Re: Well I have no idea what the process was that got the Israelis the chance to show their stuff, but I had never heard of them ever being given the chance to show what they had until INTC got into its excess power/heat problems. I would bet the solution was a lot more Israeli based that what you seem willing to admit.
Not sure if you realize this or not, but the Israeli team's first project was called Timna, and it was cancelled before it ever hit the streets. It came with an integrated Rambus memory controller, but I don't see how you can fault the design team, since that was the POR they were given. Likewise, the Banias and Dothan low power mobile CPUs were given to them in the same top-down process. Sometimes management makes the right decisions, and sometimes they don't.
Re: You’re right, there are undoubtedly lots of good managers at INTC, but that doesn't change things, INTC management has made lots of lousy decisions over the last few years. And then there's that management lack of imagination thing again.
Management doesn't invent the ideas; research groups do. Management's job is to pick the right "ideas" out of a bucket that's filled with them, see which ones their customers are interested in, and make a realistic plan to execute them. When the OEMs and market data told Intel that Megahertz Sells, Intel went with that, and unfortunately headed straight for the power wall. Now the data is saying something else, and hopefully the crystal ball is right this time, since decisions made today don't affect the business right now or next year, but 3-5 years down the road.
Intel's Netburst idea is the product of a 3-5 year old decision, and it's too late to do anything about it right now. But depending on when Intel realized it was a dead end approach - which I'm guessing was roughly 2 years ago - they turned the roadmap over and started from scratch. Of course, that meant that all the stuff in the mean time, which is the stuff available today, was the best that Intel could do on short notice. This will unfortunately have to carry over until Intel's development pipeline is ready with the next generation (Conroe, Whitefield, and Merom).
It only makes sense in hindsight to say that Intel's management is making the wrong decisions, but it simply isn't true to say that they are making wrong decisions today. It's only clear that the wrong decisions are about 3-5 years old, when the landscape was entirely different. We'll only know how well Intel's management is doing in another couple years when the work comes to fruition.
Re: Yes, I'm constantly amazed how INTC seems to have more toes to shoot off than there are bullets. Frankly, the inability of AMD to take market share despite INTC's more or less continuous string of blunders has had me very perplexed and confounded. I'll be looking and AMD's financials very carefully this quarter. AMD really needs to take better advantage of the current situation.
I think you have to assume they're trying!
Only an idiot wouldn't try to take advantage of one of the most favorable conditions in the company's history. I think AMD has been at it since Opteron launched, but going up against the incumbent is harder than it seems. I think people on this thread continue to underestimate Intel, including their platform strengths, their strengths in manufacturing, marketing, and sales. The CPU is only one ingredient, so when it lags behind, it doesn't mean Intel's out of the race.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
