PDA

View Full Version : Will Intel catch up to AMD this year?


March 8th 06, 03:29 PM
They claim they will surpass AMD with new cpu's this year - more
powerful CPU's with less power consumption. Do you think this is true
or will AMD continue to stay ahead? Is Dell still using only Intel
CPU's?

know code
March 8th 06, 03:35 PM
wrote:
> Is Dell still using only Intel CPU's?

It appears so (sigh). I find it hilarious when they say "We take your
gaming experience as seriously as you do" and then they don't use AMD
processors which have been proven time and again to be better gaming
processors!

What they really should be saying is "We take your gaming experience as
seriously as you do, if you don't mind us using an inferior gaming
processor" :)

kurt
March 8th 06, 07:08 PM
On 8 Mar 2006 06:29:42 -0800, wrote:

>They claim they will surpass AMD with new cpu's this year - more
>powerful CPU's with less power consumption. Do you think this is true
>or will AMD continue to stay ahead? Is Dell still using only Intel
>CPU's?

I'd be surprised if any good engineers are still at Intel. Esp in
management positions. The P4 took years of good experience out of
that company. Oh, and then there's the top management with no
engineering degrees.

Gojira
March 8th 06, 07:10 PM
Judging from their track record,I doubt Intel will ever catch up,they've
gotten fat and lazy,and lack AMD's drive and innovation.As for Dell,if they
want to sell any of those overpriced,overhyped XPS systems,they'd better
make the switch to AMD soon.Me,I'll go with a custom system from a real
builder with real support anytime.
> wrote in message
oups.com...
> They claim they will surpass AMD with new cpu's this year - more
> powerful CPU's with less power consumption. Do you think this is true
> or will AMD continue to stay ahead? Is Dell still using only Intel
> CPU's?
>

Isaac W.
March 8th 06, 08:40 PM
The stuff I heard about AMD in the late 90's might still come back to
haunt them. I know they had issues getting into ceartain manufacturing
settings. Issues with excel and other stuff of the like. If AMD has
shaped up and not had anymore parity errors of the olden days then YES
They could forseeable start ripping into intel badly.

Remeber RDRAM (Rimms) and jumping on the pentium pro arcitechure too
soon? Intel has the problem with "were right because we're the biggest
and not because it the best" With that attitude it's not a matter of IF
but WHEN they start hurting.(they are not hurting as of yet)

They are sucking as far as taking care of employees as well as rampant
political BS getting in the way of engineering and making this stuff
work.

Thomas A. Horsley
March 8th 06, 11:00 PM
>Do you think this is true or will AMD continue to stay ahead?

I have no actual idea, but AMD and Intel are starting to remind me of Shick
and Gillette. AMD is rumored to be coming out with a 4 core CPU chip
soon. Next thing you know Intel will come out with a hyperthreaded 4 core
system that has a little battery that makes it vibrate to "energize the
electrons" :-).
--
>>==>> The *Best* political site <URL:http://www.vote-smart.org/> >>==+
email: icbm: Delray Beach, FL |
<URL:http://home.att.net/~Tom.Horsley> Free Software and Politics <<==+

NoNoBadDog!
March 9th 06, 06:05 AM
<kurt> wrote in message ...
> On 8 Mar 2006 06:29:42 -0800, wrote:
>
>>They claim they will surpass AMD with new cpu's this year - more
>>powerful CPU's with less power consumption. Do you think this is true
>>or will AMD continue to stay ahead? Is Dell still using only Intel
>>CPU's?
>
> I'd be surprised if any good engineers are still at Intel. Esp in
> management positions. The P4 took years of good experience out of
> that company. Oh, and then there's the top management with no
> engineering degrees.
>
>

Intel has *never* inflated any of their predictions or benchmarks...

But they have a loooooooong way to go to catch up!

Bobby

NoNoBadDog!
March 9th 06, 06:10 AM
"Isaac W." > wrote in message
oups.com...
> The stuff I heard about AMD in the late 90's might still come back to
> haunt them. I know they had issues getting into ceartain manufacturing
> settings. Issues with excel and other stuff of the like. If AMD has
> shaped up and not had anymore parity errors of the olden days then YES
> They could forseeable start ripping into intel badly.
>
> Remeber RDRAM (Rimms) and jumping on the pentium pro arcitechure too
> soon? Intel has the problem with "were right because we're the biggest
> and not because it the best" With that attitude it's not a matter of IF
> but WHEN they start hurting.(they are not hurting as of yet)
>
> They are sucking as far as taking care of employees as well as rampant
> political BS getting in the way of engineering and making this stuff
> work.
>

None of what you bring up has any bearing. AMD has FAB36 up and running,
and it is state of the art. It is superior to any of the fabs that Intel
has. RDRAM failed because of marketing. Intel is fat and lazy, and will
ultimately take the easy route, and I predict that they never will catch up
completely.

Intel hangs on to the Northbridge FSB, does not make true dual core, refuses
to move the memory controller on-die, etc. Intel hung on to hyperthreading
far too long...it was never supported. Intel just does not have a clue.
Until June of 2005, their whitepaper was still claiming no one wanted 64 bit
processors.

Bobby

VanShania
March 9th 06, 09:19 AM
Whether intel catches up and surpasses or not I'm sticking with AMD.

PS Dell , HP, Compaq and any other quack ripoffs suck. Alienware and Falcon
Northwest is the way to go if you want to buy a computer.

--
[email protected]
PC3200 Samsung 512mb, SB Live OEM
AIW9600XT, A7N8X-X
WD120gb + 80gb HD 8mb buffers
Plextor PX-712A, Liteon 1693S 16X Dual Layer
Pioneer DVR-110D 16X - 4X Dual Layer
Thermaltake Lanfire, 420 Watt PS
ViewSonic 19" A91f+ CRT
Micrsoft Sidewinder Precision 2 Joystick

Overall Score-2066, cpu_score-2926
in 3DMark2005 basic 1078X768, No AA


> wrote in message
oups.com...
> They claim they will surpass AMD with new cpu's this year - more
> powerful CPU's with less power consumption. Do you think this is true
> or will AMD continue to stay ahead? Is Dell still using only Intel
> CPU's?
>

Phil, Squid-in-Training
March 10th 06, 04:07 AM
NoNoBadDog! wrote:
> "Isaac W." > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> The stuff I heard about AMD in the late 90's might still come back to
>> haunt them. I know they had issues getting into ceartain
>> manufacturing settings. Issues with excel and other stuff of the
>> like. If AMD has shaped up and not had anymore parity errors of the
>> olden days then YES They could forseeable start ripping into intel
>> badly. Remeber RDRAM (Rimms) and jumping on the pentium pro arcitechure
>> too
>> soon? Intel has the problem with "were right because we're the
>> biggest and not because it the best" With that attitude it's not a
>> matter of IF but WHEN they start hurting.(they are not hurting as of
>> yet) They are sucking as far as taking care of employees as well as
>> rampant political BS getting in the way of engineering and making
>> this stuff work.
>>
>
> None of what you bring up has any bearing. AMD has FAB36 up and
> running, and it is state of the art. It is superior to any of the
> fabs that Intel has. RDRAM failed because of marketing. Intel is
> fat and lazy, and will ultimately take the easy route, and I predict
> that they never will catch up completely.
>
> Intel hangs on to the Northbridge FSB, does not make true dual core,
> refuses to move the memory controller on-die, etc. Intel hung on to
> hyperthreading far too long...it was never supported. Intel just
> does not have a clue. Until June of 2005, their whitepaper was still
> claiming no one wanted 64 bit processors.

I heard something about this up and coming company called Transmeta making
some neato low-power mobile chip... sounds exciting! ;)

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

kevinbeall
March 10th 06, 12:47 PM
"Bill" > wrote in message
.. .
> NoNoBadDog! wrote:
>
>>Intel hangs on to the Northbridge FSB, does not make true dual core,
>>refuses
>>to move the memory controller on-die, etc. Intel hung on to
>>hyperthreading
>>far too long...it was never supported. Intel just does not have a clue.
>
> They've been a little ignorant lately, but that's changing.
>
>>Until June of 2005, their whitepaper was still claiming no one wanted 64
>>bit
>>processors.
>
> I don't think they said no one "wanted" 64-bit. I believe they said no
> one "needed" 64-bit.
>
> And to a large extent that's true. I have a 64-bit processor. But it
> doesn't really offer me anything special. A dual-core 32-bit processor
> would be just as good.
>
> So far I haven't seen any significant performance differences with
> 64-bit processors, operating systems, and software. The change from 16
> to 32-bit was noticeable, but so far I'm still waiting to see an
> improvement with 64-bit. Right now, 64-bit is reserved for servers and
> systems that have unique needs. The vast majority have no need of 64-bit
> processors, operating systems, or programs, yet.
>
> Having said that, it's still VERY early in the 64-bit game. Windows
> Vista 64-bit will really push the software companies to make native
> programs and drivers, and hopefully we'll see something worthwhile at
> that time.

Just out of curiosity, what is vista going to offer that the XP 64 OS
didn't? I've put off buying the WinXP64 because of all the complaints I've
seen concerning lack of drivers, etc... why will vista be any different?

kev

NoNoBadDog!
March 10th 06, 07:01 PM
"kevinbeall" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bill" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> NoNoBadDog! wrote:
>>
>>>Intel hangs on to the Northbridge FSB, does not make true dual core,
>>>refuses
>>>to move the memory controller on-die, etc. Intel hung on to
>>>hyperthreading
>>>far too long...it was never supported. Intel just does not have a clue.
>>
>> They've been a little ignorant lately, but that's changing.
>>
>>>Until June of 2005, their whitepaper was still claiming no one wanted 64
>>>bit
>>>processors.
>>
>> I don't think they said no one "wanted" 64-bit. I believe they said no
>> one "needed" 64-bit.
>>
>> And to a large extent that's true. I have a 64-bit processor. But it
>> doesn't really offer me anything special. A dual-core 32-bit processor
>> would be just as good.
>>
>> So far I haven't seen any significant performance differences with
>> 64-bit processors, operating systems, and software. The change from 16
>> to 32-bit was noticeable, but so far I'm still waiting to see an
>> improvement with 64-bit. Right now, 64-bit is reserved for servers and
>> systems that have unique needs. The vast majority have no need of 64-bit
>> processors, operating systems, or programs, yet.
>>
>> Having said that, it's still VERY early in the 64-bit game. Windows
>> Vista 64-bit will really push the software companies to make native
>> programs and drivers, and hopefully we'll see something worthwhile at
>> that time.
>
> Just out of curiosity, what is vista going to offer that the XP 64 OS
> didn't? I've put off buying the WinXP64 because of all the complaints
> I've seen concerning lack of drivers, etc... why will vista be any
> different?
>
> kev
>

The two are in no way related. Perhaps you should check out the Windows
Vista website and read up, or simply pick up any computer magazine. Windows
Vista is a new OS, not related to Windows XP or x64.

Bobby

NoNoBadDog!
March 11th 06, 12:48 AM
"Bill" > wrote in message
.. .
> kevinbeall wrote:
>
>>> I don't think they said no one "wanted" 64-bit. I believe they said no
>>> one "needed" 64-bit.
>>>
>>> Having said that, it's still VERY early in the 64-bit game. Windows
>>> Vista 64-bit will really push the software companies to make native
>>> programs and drivers, and hopefully we'll see something worthwhile at
>>> that time.
>>
>>Just out of curiosity, what is vista going to offer that the XP 64 OS
>>didn't? I've put off buying the WinXP64 because of all the complaints
>>I've
>>seen concerning lack of drivers, etc... why will vista be any different?
>
> The biggest issue is hardware and software support. The big names in
> antivirus programs haven't bothered with x64, and there are still a lot
> of peripherals that do not have any 64-bit drivers available for them.
> Some will have basic functionality, but that's not enough for many
> people.
>
> For instance, my HP printer doesn't have support, my scanner doesn't,
> several programs I need are either not supported at all, or are not
> properly supported, etc.
>
> Windows x64 is just a basic XP hold-over for users who needed big memory
> support until Vista gets released. Windows Vista is quite different and
> will be available as several types including 32 and 64-bit versions.

