21–30 of 139 posts
Intel seems to be making all the right moves. I'm excited to see what Pat Gelsinger can do over the next 5 years (I'm long INTC).
Their current CPU-features-as-a-service marketing push doesn't look like a right move to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their current CPU-features-as-a-service marketing push doesn't look like a right move to me.
Like it or not, that's probably where the industry will be in 5 years. You might not like it, but X-as-a-service make way more money for the company, and shareholders. It'll probably look like this: buy a 'cheap' Intel CPU for $99 (say, 4P, 12E cores clocked at 2 GHz), with "Turbo" to 4.5 GHz being a $79/year subscription and "Extreme Turbo Max" to 5.1 GHz being an additional $35/year. First year free, of course, to…
Intel seems to be making all the right moves. I'm excited to see what Pat Gelsinger can do over the next 5 years (I'm long INTC).
Their current CPU-features-as-a-service marketing push doesn't look like a right move to me.
as far as the user is concerned, if they put deactivated silicon on a chip, and can hit the power envelope targets, then it's like it wasn't there at all...
Intel seems to be making all the right moves. I'm excited to see what Pat Gelsinger can do over the next 5 years (I'm long INTC).
Their current CPU-features-as-a-service marketing push doesn't look like a right move to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Intel is currently worth less than AMD even though Intel's profit is quite a bit higher than AMDs entire revenue. I recognize that Intel has huge problems to solve but they absolutely seem undervalued currently.
AMD is way more nimble than Intel though, since they're fabless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their current CPU-features-as-a-service marketing push doesn't look like a right move to me.
Like it or not, that's probably where the industry will be in 5 years. You might not like it, but X-as-a-service make way more money for the company, and shareholders. It'll probably look like this: buy a 'cheap' Intel CPU for $99 (say, 4P, 12E cores clocked at 2 GHz), with "Turbo" to 4.5 GHz being a $79/year subscription and "Extreme Turbo Max" to 5.1 GHz being an additional $35/year. First year free, of course, to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their current CPU-features-as-a-service marketing push doesn't look like a right move to me.
>> Their current CPU-features-as-a-service marketing push doesn't look like a right move to me. That was bothering me a bit too, but then I realized it may have a use that most of us don't care about. Sure they could charge more for AVX512 or whatever, and they might try to charge rent for such options which I'm not a fan of. But what if they are being asked by 3-letter agencies for chips with custom circuitry that w…
As Thomas Gleixner has been the x86 maintainer since 2008, what do they gain from this? It seems a pretty close relationship already. It's not as if they're acquiring IP. Conversely if they'll allow Linutronix to continue "to operate as an independent business" and e.g. work on other architectures like RISC-V, then that dilutes their access to the talent they're acquiring.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/intel-invests-in-open-source-r...