Hmm... they need a new corporate slogan then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hint: In the US of A, Brits are called "dumasses".

  41. Billions and Billions served... by Randolpho · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sooo..... how soon until they have little golden arches in front with a sign on it that says "Over 1 billion served"?

    --
    "Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
    -Marilyn Manson
  42. what about 4004? by eggplantpasta · · Score: 4, Informative
    From the article...
    "Remember the 8086? That was Intel Corp.'s first microprocessor for personal computers in 1978"
    I was sure that intel had a 4004 in about 1971... followed by the 8008 and 8080.
    --
    "Don't forget the prunes." L. Francis Herreshoff
    1. Re:what about 4004? by botzi · · Score: 1

      Yes, but *presonal* computers didn't exist at that time.
      The 4004 and 8008 were indeed *the_beggining*, but they've never targeted personal use. The real breakthrough(for Intel, cause Apple was already there) came with the early 80x86 processors(and IBM of course;oPP).

      --
      1. No sig. 2. ???? 3. Profit!!!
    2. Re:what about 4004? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Don't forget the 1001 - the first binary processor!

    3. Re:what about 4004? by rjamestaylor · · Score: 2, Funny

      4004 Noot Foound

      --
      -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
    4. Re:what about 4004? by stanmann · · Score: 1

      This is definitely a *Personal* computer. And as best as I can tell, so is this. And I am certain that this Trs-80 qualifies, even though it used the z80, from Zilog which was the equivilant to AMD then and the z80 was an extention to the 8080.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    5. Re:what about 4004? by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      "Remember the 8086? That was Intel Corp.'s first microprocessor for personal computers in 1978"
      I was sure that intel had a 4004 in about 1971...


      Yes, but 1971 wasn't in 1978...

    6. Re:what about 4004? by beef3k · · Score: 1

      I think that what's actually the point here is that they've shipped 1 billion x86 processors. They make a bunch of other kinds of silicon as well.

    7. Re:what about 4004? by richwmn · · Score: 1

      this one I believe was first of that group.

    8. Re:what about 4004? by stanmann · · Score: 1

      this one beats that even.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    9. Re:what about 4004? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you loose it?

  43. Wow! by foxtrot · · Score: 3, Funny

    That is one hell of a beowulf cluster!

  44. Thanks Intel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Thanks to that Slot 1 of theirs, I can upgrade to any of the newer processors without changing out my motherboard. Thanks Intel!

  45. So... by richie2000 · · Score: 3, Funny

    How many chips would a chipmunk ship if a chipmunk could ship chips?

    --
    Money for nothing, pix for free
    1. Re:So... by dj_paulgibbs · · Score: 1

      How many chips would a chipmunk ship if a chipmunk could ship chips?

      42.

    2. Re:So... by smack_attack · · Score: 1

      42

      FYI - Lewis Carrol coined this before Douglas Adams.

    3. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    4. Re:So... by dj_paulgibbs · · Score: 1

      wow. Thanks for the info guys

    5. Re:So... by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      Dunno, but it's probably equal to the number of dots that a slashdot would slash if slashdot could slash dots.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    6. Re:So... by kzinti · · Score: 1

      I even remember the line: "Rule 42: All persons more than a mile high to leave the court!" Ha! So there!

  46. In unrelated news... by kzinti · · Score: 4, Funny

    shipped it's One Billionth Chip.

    In an unrelated story, Slashdot served up its one billionth page containing a CmdrTaco grammatical error...

    1. Re:In unrelated news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      He has an amazing ability not to learn or improve, doesn't he? I wonder what it must be like to realize he's blown his wad with Slashdot? Imagine - reaching your pinnacle in 1999 but it's now 2003... *sigh*

      Depressing.

  47. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think I just ate my 1 billionth chip.

  48. fun facts by whovian · · Score: 4, Interesting

    McDonalds opened in the Midwest (Des Plaines, IL, acutally) in 1955.

    Their 50 billionth hamburger was served in New York city in or around 1984.

    That's ~30 years, or an average of 1 2/3 billion per year.

    --
    To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
    1. Re:fun facts by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      and let's say, 250 million people (although it was smaller in 1955 and larger today, but it very roughly evens out to that) per year in the US were alive. 1.6 billion meals served each year? that would mean the average person in the US eats at mc donalds 6 times a year. hell, i'd even say that's about 50% too low.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    2. Re:fun facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there a Hamburger Uncertainty Principle, whereby you are not sure even what year the 50000000000th one was served, but you definitely know where it was served?

    3. Re:fun facts by Quino · · Score: 1

      Ok, maybe this is really splitting hairs, but given how many McDonald's restaurants there are around the world, how can _anyone_ (inlcuding Ronald McDonald himself) say that the 50 Billionth hamburger was sold in New York (or in *any* given location).

