Charles- <Just to help me pull myself out of that shock, could you share yours? Why do you think Intel fell behind so badly on x86 architecture. No new core for about 6 years now and you don't but that it is because Intel got distracted with IA64 - so, what, prey, is the reason? What is your take on that?>
If Merced did divert resources or whatever from IA32, Intel has survived. Fortunately, the PPro core looks like it'll scale something like 5-6X its original clock speed, [Will the K7 scale to 3 gig ;-)) and still be competitive with the K7 platform in performance. And despite your dire warnings, I am reasonably confident that new designs are in the pipe to address the IA32 market. I know for a fact that Intel is just as committed to delivering performance platforms to IA32 as it has ever been.
Also, Intel has not diverted any attention from it's manufacturing machine or its process R&D. Like it or not, these are pretty powerful competitive weapons that are hard to ignore.
As for IA64, that is the future. From what I understand about Merced / IA64 performance, I believe you are under estimating it. I also don't take as lightly all of the OS and OEM support for Merced as you seem to. I also do not discount the funding Intel is putting into platform development.
If AMD embarks down the 64 bit path, will you levy the same criticism on AMD relative to diverting attention from their crucial K6/7 market? Why would they need to do this, if 64 bits is going to be a bust? If AMD does do 64, how do you see AMD driving their new 64 bit platform?
PB |
