Without AMD (essentially an Intel Monopoly) What would CPUs cost?

[Scali]

If we step it up a notch, we get into the price range of a nice IBM PC from 1990. $1200 US gets you an i7 930, 8gb ram, blu-ray (this would have been a zip drive back the day), 1tb hard drive, gigabit ethernet, monitor not included. So even with competition, good x86 machines are expensive as fuck.

Yea, I think that's exactly what I mean.
If I were to buy a computer today, it'd probably be along the lines of that i7 930 at $1200.
Nowhere near the price of a cutting-edge i7 980X system, but not quite scraping the bottom of the barrel either.

As I mentioned, I had an 80386SX at one point. That's very similar. Budget at the time was the 286, the cutting-edge was the 386DX, and the 386SX was for people who wanted decent performance and compatibility with the latest software, but not the performance. A 386DX system was way more expensive than an SX system, not that reflective of actual performance. Pretty much like the 980X vs the 930 today.
286 was budget and sucked because it couldn't run 32-bit software.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Same goes for compilers... if Intel/MS/gcc had invested all their time in Itanium optimizations... who knows what would have happened.

Mass programmer suicide.

Seriously I wonder how much of this speculation matters. If things were that simple, everybody would be a fortune teller. Unfortunately, not even the analysts that get paid trying to predict the future can't even do it.

Octopi can tell the future, so let's ask them instead.

I don't think because Intel is executing well on their x86 lines, they can just make a new architecture based CPU and have it work flawlessly.

What, you mean like, Larrabee?

 

[aphorism]

i think cpu's would cost less. intel just posted record earnings in Q2. their profit margins are at 67%. people are paying through the nose for 32nm products. as a consumer this sucks but as an investor this rocks.

 

[evolucion8]

It could be.
The core logic of an Itanium is smaller than that of an x86.
The result is that with today's transistor budget for a 6-core x86, we may be able to implement an 8 or even 10-core Itanium.

Aside from that, had Intel concentrated all their R&D on Itanium, rather than having to split themselves between x86 and Itanium (with Itanium development pretty much at a complete standstill at times, and generally a process node behind), who knows what Itanium would have looked like today.

Same goes for compilers... if Intel/MS/gcc had invested all their time in Itanium optimizations... who knows what would have happened.

Itanium uses VLIW right? If AMD managed to survive pretty well with VLIW, I'm pretty confident that Intel can do it and better.

 

[Chiropteran]

Has any of this changed? Show me a $600 modern computer that isn't a piece of shit. I'll quickly check Best Buy since that's a well known store. Here's a beauty, a nice dual core i3 for only $600: link. 6gb memory, 1tb hard drive (probably a caviar green piece of crap), integrated graphics. At the very least, it has gigabit ethernet. Monitor not included. This computer sucks.

That computer is fine. Other than games, it will run just about anything out there it needs to run. With low end 80's computers, that is hardly the case. You lose real features, windows crawls or doesn't run at all because you don't have a VGA card, you don't have a hard drive so you can't even use a ton of software that require one, etc. Today, your bargain bin computer is merely a little slower. It can still run just about everything the high end PC can run, it just takes a little more time. Huge difference from the days when your cheap PC couldn't even run windows 3.11.

 

[ModestGamer]

That computer is fine. Other than games, it will run just about anything out there it needs to run. With low end 80's computers, that is hardly the case. You lose real features, windows crawls or doesn't run at all because you don't have a VGA card, you don't have a hard drive so you can't even use a ton of software that require one, etc. Today, your bargain bin computer is merely a little slower. It can still run just about everything the high end PC can run, it just takes a little more time. Huge difference from the days when your cheap PC couldn't even run windows 3.11.

