Yeah, I mentioned that in my first post on this subtopic.
It takes two to tango.
And Intel is responsible for a heck of a lot of what's in your computer. AMD, not so much. Sorry if that bothers you.
*looks at AMD64 on my Windows 7 64-bit OS*
I guess 64 bit instructional set which my intel uses isnt much?
Then why are you turning this thread into all about Intel and how great they are and how they invented pretty much everything in your computer?
*looks at AMD64 on my Windows 7 64-bit OS*
I guess 64 bit instructional set which my intel uses isnt much?
And so is IBM, and Bell Labs, and a thousand other companies that brought innovations into our lives. And why is it so critically important that Intel is the greatest company on Earth to you? Does it really matter to you that much that you feel the need to post a list (half of which is wrong) that pumps Intel's tires?And Intel is responsible for a heck of a lot of what's in your computer. AMD, not so much. Sorry if that bothers you.
Face what that P4 sold more units than Athlon because it was more innovative or Intel had tons of cash to bribe OEM's ?And here comes again the R&D/size excuse... Look, what can you say about NexGen, PA Semi, Calxeda, Transmeta and others, you know, companies with far smaller budget than AMD but that at least could bring something from concept to product?
Face it: AMD is not innovative as you think it is. R&D is not in their DNA, not in their business model. They are quite good in bringing in other's researches and get it on the market, but they are not an innovation engine.
And so is IBM, and Bell Labs, and a thousand other companies that brought innovations into our lives. And why is it so critically important that Intel is the greatest company on Earth to you? Does it really matter to you that much that you feel the need to post a list (half of which is wrong) that pumps Intel's tires?
Good grief.
Face what that P4 sold more units than Athlon because it was more innovative or Intel had tons of cash to bribe OEM's ?
You're counting innovation & I've repeatedly said that its not quantifiable cause, in which case the lack of x64 would make Intel a dud in the server market btw its their bread & butter now, AMD is equally innovative(if not more considering its size) vis-à-vis Intel !
You can take that opinion of yours & put it as a showpiece in your living room for all I care ! If you take a panel of eminent researchers & ask them about the impact of AMD/Intel on the current x86 industry they'll say "you can count numbers" but certainly not innovation, yes its idealistic but its also the truth cause certain contributions cannot be measured by a tape ! The only possible thing that puts Intel on more of a pedestal(relatively speaking) is the fact that they've made the x86 market not much else I'm afraid !All the outrage really amuses me.
About three pages ago I stated a simple fact, which is that Intel deserves its success at least in part because it has been responsible for a significant number of innovations related to PCs. Far more than any other single company, as far as I can tell.
Now you and others are bending over backwards trying to deny reality, while claiming that I'm a "fanboy" because I refuse to pretend that Intel and AMD are on equal footing when it comes to innovation.
Well, too bad. I'm not going to. They aren't. Intel isn't the "greatest company on Earth". It also isn't the evil spawn of Satan that all the AMD fans portray it to be.
It's a good technology company that has been responsible for a great deal of what makes PCs what they are. If you want to think that Bell Labs was responsible for decades' worth of new features, capabilities and performance in PCs, or that Bell Labs inventing the transistor somehow detracts from Intel and props up AMD, have fun. Everyone needs something to cling to.
All the outrage really amuses me.
About three pages ago I stated a simple fact, which is that Intel deserves its success at least in part because it has been responsible for a significant number of innovations related to PCs. Far more than any other single company, as far as I can tell.
Now you and others are bending over backwards trying to deny reality, while claiming that I'm a "fanboy" because I refuse to pretend that Intel and AMD are on equal footing when it comes to innovation.
Well, too bad. I'm not going to. They aren't. Intel isn't the "greatest company on Earth". It also isn't the evil spawn of Satan that all the AMD fans portray it to be.
It's a good technology company that has been responsible for a great deal of what makes PCs what they are. If you want to think that Bell Labs was responsible for decades' worth of new features, capabilities and performance in PCs, or that Bell Labs inventing the transistor somehow detracts from Intel and props up AMD, have fun. Everyone needs something to cling to.
The only possible thing that puts Intel on more of a pedestal(relatively speaking) is the fact that they've made the x86 market not much else I'm afraid !
Could've, would've, should've doesn't mean that they did it ! If Itanium took off then there wouldn't be x86-64 & IIRC they're totally incompatible so thank AMD for once for that 32GB of memory that enthusiasts crave about !x64 wasn't something beyond Intel capacity, it was not something that Intel could not develop alone, and it was a dumb decision not to have done it before. AMD had the correct marketing vision at the time, but what choice did they have? They would be out of IA64 markets anyway, and they had to start from something they had access, and this was x86 by all means.
Still, I'm waiting for AMD innovations. What's AMD great contribution for the MPU world?
