Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Intel's disruption is now complete

jamesallworth.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 638 posts

Re: Intel's disruption is now complete

#461

Post by typ »

qppo wrote: post #400
mrtksn wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People root for anything-but-intel because competition is a good thing and intel had none for very long time. I don't know where the notion of "Intel is about to die and TMSC will make us suffer due to monopoly" comes from but before having people cheer for Intel again they probably need some time to have their execs cure some disease in some poor part of the world, do a few AMAs on reddit, open-source something, don…

> TMSC will make us suffer due to monopoly The fears have less to do with TSMC the company and more the fact it's a pawn in the geopolitical chess game between the US (and her pacific allies) and China. The issues with supply chains through Taiwan have little to do with whether gamers are buying their CPUs from AMD or Intel, but the fact that a critical piece of infrastructure in the Western economy is very precariou…

I agree with you. But I think it's a "can't-see-the-forest-for-the-tree symptom" that is possibly due to the typical HN demographics. It has been a decade or longer that the US relies on China manufacturing for industrial infrastructure that is as (or even more) critical as wafers. It doesn't help fix the problem by simply singling out semiconductors and keeping every other industry locked in China as-is.

Re: Intel's disruption is now complete

#462

Post by sundvor »

5d749d7da7d5 wrote: post #218
Kapura wrote: post #77

I found this very interesting, and it seems a similar thing is happening to Intel in the DIY/gaming space right now. For a long time, the Intel i5/i7/i9 were the processors of choice for gaming, but AMD's Ryzen line has been making remarkable inroads, with the recently released Ryzen 5000 series boasting performance that competes or tops Intel's top chips in the space, and generally with lower power draw to boot. I'm…

>the Intel i5/i7/i9 were the processors of choice for gaming, but AMD's Ryzen line has been making remarkable inroads I just checked my go-to hardware recommendation site, Logical Increments[0], and not a single Intel CPU makes the list. AMD everything. [0] https://www.logicalincrements.com/

The new Zen3 series crushes the top of the line Intel desktop CPUs.

I'm on the 3900XT, one of the last from the Zen2 line - it's a ripper, yet I can also just drop in a 5900X or 5950X without having to change the motherboard.

Notwithstanding the many Intel security issues where the remedies nerfed performance, between Apple and AMD, I can certainly see Intel in a bit of struggle.

Re: Intel's disruption is now complete

#463

Post by calinet6 »

BoorishBears wrote: post #382
Miraste wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 10600k is $100 more expensive and they're putting that money into the gpu instead. That makes sense to me.

The cheapest 3600 in stock is $80 cheaper than the cheapest 10600k from the same retailer. And they've has offered the 10600k with a $20 rebate on motherboards for months now... $50 should come straight the case which is totally overshooting for a budget PC (I recommend the 300L here) That leaves you with a 10 dollar difference for an CPU that competes with the i9 in gaming... - And by the way, even the next build up…

You're missing the 5000 series Ryzens, which they just updated this for.

The difference is key.

Re: Intel's disruption is now complete

#464

Post by mr_toad »

qppo wrote: post #400
mrtksn wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People root for anything-but-intel because competition is a good thing and intel had none for very long time. I don't know where the notion of "Intel is about to die and TMSC will make us suffer due to monopoly" comes from but before having people cheer for Intel again they probably need some time to have their execs cure some disease in some poor part of the world, do a few AMAs on reddit, open-source something, don…

> TMSC will make us suffer due to monopoly The fears have less to do with TSMC the company and more the fact it's a pawn in the geopolitical chess game between the US (and her pacific allies) and China. The issues with supply chains through Taiwan have little to do with whether gamers are buying their CPUs from AMD or Intel, but the fact that a critical piece of infrastructure in the Western economy is very precariou…

It would have to be quite a long war where the military couldn’t rely on existing equipment and inventories of chips for a while. It’s not like most military equipment uses the latest CPUs anyway.

And if a war did drag on for years there would be opportunity to switch suppliers and manufacturers or build new infrastructure.

Re: Intel's disruption is now complete

#465

Post by chihuahua »

yesimahuman wrote: post #50
screye wrote: post #13

I am not sure what Intel can do to come back to a strong position. Afaik, all of Nvidia, Apple and Qualcomm (dunno about AMD) pay significantly higher wages than Intel. If Intel is starting off on the back foot and cannot get top talent, then their decline is all but guaranteed.

