Too bad they didn't spend enough of that on improving their CPUs...
Definitely a window. I'd put the odds currently at about 30:70 for that happening. 40:60 before ARL. 50:50 before Lunar Lake.I think there is still a window where they can turn things around. Not confident with their current leadership pulling that off though.
That what was being said about AMD pre 2017.I wouldn't be surprised if Intel went chapter 11 within the next few years. Can't believe I wrote that but I don't see them becoming relevant again. Too many optimistic plans and forecasts and no delivery on the promises time-after-time. I fear the end is nigh for Intel. I hate feeling this way because I have been such a big fan for most of my life but the writing has been on the wall for quite a few years I just didn't want to read it.
It's getting painful to watch them wiggle and squirm as they fight being washed down the drain. Raptor Lake degradation issues. Then ARL performance issues and no supply for the 285K. 20A gone with the wind and an over reliance on TMSC follows. Finally a breath of air with Battlemage but basically a paper launch with no real supply. They just can't get it done the way the old Intel could. I have a feeling the upper level management knows it's over but are just going to ride it out, grab all the money they can on their way to the exit. We're probably in the middle of the death spiral about now.
I was so hopeful for Lunar Lake. So much hype but in the end nothing really amazing from a performance point-of-view. Same with ARL except for some disturbingly low scores in a bunch of applications, indicating some type of architectural flaw to me. Then some hope with Battlemage but no supply. Intel is defeated. Every person they put in front of a camera is a corporate shill, just towing the company line, the real passion and passioniate people are gone.
I have a feeling 18A will fail as well. They will put out tiny quantity of something just to pump stock prices but it will be meaningless to the overall health of the company. It's sad. The competition, AMD, TSMC, nVidia, Apple, to name a few have surpassed them and there is no chance of catching up. Intel is the Titanic that hit the iceberg and is in the process of sinking while the band plays on.
Yes and AMD's resurgence was miraculous and they were nimble enough to make the necessary course correction. Intel is a big bloated, self-important monstrosity. Everyone is in charge and no one is in charge. "Hard left! No! Right! Stay on course!" I simply believe they are too close to the iceberg to be able to change course in time.That what was being said about AMD pre 2017.
Wish I could've bout their stock at 1.29 a share, might have been 1.62 when I argued with the wife.
That what was being said about AMD pre 2017.
Wish I could've bout their stock at 1.29 a share, might have been 1.62 when I argued with the wife.
Yes and AMD's resurgence was miraculous and they were nimble enough to make the necessary course correction. Intel is a big bloated, self-important monstrosity. Everyone is in charge and no one is in charge. "Hard left! No! Right! Stay on course!" I simply believe they are too close to the iceberg to be able to change course in time.
I think the stagnation is in process technology, not the CPU.
If you can't double the transistor count every 18months, you can't double the performance either.
I think it is a common misconception that going from the 286 to today's Zen 5 and Arrow Lake was mostly methodology and algorithm improvement when in fact it was adding buffers, RAM, Execution Units, Branch Predictors, SMT engines, etc, etc, etc.... all of which were able to be added because of the HUGE increase in transistor count that was afforded designers every 18 months.
With Moore's law grinding to a halt, and every 18 months we get about 15% more transistor density instead of 50%, and even getting THAT takes 3 times as much process equipment and process time .... I think the stagnation is ONLY going to get worse.
Stagnation between 2002 and 2006? What the hell are you talking about? AMD side we got AMD K8 and Dual Cores in that time period and I don't think that anyone would argue than the latter wasn't a massive improvement for Multitasking, it was Intel the one that mostly stagnated in those years with P4 Prescott and derivatives (Northwood C was quite competitive), yet Conroe was released at the end of your stated time period and it is considered to be one of the most memorable generations ever. Stagnation on AMD began with K10 Barcelona being lackluster, recover momentum with Deneb, and regressed with Bulldozer, whereas Intel went with their tick tock and did well from Conroe up to Skylake.The stagnation was way worse between 2002 and 2006 than 2021 to 2025 though. We are getting real performance improvements every year that blows away the early 2000s period. People these days are complaining about theoretical benchmark numbers when in actual games there's basically no difference between CPUs at actual gaming resolutions.
Exactly this.Stagnation between 2002 and 2006? What the hell are you talking about? AMD side we got AMD K8 and Dual Cores in that time period and I don't think that anyone would argue than the latter wasn't a massive improvement for Multitasking, it was Intel the one that mostly stagnated in those years with P4 Prescott and derivatives (Northwood C was quite competitive), yet Conroe was released at the end of your stated time period and it is considered to be one of the most memorable generations ever. Stagnation on AMD began with K10 Barcelona being lackluster, recover momentum with Deneb, and regressed with Bulldozer, whereas Intel went with their tick tock and did well from Conroe up to Skylake.
Nowadays per Core performance is what has for the most part significantly stagnated. On Server you work around that by adding more Cores, which is why you see massive improvements in that segment and even greater than at any other time (AMD Rome and Genoa were introduced as absolute monsters, Rome I consider greater than Conroe), whereas we don't have those core leaps on consumer desktop. So, Server is progressing perhaps faster in your 2021-2025 period than 2002-2006 whereas for consumer it is the opposite.
