Intel's Server Market Share To Decline As Competition Heats Up [View article]
Aricool
It appears you have an obsession with Moore's Law that I do not share. If it is this important to you then you need to find someone else to share your obsession with because I'm not the right person.
My concern is with today and the continued evolution of the semiconductor process. This evolution will continue and we will see feature sizes shrink for the foreseeable future. Whether or not Moore's statements from nearly 50 years ago exactly describes every condition, and the exact cadence, to your complete satisfaction is of no importance to me.
Intel Won't Build Apple's Chips; It Still Makes No Sense [View article]
AnonymousAlpha
"there was a chip that they were interested in that they wanted to pay a certain price for and not a nickel more and that price was below our forecasted cost. I couldn't see it. It wasn't one of these things you can make up on volume."
Nobody has a crystal ball. Based on the information available at the time, it sounds like he made the right business decision. Apple was as much at fault as Intel for not budging on price. Now Apply is stuck with a partner that steals their IP and competes with them.
Intel Can Give Apple The Edge In Mobile [View article]
Hindsight is 20/20. What Otellini said was that their models showed that the price Apple demanded was below Intel's cost. Apple wouldn't budge a penny so Intel passed on the deal. As it turned out, Intel's cost model turned out to be wrong but they went with the information they had at the time. Had Apple come up a little on the price, both companies would have won. Intel would have gotten the design win and Apple would have a manufacturing partner that wouldn't compete with them and wouldn't steal their IP. Now Apple is dependent on their arch enemy. Sounds to me like both companies missed a great opportunity.
ARM Holdings: This Will End Badly For Shareholders [View article]
Justin
I've been following AMD for 30 years and if they bought their HQ back I'd probably have noticed it. There are plenty of other examples of them selling stuff off to fund operations but most of them you can't find links anymore to reference. In addition to their PLD division, their Flash division and their Fab operations, they've sold off their communications group, their embedded products group and they killed their RISC processor, all to do battle against Intel.
ARM Holdings: This Will End Badly For Shareholders [View article]
stu
"Selling off your buildings? What does that mean?"
Keeping with your tradition, it's impossible to know who you're responding to but any statement alluding to the selling off of buildings is in reference to AMD selling of any and everything they have to raise cash. They recently sold their office complex in Austin to hold off the bill collectors. In the past they also sold off their headquarters in Sunnyvale. To my knowledge, AMD has no more hard assets left to hock.
Intel's Server Market Share To Decline As Competition Heats Up [View article]
Aricool
I'm afraid I'm just not getting what your point is. Feature sizes are continuing to shrink and are expected to continue for several more generations. The cadence is generally along the line originally predicted by Moore's Law. So what's your problem with saying the Law is alive? It's an observation that has shown predictive value and continues to do so.
"Moore's law is the observation that over the history of computing hardware, the number of transistors on integrated circuits doubles approximately every two years."
Which integrated circuits are we talking about here? Which specific chip is the metric we're going to use? A 7404 or an Itanium? Moore's Law says nothing about transistor size, so couldn't we just make chips bigger and say we've met the letter of the law? I know that's silly but I think you argument, whatever it actually is, is silly too.
So I don't know exactly what or with whom you are arguing but my point is that feature sizes are continuing to shrink and will continue to do so for several more generations, at least. Gordon Moore said that in the article you linked to although both you and the author claimed he said exactly the opposite of what he actually said. So transistors will continue to shrink (unless you're TSMC and then only the gate will) and we will continue to see more transistors per given area even though that was not specifically predicted by Moore's Law.
If you could make your point concisely perhaps I'd know what you're trying to say.
Intel's Server Market Share To Decline As Competition Heats Up [View article]
It appears you have an obsession with Moore's Law that I do not share. If it is this important to you then you need to find someone else to share your obsession with because I'm not the right person.
My concern is with today and the continued evolution of the semiconductor process. This evolution will continue and we will see feature sizes shrink for the foreseeable future. Whether or not Moore's statements from nearly 50 years ago exactly describes every condition, and the exact cadence, to your complete satisfaction is of no importance to me.
Intel: Haswell Release On June 3rd Could Be Huge [View article]
Turn off automatic updates.
