Intel Isn't Living In The Real World

[SteelCrysis]

http://www.neowin.net/news/intel-seems-t...the-future
This sure doesn't bode well for Intel, if they believe their own crap.

Finally, Krzanich talked about Moore’s Law and how the company will continue to be at the forefront of chip development. While it’s hard to argue with Intel’s performance on dominating the PC market, we’ve seen the failure of Moore’s Law in the past two years. Intel itself is at the forefront of this failure and chip development slowdown, as the company was forced to push back its transition to 10nm chips to 2017, and release a third generation of 14nm processors. The company has even abandoned its well-known “tick-tock” cycle, because of the problems it’s facing in continuing to minimize its transistors. And while Krzanich is optimistic and mentions 5nm architectures in his article, the fundamental fact is that Intel might be trying to fight basic laws of physics and that we might soon hit a brick wall in terms of processor improvements.

All in all Intel and Brian Krzanich tried to paint a picture of optimism and a well-planned out future, but looking a bit closer the company seems to be trying everything that it can in the hope that something sticks. Intel dominated the PC processor market for many years but as the world is changing the company has a lot to prove going forward.

[ocre]

Sure they are. Things are just so grim all they cN do is spin spin spin

[RolloTheGreat]

I think you guys are the ones not living in the real world if you think intel has to adhere to Moore's "law" or they're in some sort of trouble.

1. What X86 chips come close to intel? Oh yeah- none. What percent of business machines run Windows? Oh yeah- all of them. (or at least the only market share that matters)

2. Moore's law isn't exactly on the order of say "gravity" or "inertia". It's an observation of a trend, that was probably largely set by intel themselves. Ask the guys at AMD and Via how they're doing with Moore's law. They'll probably throw the block of government chees they're gnawing on at you.

People always forget these things are inventions, and you can't really put invention on a timetable. McDonalds can tell you how long it takes to make a 100 quarter pounders, but intel can't tell you how long it takes to invent a new chip design.

[ocre]

Ha! What the heck are you rambling about?

The article my friend, the one in the op.
My reply - my post...its in reference to the article.

I never said intel has to abide by some stupid formula some guy made up.  I can argue 500 hrs on how worthless and meaningless Moores law is.  I don't know how or why anyone ever valued it.  This is not something I invented.

It is intel who not only promoted but promised, stil promising. It is intel who speaks of such performance gains. So, you see, this is why they should be called out on it.

You can go on for weeks arguing that intel never has to increase performance again, you can have a cookie. But, for some odd reason here is this article and intel obviously feeling the need to sing a totally different song.  
And, what you read above....that was my response to it.

[RolloTheGreat]

Ha! What the heck are you rambling about?

The article my friend, the one in the op.
My reply - my post...its in reference to the article.

I never said intel has to abide by some stupid formula some guy made up.  I can argue 500 hrs on how worthless and meaningless Moores law is.  I don't know how or why anyone ever valued it.  This is not something I invented.

It is intel who not only promoted but promised, stil promising. It is intel who speaks of such performance gains. So, you see, this is why they should be called out on it.

You can go on for weeks arguing that intel never has to increase performance again, you can have a cookie. But, for some odd reason here is this article and intel obviously feeling the need to sing a totally different song.  
And, what you read above....that was my response to it.

Mostly I was responding to "things are grim so they need to spin". It's not exactly the height of the PC craze for intel, but they've still got a monopoly in a multibillion dollar market. Their main problem is there is no way they can live up to past performance.

Increase in mobile device use for many computing needs has ended intel's "every year is just going to get better and better" market, they're in a mature and slowly shrinking market now. Big layoffs recently are the beginning of them shifting to the new smaller market.

[SickBeast]

I guess everyone is buying smartphones and tablets now and the PC is on the decline. It's really too bad because I think the PC is the most compelling gaming platform by far and it's still needed for most professional applications. Actually it might not even be the declining PC sales that are the real problem. The real problem is that we have not seen any real CPU performance improvements since Sandy Bridge was released many years ago. So pretty much anyone with Sandy Bridge or newer has no real reason to upgrade. That has got to be affecting Intel's sales and PC sales in general. Intel is basically competing with themselves.

They could easily solve this problem by releasing CPUs with more cores. Quad core i3s and octa core i7s. People would line up to buy those and Intel could easily do it, albeit with smaller margins.

[RolloTheGreat]

I guess everyone is buying smartphones and tablets now and the PC is on the decline.  It's really too bad because I think the PC is the most compelling gaming platform by far and it's still needed for most professional applications.  Actually it might not even be the declining PC sales that are the real problem.  The real problem is that we have not seen any real CPU performance improvements since Sandy Bridge was released many years ago.  So pretty much anyone with Sandy Bridge or newer has no real reason to upgrade.  That has got to be affecting Intel's sales and PC sales in general.  Intel is basically competing with themselves.

They could easily solve this problem by releasing CPUs with more cores.  Quad core i3s and octa core i7s.  People would line up to buy those and Intel could easily do it, albeit with smaller margins.

Moar corez?!?!

I don't think we need that, use for multithreading is pretty sparse, and they already sell chips that run 4/6/8/12 threads.

I think what intel is competing with is if you're most of the market a Core 2 Quad is probably fast enough for you. You can only run Word and teh intarwebz so fast. (and gaming is mainly GPU dependent)

[SickBeast]

I guess everyone is buying smartphones and tablets now and the PC is on the decline.  It's really too bad because I think the PC is the most compelling gaming platform by far and it's still needed for most professional applications.  Actually it might not even be the declining PC sales that are the real problem.  The real problem is that we have not seen any real CPU performance improvements since Sandy Bridge was released many years ago.  So pretty much anyone with Sandy Bridge or newer has no real reason to upgrade.  That has got to be affecting Intel's sales and PC sales in general.  Intel is basically competing with themselves.

They could easily solve this problem by releasing CPUs with more cores.  Quad core i3s and octa core i7s.  People would line up to buy those and Intel could easily do it, albeit with smaller margins.

Moar corez?!?!

I don't think we need that, use for multithreading is pretty sparse, and they already sell chips that run 4/6/8/12 threads.

I think what intel is competing with is if you're most of the market a Core 2 Quad is probably fast enough for you. You can only run Word and teh intarwebz so fast. (and gaming is mainly GPU dependent)

Quad core i3s would sell like hotcakes and gamers and power users would line up for octa core i7s as well. Intel could just remove the iGPU from those chips and use the die space for more cores. Or even just scale back the iGPU somewhat.

Look here at the Skylake die:



If they remove the iGPU they clearly have room for 4 more CPU cores. They could also scale back the iGPU and have room for 2 additional cores.

[RolloTheGreat]

Quad core i3s would sell like hotcakes and gamers and power users would line up for octa core i7s as well.  Intel could just remove the iGPU from those chips and use the die space for more cores.  Or even just scale back the iGPU somewhat.

The have quad core i3s, they're called i5s and i7s.

What are these apps you speak of that use 8 threads well to make an octo core CPU a big advantage?



Where's that "moar corez" meme when you need it?!?!

[SickBeast]

My point is that Intel is competing with themselves and they're not doing a very good job at it. People just aren't going to upgrade for a 15% performance improvement even after 5 years of new products. They need to do something more drastic like I am suggesting. No developers are going to optimize games and apps for 8 cores until we finally have some decent CPUs that can do it. It's the whole chicken and egg thing. Also, there are a ton of applications that benefit from more cores. Go look at benchmark comparisons between an i5 and an i7. There are definitely uses, and 8 real cores would give an even bigger boost.

Also, Intel would sell quad core i3s like hotcakes. They wouldn't be able to keep them on the shelves.