      Sorry, I'm just curious if this was explained in any way that the statement could have meaning.

    4. Re:fun facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're talking on average, every man, woman, child and baby. Personally, I can't remember the last time I set foot in one of their shitty 'restaurants'.

  49. Moores law by mozkill · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ok, so does this mean it will take half as long to get to the 2 billionth computer chip?

    --

    -- Betting on the survival of the media industry is a serious risk. I advise investing elsewhere.
  50. Yes, I've often.... by botzi · · Score: 1

    ..wondered if it wasn't Intel's mistake to sell early Pentium specifications so that AMD may launch it's K5 series at the time....
    On the other site, a little competition on the market never harms, does it????

    --
    1. No sig. 2. ???? 3. Profit!!!
  51. Uh huh by Glock27 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    they estimate that they will hit 2 billion by only 2007.

    Unless AMD64 takes off, that is...

    --
    Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
    Score: -1 100% Flamebait
  52. not about quality.. consistency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reason McDonald's is popular is not because the food is actually good.
    It's popular because no matter which McDonald's you go to, anywhere in the country, you know exactly how much the food will suck, so it's predictable. The food sucks equally, and in precisely the same way, at every single McDonald's in the US.

    I believe McDonald's overseas will suck in a different manner though.

    1. Re:not about quality.. consistency by sn00ker · · Score: 1
      It's popular because no matter which McDonald's you go to, anywhere in the country, you know exactly how much the food will suck, so it's predictable. The food sucks equally, and in precisely the same way, at every single McDonald's in the US.

      I believe McDonald's overseas will suck in a different manner though.
      Nope, the degree of suckiness for standard products (ones they serve everywhere, as opposed to local variations) is globally standardised.
      Did you want to upsize that suck? :P

      --
      "God, root, what is difference?" - Pitr, userfriendly
  53. So where's the prize... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For being the one billionth customer.

  54. Hold the champaign... by unixbugs · · Score: 1

    To me this isn't the best news. When 2007 rolls around they will have junked A BILLION computers. Thanks Intel. Like Halliburton hasn't done enough for the environment... Planned obsolescence should be a crime.

    --
    You are about to give someone a piece of your mind, something which you can ill afford...
  55. Honestly, is there any point? by TomatoMan · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    shipped it's One Billionth Chip
    • "it's" wrong again, wrong wrong wrong, cross-eyed-blithering-insectly wrong
    • One Billionth Chip is not a proper noun (last I checked)
    See the article, which (gasp) makes neither of these mistakes.

    Ostensibly, this is supposed to be a website for smart people. Sixth-grade grammar really shouldn't exceed our grasp. I've got otherwise-useless karma piled to the moon, maybe it's time to start burning it.

    Remember, people, George Orwell said that sloppy language leads to sloppy thought, and sloppy thought leads to exploitable, oppressible people.

    For fzzck's sake, learn your basic grammar. At least the editors, if not the submitters. It's REALLY not that difficult. Or at least have one capable proofreader on the staff to look things over before you post glaring, stupid mistakes in front of millions of people (some of whom are learning English), and just leave them hanging there.

    (Note to fellow grammar nazis: I know stylistic things like beginning a sentence with "Or" or omitting an implied verb could be construed as inappropriately colloquial and ungrammatical. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about heavyweight concepts like knowing the difference between the plural and possessive cases, and proper use of capitalization.)
    --
    -- http://frobnosticate.com
    1. Re:Honestly, is there any point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a bit of a grammar nazi myself, but I really think you should stick to de-caf.

    2. Re:Honestly, is there any point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, its a web site for smart people, but not for English teachers. Why dont you get back to teaching English, like you did before switching to the geekdom for the money.

    3. Re:Honestly, is there any point? by TomatoMan · · Score: 1

      Take your hood off if you want to talk, AC.

      --
      -- http://frobnosticate.com
  56. What chips are they counting? by Cruel+Angel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If I recall, in the 486, and possibly 386 days, didn't AMD manufacture over 20% of Intel's processors? I'm sure in the big picture it wasn't all that many, but how arbitrary is this 1 billion?

    --
    Two Rules For Success:
    1) Never tell people everything you know.
    1. Re:What chips are they counting? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      If I recall, in the 486, and possibly 386 days, didn't AMD manufacture over 20% of Intel's processors? I'm sure in the big picture it wasn't all that many, but how arbitrary is this 1 billion?

      Well, according to the article: (boldface mine)

      "...Intel has shipped its 1 billionth computer chip, according to figures compiled by semiconductor industry analyst firm Mercury Research and verified by Intel."

      So yeah, I bet they're counting all kinds of chips they outsourced to others (like AMD). I wonder how many of those 1x10^9 chips actually came from Intel fabs?

