Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Intel has a plan to own the chip world. Evidently...
- Thread starter PinkyMacGodess
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
only time will tell ...
they do have ambitious plans, and competition will be a good thing for all of us ...
The article doesn't suggest that Intel is trying to "own the chip world."
What's described in the article seems a necessary recovery strategy in light of what has been happening at Intel over the past decade or so, but the world has changed since the vast majority of microprocessors went into Windows-compatible PCs. Today, far more chips are going into mobile devices, iOT, etc. Intel failed to establish itself as a significant force in those markets, very much as Microsoft failed to succeed in mobile OSes. Basically, when mobile started upsetting the WinTel apple cart, neither company was able to extend its dominance into that new category.
Selling fab services to mobile/smart home players like Qualcomm and Amazon isn't the same as owning the fundamental chip designs. By going into the fab business they're mostly guaranteeing they'll have enough work to keep those $120 million machines profitable. Design-and-fab is far more profitable. They need new product outside of WinTel desktops/laptops, because that category is not likely to grow substantially. It's too soon for them to announce whatever plans they might have of that sort.
What's described in the article seems a necessary recovery strategy in light of what has been happening at Intel over the past decade or so, but the world has changed since the vast majority of microprocessors went into Windows-compatible PCs. Today, far more chips are going into mobile devices, iOT, etc. Intel failed to establish itself as a significant force in those markets, very much as Microsoft failed to succeed in mobile OSes. Basically, when mobile started upsetting the WinTel apple cart, neither company was able to extend its dominance into that new category.
Selling fab services to mobile/smart home players like Qualcomm and Amazon isn't the same as owning the fundamental chip designs. By going into the fab business they're mostly guaranteeing they'll have enough work to keep those $120 million machines profitable. Design-and-fab is far more profitable. They need new product outside of WinTel desktops/laptops, because that category is not likely to grow substantially. It's too soon for them to announce whatever plans they might have of that sort.
It was an blurb teaser for the article. The person that wrote it didn't seem very hopeful.
EDIT: And I kinda paraphrased what they teased with.
EDIT the EDIT: But they all start their marketing blitzes with incredible statements similar to that. Dominate, etc...
Last edited:
Let's see. Up to now, all I have seen is marketing gimmick. Intel's new management just makes new ads with "select" benchmarks to show that its processors are better in some tasks than Apple's M1. Now Intel is renaming its processes because they do not reflect reality. Too many words so far, but zero in actual performance improvement. The chips will not become faster just because Intel renames them.
Wow, do you get a commission on clicks?
seriously, Intel has had plans throughout the years but has failed to execute accordingly.
Now they have a engineer CEO who was an integral part of Intel gaining its leadership position back in the 90s/00s, so he HAS to come up with aggressive plans, but, he must now start to focus on EXECUTION very soon, and only time will tell if hes gonna be successful or not.
His head will remain on the chopping block for at least a couple years, I do know him from my days back at Intel and he can pull it off, but we shall see…
But that's all they have. Seriously.
I remember being an IPD (Intel Products Dealer, used to be Intel Processor Dealer) and they were going on about how awesome it was to have so many cores, and how awesome it was to have so many cores with multi-processors, and then people from the audience started picking them clean.
Why do some benchmarks get worse with multi-core? Why do some benchmarks get worse with multi-processors? Why do some situations work blazing fast with smaller amounts of memory, and dog down on larger, and sometimes the other way around? And into servers too. I ran into a server with 2 Xeons that would rock the world with x-amount of memory, but plus or minus the next options, the whole thing performed so much slower. But Intel wasn't about to get into why their stuff wasn't great, they would taught their own weird benchmarks showing their stuff rocked, and use weird inconsequential ones to rip their competitors. It was like high school all over again...
It's all just crap marketing. Like when they had the first multiprocessor systems, if you used the second socket, some things to a HUGE hit. So they would say 'Sell the second processor first', and then their own boards would dog after adding the second processor, and they had no clear answer why some tasks were faster, and others were just completely underground.
But that's 'marketing'. Polishing those turds...