Bill;

HP printer drivers (BETA) are available on www.planetamd64.com for x64.
None for Vista as of yet.

Avast! AVG and Symantec Corporate AV 10.1 work just fine under x64.

Bobby

Cal Vanize
March 16th 06, 03:06 AM
wrote:

> They claim they will surpass AMD with new cpu's this year - more
> powerful CPU's with less power consumption. Do you think this is true
> or will AMD continue to stay ahead? Is Dell still using only Intel
> CPU's?
>

Bottom line is that Intel investors are starting to get teh picture.
Intel isn't at the top of the heap anymore and its stock prices are
starting to drop. The Intel board of Directors won't stand for this
since it hits them right where it hurts - their bank accounts.

So look for major changes at Intel including possible corporate
restructuring, new management from the top down, new architects and
engineers, heavy investments in R&D and new strategic alliances. Look
for more investments in third world manufacturing and R&D, especially
India and Malaysia.

Intel will make a surge, but it will not likely come back in 2006. This
kind of turnaround for this bloated beast will take a little longer.
They needs to look farther out and shoot for 3Q or 4Q 2007 for a major
leap in technology.

BTW, this isn't just my opinion, go to the stock analysts sites and read
for yourself.

NoNoBadDog!
March 16th 06, 06:00 AM
"Cal Vanize" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
>> They claim they will surpass AMD with new cpu's this year - more
>> powerful CPU's with less power consumption. Do you think this is true
>> or will AMD continue to stay ahead? Is Dell still using only Intel
>> CPU's?
>>
>
> Bottom line is that Intel investors are starting to get teh picture. Intel
> isn't at the top of the heap anymore and its stock prices are starting to
> drop. The Intel board of Directors won't stand for this since it hits
> them right where it hurts - their bank accounts.
>
> So look for major changes at Intel including possible corporate
> restructuring, new management from the top down, new architects and
> engineers, heavy investments in R&D and new strategic alliances. Look for
> more investments in third world manufacturing and R&D, especially India
> and Malaysia.
>
> Intel will make a surge, but it will not likely come back in 2006. This
> kind of turnaround for this bloated beast will take a little longer. They
> needs to look farther out and shoot for 3Q or 4Q 2007 for a major leap in
> technology.
>
> BTW, this isn't just my opinion, go to the stock analysts sites and read
> for yourself.
>
>
>

Let's see...

3 straight quarters of not meeting profit predictions...
3 straight quarters of market share loss to AMD
3 straight quarters of public stock value decline


Intel needed to do something to try to stop the blood loss...and the
publicity stunt it pulled at IDF was that something. Too bad so many were
taken in by it.

If Intel really had a chip that would outperform AMD by 20%, do you think
they would hold off production til the end of the year?

Bobby

Cal Vanize
March 16th 06, 06:07 AM
NoNoBadDog! wrote:

> "Cal Vanize" > wrote in message
> ...
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>They claim they will surpass AMD with new cpu's this year - more
>>>powerful CPU's with less power consumption. Do you think this is true
>>>or will AMD continue to stay ahead? Is Dell still using only Intel
>>>CPU's?
>>>
>>
>>Bottom line is that Intel investors are starting to get teh picture. Intel
>>isn't at the top of the heap anymore and its stock prices are starting to
>>drop. The Intel board of Directors won't stand for this since it hits
>>them right where it hurts - their bank accounts.
>>
>>So look for major changes at Intel including possible corporate
>>restructuring, new management from the top down, new architects and
>>engineers, heavy investments in R&D and new strategic alliances. Look for
>>more investments in third world manufacturing and R&D, especially India
>>and Malaysia.
>>
>>Intel will make a surge, but it will not likely come back in 2006. This
>>kind of turnaround for this bloated beast will take a little longer. They
>>needs to look farther out and shoot for 3Q or 4Q 2007 for a major leap in
>>technology.
>>
>>BTW, this isn't just my opinion, go to the stock analysts sites and read
>>for yourself.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Let's see...
>
> 3 straight quarters of not meeting profit predictions...
> 3 straight quarters of market share loss to AMD
> 3 straight quarters of public stock value decline
>
>
> Intel needed to do something to try to stop the blood loss...and the
> publicity stunt it pulled at IDF was that something. Too bad so many were
> taken in by it.
>
> If Intel really had a chip that would outperform AMD by 20%, do you think
> they would hold off production til the end of the year?
>
> Bobby


Its not a matter of holding off production, its a matter of developing
new product that will be competitive. It'll take fresh R&D and
engineering to move them out of their current state.

NoNoBadDog!
March 16th 06, 07:44 AM
"Cal Vanize" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> NoNoBadDog! wrote:
>
>> "Cal Vanize" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>They claim they will surpass AMD with new cpu's this year - more
>>>>powerful CPU's with less power consumption. Do you think this is true
>>>>or will AMD continue to stay ahead? Is Dell still using only Intel
>>>>CPU's?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Bottom line is that Intel investors are starting to get teh picture.
>>>Intel isn't at the top of the heap anymore and its stock prices are
>>>starting to drop. The Intel board of Directors won't stand for this
>>>since it hits them right where it hurts - their bank accounts.
>>>
>>>So look for major changes at Intel including possible corporate
>>>restructuring, new management from the top down, new architects and
>>>engineers, heavy investments in R&D and new strategic alliances. Look
>>>for more investments in third world manufacturing and R&D, especially
>>>India and Malaysia.
>>>
>>>Intel will make a surge, but it will not likely come back in 2006. This
>>>kind of turnaround for this bloated beast will take a little longer. They
>>>needs to look farther out and shoot for 3Q or 4Q 2007 for a major leap in
>>>technology.
>>>
>>>BTW, this isn't just my opinion, go to the stock analysts sites and read
>>>for yourself.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Let's see...
>>
>> 3 straight quarters of not meeting profit predictions...
>> 3 straight quarters of market share loss to AMD
>> 3 straight quarters of public stock value decline
>>
>>
>> Intel needed to do something to try to stop the blood loss...and the
>> publicity stunt it pulled at IDF was that something. Too bad so many
>> were taken in by it.
>>
>> If Intel really had a chip that would outperform AMD by 20%, do you think
>> they would hold off production til the end of the year?
>>
>> Bobby
>
>
> Its not a matter of holding off production, its a matter of developing new
> product that will be competitive. It'll take fresh R&D and engineering to
> move them out of their current state.
>
>
>
The proof will be in the pudding. Given Intel's proclivity for cutting
corners and taking the easy route, I hold no hope that the Conroe Pre-prod
that was shown at IDF will ever see the light of day. Intel has been
capable of making some great chips, and in the end has *always* opted for
profit instead. We'll see what happens when their "next big thing" hits the
street. Anything will be better than these constant rounds of rebranding
the same old things and then treating them as something new.