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    2. Re:What chips are they counting? by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      do you have anything to back this up? sounds interesting, but what would be an ideal google phrase?

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    3. Re:What chips are they counting? by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      Siemens produced a lot of early Intel x86 processors, too.

      Where the hell are the Siemens Fanboys when we need them?

  57. I wonder about the MATH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope they aren't using one of their Math BUGGED processors to had up to a billion.

  58. Moore's Law by vasqzr · · Score: 1



    Moore's Law, at it again.

    it took them 25 years to reach the billions, but they estimate that they will hit 2 billion by only 2007

  59. LOL!!! by Frobozz0 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    "Quite an impressive accomplishment... it took them 25 years to reach the billions, but they estimate that they will hit 2 billion by only 2007."

    Hahahaha. Okay, so which "law" is this? Moore's law ensures speeds double every 18 months, so which law is responsible for so many crappy CPU's filling our server rooms and living rooms?

    Ugh. They're like McDonalds. 1 billon served. 750,000,000 Pissed off.

    --
    "Politicians find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the people."
  60. Mean clock speed by ktulu1115 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder what the mean clock speed of those ::with pinky to chin:: 1 billion chips is?

    --
    # fuser -v /dev/attention | grep work
    #
  61. A techincal Defintion by Lord_Slepnir · · Score: 5, Funny

    Shitton (n.): 1) An ambibously large number, larger than a crapton, but less than a holyfuckton.

    1. Re:A techincal Defintion by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      In Europe we call it a metric shitload.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    2. Re:A techincal Defintion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...that's a perfectly cromulant word!

  62. Bubba asks about the /. Culture by Arbogast_II · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Am I imagining it, or is it socially unacceptable to say good things about the "Powers That Be" in the IT industry in certain /. circles???

    Now, I have bought many AMD powered PCs, use Linux alot for getting work done, but think Windows is excellent (MS may be dirty dealing, but that's beside my point), and you gotta be blind not to realize Intel has made a gazillion excellent chips, even if like myself, you chose cheaper alternatives.

    It just seems like there are some creepy "Thought Police" types around here anytime something positive is said about corporations like Intel and MS..

    PS, I buy AMD and VIA CPU's cause they are cheap and work, not cause Intel "sux"...

    --


    HenryJamesFeltus.com
    1. Re:Bubba asks about the /. Culture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It just seems like there are some creepy "Thought Police" types around here anytime something positive is said about corporations like Intel and MS..

      Some of us like to think for ourselves, rather than let the almost overwhelming flood of corporate profit-motivated PR hype (often passed off as news) be our guides. It's good to question and rationalize things - it leads to a better sense of reality.

      I have no problem with giving credit when due, but will not do it gratuitously and I see no reason to worship false icons. Intel has shipped the billionth CPU, so what? It's good news for their shareholders, but little else. I probably wrote my millionth line of code at some point and no-one celebrated me for that - it's just part of the job.

    2. Re:Bubba asks about the /. Culture by martingunnarsson · · Score: 1

      I totally agree with you! I'd mod you up if you weren't already on 5!

      --
      Martin
    3. Re:Bubba asks about the /. Culture by edwdig · · Score: 1

      As to Intel, I don't really see a good reason to blindly hate them. Having a preference between Athlon and Pentium chips is fine. Neither is a bad chip, but each is better in certain situations.

      But as to Microsoft, there are two types of people bashing them. I'm going to ignore the "MS bad, Linux good, end of story" people. The other type is the people that have a problem with how Microsoft got where they are. If you paid attention when Windows 3.0 came out, there were several other OS's out that were flat out better than Windows in every way. But MS's illegal tactics made Windows win. The government didn't do anything until around 95, and that amounted to nothing. "We're not saying we were wrong, or that we were right, just that we'll stop doing what we're doing. But we'll do really similar things instead." Microsoft products only look good now because they illegally killed the competition a long time ago. It's actually rather disappointing that it took MS as long as it did to get Windows to its current state.

      Also, if you look at the Win32 API some time, it's an awful mess that barely works. Would live in a house if it looked great but the foundation was made of spaghetti?

    4. Re:Bubba asks about the /. Culture by 10am-bedtime · · Score: 1

      how to learn to live w/ slashdot (or any other) bias:

      consider yourself the HERO PROTAGONIST in that old videogame (frogger was it called?).

      that's all there is to it. as you meander across the fiber-bourne road- and waterways that is the internet, you realize there is quite a bit of flotsam and jetsam (not to mention bad analogies but work w/ me here...), some biased in this direction, some biased in that direction, sometimes at a constant rate, sometimes spiking quickly and w/o warning. but no worries, you carry your consciosness from one log to another, from one piece of clear pavement to the next, your powerful jumping keeping you alive through the tumult.

      alternatively, you are the bird that craps wisdom on the frogs surviving so, below. oop ack!

    5. Re:Bubba asks about the /. Culture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I see no reason to worship false icons.

      True icons are ok for worship then?

    6. Re:Bubba asks about the /. Culture by dfj225 · · Score: 1

      Despite what others think, I just bought a new box with a an Pentium 4, an Intel motherboard, and Win XP Professional. Linux is cool and I think its great for a purely work environment, but to me, Windows is still king of the home desktop.

      --
      SIGFAULT
    7. Re:Bubba asks about the /. Culture by geekoid · · Score: 1

      by gazillion do you mean a billion?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  63. Anyone else here collect computer chips? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since the use machines are found on the street, I usually pop the case and pull the sucker. Got a pretty good sized collection going especially the x86 range. By far the nicest processer ever produced were the early gold faced pentiums. They make good desktop fodder.

  64. How long will it take.... by $criptah · · Score: 1

    How long will it take them to realize that x86 is outdated and we want something new and affordable?

    1. Re:How long will it take.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because it's outdated doesn't mean people don't want it.

  65. I wonder by MasterMynd · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I hope they aren't using a Pentium with the notorious F00F bug to calculate that. It could be off by who knows how much!!!

  66. New Intel's motto! by $criptah · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Intel: more than one billion served!

  67. Thats..... by Cackmobile · · Score: 2, Funny

    a lot of silicon. Imagine how many implants could be made from them!

    --
    -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
  68. whose estimate? by AllMightyPaul · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It isn't Intel that proclaimed they have reached their 1 billionth chip, it is Mercury Research that made the claim. Additionally, it isn't Intel that estimates they will reach 2 billion by 2007, it is again Mercury Research that makes the estimate. Until Intel comes out and says they have (which I think would be a milestone that they would proclaim quite loudly), I'm a little skeptical. Additionally, shipping one billion chips has nothing to do with Moore's law, only with good marketing :)

    1. Re:whose estimate? by AllMightyPaul · · Score: 2, Informative

      Whoops, it appears that it has been announced on their website, too. Ok, I am no longer skeptical.

      Press Release

    2. Re:whose estimate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a minor correction... good marketting of bad technology.

  69. Lame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd sure like a Beowulf cluster of those!

  70. 1 billion X86 chips by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    I'm sure they've sold far more then a billion 'chips' in their days. I wonder if they are only talking about 'desktop' CPUs or are including embedded versions of the x86.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  71. History of the 8086 processor family by baywulf · · Score: 2, Informative

    Intel has a very interesting reading on their website about the history of the 8086 processor and how it was developed.

    http://www.intel.com/technology/itj/q12001/artic le s/art_1.htm

  72. American english by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here in Finland billion means 1000000000000. It's great that Americans screwed up the maths too. This must be the weekly international viewpoint at slashdot. =)

  73. 1 Billion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of which half are scattered about in landfills next to Chinese villages.

  74. just remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Even if all those cpus were operational and in computers - that would only be one for every sixth person in the world.... that scares me.

    Blah-blah half-the-world-has-yet-to-make-a-phone-call: I know poverty is something you can easily ignore, and that (asides from being offtopic, or is it?) it probably gets brought up in the wrong way by people with good intentions try to change your mind. I hope this will be a little different.

    In addition to our computers, we have a telephony system upon which to network those computers. In addition to that we have the technical power to create new systems of operation on top of these raw systems for our enjoyment (pr0n, mp3s etc...) and for our communication (emails, IM/IRC)... It struck me just a moment ago that so many people volunteer their time to GNU stuff, community stuff. I thank you for this...but.

    But perhaps we should also consider the social networks in which we are nodes, networks of trade, cultural networks, networks of humanity. Perhaps you should shut off your screen for a moment, and do something good for those networks not just this one.
    meh, I dunno "Stuff that matters". Think about it.

  75. And TI ships billions this year by afidel · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Remember TI ships more chips each year than Frito Lay! Yeah they aren't as sexy or nearly as high margin as x86 cpu's but they are the little microcontrollers that make computers basically ubiquotous in our world.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    1. Re:And TI ships billions this year by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      If you're going to start pulling in other chips, you need to do the same with Intel. And all the other vendors. And then Motorola is gonna be involved, too, and probably will win the compeition. Especially if the count is limited to microprocessors and microcontrollers. There are a hell of a lot of 6805 chips out there. Multiples of them in every automobile. And there's a PIC chip in most mice. etc. etc. etc.

