Richard,
You said: One thing to note is that in the desktop arena, Intel chips still run at a higher Mhz than PPC chips will even with copper. While there is a heat problem it doesn't appear critical in desktop design and Intel will be moving on into the 500-600 Mhz rating by mid 1999. As you note the real benefit of copper is in portables and it appears clear that here copper will allow the PPC world to advance faster than the PC world for a while.
I'm certainly no pundit when it comes to analyzing the fast-paced world of processor design, but your statements above seems to be missing some important points. First, you concede that copper technology will simply serve to add to the speed-lead/lower power consumption that Apple already enjoys in the laptop market. To my mind, this area alone would be reason enough for Intel to pursue any avenue available, in order to regain superiority (or at least parity) in these vital specs. Especially since the industry clearly seems to be headed toward smaller, more power efficient computing devices. If I were Dell, Compaq, Gateway or Micron etc., I would be more than a little concerned by Apple's superiority in this area. Especially when one considers that the iMac was also made possible by this technology, in that it is basically a Powerbook with a CRT. And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't AMD (or whoever) sign up with IBM to produce copper technology chips? They must think it's worth something right now.
Also, your statement about cycle/sec superiority of the Intel line over the PPC, flies in the face of everything I've heard about actual computing power. Is it not true that the fastest PPC chip beats the fastest Intel chip, when the rubber meets the road? Little by little, more and more folks are learning that greater cycles/sec does not necessarily translate to more computing power.
I'm aware of the notion that copper technology will provide greater benefits in the future, when applied to die sizes that are smaller than current mass production offerings. But it is still effective enough at today's die sizes to enhances the PPC's existing lead in computing power and power consumption ratios. If Intel had a comfortable lead, or even parity in these areas, then I would agree that it would make sense for them to wait for a more efficient time to jump into copper. But that is not the case. From what I've read (re:Merced etc), they don't seem to be addressing the PPC's current and future path superiority very effectively.
In a nutshell, IMHO, they're acting like a company that went down the wrong road, and are having a difficult time making transitional moves. Andy Grove always considered himself to be the most paranoid man in the Valley (I know he stepped down...some). It seems to me that a paranoid company, with the wealth and market share of Intel, would do whatever was necessary to crush Apple, IF THEY COULD. Therefore, the interesting question, to me, is "Why aren't they? Maybe......they can't.
Please straighten me out if I'm missing an important point.
Regards,
Scott |