Reminds me of when I went to visit Intel a few years ago. I was shocked at the bare bones amenities and that employees had to pay for everything (snacks/drinks/etc.). That might sound insignificant but in the talent war in SV that stuff mattered a lot back then. It was a stark contrast from nearly every other fast-growing tech company in the area.

I wonder if they still have the sign-in sheet at the entrance where you have to write down your name if you show up after 8am. I bet that didn't attract or retain a lot of top-quality talent.

Re: Intel's disruption is now complete

#466

Post by quacker »

BoorishBears wrote: post #382
Miraste wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 10600k is $100 more expensive and they're putting that money into the gpu instead. That makes sense to me.

The cheapest 3600 in stock is $80 cheaper than the cheapest 10600k from the same retailer. And they've has offered the 10600k with a $20 rebate on motherboards for months now... $50 should come straight the case which is totally overshooting for a budget PC (I recommend the 300L here) That leaves you with a 10 dollar difference for an CPU that competes with the i9 in gaming... - And by the way, even the next build up…

Well, but you want to spend money on the GPU if you care about gaming.

Consider these two builds:

1. Ryzen 5 2600 ($150) + RTX 3070 ($500) for $650

2. i5-10900k ($280) + RX 5700XT ($330) for $610

The first build with the RTX 3070 is far better. The RTX 3070 buys you into 1440p high/ultra @ 90+ FPS, or 4k med/high @ 60+ FPS. Will the 2600 bottleneck that GPU? Maybe, but you still get better performance for the price by investing in the GPU versus the CPU.

Re: Intel's disruption is now complete

#467

Post by scythe »

notSupplied wrote: post #92
SoSoRoCoCo wrote: post #20

As someone who worked on Intel's phone chip: we definitely didn't win it. We fucked it up twelve ways to Sunday. Why: giant egos. There were turf wars between Austin, Santa Clara and Israel over who would design it, and the team that won out had long since lost its best principle engineers and had no clue how to spin the architecture to meet the design win. Otellini's hindsight hedge is pure spin: we knew the landing…

I have a theory about why turf wars like this happens: the more successful and wealthy an entity, the greater opportunity there is for a manager to take wealth instead of make it. When you’re scrappy and broke, the only path to success is to make the company successful. When the company is rich and multitudinous, an individual can gain more from politics and turf wars rather than actually trying to push an already hi…

Some institutions do persist for a very long time. The Japanese monarchy, the Catholic Church, and the old universities at Oxford, Bologne etc, are particularly prominent examples.

Re: Intel's disruption is now complete

#468

Post by Balgair »

dmix wrote: post #371
notSupplied wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a theory about why turf wars like this happens: the more successful and wealthy an entity, the greater opportunity there is for a manager to take wealth instead of make it. When you’re scrappy and broke, the only path to success is to make the company successful. When the company is rich and multitudinous, an individual can gain more from politics and turf wars rather than actually trying to push an already hi…

As I've linked to many times on HN: The Iron Law of Bureaucracy > Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people": > First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricu…

I had always heard that there are two 'Iron Laws of Bureaucracy':

1. The only thing that matters is the budget.

2. Bureaucracies only grow, never shrink, and the only thing you can control is the rate of growth.

Thanks for sharing another one with us!

Re: Intel's disruption is now complete

#470

Post by gabereiser »

WJW wrote: post #98
gabereiser wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recipe for a toxic work culture from day one. Your team should never be your competition. Your company should never be your competition. Meritocracy works only in certain markets. Knowledge-based work isn’t one of them. I really feel for people who are in these companies. Who put in 6+ years of university/higher education and think that “if I could only fight my peers for the top spot” when “top” is relative. To some…

Any competition with sufficient rewards attracts this kind of toxicity eventually and that is why larger companies are usually the worst. Getting a promotion at a small company in the EU or in the midwest USA means you get maybe 10k/year extra. Getting to the next rung in FAANG (or Intel, apparently) can mean hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years, so it's not surprising people are a lot more willing to back…

Yeah, I’m not anti competition. I’m anti in-fighting. I also blame companies that structure their pay so radically that this fighting for next rung because it’s hundreds of thousands more is a thing. It shouldn’t be. Maybe a 10% bump, but higher up the latter should mean more responsibility and more importantly, accountability. If that justifies the extra pay then so be it but getting a promotion shouldn’t mean the difference between hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Post reply on HN