    2. Re:And TI ships billions this year by neden · · Score: 1

      Back in the Fall of 1997, I remember getting a newsletter from the Motorola semiconductor group touting that they had just shipped their 1 or 2-billionth 6805 microcontroller (can't remember the number, couldn't find it on their web site). I would imagine they've shipped a few more in the 5.5 years since then.

  76. The real title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Intel Shipped 999,999,999.9983477828947972491 th Computer Chip

  77. Mmm, this is satire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's joking about the people who apply Moore's law to disks, switching speed, and everything else too, as if it were all directly proportional to transistor density. It may follow a similar curve, but it doesn't have the same name, just like a coin slipping between the couch cracks as you stick your hand in to get it isn't Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle in action. "Ooh, I can't observe how far in it is without affecting its position!"

  78. Say what you will about Intel by LearningHard · · Score: 0

    I don't like them personally but to me this seems like quite an impressive achievement. It is cool to see they expect to hit 2 billion in only 4 years, that is definitely what I would call growth.

  79. How many of the 1G already in the landfill? by ewg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wonder what fraction of these one billion have already been obsoleted and are now sitting in landfills?

    Given Moore's Law, I'll bet it's a high share.

    --
    org.slashdot.post.SignatureNotFoundException: ewg
  80. How many transistors is that? by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 1

    Gotta be in the sextillions, right?

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
  81. moron predicts demise of Godless billyonerrors.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    & other such phonIE bullonly payper liesense hostage ransom creepshow scams, that are supported buy the georgewellian murderers et AL.

    so, pay attention. that's cheap enough?

    get ready to experience the really big light show that's already taking place all around us. understanding the process will make it easier for all of us.

    consult with yOUR creator. that's the spirit.

  82. And all the other chips? by slimey_limey · · Score: 0

    And what about all the non-CPU chips that they've made? That would put them somewhere along several billion, I think. Memory, support chips, there're so much more than a processor in a computer.

    Oh yeah, and you can download the masks for the 4004 at Intel's site.

  83. mod parent up! by ed.han · · Score: 1

    possibly the funniest comment yet in this thread.

    ed

  84. Re:Hold the champagne... by justinburt · · Score: 1


    God damn progress. Increased personal productivity and satisfaction, knowledge about the universe (SETI@home), improvements in medical knowledge (Folding@home), development of technologies for the desktop that we could have only dreamed about 20 years ago, etc. etc., etc. It makes me so angry!

    Faster chips make the environment I live in much better.
    Where are you living?

    Justin

  85. In a dark basement of Intel Headquaters... by HighOrbit · · Score: 1

    Some marketing team is trying to dream up a way to double shipments by making SMP mainstream in desktops. "Hmmm.....," says the Intel marketing drone, " If Apple can do it we can too. Somebody call Bill Gates and have him put even more bloat into MS-Word so it requires more processor power! Then we can run commercials about how every office *absolutely must have* dual 4-Ghz processors with 1GB RAM for word processing "

  86. Re:Hold the champagne... by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

    Don't forget: pissing off Microsoft. Follow the sig, until it changes.

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  87. Intel Processor Production follows the equation by DotComVictim · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Thus,

    13139006 * e^(.17329 * x)

    Where x is in years is the cumulative output of Intel.

    This allows us to calculate with high accuracy the size of Intel's production line, a secret coveted by industry insiders. Differentiating, we have:

    2276816 * e^(.17329 * x)

    Thus, Intel currently has 173 million processors in various production stages.
    This allows us to calculate another secret, coveted by all geeks - the true value of an Intel CPU.

    Intel's current market capitalization is 141.6 billion US$. Based on their Q1 2003 quarterly report, 53.6% of their cost of production (including R&D and other expenses) goes into the Intel Architecture business unit.

    If we know the size of the production line, the current valuation, and the percentage dedicated to CPU production, we can compute an average valuation for an Intel CPU.

    Each current issue Intel CPU should be worth, on average .536*141.6e9/173e6 dollars. That works out to $438.67 Current list prices for the Intel Pentium III, 3.06 GHz, range from $365-$759.99, with an average price listing of $459.53.

    Conclusion - for every current release Intel CPU you buy, on average you are being ripped off by about $20.86, about 4.75% the value of the product. That is less than sales tax, and doesn't seem like the work of a greed hungry power monster.

    Any similar statistics on Microsoft's product valuation would be highly interesting.

    1. Re:Intel Processor Production follows the equation by 26199 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Er... differentiating would give rate of production, which on its own isn't enough to tell you how many are in production at the moment.

      If you're working with years as the time unit, assuming rate = current number in production is equivalent to assuming it takes a year to make one chip...

      Unless you got the 173 million figure from somewhere else?

    2. Re:Intel Processor Production follows the equation by pork_spies · · Score: 2, Insightful

      on average you are being ripped off by about $20.86
      Isn't this what is known as profit?

    3. Re:Intel Processor Production follows the equation by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      All I know is I paid about $600 for the first 486DX-33 chip that I ever owned. And that was a good price at the time. The motherboard was extra, too.

    4. Re:Intel Processor Production follows the equation by Carnth · · Score: 1

      Somebodyâ(TM)s profit = somebody elseâ(TM)s loss = Capitalism!

    5. Re:Intel Processor Production follows the equation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "differentiating would give rate of production"

      rate of change of production, I think you mean

    6. Re:Intel Processor Production follows the equation by pod · · Score: 1

      You're forgetting that Intel makes more than just x86 CPUs...

      --
      "Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
    7. Re:Intel Processor Production follows the equation by akuma(x86) · · Score: 1

      How is that "ripping you off"?

      In a capitalist society, we call that delta a profit. If you have the billions of dollars to invest in Fabs and the army of super-smart Phd types it takes to build a state of the art x86 processor, why don't you do it yourself? It will only cost you $438.67 per cpu and you can save yourself $20.86 - This is of course ridiculous.

      In reality, it's a win-win situation. Intel gets the profit from the consumer and the consumer get a product that he/she couldn't possibly get from other means (AMD notwithstanding - but I hear they too make a profit). There is 0 incentive to sell a product for equal-to or less than the cost of production.

      Also, your analysis is flawed and absurd.

      - CPU unit volume over time is not exponential. You're confusing unit volume with Moore's Law.
      - Market capitalization is correlated to FUTURE earnings potential (not past earning as your analysis would indicate)
      - Intel does not spend 53.6% of the MARKET-CAP on CPU development. It spends 53.6% of ANNUAL SALES.

    8. Re:Intel Processor Production follows the equation by Ben+Hutchings · · Score: 1

      This is a joke, right? Can someone please mod this Funny?

    9. Re:Intel Processor Production follows the equation by 26199 · · Score: 1

      Notice that he said cumulative output... if f(x) is cumulative output then f'(x) is rate of production...

    10. Re:Intel Processor Production follows the equation by DotComVictim · · Score: 1

      That would be correct. This entire thread was an absurd commentary, showing how to lie with statistics.

  88. The internet these days... by TopShelf · · Score: 3, Funny

    And just imagine all the pollution and garbage that's produced with those billion chips!

    --
    Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    1. Re:The internet these days... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's called spam...

    2. Re:The internet these days... by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 1

      And just imagine all the pollution and garbage that's produced with those billion chips!

      I don't have to, it's staring me in the face. This is when everyone asks themselves "Exactly who is he referring to ?"

      --

      In Soviet America the banks rob you!
  89. The curve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't think there have been 1 billion desktop PCs in 25 years? It's easy enough to check if this is impossible. Two things:

    1) Deja Vu. In August of last year, everybody crowed that the billionth PC of any kind was sold. That pretty much confirms Intel's story.

    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,427042,00.a sp

    2) In more detail, here's a breakdown of PCs sold since the beginning, and market share for each company. It's brilliantly informative.

    http://www.pegasus3d.com/total_share.html

    129 million PCs last year, 125 million before that... it's not only possible, it's real.

    By the way, the curve is graphed on the site, and it is exponential, until it hits saturation in '99.

    1. Re:The curve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would say those are still skewed statistics. That was very informative though.

  90. Ah memories . . . by Badgerman · · Score: 1

    It's a fluff peace, but it reminds one of how much has gone on in the last few decades and how much has changed.

    Remember . . .
    When we wouldn't worry about more than 256 colors on a monitor?
    When we only needed 640K of RAM?
    When a 30-gig hard drive was big?
    When a penguin was just something cute you saw at the park?

    Now, lets see what changes during that next billion . . .

    --
    "The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
    1. Re:Ah memories . . . by pod · · Score: 1
      When a 30-gig hard drive was big?

      Uh, that would be all of 1 year ago? I remember when 30MB drives were big. When having a real HD period, was a big deal.

      --
      "Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
    2. Re:Ah memories . . . by Badgerman · · Score: 1

      . . . shows how awake I was when I typed that. Yes, I meant 30 MB.

      --
      "The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
  91. That's nothing by snatchitup · · Score: 1

    Motorola has shipped something like 5 Billion micro controllers.

  92. AMD is a pawn of Intel anyway.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AMD singlehandedly kept the GOVT from slamming intel for the MONOPOLY IT IS! Friends, who are insiders at Intel, indicate that they love AMD because they provide REAL COMPETITION (sorta like M$ and Netscape....oh wait they are going down the tubes..whatever).

    I use only AMD at home, because i always felt Intel's chips were bloated pieces of shit. AMD sells, what, 5% of Intel's volume?

    Hate to say it, but if AMD went down the tubes, Intel would finally get their ass kicked. You KNOW Intel won't let that happen....GOTTA KEEP THE MONOPOLY GOING...reminds me of M$ investing $$ into Apple...hmmm...

  93. whose estimate? you were right 1st post! by adzoox · · Score: 1

    But they are quoting the "ambiguous stats that the Mercury did. I find it VERY hard to beleive especially seeing since that would mean 1/5 of the worlds population has bought one x86 in some form or fashion. Take into account that 2/5 of the world's population doesn't even have electricity and another 1/5 could afford to even buy a raw 8086 chip off of eBay. Also take into account that AMD, Cyrix, and quite a few others also make x86 chips that have amounted to a sizeable portion of total x86 shipments. I can't think of how to check the accuracy of this report or statistic but it is very bogus, possibly through ambiguity on Intel's part. I could beleive they have produced 1 billion CPUs, GPUs, BCUs total. I doubt they have averaged to crank out chips at more than 1 per second over the life span of the x86 either. Do the math on a scientific calculator and see how BIG 1 billion really is! One can't even COUNT to 1 billion vocally in a lifetime!

    --
    Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
  94. FYI by mercuryresearch · · Score: 3, Informative

    Just to clarify since a few of you were wondering and we're the source of the information: - It's 1 billion x86 CPUs (8086 thru P4, all flavors). No 8080x, i960s, Xscale, etc is counted. - Intel's figure is 1 billion. AMD is about 200 million units of x86 for the same time frame. Also, Intel never comes out and says what their own data shows, primarily due to reasons related to stock,the SEC and the competion. There were some hints that Intel probably reached 1 billion before external researchers thought they did, but nothing official.

    1. Re:FYI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They could have given better figures... but the guess work came in because of the math bug that they had with the Pentium chips a while back!

  95. In related news by nusuth · · Score: 2, Funny

    AMD has shipped its 1,000,000,000+th CPU. An AMD spokesperson told us the number is not to be compared with Intel's shipments. Instead it based on the ratio of pin count of shipped CPUs. A CPU with twice as many pins as an AMD 80386 gets a shipment rating of 2+. With the recent launch of 4-way Opterons, AMD expects to reach 2,000,000,000+ mark next week, the spokesperson added.

    --

    Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!

  96. Your sig is dating you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, a Culture Club reference in your sig? That's so, well, 80's. :)

    1. Re:Your sig is dating you by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 1

      Sigs are so 80's.

      --

      In Soviet America the banks rob you!
  97. Second billionth chip for Intel by imnoteddy · · Score: 1

    Intel has previously shipped over a billion of their 8051 8 bit microcontroller.

    --
    No electrons were harmed creating this post, though some may have been subjected to electrical and/or magnetic fields.
  98. Why sell a billion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you can sell... a million?

  99. Re:Hold the champagne... by unixbugs · · Score: 1

    All in the name of progress! Where are we going to go when this place becomes so hot and toxic that only the people who made billions polluting it will afford the luxury of living here.

    --
    You are about to give someone a piece of your mind, something which you can ill afford...
  100. We now see the real reason for ia64 by Alain+Williams · · Score: 1

    They need to go to 64 bit processors to be able to count the number of CPUs that they have shipped.

  101. 1 Billion Chips by bitterrob · · Score: 1

    Salt and Vinegar ?? Im sorry but it had to said... just to support us Brits...

  102. Pardon Me..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But what the hell are you talking about?

  103. now everyone.. in honor of this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lets all get on distributed.net

  104. Oh, more than a billion, apparently by Scorchio · · Score: 1

    The ARM company milestone list mentions "ARM announces that it has shipped over 1 billion of its microprocessor cores to date" at the start of 2002...

    1. Re:Oh, more than a billion, apparently by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they haven't been in the game for as long as intel.

      Interesting.

  105. a billion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it an american billion? because a billion some places here in Europe is one million millions. So, if it is one measel american billion we're talking about, I'm not impressed...
    It's like that time some space shuttle sent to mars crashed for some metric system misunderstanding, and blah blah blah...

    1. Re:a billion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck the Brits! Who cares about the Brits anyway! Its all fish and chips.

  106. A google of transistors ,,,, by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Oops, thtat word is trade-marked.

  107. a href is your friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  108. and this is a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is it a Good Thing for intel to have 1 billion chips? That's a lot of crud on the market

  109. McIntel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They all float down here...

  110. Not that impressive!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    McDonalds have been saying "Billions and Billions serverd" for over a decade! I guess Intel will just have to learn to be more efficient.

  111. Note to posters by DangerTenor · · Score: 0, Troll

    Please refer to Bob's quick guide to the apostrophe, you idiots before posting. Thanks.

