Replies to post #120745 on Intel Corp (INTC)

[wbmw]

Ashraf, it should be obvious to anyone that Jim McGregor took on a very personal tone in his article. He wasn't so much trying to set the record straight, as he was taking a personal jab at you (and others like you). That much is clear.

But as you said, you stated your assumptions, and your points were well reasoned, so I don't think you have much to worry about. The only credibility that will be called into question will be on those people who come across as having a bone to pick with someone, rather than the truth-seekers that readers and investors are really looking for.

You may need to offer a Mea Culpa for jumping to conclusions, but I think your readers will appreciate the consistency in your predictions, and your continued pursuit of the facts.

[mas]

However, in a phone setting with a fixed power budget and essentially equal process technologies, it seemed plausible for CT+ to keep up. I was wrong ...

In benchmarks that run in seconds or minutes maybe not but in the lifetime of a battery charge most probably yes. I know you like to deal with clean KOs and occasionally rag on the 32nm Atom when it does not deliver this but I still think the final iteration of the Mk 1 Atom is a very good design. Single handedly it killed Windows RT at the tablet pass to Windows PCs. It also conclusively proved that there is nothing inherently power wasteful about x86 as it successfully invaded the ARM phone home-front and how much is that worth in x86 brand PR ? It will also disprove that Intel can't profitably build a cheap die. Don't miss the bigger picture here and the forest from the trees ;-).