Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1

    rman's Avatar
    Member Since
    Dec 24, 2002
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    12,584
    Specs:
    2 x 3.0GHz Quad-Core, 6GB OS X 10.6.8 | 15in MacBook Pro 2.2GHz OS X 10.6.8 | 64GB iPad 2 WiFi
    Interesting read - Intel
    Intel to roll out new, power-efficient chips
    Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:04 PM BST


    By Duncan Martell

    SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Intel Corp. said on Tuesday it is combining its desktop and notebook microprocessor architectures, as the world's largest chipmaker shifts its focus to power efficiency from raw speed.

    Such performance is key for small, mobile devices as well as computers in data centers eager to cram more chips into smaller spaces. Intel also disclosed plans to deliver, by the end of the decade, chips that consume half a watt of electricity, compared with five watts in current notebook PCs.

    The shift in Intel's strategy comes as it faces the stiffest-ever competition from its smaller rival, Advanced Micro Devices Inc. Intel in the past has focused on making chips that run at ever higher clock speeds, which are now measured in gigahertz, but its top goal is now making chips with a higher performance per watt.

    Intel also plans to start selling three new versions of lower-power-consuming chips in the second half of 2005, said Intel President and Chief Operating Officer Paul Otellini at Intel Developer Forum, a technology conference.

    Otellini also said that, following the dot-com bust in late 2000 and the tech recession that followed, growth in the technology industry is back. After the bubble burst, many pundits questioned whether the heady growth of technology from the late 1960s to 2000 had at last come to an end.

    "Rumors of the death of technology, I think, were greatly exaggerated. Growth in our industry is clearly back," Otellini said, pointing to healthy demand in consumer, corporate and emerging markets.

    The chips code-named Woodcrest will be aimed at the computer server market, those code-named Conroe will be aimed at the desktop PC market, and Merom is designed for the notebook PC market, Otellini said. All will be made using Intel's 65 nanometer chip-making technology, its latest.

    The chips that Otellini announced on Tuesday are so-called x86 chips, which are industry standard microprocessors and are the brains of PCs. They are also dual-core chips, which essentially means two chips in one.

    Otellini declined to name the new architecture, which is a combination of its NetBurst architecture used in its desktop and server processors and its Banias mobile microarchitectures.

    The chips will be able to handle 64 bits of data at once, twice the standard of current x86 chips, which is 32 bits.

    Otellini made no immediate mention of Itanium, a line of high-end processors for which Intel had high hopes when it was first announced. Intel has invested billions of dollars in its development, but so far the sales of Itanium have been less than what Intel had initially hoped for.

    He said after his speech that Intel would outline more Itanium plans on Wednesday.

    AMD took out full-page ads in newspapers on Tuesday, challenging Intel to a "dual-core dual," pitting the performance of AMD's dual-core Opteron against Intel's own processors.

    Asked in a question and answering session following his keynote whether Intel would accept the challenge, Otellini said: "I've always thought companies and products are best judged in the marketplace."

    But one analyst said that AMD's current strength could be short-lived, because AMD has historically been competitive with Intel when its larger rival is in transition from an older microarchitecture to a new one, which is now the case.

    "The only time you announce a challenge is when you're ahead but that probably will not be the case this time next year," said David Wu, an analyst at Global Crown Capital.


    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Reuters 2005. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.
    Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass, It's about learning to dance in the rain!

  2. #2

    dtravis7's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 04, 2005
    Location
    Modesto, Ca.
    Posts
    28,870
    Specs:
    iMac 2010 27" QuadI7 OSX10.11, iMac 2008 OSX10.11, MBP Late2011OSX10.11 , iPad Air, iPhone 3GS
    Very Interesting read! Thanks RMan.

  3. #3

    PowerBookG4's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 08, 2005
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,188
    Specs:
    Mac Pro 8x3.0ghz 12gb ram 8800GT , MBP 2.16 2GB Ram 17 inch.
    very interensting... thank you very much for finding and sharing that rman.
    My Website
    Blog
    I love my hosting company!
    I was on the M-F honor roll for Febuary:2006

  4. #4

    Benjamindaines's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 08, 2005
    Location
    A religiously oppressed state
    Posts
    2,789
    Specs:
    17" MacBook Pro
    There it is folks apple's drive for switching to Intel

  5. #5

    sarahsboy18's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 30, 2005
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    1,069
    Specs:
    Mac Pro, 8-Core 2.8Ghz, 10GB RAM, 2x1TB HDDs, iPod U2 Edition
    Great article... I remember alot of guys who were furious when the MacIntel announcement came out because they thought Apple should have gone to AMD. I think this article sums up Apple's reasoning fairly well. Although I'm still not 100% convinced it was Apple's choice to leave IBM... Intel was definitely a more corporately stable move. The AMD challenge thing is really kinda pitifull IMO. Just seems like there are better ways to spend your marketing dollars.

    It's alot like Pepsi Challenge campaign that they did years ago... It turned out that the more money they dumped into that campaign the more customers went to Coke. Because when you make a big deal out of challenging someone... Then the public assumes the "Big Guy" must have something good enough to be worth such a challenge. AMD is wasting dollars giving credibility to Intel with this campaign. You ALWAYS pitch your product for it's benefits... Not the competition's weaknesses. Marketing & Positioning 101.
    "If you had a friend who was a tightrope walker, and you were walking down a sidewalk, and he fell, that would be completely unacceptable." -Mitch Hedberg

  6. #6
    Zane
    Guest
    Before anyone starts bashing AMD I suggest you read the following link. It wouldn't make me feel good about Intel. http://pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,122236,00.asp

  7. #7


    Member Since
    Mar 30, 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,744
    Specs:
    12" Apple PowerBook G4 (1.5GHz)
    Quote Originally Posted by Zane
    Before anyone starts bashing AMD I suggest you read the following link. It wouldn't make me feel good about Intel. http://pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,122236,00.asp
    Intel has long been able to use its overwhelming financial and engineering resources to prop up existing technology.

    Case #1 the x86 architecture. The instruction set is essentially unchanged since the 386, but now grafted onto a monster of a core with a huge pipeline and stratospheric clock rates. Any other company would have ditched x86 like a bad habit, but Intel has kept it alive, and competitive with more "modern" architectures.

    Case #2 the Pentium-M (aka Centrino processor.) Just when you thought the PentiumIII was dead...Intel exhumes it and turns it into a better mobile chip than just about anything going.

    Intel's ability to kludge its existing technology into competitive products is what doomed the PowerPC, and what keeps AMD on the run. Reminds me of another large player in the PC market, as it happens....

  8. #8

    scooter's Avatar
    Member Since
    May 12, 2005
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    539
    Specs:
    Macbook Pro 2.6 GHz, 4 GB, 200 GB, 256MB Vid
    Quote Originally Posted by sarahsboy18
    It's alot like Pepsi Challenge campaign that they did years ago... It turned out that the more money they dumped into that campaign the more customers went to Coke. Because when you make a big deal out of challenging someone... Then the public assumes the "Big Guy" must have something good enough to be worth such a challenge. AMD is wasting dollars giving credibility to Intel with this campaign. You ALWAYS pitch your product for it's benefits... Not the competition's weaknesses. Marketing & Positioning 101.
    hmm.........kinda sounds like apple's advertising/marketing campaign against the PC and microsoft
    From a G4 400MHz to an Intel Mac Mini to iMac Core Duo to a Macbook Pro 2.6GHz.............gotta love Apple!

  9. #9

    sarahsboy18's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 30, 2005
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    1,069
    Specs:
    Mac Pro, 8-Core 2.8Ghz, 10GB RAM, 2x1TB HDDs, iPod U2 Edition
    Quote Originally Posted by Zane
    Before anyone starts bashing AMD I suggest you read the following link. It wouldn't make me feel good about Intel. http://pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,122236,00.asp

    I'm not bashing AMD... I am simply making a point about the dangers of their current marketing campaign. I would hate to see anything happen to AMD... they are the only company that has been able to force Intel to continue moving their products forward.

    And I would agree with scooter too about Apple doing the same thing. I think that is a big part of why there is so much skeptisism around the potential switcher community. I think some of that attitude is shifting a little. But it will take awhile considering the amount of anti-PC hype that has been fed for so long. At the same though. I really don't mind it with Apple. It keeps their market share small and the hackers away from my Macs. It has definitely kept them from being a true competitor instead of just an "innovator."
    "If you had a friend who was a tightrope walker, and you were walking down a sidewalk, and he fell, that would be completely unacceptable." -Mitch Hedberg

  10. #10
    Ex_PC_Puke
    Guest
    I just saw this headline on CNN .... and smiled to myself .... it finally happened.

    In my last 5yrs at Intel R+D --- I was part of a small and growing cadre pointing out that GHz and unlimited power consumption was no longer the path to follow --- but change comes very hard in a big mega corp as you have nay-sayers - those who are invested in the status-quo - and bean-counters and marketing folks focused on the wrong (near term) trends.

    But - this is a HUGE change for Intel ----- this exact proposition has been floated many times in recent years ---- but the issue (of course) came down to $$$ every time.

    Keep in mind that the cores of the Desktop and Laptop (even the Pentium-M) are 100% identical ---- yet Intel got a hefty extra profit margin on the mobile parts ---- because of their advanced low power circuits included in the Mobile cores. Desktop cores = cheap ----- Mobile cores = xtra profit.So they are giving up a cash cow -- will be interesting to see how they try to handle this ..........

    The battle raged on - and on - and on - and on ----- finally I called BS and left to pursue a new career.

    So this means Intel has finally seen the light ----- this will enable a whole new generation of desktop platforms - smaller - quieter - just as capable - but less intrusive ...... the basis of our arguments for many years.

    The next step (and one that I was proposing --- not even accepted or being considered by anyone really) --------- Is that every sub-system (memory - gfx - I/O) needs to have its own smart circuits to adjust local clock speeds to match the actual needs of the system at that time ---- so if the user is just typing a message in email (or like I'm doing) the smart circuit would "see" that the usage level is low and dynamically lower the clock speed to a very low rate -- user would see no effect. Why is this important ---- its all about power and thermals --- every time you can lower power - you lower thermals ---- thus saving power --- but also lowering your overall system thermal budget - thus allowing smaller - quieter systems


    Bottom line - this is great news for future Macs (and PCs) - and users

    Sorry to ramble - but thats the history of how Intel got to today --- I'll predict you'll see "smart local control" in the next 5yrs
    :spook:

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Interesting read
    By cradom in forum Security Awareness
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11-22-2014, 07:41 AM
  2. interesting read
    By jab119 in forum iPod Hardware and Accessories
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-21-2007, 04:25 PM
  3. A very interesting read, on this intel dealy
    By MadSkillzMan in forum Apple Rumors and Reports
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 06-12-2005, 01:34 AM
  4. Interesting Read
    By rman in forum Apple Rumors and Reports
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-20-2003, 04:58 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •