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

Intel is dying and we can’t save it

sithsiri.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 268 posts

Re: Intel is dying and we can’t save it

#241

Post by willis936 »

incrudible wrote: post #239
willis936 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In reality, there is nothing that Apple or AMD are doing that Intel could not also do, isn't already doing, or isn't in a hurry to also do. On the contrary, Intel has refused to do any architectural innovation for nearly 20 years. They are capable, but overly conservative. They should have been in a hurry 10 years ago. It's well documented that they weren't and were resented for it. AMD came up with a winning strate…

The question is, are they in a hurry to catch up? What is the market that AMD is actually taking over with its multi-chip packages, and at what cost? Just because AMD may be winning in Cinebench doesn't mean it's winning in the business side. Multi-chip packages have downsides that become obvious in certain enterprise workloads, so the question becomes: Is it worth giving up on the monolithic approach, or adding mult…

I think the reason Intel is not doing multi-die packages is because the R&D to make it work is large and they don't want to take on that risk.

What are the downsides, exactly? Thread-to-thread latency is the key one that comes to mind. It is far cheaper to make a multi-die package because yields are so much higher for any given node. The business advantages are great. The bleak picture for Intel that is being painted is warranted.

Re: Intel is dying and we can’t save it

#242

Post by McP »

dylan604 wrote: post #236
tasuki wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He still has more money than >99% of all humans on the planet. Understatement much? You could also say Elon has more money than 50% of humans on the planet.

I don't understand your point. 99% > 50%. My original statement is more exclusive. Want to elaborate on what your point is?

They're making the very pedantic point that you need more 9s e.g. 99.9999999%

Re: Intel is dying and we can’t save it

#243

Post by gautamcgoel »

SoSoRoCoCo wrote: post #207
userbinator wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything else is ruled by backwards compatibility That's one of the biggest reasons to choose them. If Intel's "x86" stops being x86 , they'll lose one of their biggest competitive advantages. See the first comment here, for example: http://www.os2museum.com/wp/vme-broken-on-amd-ryzen/

This question has raged since the 90's. I worked on the Itanium (Madison and McKinley), and the VLIW architecture was brilliant. This was during the time of the Power4 and the DEC ALPHA, two non-x86 competing architectures that were dominating the "Workstation" market (remember that term?). It looked like the server world was going to have three architectural options (Sun was dying, and Motorola's 68000 line wasn't u…

> The Itanic

Lmao, never heard that one before

Re: Intel is dying and we can’t save it

#244

Post by icedchai »

AmVess wrote: post #116
icedchai wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, a similar situation happened in the mid 2000's before Intel moved to the Core architecture. I wouldn't be surprised if something like this happened again.

Intel has been bleeding engineers to other firms for a while now, and new talent has been skipping them altogether. These are not good developments for a company that depends on brain power to make their products.

Intel is an enormous company with over 100,000 employees and an enormous stockpile of cash. I think they'll be okay.

Re: Intel is dying and we can’t save it

#245

Post by incrudible »

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #233
incrudible wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am talking about the latest Intel architecture which admittedly has not shipped on the Desktop yet, so benchmarks are not independently verified. If you look at the mobile chips that did ship on 10nm, Intel is ahead as well.

Intel's "latest" architecture is basically the same Skylake from 2015 except they just pulled a Prescott with it and simply cranked up the power and heat until it reaches a desired x% extra performance over last gen.

Preliminary benchmarks show them surpassing Zen3 on the desktop with only a slight frequency bump.

Re: Intel is dying and we can’t save it

#246

Post by galaxyLogic »

willis936 wrote: post #241
incrudible wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is, are they in a hurry to catch up? What is the market that AMD is actually taking over with its multi-chip packages, and at what cost? Just because AMD may be winning in Cinebench doesn't mean it's winning in the business side. Multi-chip packages have downsides that become obvious in certain enterprise workloads, so the question becomes: Is it worth giving up on the monolithic approach, or adding mult…

I think the reason Intel is not doing multi-die packages is because the R&D to make it work is large and they don't want to take on that risk. What are the downsides, exactly? Thread-to-thread latency is the key one that comes to mind. It is far cheaper to make a multi-die package because yields are so much higher for any given node. The business advantages are great. The bleak picture for Intel that is being painted…

AMD got downgraded today because Intel has new CEO. I don't know why the new CEO would be better, but they say fish rots from the head.

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AMD?p=AMD&.tsrc=fin-srch

Re: Intel is dying and we can’t save it

#247

Post by galaxyLogic »

imtringued wrote: post #173
chrisseaton wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m almost positive Intel have tech ready to deploy to be on top again. They will have been developing it... but not needed to use it until they came under competition pressure.

They can do it but will they? Intel isn't known for being a well managed company internally.

But there's the new CEO. Only the CEO can improve the overall management of the company

Re: Intel is dying and we can’t save it

#248

Post by bcrl »

kllrnohj wrote: post #214
Torkel wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fast forward a few years. Look at the time it takes to design chips. Look at where the market and tech is going (M1 and AMD especially). Compare with RIM and Nokia. There is a "roadrunner" effect where a colossal company will continue for a few years on pure momentum. There are so many things speaking against Intel. And the facts you bring up as speaking for Intel seams more like short term momentum to me. I would gu…

Intel's chip designs are still fine, though. Tiger Lake's IPC gains are right in line with Zen 3's IPC gains over Zen 2. And Xe looks to be a great iGPU. Which means Intel is more or less on equal design footing with AMD, they're just having trouble getting it built. And Intel has multiple huge revenue streams that are not in question at all. All their networking stuff, for example (everyone, even on AMD, still goes…

Throw in power consumption and Intel's stagnation starts to show. Look at their lasted chips having a 250W power limit when turboing -- almost double AMD! That's a pretty hard barrier to overcome without catching up on process technology.

Re: Intel is dying and we can’t save it

#249

Post by bcrl »

icedchai wrote: post #244
AmVess wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intel has been bleeding engineers to other firms for a while now, and new talent has been skipping them altogether. These are not good developments for a company that depends on brain power to make their products.

Intel is an enormous company with over 100,000 employees and an enormous stockpile of cash. I think they'll be okay.

The Titanic was a state of the art ship. It still sunk.

Re: Intel is dying and we can’t save it

#250

Post by perl4ever »

yboris wrote: post #194
dylan604 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But not being hyperbolic doesn't drive clicks. Sort of like all of the headlines about Musk no longer being the richest man because the stock prices fell. Whoopee friggin boohoo. He still has more money than >99% of all humans on the planet. In sports it's fun to say that 2nd place is just the first loser, but that's all in jest and friendly banter. When making things like this overly dramatic, it serves nobody excep…

Side note: we, here on HN, all likely have more money than 99% of all humans on this planet [0] (the link is about income; wealth is even more unequally distributed). Earning more than $60k/year puts you in the 1% already. [1] [0] https://income-inequality.info/ [1] https://howrichami.givingwhatwecan.org/how-rich-am-i

Some people on HN in fact have salaries under $60K. Not everyone here is an American or works in the private sector, either.

I would be fairly surprised if $60K is top 1%, even if you have the entire world population in the denominator. But when I checked your link, it's not using the entire population for the denominator, (which is correct, IMO) so I don't think it's even close.

In the US, there are about 110M fulltime wage earners, (out of 330M population) with median being ~$50K and top quartile ~$80K. My very rough estimate based on that might be 45M people >$60K. That is a lot more than 110/330 * 1% * 7.8B = 26M before adding in Europe (lower wages but twice the population) or anywhere else.

Source: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/wkyeng.pdf

Post reply on HN