Find Command Cheat Sheet » Free from Linux Training Academy » Download Now!
Welcome Guest | Sign In
Rakuten Super Logistics

TechNewsWorld Talkback

ECT News Community   »   TechNewsWorld Talkback   »   Smells like Intel paid Sonia

Smells like Intel paid Sonia
Posted by aferozpu on 2008-06-14 08:47:36
In reply to Sonia Arrison
"The FTC's formal probe into Intel's business practices will force the company to divert attention and resources away from its research and development, notes TechNewsWorld columnist Sonia Arrison. Instead, the chipmaker will waste time in litigation."

Hmm, What an opening statement!

1) Intel has plenty of money and this litigation will most likely have NO impact on Intel's billion dollar profit margin.

2) A call to arms for the tech industry? I think that has begun with the persecution of companies such as Intel, who use their position to monopolize a market based in the US, which already is hurting for innovation.

3) Do you think Intel values innovation? I think Sonia knows NOTHING about innovation in the CPU industry. Intel wants first to increase their profit margin, and then they will innovate their design. But not if there is no competition!

Yesterday, when I first read this article, I felt a LARGE amount of bias. I feel this is either because of the author's inability to conduct proper research, or she is being paid by someone to make such erroneous statements.

The truth is Intel has used its dominant market position as the favored brand name in the public to force PC manufacturers to NOT buy AMD processors. They have done this in the past by offering discounts to those who do not support AMD, and have attempted to sell their products at a higher price than normal to those who also buy AMD products.

The only reason Intel can get away with this is because the largely ignorant public believes Intel is superior. In fact, AMD has proven to engineer superior designs many times in the past. The public is unaware of the situation because of many who believe that the GHz of a processor and its FSB equates to performance. If you are one of those people, please educate yourself in this day and age to understand some basics of computing.

The GHz increase tactic is a brute force method of advancement in processor design. There are many other components that can be improved upon to increase the number of instructions in a computer program that can be processed per second. Not only that, a higher frequency requires more current usage, which equates to more power dissipation. Intel carried their brute force design methods in to multi-core processor design; simply duplicating their duo core to create a quad core. This multiplication leads to a lot of inefficiencies with increasing data throughput and hence reduces your total performance increase.

But this last tactic has tricked many unwitting consumers to think that more is better. More importantly, it shows that Intelís pace of innovation is unmatched by its pace of profit.

AMDís path has been innovative and they have been the industry leader (in design) many times in the past, which forced Intel to reluctantly follow engineering efforts at AMD. AMD may be reluctant to increase their GHz rate or number of processors, as fast as Intel because they want to provide an architecture that will really utilize the power of having more.

AMD's most recent purchase of ATI provided an opportunity for AMD, in 2006, to announce another architectural advancement in incorporating GPU functions in to their multi-core design, also called Fusion. Intel recently announced they have "developed" a method to put general GPU functions in to a CPU; surprising?

There is little to be gained in performance by rushing to a solution simply to trick the public in thinking your design is better. Or is there?

Intel has shown the world that the public will simply go for more and bigger, and they have made billions from unwitting users worldwide.

If you want to stop this Idiocracy (yes in reference to the 2006 film) go for AMD products. Or at least, compare a cheaper more elegant AMD design to the Intel design you may be considering. This will in turn continue Intel to lower their prices and focus more on innovation. We will begin to see more advancement in the CPU industry, and hopefully reach a point where we have an exponential gain in computing power. And when this occurs, we will have advancements in parts of our lives that are unimaginable; at least right now.

And NO, I am not an AMD employee or affiliate in ANY way. I have followed their design patterns for quite a while, and its obvious to me AMD will lead the path of innovation.

 * Topic  Author  Date
Re: Intel Antitrust: Trouble for All Tech Companies  Sonia Arrison  2008-06-13 08:14:46
Smells like Intel paid Sonia  aferozpu  2008-06-14 08:47:36
Successful Monopolists Can Move Past......  brettze  2008-06-13 15:05:55
Is Intel One trick Pony???  brettze  2008-06-13 15:01:18
I would be damned only if ....  brettze  2008-06-13 14:45:15
I am not a bleeding heart, but....  brettze  2008-06-13 14:32:10
The Timeframe is also Important.  BT62  2008-06-13 12:57:55
Got the facts wrong  alcapwned  2008-06-13 11:15:32
Totally Off Base  FHirsch  2008-06-13 10:42:56
Jump to:
Your Name: [modify]
* Subject: [edit]
Choose Icon:

Submissions containing gratuitous promotions or advertisements
will not be posted. [Message Board and Community Rules]

* Comments:

Notify me by e-mail when someone responds to my post.

Rakuten Super Logistics
Is "too much screen time" really a problem?
Yes -- smartphone addiction is ruining relationships.
Yes -- but primarily due to parents' failure to regulate kids' use.
Possibly -- long-term effects on health are not yet known.
Not really -- lack of self-discipline and good judgement are the problems.
No -- angst over "screen time" is just the latest overreaction to technology.
No -- what matters is the quality of content, not the time spent viewing it.