chrisv wrote:
Robert Myers wrote:


The features in Grantsdale also could help persuade shoppers to seek out
Intel-based computers, said Intel spokeswoman Laura Anderson. That may
also steer shoppers away from PCs built with chips from rival Advanced
Micro Devices Inc..


Not to appear to defend a bunch of marketing BS, but some of us do
shop the chipset, obviously. Intel chipsets are the reason I've
always been an Intel customer. In fact, lately I've been buying
Intel-branded motherboards, confident in their quality, and confident
that if/when I install Linux on them, they'll be completely supported.
(I'm responsible for quite a number of computers at home and work.)

I just haven't seen a need to look elsewhere, recently. It's not like
I'd actually notice the 10% improvement in performance that I'd get by
going with AMD and a brand-X chipset (given equal dollars). Looking
forward, it appears that Intel may be in trouble with the lame
Prescott going against the superb Athlon 64, and I could live with an
Nvidia chipset... I'll cross that bridge when I'm next in the market
for a home machine.

No flames, please, we're all entitled to our opinions.


Why flame everyday good sense? Who could argue that Prescott is not a
disappointment or that the chipset is not an important part of a
purchase decision for a knowledgeable buyer?

If you look at what Intel is doing as purely a marketing ploy, it's
fairly transparent and easy to make fun of. If the market for PC-type
processors were mature (and some people do think it is), we should be
preparing for a future of Coke vs. Pepsi and Hertz vs. Avis marketing
campaigns.

As I read the signs and portents coming from both Intel and IBM, though,
the technology should not be taken to be mature and the market could be
headed for chaos.

In particular, the von Neumann architecture is a technological dead end
as far as increasing the power of microprocessors is concerned. It's a
dead end because, while there may be a few more doublings left in
Moore's law, the von Neumann architecture is already having trouble
making good use of the available transistors for a number of reasons:
heat, leakage, and the inevitable triumph of wire delay come to mind first.

If Intel wants buyers to think about upgrading for more power, it is
going to have to get buyers to think about something more complex than a
more powerful single-threaded x86 processor. It's not a problem Intel
is facing by itself. IBM, on whom AMD is reliant at the moment for
process technology, is having problems with scaling, too. It is hard to
imagine that AMD is not going to run into the same brick wall as Intel,
albeit more slowly because AMD did not make the self-destructive choice
that Intel did: to get to a faster clock at all costs.

If the von Neumann architecture is running out of steam, and if
entertainment is the future, then the future of x86 for "personal"
computing has to be threatened, too. In a universe of wild imagining,
maybe Sony/Toshiba/IBM, not AMD, is the real threat to Intel's dominance.

Not likely, but Intel would have its work cut out for it in the
"personal" computing business even without AMD: either people are going
to lose interest, the business will become a true commodity dominated by
the likes of VIA and Red Dragon, or Intel has to come up with something
to match the hype of a Cell because that's how much razzle dazzle it
will require to keep Intel in the style to which it has become accustomed.

No two ways about it, the disappointing performance of Prescott matched
against the technological success of AMD/IBM have forced Intel to
scramble, but it's a reasonable guess that Intel has actually known for
a while in what direction it was going to scramble when forced. The
fact that Intel didn't take the future they've been hinting about
seriously enough to come up with a more mature marketing campaign does
suggest a certain level of denial at the highest levels of Intel
management, though. ;-).

RM