Slashdot Mirror
Intel to Spend $2B To Stay In The Game
hexed_2050 writes "AMD has declared dominance in the gaming and server microprocessor market in 2004, and Intel needs to respond.. fast! This is why Intel has planned to spend 2 billion dollars to upgrade their eight year old, Fab 12 plant in Arizona. "Part of what I do is put the emphasis on how fast we respond," explains Robert Baker, Intel's top manufacturing executive."
Say what you want about Intel, but I'm happy to see they are investing $2 billion in an American plant, instead of sending those jobs away. Course, it could be that with the dollar falling they couldn't afford as much in other places... another reason why I think the value of the dollar going down isn't necesarily a bad thing.
Jerry
http://www.syslog.org/
I wonder if this isn't just Intel trying to reverse the spin on AMD's announcement.
1. AMD announces they're top dog.
2. Intel decides to minimize the effect of this by bragging about how much money they can spend.
3. Neither is looking at any immediate, dramatic, change in business because processor sales follow seasonal patterns more than Ad campaign release dates.
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
I heard the same thing after ATI came out with R300. nVidia is going the way of 3DFX. Now AMD seems ahead and those that think Intel is the evil empire are praying for it to disappear. It ain't going to happen. I'd venture to say the long-term prospects are better for Intel than AMD. For consumers, the pitched ATI/nVidia battle has been good. Same thing for AMD/Intel. Tough competition brings choice and lower prices. I hope Intel moves fast. I don't want AMD ruling the market anymore than I want Intel.
"AMD has declared dominance in the gaming and server microprocessor market in 2004: I've yet to see an AMD equipped server. If even 5% of all servers are equipped with AMD processors I'll be amazed. This reminds me of when the CEO of Pepsi released a book deatailing how Pepsi "Won the cola wars". I'm sorry if your still #2 in sales you didn't "win" and if you have only begun to break into the marked you certianly aren't "Dominance" For one, I think that AMD is doing great things with their new stuff (been syaing for years they need to do more than just clone Intel CPUs) and that Intel would be wise in paying attention to what AMD is doing but declaring dominance, at least in the server market is kind of like Ralph Nader declaring victory in October.
Translation: At Intel we decided to put our effort into having a CPU that had an insanely high clock speed, which we decided was much more important than actually getting the CPU to do a lot of processing, which would help contribute to higher frame rates for games and higher output for most users. Our evil competitor AMD realized that it was important to have the computer do something with the cycles they used, and built CPUs that not only did more, but did more at slower clock speeds. We are trying to figure out why this allowed them to win in a market we previously owned, but so far we've only come up with this MHz rather than FPS marketing phrase.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
"Part of what I do is put the emphasis on how fast we respond," explains Robert Baker, Intel's top manufacturing executive
And it gives me goosebumps just wondering what the other part of his important job is... Aside from the fact that you should have been proactively whooping AMDs cache to begin with, not responding to their dominance.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Intel screwed itself out of a market, clear and simple.
When AMD began offering cheaper, but equally capable CPU's (Thunderbirds, Celerons), Intel chuckled about how they ran much hotter than their Intel counterparts. All the while AMD was eating up the low-end PC market.
When AMD began telling the world about their 64-bit plans, Intel chuckled about how the world wasn't ready for 64-bit. Additionally, they pushed their way-overpriced 32-bit Xeon's whenever anyone brought up 64-bit server CPU's.
When AMD began talking Opterons, Intel talked about their outrageously overpriced, and seldom utilized Itanium technology.
And when 64-bit AMD chips began to outsell Intel chips, Intel dragged their feet on adding 64bit extensions to their own chips.
Intels attitude seemed to be one that dooms nations, individuals, and companies: They were too arrogant and complacent!
They knew that they were the CPU kings of the world. They knew that the same company that had stolen the low-end PC market could never threaten their corporate market. They knew that 64bit CPU's were not needed yet, and they knew that they could basically put out what they want, when they wanted to, and that people would beat a path to their door, simply for the Intel brand name.
And now they know they were wrong.
Face it... Nations fall when they ignore the barbarians at the gate. People fall when they think they're more important than they are, and companies fall when they ignore the competition, and their target markets needs.
Intel wasn't developing what people wanted, they were developing what they thought people needed. There's a huge difference there. When creating art, you can do things your way. When manufacturing product, you do so to create what the market wants. Intel got it backwards, and their current state shows what happens when you do: Roadmaps tore up, lackluster sales, and a company that's now trying to re-invent itself, just to stay competitive in a market that it once owned.
Intel screwed up! It is the 21st century's IBM in a way, and as IBM had to do in its day, Intel must now change in order to stay alive in this industry it created.