This just shows that you are not reading my posts. The link to the image that I gave is from arstechnica site
http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/amd-boxer-training.jpg
The link that you give "is not from arstechnica site"
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/227626/Shared/amd-clown-burst.jpg
I repeat: the dropboxusercontent.com image is from an old informal party at AMD. Now try to guess who is the Clown...
By that count you should frame IBM logo & sing their hymns in your workplace for most of the tech in this world is their giving, directly or stolen by others !Ha! Intel created the x86 market? Intel invented the Microprocessor, mostly because they had fabs more advanced than everybody's (Sounds familiar, doesn't it?). Intel is in the forefront of the foundry world since its creation, a capacity that AMD *never* came close to match, much less to develop in-house. That alone would be enough to put Intel in a different league than AMD, but Intel did *a lot* more than creating a market, as Charles pointed out.
That's too much for a company that spent half of its life reverse-engineering Intel chips, and the other half in an acquisition spree to get other people's ideas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superscalar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-order_execution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simultaneous_multithreading#Historical_implementations
And im sure more of what you typed was not researched by Intel, unless you mean that they introduced them to the x86 ecosystem.
The Intel i960CA (1988) and the AMD 29000-series 29050 (1990) microprocessors were the first commercial single-chip superscalar microprocessors.
But you clearly are trying to show Intel as the only company that made everything in the semiconductor industry.
You can tell yourself that AMD completely through out all of its 29k talent when they acquired NexGen and hired ex-DEC engineers but I don't buy that for a minute.
Intel invented the Microprocessor, mostly because they had fabs more advanced than everybody's (Sounds familiar, doesn't it?).
Three projects delivered a microprocessor at about the same time: Garrett AiResearch's Central Air Data Computer (CADC) (1968), Texas Instruments (TI) TMS 1000 (1971 September), and Intel's 4004 (1971 November).
That's too much for a company that spent half of its life reverse-engineering Intel chips
Honest question: Would you say Tesla Motors and SpaceX are innovative? I mean, strictly speaking, they don't even use (or give us) novel ideas or creations. It's all been there before, and yet those two companies are considered to be highly innovative.Indeed, K7 was very innovative, except that it wasn't AMD'ers that created the K7. The team that developed the K7 was from DEC. See my point? It isn't AMD bringing developing something new, it is AMD bringing in other's ideas to fruition.
I think you'll find this quite amusing & rather distasteful to your non "fanboyish" nature !... and now you're just flat out lying.
The hatred for Intel around here is staggering.
Since the subject is Intel versus AMD, yes, that's what I am talking about. Of course nearly everything was first invented on expensive mainframes. But most of that was put into x86 by Intel and copied by AMD. And most of the stuff that was truly new to microprocessors was also created by Intel, and copied by AMD.
Good post Exophase :thumbsup:K7 may have had some prominent Alpha engineers behind its design (in addition to existing AMD ones, including but not limited those who came from NexGen) but it is hardly an acquired design. The alleged similarity between K7 and Alpha 21264 is greatly exaggerated.
http://www.azillionmonkeys.com/qed/cpujihad.shtml
I could enumerate all the differences between the two but it'd be less work to list what they actually have in common.
AMD hired former DEC engineers, they didn't acquire a DEC design or patents or anything like that. If you're going to argue that AMD didn't develop K7 on the basis of hiring engineers that had a lot of experience at another company then you must be claiming that Intel only hires fresh college graduates...
If you want a good example of an x86 processor that was too much of a port of a RISC one with an x86 front end bolted on that would be K5, which used Am29000 - which was not at all a bad processor design and developed by AMD in-house.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Am29000
Emphasis on being for a time the most popular RISC CPUs on the market. I imagine they would have eventually realized that fitting a 4-wide x86 decoder to this was an incredible bottleneck.
You can tell yourself that AMD completely through out all of its 29k talent when they acquired NexGen and hired ex-DEC engineers but I don't buy that for a minute.
So yes, Intel was first. Should we continue to pick apart your agenda?
History
Seymour Cray's CDC 6600 from 1965 is often mentioned as the first superscalar design. The Intel i960CA (1988) and the AMD 29000-series 29050 (1990) microprocessors were the first commercial single-chip superscalar microprocessors
I think you'll find this quite amusing & rather distasteful to your non "fanboyish" nature !
The quote you're talking about ~What you quoted (which I stand by, incidentally) is not the same as saying that "Intel as the only company that made everything in the semiconductor industry". So AtenRa misrepresented my comments.
Can someone lock this thread once & for allWell, i haven’t seen anyone here saying that Intel is the "evil spawn of Satan" or trying to downplay the importance of Intel in the x86. But you clearly are trying to show Intel as the only company that made everything in the semiconductor industry.