I remember those days in the computer lab. LOL. changing 40 motherboards, cpus, hard drives and adding video cards etc ad naeseum to support windows 3.1

 

[ModestGamer]

Amigas were home computers.
Macs were the only competition for the business market (especially back then, much larger than the home computer market), but Macs were (even then) suffering from a lack of good business software, so they never got much marketshare outside of typical Mac markets such as DTP.
Besides, Intel CPUs were used by IBM, and you know the saying: nobody ever got fired for buying IBM.

There were more options perhaps, but in sheer numbers, Intel/IBM were still HUGE compared to the rest.



And how much of that price is depedent on the CPU?
Especially memory was incredibly expensive back in those days. Harddisks were aswell (my first PC didn't even have one, it was a high-end feature). What about videocards, decent VGA monitors etc? My first VGA card cost more than an entire Amiga 500 system! There were exactly 0 Intel chips on that VGA card though.

I've never paid as much as $2000 for any PC, I know that much.

Remember when 8mb of ram and 100mb of hard drive was insane ! I still have that old junk hanging around.

 

[Scali]

Remember when 8mb of ram and 100mb of hard drive was insane ! I still have that old junk hanging around.

Tell me about it...
My first computer was a ZX81... Mine had 4K memory, but a stock model had only 1K.
My first PC was an 8088 at 9.54 MHz (yes, the values behind the decimal point mattered back then), with 640K memory, no HDD, and 2 DD 5.25" drives (360KB per floppy).
It was later upgraded with a whopping 20 MB harddisk!

 

[ModestGamer]

Tell me about it...
My first computer was a ZX81... Mine had 4K memory, but a stock model had only 1K.
My first PC was an 8088 at 9.54 MHz (yes, the values behind the decimal point mattered back then), with 640K memory, no HDD, and 2 DD 5.25" drives (360KB per floppy).
It was later upgraded with a whopping 20 MB harddisk!

I keep one of those around for nostalgia. it still runs to. I fire it up for my nieces and nephews to remind them how good todays POS slow computers are.

 

[richierich1212]

Processors would cost the same but there probably wouldnt be as many processors to choose from low-end to high-end

 

[Scali]

I keep one of those around for nostalgia. it still runs to. I fire it up for my nieces and nephews to remind them how good todays POS slow computers are.

The XT is the only PC I ever sold.
I still have my 386SX and all others. Most of them are in some kind of Frankenstein state. After the 386SX, I started building my own from parts, and upgraded/recycled on a regular basis.

 

[evolucion8]

My first computer was a Intel 386DX running at whooping 25MHz and had 4MB of RAM and a 200MB harddrive, 5.25 and 1.44 floppies and a 2X CD-ROM drive and Windows 3.1, I loved the Program Manager and their cheesy screen savers....

I still remember the boom that happened when IBM launched the Aptiva series with a Pentium 133MHz and it was capable to run videos at full 30fps, it was a success at that time, and my teacher told me that "I'm happy with my Pentium 75MHz, I don't need anything faster for now".

 

[ModestGamer]

The XT is the only PC I ever sold.
I still have my 386SX and all others. Most of them are in some kind of Frankenstein state. After the 386SX, I started building my own from parts, and upgraded/recycled on a regular basis.

I have some wierd stuff and a friend of mine essentially has what can best be described as a computer nerd museum.Just piles of old pcs and parts. I mean I think he has a pushbotton 8088 that works. I have 2-3 really old machines. I still have a functional apple IIe for gods sake. still works and occassionaly I play oregon trail !!!

but it is nice to remind the kids that they have it alot better then we do even when they can only get 2mb speeds.

ugh I rememebr when a modem could get 4kbps you were smoking fast. LOL.

56k was a huge upgrade.

LOL

I was so excited when comcast started offering 1mb serivce I about came in my pants.

LOL.

I now have 50mb

 

[ModestGamer]

My first computer was a Intel 386DX running at whooping 25MHz and had 4MB of RAM and a 200MB harddrive, 5.25 and 1.44 floppies and a 2X CD-ROM drive and Windows 3.1, I loved the Program Manager and their cheesy screen savers....