Intel's Server Market Share To Decline As Competition Heats Up [View article]
I've used Agilent testers. Excellent hardware but you don't want to know what I think of the software.
Intel Can Give Apple The Edge In Mobile [View article]
"Apple *has* the edge in mobile. Do you think it needs Intel to help extend it?"
Yes. That's the whole point.
Intel Won't Build Apple's Chips; It Still Makes No Sense [View article]
"there was a chip that they were interested in that they wanted to pay a certain price for and not a nickel more and that price was below our forecasted cost. I couldn't see it. It wasn't one of these things you can make up on volume."
Nobody has a crystal ball. Based on the information available at the time, it sounds like he made the right business decision. Apple was as much at fault as Intel for not budging on price. Now Apply is stuck with a partner that steals their IP and competes with them.
Intel Can Give Apple The Edge In Mobile [View article]
Intel's Server Market Share To Decline As Competition Heats Up [View article]
"In any case, I stick to Moore's Law being a Zombie at best, and actually dead at worst (based on the above interpretation of his paper)."
Fine, you do that. The rest of us will enjoy the shrinks for years to come.
ARM Holdings: This Will End Badly For Shareholders [View article]
I've been following AMD for 30 years and if they bought their HQ back I'd probably have noticed it. There are plenty of other examples of them selling stuff off to fund operations but most of them you can't find links anymore to reference. In addition to their PLD division, their Flash division and their Fab operations, they've sold off their communications group, their embedded products group and they killed their RISC processor, all to do battle against Intel.
AMD's 3 Step Road To Recovery [View article]
AMD sold their Sunnyvale Campus back in the 1990s.
http://bit.ly/Uq1jSy
ARM Holdings: This Will End Badly For Shareholders [View article]
AMD sold their Sunnyvale campus back in the 1990s to raise cash to fight the evil empire.
http://bit.ly/Uq1jSy
They've also sold their PLD business, their Flash business, their fabs and just about everything else that was or wasn't nailed down too.
ARM Holdings: This Will End Badly For Shareholders [View article]
"Selling off your buildings? What does that mean?"
Keeping with your tradition, it's impossible to know who you're responding to but any statement alluding to the selling off of buildings is in reference to AMD selling of any and everything they have to raise cash. They recently sold their office complex in Austin to hold off the bill collectors. In the past they also sold off their headquarters in Sunnyvale. To my knowledge, AMD has no more hard assets left to hock.
Intel's Server Market Share To Decline As Competition Heats Up [View article]
Intel's MIC, now known as Intel PHI, is available now.
Intel's Server Market Share To Decline As Competition Heats Up [View article]
I'm afraid I'm just not getting what your point is. Feature sizes are continuing to shrink and are expected to continue for several more generations. The cadence is generally along the line originally predicted by Moore's Law. So what's your problem with saying the Law is alive? It's an observation that has shown predictive value and continues to do so.
"Moore's law is the observation that over the history of computing hardware, the number of transistors on integrated circuits doubles approximately every two years."
Which integrated circuits are we talking about here? Which specific chip is the metric we're going to use? A 7404 or an Itanium? Moore's Law says nothing about transistor size, so couldn't we just make chips bigger and say we've met the letter of the law? I know that's silly but I think you argument, whatever it actually is, is silly too.
So I don't know exactly what or with whom you are arguing but my point is that feature sizes are continuing to shrink and will continue to do so for several more generations, at least. Gordon Moore said that in the article you linked to although both you and the author claimed he said exactly the opposite of what he actually said. So transistors will continue to shrink (unless you're TSMC and then only the gate will) and we will continue to see more transistors per given area even though that was not specifically predicted by Moore's Law.
If you could make your point concisely perhaps I'd know what you're trying to say.
Intel Won't Build Apple's Chips; It Still Makes No Sense [View article]
"I am actually expecting a move to TunnelFETs."
That would be interesting!
TSMC and GloFo would immediately revise their roadmaps to show TunnelFETS starting production in Q4.
Intel Won't Build Apple's Chips; It Still Makes No Sense [View article]
I thought so. I didn't think you'd lost your senses.