Bobby

Cal Vanize
March 16th 06, 01:54 PM
NoNoBadDog! wrote:
> "Cal Vanize" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>NoNoBadDog! wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Cal Vanize" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>They claim they will surpass AMD with new cpu's this year - more
>>>>>powerful CPU's with less power consumption. Do you think this is true
>>>>>or will AMD continue to stay ahead? Is Dell still using only Intel
>>>>>CPU's?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Bottom line is that Intel investors are starting to get teh picture.
>>>>Intel isn't at the top of the heap anymore and its stock prices are
>>>>starting to drop. The Intel board of Directors won't stand for this
>>>>since it hits them right where it hurts - their bank accounts.
>>>>
>>>>So look for major changes at Intel including possible corporate
>>>>restructuring, new management from the top down, new architects and
>>>>engineers, heavy investments in R&D and new strategic alliances. Look
>>>>for more investments in third world manufacturing and R&D, especially
>>>>India and Malaysia.
>>>>
>>>>Intel will make a surge, but it will not likely come back in 2006. This
>>>>kind of turnaround for this bloated beast will take a little longer. They
>>>>needs to look farther out and shoot for 3Q or 4Q 2007 for a major leap in
>>>>technology.
>>>>
>>>>BTW, this isn't just my opinion, go to the stock analysts sites and read
>>>>for yourself.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Let's see...
>>>
>>>3 straight quarters of not meeting profit predictions...
>>>3 straight quarters of market share loss to AMD
>>>3 straight quarters of public stock value decline
>>>
>>>
>>>Intel needed to do something to try to stop the blood loss...and the
>>>publicity stunt it pulled at IDF was that something. Too bad so many
>>>were taken in by it.
>>>
>>>If Intel really had a chip that would outperform AMD by 20%, do you think
>>>they would hold off production til the end of the year?
>>>
>>>Bobby
>>
>>
>>Its not a matter of holding off production, its a matter of developing new
>>product that will be competitive. It'll take fresh R&D and engineering to
>>move them out of their current state.
>>
>>
>>
>
> The proof will be in the pudding. Given Intel's proclivity for cutting
> corners and taking the easy route, I hold no hope that the Conroe Pre-prod
> that was shown at IDF will ever see the light of day. Intel has been
> capable of making some great chips, and in the end has *always* opted for
> profit instead. We'll see what happens when their "next big thing" hits the
> street. Anything will be better than these constant rounds of rebranding
> the same old things and then treating them as something new.
>
> Bobby

From our perspective, you're right. But from the perspective of the
Intel board of Directors and stockholders, its a different picture.
Profits are what will drive the organization. The issue is that short
term gains have to be weighed against long-term stability. So far,
Intel has taken advantage of the profit side.

But after recent performance numbers from Intel, they will need to make
that change and suck up the short term financial impact on R&D and
manufacturing improvements. They will need to show the industry that
they can offer cutting edge products.

If they have trouble, then the board will make deeper changes or choose
to take a secondary role in the industry.

BTW.... Average guy Joe Bowling doesn't know about alternatives, just
that he can get a new 'puter for the kids from HP, Gateway or Dull and
not worry about what's inside. The agreements with those vendors are
what's probably keeping Intel going more than anything.

Cal Vanize
March 25th 06, 08:43 PM
wrote:

> They claim they will surpass AMD with new cpu's this year - more
> powerful CPU's with less power consumption. Do you think this is true
> or will AMD continue to stay ahead? Is Dell still using only Intel
> CPU's?
>

As an update, Tom's just reviewed the latest Intel effort. Though
improved and bettering the best stock AMDs in a few performance
categories, its still not faster overall.

the link:

http://www20.tomshardware.com/2006/03/22/pentium_extreme_edition_965/

March 26th 06, 04:40 AM
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 13:43:24 -0600, Cal Vanize
> wrote:

>
>
wrote:
>
>> They claim they will surpass AMD with new cpu's this year - more
>> powerful CPU's with less power consumption. Do you think this is true
>> or will AMD continue to stay ahead? Is Dell still using only Intel
>> CPU's?
>>
>
>As an update, Tom's just reviewed the latest Intel effort. Though
>improved and bettering the best stock AMDs in a few performance
>categories, its still not faster overall.
>
>the link:
>
>http://www20.tomshardware.com/2006/03/22/pentium_extreme_edition_965/
>


That's funny I didn't see any mention of this in Tom's
review.

What up with that ?

This just an urban myth or is Microsoft and Intel just
getting the look the other way treatment ?


Intel quietly adds DRM to new chips
Friday 27 May 2005 - 11:02


http://www.digitmag.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=4915


Microsoft and the entertainment industry's holy grail of
controlling copyright through the motherboard has moved a
step closer with Intel Corp. now embedding digital rights
management within in its latest dual-core processor Pentium
D and accompanying 945 chipset.



Officially launched worldwide on the May 26, the new
offerings come DRM-enabled and will, at least in theory,
allow copyright holders to prevent unauthorized copying and
distribution of copyrighted materials from the motherboard
rather than through the operating system as is currently the
case.

While Intel steered clear of mentioning the new DRM
technology at its Australian launch of the new products,
Intel's Australian technical manager Graham Tucker publicly
confirmed Microsoft-flavored DRM technology will be a
feature of Pentium D and 945.

"[The] 945g [chipset] supports DRM, it helps implement
Microsoft's DRM ... but it supports DRM looking forward,"
Tucker said, adding the DRM technology would not be able to
be applied retrospectively to media or files that did not
interoperate with the new technology.

However, Tucker ducked questions regarding technical details
of how embedded DRM would work saying it was not in the
interests of his company to spell out how the technology in
the interests of security.

The situation presents an interesting dilemma for IT
security managers as they may now be beholden to
hardware-embedded security over which they have little say,
information or control.

Conversely, Intel is heavily promoting what it calls "active
management technology" (AMT) in the new chips as a major
plus for system administrators and enterprise IT. Understood
to be a sub-operating system residing in the chip's
firmware, AMT will allow administrators to both monitor or
control individual machines independent of an operating
system.

Additionally, AMT also features what Intel calls "IDE
redirection" which will allow administrators to remotely
enable, disable or format or configure individual drives and
reload operating systems and software from remote locations,
again independent of operating systems. Both AMT and IDE
control are enabled by a new network interface controller.

"We all know our [operating system] friends don't crash that
often, but it does happen," Tucker said.

Intel's reticence to speak publicly about what lies under
the hood of its latest firmware technology has also prompted
calls to come clean from IT security experts, including
Queensland University of Technology's assistant dean for
strategy and innovation, IT faculty, Bill Caelli.

"It's a dual use technology. It's got uses and misuses.
Intel has to answer what guarantees it is prepared to give
that home users are safe from hackers. Not maybes,
guarantees".

Caelli said it was "critical Intel comes clean" about how
the current DRM technology is embedded into the new CPU and
chipset offering.

Microsoft was unavailable for comment at press time.

know code
March 26th 06, 11:08 AM
billy wrote:

> Intel quietly adds DRM to new chips
> Friday 27 May 2005 - 11:02
>
> http://www.digitmag.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=4915
>
> Microsoft and the entertainment industry's holy grail of
> controlling copyright through the motherboard has moved a
> step closer with Intel Corp. now embedding digital rights
> management within in its latest dual-core processor Pentium
> D and accompanying 945 chipset.

Just one more reason to stick with AMD!

> Additionally, AMT also features what Intel calls "IDE
> redirection" which will allow administrators to remotely
> enable, disable or format or configure individual drives and
> reload operating systems and software from remote locations,
> again independent of operating systems. Both AMT and IDE
> control are enabled by a new network interface controller.

Is it just me that this scares the Hell out of? I can just see a new
type of virus or worm taking advantage of this and causing havoc with
thousands of computers around the world!

> Intel's reticence to speak publicly about what lies under
> the hood of its latest firmware technology has also prompted
> calls to come clean from IT security experts, including
> Queensland University of Technology's assistant dean for
> strategy and innovation, IT faculty, Bill Caelli.

Does this remind anyone of the P-III serial number saga that Intel had
to back down on?

> "It's a dual use technology. It's got uses and misuses.
> Intel has to answer what guarantees it is prepared to give
> that home users are safe from hackers. Not maybes,
> guarantees".
>
> Caelli said it was "critical Intel comes clean" about how
> the current DRM technology is embedded into the new CPU and
> chipset offering.

Sounds more and more like the P-III saga!

> Microsoft was unavailable for comment at press time.

Why does *THAT* not surprise me!

Philip B Kirschner
March 27th 06, 02:55 AM
Dell acquired alienware which uses AMD heavily.

Phil

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> They claim they will surpass AMD with new cpu's this year - more
> powerful CPU's with less power consumption. Do you think this is true
> or will AMD continue to stay ahead? Is Dell still using only Intel
> CPU's?
>

Gojira
March 27th 06, 09:28 AM
Which proves Dell realizes that AMD is still the leader when it comes to
gaming,and probably will remain so.This gives them a way to get around their
agreement to use Intel CPU's and get into the high end gaming market.
"Philip B Kirschner" > wrote in message
...
> Dell acquired alienware which uses AMD heavily.
>
> Phil
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > They claim they will surpass AMD with new cpu's this year - more
> > powerful CPU's with less power consumption. Do you think this is true
> > or will AMD continue to stay ahead? Is Dell still using only Intel
> > CPU's?
> >
>
>

Thomas A. Horsley
March 28th 06, 01:43 AM
>Which proves Dell realizes that AMD is still the leader when it comes to
>gaming,and probably will remain so.This gives them a way to get around their
>agreement to use Intel CPU's and get into the high end gaming market.

It doesn't prove it till it happens. From what I've seen of Dell's
Intel ass kissing, it might just as well mean that alienware will soon
be making only Intel machines, losing market share, and dropping off
the face of the earth (thus helping eliminate one of the reasons for
amd success).

NoNoBadDog!
March 28th 06, 04:54 AM
"Bill" > wrote in message
.. .
> Gojira wrote:
>
>>Which proves Dell realizes that AMD is still the leader when it comes to
>>gaming,and probably will remain so.This gives them a way to get around
>>their
>>agreement to use Intel CPU's and get into the high end gaming market.
>
> Dell is not really interested in the gaming market. Their primary
> customer is the business sector, from low end workstations to servers.
>
> While gaming machines can be equally profitable, Dell's acquisition is
> likely a move to gain market share more than anything else.

Then how do you explain this:

NoNoBadDog!
March 28th 06, 04:57 AM
"Bill" > wrote in message
.. .
> Gojira wrote:
>
>>Which proves Dell realizes that AMD is still the leader when it comes to
>>gaming,and probably will remain so.This gives them a way to get around
>>their
>>agreement to use Intel CPU's and get into the high end gaming market.
>
> Dell is not really interested in the gaming market. Their primary
> customer is the business sector, from low end workstations to servers.
>
> While gaming machines can be equally profitable, Dell's acquisition is
> likely a move to gain market share more than anything else.

Then how do you explain this:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30572

The XPS6000 Renegade Gaming machine at $9,930 has sold out.


Would be nice to have an AMD based gaming machine without the heat, low
bandwidth and cost of an Intel processor.

Bobby

Gojira
March 28th 06, 09:49 AM
"Thomas A. Horsley" > wrote in message
...
> >Which proves Dell realizes that AMD is still the leader when it comes to
> >gaming,and probably will remain so.This gives them a way to get around
their
> >agreement to use Intel CPU's and get into the high end gaming market.
>
> It doesn't prove it till it happens. From what I've seen of Dell's
> Intel ass kissing, it might just as well mean that alienware will soon
> be making only Intel machines, losing market share, and dropping off
> the face of the earth (thus helping eliminate one of the reasons for
> amd success).

Alienware might have helped in AMD's rise when they started,but I doubt they
count that much now,success went to their heads,now they're overpriced with
poor ratings and terrible support,other companies have appeared with better
prices,support and products.Then again,Dell could be described in the same
way,so the two of them deserve each other.

sky
April 9th 06, 12:50 AM
Bill > wrote in :


> Are you serious...?
>
> You don't actually believe any of that, do you?
>


not sure exactly what you are referring to; however, the fact that AMD has
the faster, cooler and cheaper chip more or less makes this the case, as
it has for a year or two now. of course one does not need to spend 10k for
it, but hey, to each his own.