I still remember the boom that happened when IMB launched the Aptiva series with a Pentium 133MHz and it was capable to run videos at full 30fps, it was a success at that time, and my teacher told me that "I'm happy with my Pentium 75MHz, I don't need anything faster for now".

I have a functional 333 pentium 2 here at work. We use if becuase it has a parrellel port. remem:hmm:ber those ?

 

[Lazlo Panaflex]

lol...I was surprised to see that Asus sells a 770/AM3 board with a parallel port. The board has no floppy support, though. Weird stuff.

I have an ancient Apple IIc + monochrome monitor laying around that I may put on fleabay/craigslist someday.

 

[ModestGamer]

lol...I was surprised to see that Asus sells a 770/AM3 board with a parallel port. The board has no floppy support, though. Weird stuff.

I have an ancient Apple IIc + monochrome monitor laying around that I may put on fleabay/craigslist someday.

I have some apple IIe software. Not much and no way to really create more unless I write it. thats not really something I want to do. If the floppy drive dies it goes in the garage.

 

[evolucion8]

I have a functional 333 pentium 2 here at work. We use if becuase it has a parrellel port. remem:hmm:ber those ?

Yeah, even my old Asus P4P800-E Deluxe had one, I used it to connect it to my 7 years old HP Deskjet 940c printer, which died 6 months ago, RIP, great service and great image quality.... Also that mobo died 1 month ago, RIP, great service and also great image quality, J/K

 

[kalrith]

they would cost the same, they would just be a lot slower

Those are my thoughts as well.

 

[Scali]

Those are my thoughts as well.

But even if they were, you had no way of knowing
Heck, even today we don't really know.
So, Intel moved from 4 cores to 6 cores with 32 nm. But is that really the best they can do? Or could they have given us 8 cores if they really wanted? We'll never know.

 

[aphorism]

Itanium uses VLIW right? If AMD managed to survive pretty well with VLIW, I'm pretty confident that Intel can do it and better.

AMD has arguably the most successful VLIW processor. intel does x86 well but that's about it.

 

[Scotteq]

Processors would cost the same but there probably wouldnt be as many processors to choose from low-end to high-end

I tend to agree with this statement: Whether one believes it or not, Silicon chips are a commodity. And in that environment you build/price to what your target market is willing to pay. As pointed out, PCs are "Built TO A Price" because the market has already made up it's mind how much a PC is worth (..and that number is less than $1K, complete). And that's pretty much where we are now. So I doubt that the dollar (Yen, Mark, Ruble, whatever) tag attached to a CPU would change much, since the market/consumer are already dictating prices. The pace of development might slow. But what would happen if Intel priced themselves out of the market??

On the low/consumer end?? I would predict that slightly bigger/better iPhone/Droids/whatever with word processing capabilities take over. Getting close to that point already: Improvements in voice recognition to get rid of the hassle of typing. Docks connected to larger monitors for the home. Improved Bluetooth(like?) technologies in the car... And now your PC is the device you have on you all the time. We'd get iDevices for iPeople. Mr Jobs would cream in his pants - (..and anyone else's who happened to be within arms reach) - should such a scenario play out.


On an Enterprise level? My company is already putting Toasters on the desktop, connected to Citrix/WinServer 2008 on the back end. Individuals only get PC's if the old one they currently have hasn't broke yet, or a laptop if they have to travel regularly on business. Overpriced desktop CPU's would only accelerate this trend.



Gamers and enthusiasts would be the ones paying the price: And we don't make up enough of the marketplace to sustain a giant like Intel.

Intel are plenty smart enough to know that, so no... Nothing would change, except perhaps the pace of development.

 

[Scali]

Intel are plenty smart enough to know that, so no... Nothing would change, except perhaps the pace of development.

