Replies to post #62375 on Intel Corp (INTC)

[confused]

This response is particularly funny.

This comment "In other words ATI has the expertise and relations to know what's inside small stuff." is your response to the question about AMD/ATI and dsp experience. Is small stuff your answer?

Re: AMD was willing to take more risks = you should learn that this is normal behavior for a follower type comepetitor as just doing as well as the accepted leader doesn't mean much. As with the laughable rush to 64 bit it seems that today very few non server environments are being overwhelmed by users demanding 64 bit processing.

If I remember correctly on some other message board you acknowledged being a CS major student and that is clearly what you sound like and what your argument level indicates. You may do well as you learn but your over your head here.

The short answer if you can hear it is that when you are a second level supplier like AMD has been since the mid 80s you need something on the order of 50% better performance than the leading supplier for something on the order of 5 years at the same price if you really think you are going to be accepted as the equivalent or replacement supplier.

While your crafting your reply please show link that indicate Intel expected Atom to be used in cell phones.

[wbmw]

Re: ATI has extensive experience with embedded graphic solutions in TVs , cellphones and other handhelds ( check for Imageon )

And which of these demonstrate expertise in DSP functionality? It seems you have not answered the question.

Re: In other words ATI has the expertise and relations to know what's inside small stuff.Doing a media processor for a cellphone give you some insight after all.

Because of their Imageon product line? Please. Imageon is a minor player in the market, and far from the state-of-the-art. ATI is not at all a big name brand in cell phones, at least, nowhere near the kind of presence of a TI, a Samsung, or a Motorola.

Re: K8 at low speed has excellent performance/w.I'm thinking more along the lines : what can AMD do to come up fast with a competitor to Atom.

K8 performance/watt is no where near enough to make an Atom competitor. The lowest power K8 dual core ever produced was a 31W Turion processor at 2.0GHz. It's a far cry from Atom's 2W TDP and 100mW idle power measurements.

The closest AMD has to an Atom sized power envelope might be their embedded K7 based core on 130nm, running with a TDP of 9W, and 6W of average power, running at 1.0GHz.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/ConnectivitySolutions/ProductInformation/0,,50_2330_9863_10837%5E10858,00.html

If manufactured on a more modern 65nm or upcoming 45nm process, the 2-3 process generations of shrink could reduce power dissipation by quite a bit. Of course, Vcc was 1.0V for this model, and I can't see them scaling that far below this. That will limit how low the power can go, but it's still conceivable that a K7 variety can compete with the high end of Atom TDP. Unfortunately, Intel will raise the bar a lot higher with the Moorestown platform.

Re: AMD showed it was more willing to take risks than Intel when it comes to new technology ( post Netburst anyway ) , they were the innovators more or less.I'm thinking this trend will continue even for low power solutions.

So AMD are the "true innovators", and yet they are losing out in the market place. Perhaps you should think for a bit about why this is.

Re: Even if the Intel chipset be made on 32nm and the AMD one on 55nm , the later will be better.
It's not about process , it's about the GPU itself.And it's fairly obvious who has the upper hand , both in uarch and drivers.

It's not obvious to me, and I think once the playing field is leveled, you will be eating crow for this remark.

Re: When you are so thrifty about using your resources ( like older 130nm FABs ) you can end up shooting yourself in the foot.

It's a balancing act, for sure. But in the case of Poulsbo, it might have been the right thing. We'll only know in hind sight. As it is, I think the power characteristics for both Atom and its chipset are quite competitive for the current environment.

Re: Why did they build a chip that isn't exactly suitable for what they were targeting ( the cellphone market ) ? Instead they went on the create an interim between cellphones and laptops.

What makes you think they didn't intend for the MID market in the first place, rather than just as an interim? I would personally like a Mobile Internet Device with the capabilities of a PC and the form factor of a man's wallet. You talk about Intel lacking innovation, but this time it's right in front of your face and you can't recognize it.

Re: I think ARM proved itself by now , it's Intel who has to show cellphone makers it has the upper hand.As for x86 vs. Arm at a close call , x86 still needs a true OS for cellphones and mids.
Putting Vista or some stripped down Linux is insane.

In terms of Vista, I agree, but as for Linux, I think that's ideal for this market. I think it has far more capabilities than the ARM operating systems - including features that they will have to painstakingly add over time. Intel has the advantage of a rich ecosystem right out of the gate. I think Mobile Linux is key, and Intel is doing the right thing by investing in it.

[chipguy]

When has ATI ever designed their own DSP, and where do you expect an integrated DSP to be of good use inside a general purpose MPU?

ATI has extensive experience with embedded graphic solutions in TVs , cellphones and other handhelds ( check for Imageon )

In other words ATI has the expertise and relations to know what's inside small stuff.Doing a media processor for a cellphone give you some insight after all.

This is a nonsense argument. ATI has expertise designing GPUs,
i.e. ASIC design flow chips that process *one* gloriously latency
tolerant and embarrassingly parallel workload. DSPs are more
like MPUs. Their workloads are far more varied and in many
cases control and data latency is performance critical. That is
very different from GPU design.