Is Intel in trouble?

This is a good read & explains a lot about what is really going on \"Inside Intel\". Quite interesting read IMO & well worth the time

Quote:
Intel bogged down by multiple missteps
Part One Hubble, bubble, AMD and trouble

By Charlie Demerjian: Monday 03 April 2006, 08:27
INTEL IS IN DEEP trouble, and it doesn't seem to be capable of grasping what needs to be done to fix the problem.

Link:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30710

Part 2 is coming tomorrow.
Take Care,

Interesting. We'll see more when AM2 and Conroe come out.

They are both out & Intel's Conroe is superior in speed/performance clock for clock against AMD's Athlon 64's.

AMD only released the AM2's just to bring DDR2 support. The chip is 99.9% identicle to S 939.

Nice Read:
Sales of Intel's Core 2 Duo chip seem slow take off
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34015

AMD may have big plans for 2007
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33906

If AMD does overtake Intel, I doubt it will be soon. AMD doesn't even have comercials lol, and most computers come ready with Intel. Most people would say, \"I've never heard of AMD..\" IMO.

If Intel doesn't get their heads out of their 4th point of contact, they'll start losing revenue.

Intel is still the #1 supplier of CPUs though and I think they will stay that way for awhile yet. They have yet to learn that core clock speed isn't everything though.

Intel has yet to learn that core clock speed isn't everything?
Is that why the Core 2 Duo E6300 at 1.8GHZ out matches Athlon X2's at 2.4GHZ ?

http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/c...shootout_5.html

You're right, but how long did it take them to figure that out?

From PII to the P4, Intel banked on clock speed.

Meanwhile, AMD ate up a small portion of sales because of their price to performance ratio.

AMD is also quite underfunded. If it hadn't been for the merger with ATI, it was estimated that they would've gone out of business in 5 years.

I don't believe there is any chance of AMD going out, and I don't think they were in any 'real' danger of it. Good business absolutely needs competition. I can't be sure on this, but I remember reading somewhere that AMD has got 30% of the worlds CPU market under its belt, and its slowly grabbing more of the Server market with its Opteron chips.

On a large scale, 30% may not seem like much, but compared to the 8% it commanded in the mid-90's, thats quite a jump. As society evolves and inflation rises, people have less money to spend on things like computers - naturally, they're going to start gravitating towards the cheaper alternative, which would be AMD. But is AMDs quality cheaper? I don't think so. AMD manufactures excellent chips that perform well. Intel has got a HUGE advertising base - thats where they shine. There are still people who don't even know that there are two major chip-maker contenders going punch for punch. All they ever see is Intel commercials. So when they walk into a store wanting to buy a computer, where will they go? Intel.

Yes, I would have to agree, AMD would not have gone out of business, though there taking over ATI was probably the smartest business move they have ever made to date IMO.

It is not about the ATI chipsets, it all has a lot to do with integrating the GPU & the CPU together, while at the same time giving the user the option to also connect an external graphics card too.

By integrating the GPU with the CPU on the same chip, that would cost much cheaper to produce & at the same time increase performance on both fronts.

Now, I would like to see AMD's new 65nm Dual-Core based K8L CPU's compete with Intel's Conroe. K8L is coming in Q4 2006 to Q1 2007 for Dual-Core & Q4 2007 to Q1 2008 for Quad-Core. But it all depends on Intel's release date for there Quad-Core I assume.

Take Care,

Agreed.  Seeing as ATI is already an established company with a decent track record, it probably was a very smart move.  But it will put Nvidia squarely in the other corner against AMD.  I can only hope that ATIs driver will become far less buggy and easier to install.

You know, AMD really sent shockwaves through the CPU world when it unveiled the first 64 bit processor.  Everyone just assumed it would have been Intel to make the release first.  Now Intel has returned the slap in the face by being the first to release a dual-core chip, and very probably, the first quad-core chip.

I'm not vehemently against Intel, I just think that AMD has terrific quality CPUs for much less than a typical intel chip.  But where did Intel go wrong?  They're being forced to possibly cut 10,000 jobs (full story HERE).

Where does that leave AMD?  Will they be next?

Interesting points. AMD was first to sample Dual Core, though I am not sure who released them first in the mass market?

Also, I am pretty sure that AMD & NVIDIA will have very close relations, regardless of ATI's complete take-over. Remember, I really think this will be very profitable to both AMD & NVIDIA.

Also, AMD is on a mild highering spree, they are looking for people to work from what I've read somewhere a few weeks ago. Though I am not sure about the jobs in the ATI section.

La2er