[flagged]
Intel Honesty
111–120 of 426 posts
Re: Intel Honesty
#112What happens to the computer and tech industry if Intel fails? The x86 licence still has value to some others in the space, but it seems like Intel could potentially be sold off for parts if it can't sell correct.
ARM wins the instruction set wars and buys the tech. Future ARM processors will have x86 hardware that offers compatibility with legacy software. Eventually the instruction set is forgotten.
Why/how would the death of Intel kill off AMD too?
Re: Intel Honesty
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
The main reason there will never be a “year of Linux on the desktop” is that desktops became irrelevant before Microsoft became… whatever it is now.
Desktops are irrelevant? Other than a few things does any actual work happen on mobile devices? I think it would be correct to say that present-day desktops are mature and stable and aren't rapidly changing because they fill a mature niche. Mobile does seem to have decimated the casual computing and much of the non-work-related computing niche, at least for non-technical people. I wonder if there's an argument to be…
I think “year of Linux in the desktop” has always been understood to be in the context of consumer devices. Otherwise, I mean, it’s always been year of Unix on the workstation/server, right? With room to quibble in the prosumer space.
Re: Intel Honesty
#114> in the late 2010’s Intel got stuck trying to move to 10nm, thanks in part to their reluctance to embrace the vastly more expensive EUV lithography process TBH, it's easy to say this with the benefit of hindsight. Throughout most of the 2010s, EUV lithography was like the "year of the Linux desktop" - i.e., this year will be the year where EUV was suitable for high volume manufacturing. I don't really blame Intel fo…
So did the year of the EUV lithography happen? What year was it?
(Genuinely asking, I don't know anything about chips - I'm the kind of programmer who is profoundly comforted by pretending like my CPU is like a really fast version of the thing I did in CompE 201, as opposed to reality which i gather is a bit more like a demonically possessed stone that glues together a bunch of barely understood physics that kind of "even out" at macro levels but seem pretty f'd up at quantum levels).
Re: Intel Honesty
#115The geopolitical bit of all this is the real wild card. No one really knows what's going to happen there.
The geopolitical bit is that TSMC is building local US and EU fabs in case of a Taiwan invasion. Once those are up and Intel becomes redundant the ad hoc subsidies might just dry up.
Sure, but "is building" could be very far from "is able to smoothly switch production if the main plants and some/many of the associated people are war casualties"
Re: Intel Honesty
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a market dominated by industry giants from the 60s The thing is, the SpaceX moment occurred because of a rare opportunity where the industry incumbents were insulated from any competition or need for innovation for ~30 years. Some domestic industries still operate in an environment somewhat like this (e.g. the steel industry), but still face modernized global competition (albeit whose effects are kept at bay via im…
Nice analysis on competitive dynamics of semiconductor industry vs. space industry in the 2000s. > I'm not aware of any other industries which are quite as far "behind" today as space launch systems were in 2010. But if anyone else is, please mention those industries here! Digital payments may be in a similar situation. Visa's 2% fee may seem low but from a scale and competitive standpoint it is fairly absurd - they…
>Visa's 2% fee may seem low but from a scale and competitive standpoint it is fairly absurd - they are making 80% gross margins on $30b of revenue to do what boils down to a few API calls and some fraud repayment.
The banks issuing Visa cards do fraud repayment. Visa gets paid for their network, and specifically their network of higher income spenders who want to play the rewards game. Also, note that Visa does not earn 2% of transaction totals. A signification portion of total card processing fees goes to the card issuing banks to pay for rewards and fraud repayment.
Re: Intel Honesty
#117Intel was getting something like $20 billion from the CHIPS act - but it seems like by the time the fabs would have been ready TSMC will already have them beat to 1.4nm/a14 (also using High NA EUV). Intel has just consistently failed to execute whereas TSMC has been fairly close to schedule.
[dead]
Re: Intel Honesty
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If Elon Musk was never born, it is likely we'd still have SpaceX and Tesla equivalents I'm perturbed by Elon's politics and hypocrisy, but this is absolutely not true in anywhere near the same timeframe.
So, out of the seven billion people on the planet, only Elon Musk could have made these companies what they are? No other person on Earth (given access to equivalent capital) could do it?
That's not remotely saying the same thing. Just because someone could do it doesn't mean it will happen. These things require MUCH more then just the possibility of it happening. For example I could go out right now and murder someone. Doesn't mean I will do it. I'm certainly capable of it. In fact most people are in this exact situation yet there are only a tiny amount of murders happening each day compared to the people capable of it.
So the real question is. Is there someone else with a similar or better drive then Musk, that is as smart as Musk, that has as much discipline, has the right personality and at the right time. The answer is much more likely to be no then yes in my opinion. Because if the answer is yes we would have another Musk or close to it.
Re: Intel Honesty
#119> in the late 2010’s Intel got stuck trying to move to 10nm, thanks in part to their reluctance to embrace the vastly more expensive EUV lithography process TBH, it's easy to say this with the benefit of hindsight. Throughout most of the 2010s, EUV lithography was like the "year of the Linux desktop" - i.e., this year will be the year where EUV was suitable for high volume manufacturing. I don't really blame Intel fo…
>year of the Linux desktop A tangent, and I realise this phrase is a meme, but it has always bothered me. Nobody has ever defined what year of the Linux desktop actually means, so it's a phrase without any real meaning.
Roughly speaking, that running Linux as a desktop OS would be easy enough that even non-technical users would be able to do it with difficulties comparable to, say, Windows XP.
Re: Intel Honesty
#120> in the late 2010’s Intel got stuck trying to move to 10nm, thanks in part to their reluctance to embrace the vastly more expensive EUV lithography process TBH, it's easy to say this with the benefit of hindsight. Throughout most of the 2010s, EUV lithography was like the "year of the Linux desktop" - i.e., this year will be the year where EUV was suitable for high volume manufacturing. I don't really blame Intel fo…
So did the year of the EUV lithography happen? What year was it? (Genuinely asking, I don't know anything about chips - I'm the kind of programmer who is profoundly comforted by pretending like my CPU is like a really fast version of the thing I did in CompE 201, as opposed to reality which i gather is a bit more like a demonically possessed stone that glues together a bunch of barely understood physics that kind of…
2019, when TSMC N7+ entered high volume manufacturing.