wbmw:
I know, I agree with you. I pointed that out about a year ago, indicating that Intel's enormous R&D efforts were not producing something that wasn't easily outdistanced (by AMD). Realizing that, I recall my experiences with Israeli design teams and how they approach solutions from a different perspective than the American based teams. They seem to be very respected in that regard. I can picture a particular design decision early on getting in the way of "keep it simple" and losing perspective on what it takes to win. Hard to say if it's management or the design teams.
As for the present architecture, I can't see why Intel adopted this approach. They should have been able to determine the ultimate outcome beforehand (or not have made the decision). However, there's still time for the dual core, 64 bit "Banias" approach for Tejas. I hope it's so.
I am pessimistic that Intel can maintain earnings growth if Prescott is simply a hyped-up version of the present architecture (which it seems to be), and if Tejas follows suit. In particular, my concern is for the transition to 64 bits and to dual core. There does not appear (IMO) to be enough room in the market place to allow either single core, and 32 bit parts to exist in the same market as dual core and 64 bits. Additionally, the transition to 64 bits and dual core needs to be done at zero premium to the market. I hope this is Intel's plan.
With regard to speed (I know most here hype the littlest details about AMD vs Intel, which I think are inconsequential) I think there is easily plenty of utility for processors twice the speed of tomorrow's Prescott given spam filtering, 802.16, proliferation of VPNs, video, video editing, convergence of entertainment and PCs and many other applications. Let's face it, todays PCs are not lightning quick with Windows either. Tell me that's going to get better with Longhorn which I suppose we will all have eventually... I mention this because I don't believe anyone could make a business out of the 32 bit, single core market in 4-5 years any more than they could with 16 bit processors.
The key to manufacturing will be to keep the AMD coffers empty which is another reason that they need to transition at zero premium to the market. Given that, there could be sufficient growth over the next 4-5 years to see new highs above 75 especially if the Chinese market blooms and a significant IT boom occurs (both of which seem likely).
Beyond that, the architectural improvements and new manufacturing technologies (beyond lithography) need to exist to keep Chinese manufacturing and design at bay. I don't see anyone on the immediate horizon interested in the deep investment needed to compete in semiconductor mfg. But that doesn't say anything about China and their eventual interest in becoming the manufacturing center for the world. I'll be watching this in the future.
Smooth
AI