    --
    Check out our infosecurity industry blog: http://securitymusings.com/
  112. Re:Hold the champagne... by justinburt · · Score: 1

    Followed some of your links. Yikes! I thought we were past this.

    Sorry I dignified your post with a response.

    Justin

  113. Re:I think you missed his point by japhmi · · Score: 1

    The article is errant. It is GPUs CPUs BCUs (Bus Controller Units) - The article had its facts wrong, maybe on purpose. Intel might have released the information very ambiguously.

    Try going to Google News and searching for 'mercury research billion intel' and see what you come up with. A whole lot of articles that say the same thing. Mostly because it's the 25th anniversary of the x86 family - they actually shipped a billion back in April.

    --
    "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys" P. J. O'Rourke
  114. will they start putting signs outside? by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    Like McDonald's?

  115. Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's almost half as many PIC chips as Microchip had sold back in 2002.

  116. Computers by MagPulse · · Score: 1

    "...in 1978, back when a "hand-held" was a transistor radio, computers were immobile mainframes..."

    The Apple II came out in 1977. If you can't call that a computer then this publication must be written at people who are pretty out of the loop. But it's a Silicon Valley publication; apparently they need new writers.

    If they were talking about 1976 (Apple I) or 1975 (Altair) it might be excusable. Heck some people say we had PCs back in 1950. But 1978? The revolution was on.

  117. Been done by _avs_007 · · Score: 1

    See here

    Notice the LED says 133. The owner did this cause he was bored, and said it actually only runs at 100. The rest of the site is also quite hilarious....

  118. Even-moore's law by Fjord · · Score: 1

    Quite an impressive accomplishment... it took them 25 years to reach the billions, but they estimate that they will hit 2 billion by only 2007

    I guess every 25 years, the consumption of microprocessors quintuples.

    --
    -no broken link
  119. 1978 by ehiris · · Score: 1

    It is very awkward being born in the year that the first x86 was released. I wish my processing speed had increased as much as the CPUs.

  120. Hmm... by PlatinumCursor · · Score: 1

    1 Billion?!? 640k should be enough for everyone.

    --
    PlatinumCursor - "Blinded by the bling..."
  121. Except when used on gamer's boxes.. by MadCow42 · · Score: 1

    On gamer's machines it should read:
    "Over 1 billion severed"

    --
    I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
  122. a pantomime thing by Graspee_Leemoor · · Score: 1

    Oh yes we did!

    (He's behind you!)

    graspee

  123. most numerous product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I read somewhere that humans have manufactured more transistors than anything else. Makes sense, especially when you think of how many went into just these billion intel x86s.

  124. Only one billion ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only one Billion ? Microchip shipped their 2 billionth a year ago, the last billion in just 30 months!

  125. ARM did it last year! by pH7.0 · · Score: 0

    http://www.arm.com/aboutarm/milestones?OpenDocumen t

    "ARM announces that it has shipped over 1 billion of its microprocessor cores to date"

  126. Imagine a .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... oh my.

  127. really a billion? by thanjee · · Score: 1

    Have they really shipped a billion, or just an american billion?

    American billion = one thousand million 1,000,000,000

    Rest of the world billion = one million million
    1,000,000,000,000

    (ie you don't go to a billion until you have completely exhausted the entire million - just like all other lower figures used in counting)

    --
    Saying your OS is the best because more people use it is like saying MacDonalds make the best food
  128. So the real question is: by geekoid · · Score: 1

    How many transisitors is that?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  129. Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They outlasted Carl Sagan?

  130. Maybe when they hit the two billion mark... by shylock0 · · Score: 1

    They can say billions and billions "served"

    --
    Statistically speaking, there's a 99.998% chance that my IQ is higher than yours. Get over it.
  131. They could expedite shipment of the next 1 billion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    by putting an x86 chip in each MacDonalds Hamburger!!!

  132. Motorola by TheEnigma · · Score: 1

    has shipped over six billion ICs. But who's counting?

    --

    Stand back. I've got a brain and I'm not afraid to use it.

  133. Does this mean it is going to be like McDonald's.. by kevx45 · · Score: 0

    Counting Hamburgers now? Who cares. AMD is the way to go with PC's, and with Mac, the PowerPC 970 looks nice. (To the tune of Dire Straits "Money for Nothing" opening) I want my Mac-in-Tosh! Right on Intel, keep counting. I'll just crack on you every time I boot up my computer running AMD and Linux.

    --
    "Now there's a look in your eyes, like black holes in the sky"-Pink Floyd
  134. What's your point? by David+Gould · · Score: 1


    Call them the McDonalds of the chip world.
    [...]
    My question is how many of those chips are stil actually being used today?

    All right... How many of those McDonalds hamburgers are still in use today?

    --
    David Gould
    main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}