For all the hate P4 gets, My Northwood 3.06 was a game changer for me. The HT actually allowed limited multitasking and the chip overall was a huge improvement over my Tulatin PIII 1.4. Of course Conroe was another game changer nearly doubling (>80%) the IPC of the P4, overclocking higher, and having double the cores.Stagnation between 2002 and 2006? What the hell are you talking about? AMD side we got AMD K8 and Dual Cores in that time period and I don't think that anyone would argue than the latter wasn't a massive improvement for Multitasking, it was Intel the one that mostly stagnated in those years with P4 Prescott and derivatives (Northwood C was quite competitive), yet Conroe was released at the end of your stated time period and it is considered to be one of the most memorable generations ever. Stagnation on AMD began with K10 Barcelona being lackluster, recover momentum with Deneb, and regressed with Bulldozer, whereas Intel went with their tick tock and did well from Conroe up to Skylake.
Nowadays per Core performance is what has for the most part significantly stagnated. On Server you work around that by adding more Cores, which is why you see massive improvements in that segment and even greater than at any other time (AMD Rome and Genoa were introduced as absolute monsters, Rome I consider greater than Conroe), whereas we don't have those core leaps on consumer desktop. So, Server is progressing perhaps faster in your 2021-2025 period than 2002-2006 whereas for consumer it is the opposite.
Northwood and Tualatin. Reminds me of the saddest part of my life when I was stuck with Coppermine Celeron and couldn't afford both.For all the hate P4 gets, My Northwood 3.06 was a game changer for me. The HT actually allowed limited multitasking and the chip overall was a huge improvement over my Tulatin PIII 1.4.
For all the hate P4 gets, My Northwood 3.06 was a game changer for me. The HT actually allowed limited multitasking and the chip overall was a huge improvement over my Tulatin PIII 1.4. Of course Conroe was another game changer nearly doubling (>80%) the IPC of the P4, overclocking higher, and having double the cores.
Now my Willamette P4 1.8, that was not a good part. There was a lot going on from 2002 to 2006 actually. Just on the Intel side we had PIII, P4, and the introduction of Core with Conroe. AMD of course was pumping out various Athlon editions on a regular bases, more cores, higher clocks, those "FX" editions, I think that's what they were called? Oh yeah and Intel came up with the Extreme Edition profit makers then as well.
Ha! My parent's bought a Willamette and it got handed down to me so that's how I got it.The P4C (Northwood 800MHz FSB) was potent.It was Prescott that got the heat (pun intended) and as you stated Williamette was garbage. I was a bit younger at the time and remember being at a friends house and saw they had a Dell Williamette. In my mind their parent's were swindled but I kept my mouth shut.
AMD didn't help itself by sitting on K8 for so long. I've heard rumors of a clock to the moon K9 before Bulldozer became Bulldozer. So we got K10 instead which sucked and a K10 refreseh which was pretty good.
Ha! My parent's bought a Willamette and it got handed down to me so that's how I got it.
Dell did have some amazing system deals back in the day. Nothing like "Value America" but that's a different story...Dell was getting the best binned Northwoods for overclocking. A group of us here started buying the systems through our hot deals forum and swapping the CPUs with our own if they overclocked better. I got a scorching hot deal on a full system with a LCD monitor. The CPU was better for both clocks and FSB by quite a bit IIRC. I swapped CPUs and resold the system but kept the monitor (my first LCD). The deal was so good I made a small profit despite keeping the monitor. The warranty was transferable which made the resale easy peasy.
AMD was preparing for the turnaround since 2012. When did Intel even start to prepare? Then add 5 years to that date and check if Intel managed or is in progress to manage that, assuming Intel can match AMD's nimbleness.That what was being said about AMD pre 2017.
Intel didn't recognize they were running out of tracks until the train had already ran off the rails. It's lots more difficult to get the train back up on the tracks after that.AMD was preparing for the turnaround since 2012. When did Intel even start to prepare? Then add 5 years to that date and check if Intel managed or is in progress to manage that, assuming Intel can match AMD's nimbleness.
Sarcasm? You cant really think that moving back to a monolithic design is a good idea .... do you?Intel has almost everything ready with Arrow Lake. All they need to do is a "quick and dirty" monolithic refresh on at least Intel 4. And large L4 cache would be icing on the cake. Wish they would stop fighting amongst themselves and get behind a combined revival effort to play to their strengths.
No. I'm serious. Intel is badly in need of a quick fix. Monolithic is the only sure way of bringing latency down and letting Arrow Lake perform at its best. And if they ditch the Skymonts and release a halo part with 10 Lion Cove cores, that could be their savior against 9800X3D.Sarcasm? You cant really think that moving back to a monolithic design is a good idea .... do you?
It would be as big as a pie pan!No. I'm serious. Intel is badly in need of a quick fix. Monolithic is the only sure way of bringing latency down and letting Arrow Lake perform at its best. And if they ditch the Skymonts and release a halo part with 10 Lion Cove cores, that could be their savior against 9800X3D.
A Zen 5 CCD is 70.6 mm2. Using a yield calculator (https://semianalysis.com/die-yield-calculator/), I get over 800 dies assuming a D0 of 0.04 defects per cm2.About how many Zen 5 compute dies per wafer to they get assuming 100% yield?