In denial? Did you believe that their than current CPUs like the first incarnation(Willamette) outmatched AMD's counterparts and their own predecessors or was it less radical and you simply believed that high clock-speed achieved through very deep pipeline was the right approach and later iterations would improve tremendously on the idea.
The latter. Well, actually the former too in the hypothetical future world where they would increase clock speeds by 600MHz every 3 quarters or so and reach 6-7GHz with Prescott.
It was when Core 2 was out and the subsequent years after that how bad Netburst was and every supporter of Intel at that time were completely misled by the marketing department, and technical department, and the managers, and well... everybody.
Good products have a
CLEAR lead. They come out faster because they aren't delayed, they use slightly less power than marketed, they perform little better than they are marketed and even the products are better positioned.
There's a slide by Intel(hardware.fr used to have it I think but they seemed to have pulled it) that says that subsequent iterations of running benchmarks would reduce performance by 30%! That's a difference of getting 2.8 points in Cinebench and dropping down to 1.96!
Now I see the point of using thermal headroom to boost performance. Sandy Bridge did it well. But on a $200-300 chip that's going to run applications that's demanding and long running throttling like Core M is unacceptable. Yes you heard me right.
Throttling! It's not a 2.8 point Cinebench R11.5 chip, its a 2.0 one.
liahos1 said:
maybe we should wait for the ASUS Core M products to come out.
That sucks too. It's a limitation of trying to squeeze too-hot of a chip into a system that's too-thin.
http://tweakers.net/reviews/3751/4/...processor-getest-synthetische-benchmarks.html
III-V said:
The doom and gloom you're spouting over a sample size of one is ridiculous.
Two. Look above.
witeken said:
Sure, let's all jump on the fear and doubt bandwagon and pretend that the 32nm PCH is going to make Core M dead on arrival, that the 14nm process advantage doesn't exist, that Intel doesn't have a world leading CPU architecture, that Intel doesn't have a mobile-focused GPU architecture with a lot of GFLOPS.
Since Intel's process "LEAD" is so closely correlated to co-optimizing between the process and logic design teams, they are one and the same. Intel claims 3.5 years lead in process. That's 2 generations worth.
Each generation brings 20% perf or 30% power reduction. The options are 1. 1.44x perf gain 2. 0.49x the power 3. 1.2x perf gain and 0.7x the power. Now that's not what we are seeing whether we look at Bay Trail, Core M, or Haswell U/Y parts against TK1 and A8X.
I think they used to have "3.5 years" lead when comparing against significantly underfunded teams like AMD. So their co-optimizing makes it so it has double the advantage, one in design and one in process. Against much better funded ARM designers they are probably 1 generation(or 2 years)
at the most. Realistically I think its about a year lead, exactly corresponding to the timeline difference of Intel's 14nm and others 14nm, or Intel 22nm vs Competitor 20nm. That's a 10% perf gain or 15% power reduction. Not enough to overcome other factors like poor design and positioning.