Yea, and with a bit of luck, Intel will have a CEO that WANTS to deliver good products.
Say what you want about Jen-Hsun Huang and Steve Jobs, but they really live for the technology that their company provides.
They both seem to enjoy going into new territory, like nVidia moving into the general computing market, or Apple making a tablet computer that people actually want.

 

[Scotteq]

I get what you're saying, in that you'd like to see more innovative products rather than a die shrinked version of a chip that has higher IPC then the one you could buy last year. But otherwise does exactly the same thing. But I'd not necessarily accuse Intel of delivering "bad" products. Sure, they're not flashy/trendy/cutting edge. And yah, they've fallen on their faces (*coughlarrabeecough*) from time to time. But Intel's stuff is VERY good in the sense that it does what it's designed to do, dependably and reliably.

Regarding nVidia: I'm less convinced about the GPGPU thing. I just don't (yet) see much happening on the delivery side. Basically, the Hype to Reality ratio isn't anywhere near what I'd want to spend money on yet. Definitely could be with the right (software development) tools, though. But they do have that pesky "No x86 Licence" thing to contend with. Lack of x86 backwards compatibility is what killed Itanium on the desktop, since "The World" woud have to do a rewrite and nobody wants to go there. Alternatively, nVidia would have to convince (the courts) that their x86 compatible GPGPU which runs standard x86 software isn't really an x86 "processor", and therefore doesn't fall under the patents...

Yeah, Right...

IMHO, nVidia would have to do a "Device" and convince an awful lot of people they can out~Apple Apple. Or remain a supplimentary device (however useful and powerful) to a PC.

Now - Apple actually making a Tablet that people want? I can definitely see that happening in the near future: Keep it pocket sized, around 5" for a screen (still pocket sized and/or belt wearable), incorporate a Bluetooth headset and the necessary GSM/CDMA radio for phone calls.... Make sure it handles typical PC (Office) apps with good speed and with voice commands. Make it pretty, functional, and convenient to carry. Maybe a dock at the house to connect to a decent sized monitor.

They'll sell millions of them.


It's been said that even cheap PCs are more powerful than most people actually use. IMHO the Smartphone makers, Apple foremost, have the best opportunity to make a pocket sized device that does everything most people do, most of the time, (and make calls too!). When that happens, it'll put a real dent in home PC sales. Again: IMHO.

 

[Scali]

GPGPU is mainly interesting for the supercomputing market. They don't have an x86 legacy anyway.
Firstly a lot of it is research, so new code is written anyway, and backwards compatibility isn't a big deal.
Secondly, until recently, supercomputing wasn't done on x86 processors at all. They were mainly custom-made systems, with the CPU-du-jour, on some unix-like custom OS. Things were programmed in C/C++, and nVidia supports that. The supercomputing market is used to having to rewrite/update code for a new supercomputer, because you never knew exactly where the next supercomputer was coming from. It's custom hardware with custom OSes.

 

[bryanW1995]

Has any of this changed? Show me a $600 modern computer that isn't a piece of shit. I'll quickly check Best Buy since that's a well known store. Here's a beauty, a nice dual core i3 for only $600: link. 6gb memory, 1tb hard drive (probably a caviar green piece of crap), integrated graphics. At the very least, it has gigabit ethernet. Monitor not included. This computer sucks.

If we step it up a notch, we get into the price range of a nice IBM PC from 1990. $1200 US gets you an i7 930, 8gb ram, blu-ray (this would have been a zip drive back the day), 1tb hard drive, gigabit ethernet, monitor not included. So even with competition, good x86 machines are expensive as fuck.



Mainstream is budget low end. How many months/years did it take before Best Buy even carried i7 computers? When people on Anandtech were building i7 920s and pushing them to 4ghz, mainstream computers sold in stores were still E5200s. Average computers are horrendously bad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desktop_computer

this is $699, and it's probably upper midrange. it even has a discrete (albeit slow) graphics card. spend $50 for a decent gpu and you could do just about anything with this rig.

edit: forgot the link: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883103265