[SteelCrysis]

My point is that Intel is competing with themselves and they're not doing a very good job at it.  People just aren't going to upgrade for a 15% performance improvement even after 5 years of new products.  They need to do something more drastic like I am suggesting.  No developers are going to optimize games and apps for 8 cores until we finally have some decent CPUs that can do it.  It's the whole chicken and egg thing.  Also, there are a ton of applications that benefit from more cores.  Go look at benchmark comparisons between an i5 and an i7.  There are definitely uses, and 8 real cores would give an even bigger boost.

Also, Intel would sell quad core i3s like hotcakes.  They wouldn't be able to keep them on the shelves.

[SteelCrysis]

Bad news for those who want more cores from Intel's mainstream lineup: http://www.techpowerup.com/222140/intel-...r-detailed

[RolloTheGreat]

My point is that Intel is competing with themselves and they're not doing a very good job at it.  People just aren't going to upgrade for a 15% performance improvement even after 5 years of new products.  They need to do something more drastic like I am suggesting.  No developers are going to optimize games and apps for 8 cores until we finally have some decent CPUs that can do it.  It's the whole chicken and egg thing.  Also, there are a ton of applications that benefit from more cores.  Go look at benchmark comparisons between an i5 and an i7.  There are definitely uses, and 8 real cores would give an even bigger boost.

Also, Intel would sell quad core i3s like hotcakes.  They wouldn't be able to keep them on the shelves.

My point is you're basically saying,"As a gamer schoolteacher, I feel I know how to run a CPU company better than the most successful cpu maker on the planet. They don't know, I do.".


It's possible, but is it likely?


A. I've read articles about how more cores only lends itself to certain kinds of apps that can use parallel processing and that only certain aspects of games (like AI) benefit from it at all. Intel could easily 8 core chips, but they probably know better than us just how much of a niche market that is.

B. You keep mentioning quad core i3s, but isn't that what a i5 is?

C. On the increase per year, one of two thing is true. Either they can't do better, or they can, and are bleeding out little improvements to milk the market.

Either way, I don't care. For $300, my 4790K is just a super fast stock cpu.

[SickBeast]

Ah yes Rollo, the grand master champion of all things American. Intel and Microsoft, your most cherished American corporations. They can do no wrong and even if they do, they still know better than you!



I keep talking about quad core i3s because IMO Intel needs to increase the core count of all their processors from the top to the bottom of their current lineup. 5% improvements for each generation just doesn't cut it. They have really left the door open for AMD with Zen. I don't have a lot of faith in AMD's engineers, management, or marketing right now, but they do have a glorious opportunity this year with Zen. Intel has really been floundering.

[SteelCrysis]

I've got to agree with you, SickBeast. Looks like AMD has a chance to compete again, and sooner than I thought.

[SickBeast]

It can't be that hard for them to catch up at least somewhat. If they slap 8 cores on the thing I'm sure some people will buy them. We will see. It's going to be a long wait and I'm expecting delays and disappointments. AMD doesn't exactly have a track record of success.

[dmcowen674]

It can't be that hard for them to catch up at least somewhat.  If they slap 8 cores on the thing I'm sure some people will buy them.  We will see.  It's going to be a long wait and I'm expecting delays and disappointments.  AMD doesn't exactly have a track record of success.

They are still around. That sounds like success to me.

I have never had an Intel PC or Laptop.

[RolloTheGreat]

Ah yes Rollo, the grand master champion of all things American.  Intel and Microsoft, your most cherished American corporations.  They can do no wrong and even if they do, they still know better than you!



I keep talking about quad core i3s because IMO Intel needs to increase the core count of all their processors from the top to the bottom of their current lineup.  5% improvements for each generation just doesn't cut it.  They have really left the door open for AMD with Zen.  I don't have a lot of faith in AMD's engineers, management, or marketing right now, but they do have a glorious opportunity this year with Zen.  Intel has really been floundering.

Can you post links to some articles that say lack of cores in the installed user base is holding the computer industry back? Show my why I'm wrong and I'll admit it.

It will not matter if AMD makes a good CPU. They have lost what little confidence America had in them. The installed base of intel motherboards is over 90%. They would have to pull off another Athlon 64 vs P4 sort of scenario to even get a little market back.