• Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

The Slow Death and Rebirth of Intel

in the old days I remember AMD was the upstart who were 10x smaller than Intel

and now you can see that Qualcomm is about twice the size of Intel and AMD is about 2.5x (if you want to beleive in market cap)

and Nvidia is of course 30x the size!

intel was the IBM of its age... no one got fired for recommending Intel
 
I remember when i5's were a great option for gaming and i7's were seen as top dog. Nowadays, i9s are top dogs but are always out classed by the next generation. I can't imagine paying all that money for a 12th gen i9 and then the next year comes and a 13th gen i7 matches it. I think the bigger punch is when people bought the hated 11th gen i9's (and the loved 10th gen i9's) and then 12th gen i9's came out the next year. The jump from DMI 3.0 to 4.0 was also another good punch. Although 12th gen to 14th gen owners suffered the punch of no bifurcation.

Although I made the same mistake, I bought a 5800X3D then the next year the 7800X3D came out. At that point, I almost went Intel again but AMD had better prices and Bifurcation support. I'm pretty thankful I did.
 
Well the recently released Intel Core Ultra CPU's apparently are a step up in energy efficiency and good performance. Also known as Lunar Lake cpu's. Some laptops are apparently getting 24 hour battery life with normal use according to reviewers. It also has the necessary speed for on board AI purposes.

It appears more or less competitive with the latest AMD and Snapdragon processors.

Not so good is Intel could not make these chips themselves. They had TMSC make them on their behalf until they get things up to speed to make later versions themselves.
 
Last edited:
IMO Intel is here to stay. Not by virtue of being good, but being significant. They are obviously not doing well, but that could be fixed by many measures, internal or external. Even if not fixed, by virtue of being a US company and making usable chips, they will continue to exist. I guess the expression is too big to fall...
 
VintageFlanker said:
www.tomshardware.com

Intel's former CEO reportedly wanted to buy Nvidia for $20 billion in 2005 — Nvidia is worth over $3 trillion today

A purchase could have drastically changed GPU and AI tech.
www.tomshardware.com www.tomshardware.com
Click to expand...
Intel would probably have exploited the technology for itself and the rest would have disappeared into obscurity, as has often happened with such company acquisitions.
Without this strong player, and thus competition for the others, this technology would not have developed so dramatically and quickly.
 
Craig Barrett was the CEO of Intel from 1997-2005. He was responsible for the company improving manufacturing quality. He just wrote an editorial.

fortune.com

Intel is back—stop talking about breaking it up: Craig Barrett | Fortune

If we want semiconductor manufacturing leadership in the U.S., then build on the current resurgence of Intel, don’t tear it apart.
fortune.com fortune.com

I believe "The board members are well meaning but off target. They are two academics and two former government bureaucrats, just the type of folks you want dictating strategy in the ruggedly competitive semiconductor industry." really means "The board members are well meaning but off target. They are two academics and two former government bureaucrats, just the type of folks you do not want dictating strategy in the ruggedly competitive semiconductor industry."
 
EERecordist said:
Craig Barrett was the CEO of Intel from 1997-2005. He was responsible for the company improving manufacturing quality. He just wrote an editorial.

fortune.com

Intel is back—stop talking about breaking it up: Craig Barrett | Fortune

If we want semiconductor manufacturing leadership in the U.S., then build on the current resurgence of Intel, don’t tear it apart.
fortune.com fortune.com

I believe "The board members are well meaning but off target. They are two academics and two former government bureaucrats, just the type of folks you want dictating strategy in the ruggedly competitive semiconductor industry." really means "The board members are well meaning but off target. They are two academics and two former government bureaucrats, just the type of folks you do not want dictating strategy in the ruggedly competitive semiconductor industry."
Click to expand...

Craig Barrett is one of the people responsible for where Intel is today. He championed Itanic (Itanium) and when he was chairman, he and his incompetent CEO Paul Otelini (who sold off their mobile ARM IP) started Intel on its sad, sagging path.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MAB
EERecordist said:
Craig Barrett was the CEO of Intel from 1997-2005. He was responsible for the company improving manufacturing quality. He just wrote an editorial.

fortune.com

Intel is back—stop talking about breaking it up: Craig Barrett | Fortune

If we want semiconductor manufacturing leadership in the U.S., then build on the current resurgence of Intel, don’t tear it apart.
fortune.com fortune.com

I believe "The board members are well meaning but off target. They are two academics and two former government bureaucrats, just the type of folks you want dictating strategy in the ruggedly competitive semiconductor industry." really means "The board members are well meaning but off target. They are two academics and two former government bureaucrats, just the type of folks you do not want dictating strategy in the ruggedly competitive semiconductor industry."
Click to expand...
You're saying Intel have addressed their floating point division issue but now have a problem with NOT gates?
 
teched58 said:
Craig Barrett is one of the people responsible for where Intel is today. He championed Itanic (Itanium) and when he was chairman, he and his incompetent CEO Paul Otelini (who sold off their mobile ARM IP) started Intel on its sad, sagging path.
Click to expand...
Itanium was driven and paid for by HP. It was successful in its product cycle. Intel's weakness is its engineers successfully lobbying for overly complex implementations of the X86 architecture over market needs. That killed Larrabee which might have allowed them to catch up in graphics, then AI. They had the information to succeed in AI and missed that. ARM, and mobile were strategic mistakes. Whoever screamed the loudest won.
 
It could be the moment to buy Intel stocks, since 1) this world needs more chips, 2) the stock price is stable now. 3) if ai inference is all about memory integration in soc, no reason can not deliver powerful server. 4) seems Intel is going to have some breakthrough on a18 products. Therefore should be some market share in CPU,GPU,and probably some arm chips. 5) Present Trump is not attacking Intel so far.

What do you think?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom