nht

GeorgeBMac said:

nht said:

GeorgeBMac said:

nht said:

GeorgeBMac said:

nht said:

GeorgeBMac said:

maestro64 said:

SpamSandwich said:

maestro64 said:

Typical for Intel, they waste more money jumping into things they will never be successful at. I lost count on how many businesses they shut down over the years. But the markets loves Intel's failures. Google it's possibly running a close second to all the Intel failures and Google has not been around as long.

Trust me, the market gives them no leeway. I've held Intel stock for quite a few years and it's been a dog the entire time I've held it.

That is because you bought in too late. Intel stock should have been hammered for all their mistakes. They only did well because of the whole wintel deal from the 80's. Today no one cares what processors is in their products and Intel does not like that. 

Conversely, without Intel we would not have had the computer revolution...   Even mainframes eventually converted to using them...

Intel may not be a high flyer.   Instead it chugs along like a locomotive year after year.   But, I do fear that they have been surviving the past 10 years or so on simply refining their old technology and have not developed anything new or successfully branched into newer areas...   Worrisome.

#19 in profitability and #47 overall Intel does just fine.  Likewise #7 in profitability and #28 overall Microsoft isn't far behind Alphabet at #5 in profitability and #27 overall.

What newer areas do you think it needed to branch out into?  They tried mobile but the pricing is too low for them to want to cannibalize their other offerings.  Which is why Atom was never priced sufficiently competitively vs ARM and why it died on mobile.

This article is a year old but it shows Intel vs Arm in terms of "refining" their old technology and why Apple might be very happy with them on the desktop:

"When is a worthy alternative to Intel's Xeon finally going to appear? That is the burning question in the server world. If PowerPoint presentations from various ARM-based SoCs designers released earlier this decade were to be believed, Intel would now be fighting desperately to keep a foothold in the low end server market. But the ARM SoCs so far have always disappointed: the Opteron A1100 was too late, the X-Gene 1 performed poorly, consumed too much power, and Broadcomm's Vulcan project is most likely dead. 

...

Meanwhile, Intel listened to their "hyperscaler customers" (Facebook, Google...) and delivered the Xeon D. We reviewed Intel's Broadwell SoC and we had to conclude that this was one of the best products that Intel made in years. It is set a new performance per watt standard and integrated a lot of I/O. The market agreed: Facebook's new web farms were built upon this new platform, ARM servers SoCs were only successful in the (low end) storage server world. To make matter worse, Intel expanded the Xeon D line with even higher performing 12 and 16 core models."

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10353/investigating-cavium-thunderx-48-arm-cores

"The 90W TDP Xeon E5-2640v4 consumes 67W more at peak than in idle. Even if you add 15W to that number, you get only 82W. Considering that the 67W is measured at the wall, it is clear that Intel has been quite conservative with the "Broadwell" parts. We get the same impression when we tried out the Xeon E5-2699 v4. This confirms our suspicion that with Broadwell EP, Intel prioritized performance per watt over throughput and single threaded performance. The Xeon D, as a result, is simply the performance per watt champion."

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10353/investigating-cavium-thunderx-48-arm-cores/19

Your arguments sound disturbingly similar to arguments used 30+ years ago in the PC vs Mainframe debates....

For evidence of the decline in Intel processors look no further than Apple:    You can buy an Apple laptop with an Intel processor.  Or, you can buy Apple's laptop killer, the iPad Pro with an ARM based processor for a fraction of the cost.

Your argument on profitability also sounds disturbingly similar to the PC vs Mainframe debates where the mainframes would cost millions and the Intel based processors kept undercutting them.  

But, more than profitability, Intel based processors are increasingly isolating themselves in their castles of larger, less mobile devices -- while the market moves ever forward towards smaller more mobile devices (tablets, phones, watches, IoT...).   That's not to say that more mobile ARM type processors will completely replace the Intel processors -- just as the Intel type processors have not completely displaced the mainframe.

In other words, I see history repeating itself....

Given that Intel is building 10nm ARM processors they aren't missing anything but lowered ASPs.  This is safer than lower cost Atoms for them because it lacks x86 compatibility.

This isn't anything like PC vs Mainframes...which by the way still generates quite a bit of money for IBM.  Not to mention your view of history is wrong anyway...PCs didn't kill mainframes.  Cheaper mainframes (mini computers e.g. DEC) killed mainframes.  Then even more cheaper mainframes (micro computers e.g. Sun) killed those.  Intel based servers have replace many of those.  Who made the heavy iron may have changed over the years but that's orthogonal to the dominant computing paradigm.

For a little while we moved away from centralized computing (aka servers/mainframes) dominated paradigm to distributed computing (PCs) paradigm and now moving back toward centralized (IoT).  Each IoT device may be "smart" but the computing and storage load is pushed back into the "cloud".  Hence the I part of IoT.

Intel has thus far successfully defended their server market from ARM which was in doubt a few years ago.

You can try to argue that ARM based chromebooks and tablets will significantly impact Intel's profitability if it has to shift to building lower priced ARM processors from building higher priced Core processors but I expect that at that point Intel ARM products, and not Qualcomm Snapdragon, will be the mobile CPU gold standard for everyone not Apple.

Intel is currently a 32 bit ARM architecture licensee and has a new foundry license agreement with ARM.  Moving up to a 64 bit ARM architectural licensee is not an insurmountable incremental upgrade for Intel.

"Intel has thus far successfully defended their .... market from ARM "

ROFL... Yep!  They're doing just about as good at it as IBM did defending the mainframe against the PC....

There really aren't any ARM servers or for that matter ARM desktops of note.  The only encroachment on Intel markets have been netbooks.  That Intel missed out on the mobile market is a different thing.  They also deliberately exited that market when they sold their XScale product line.  Doesn't seem like a bright move in hindsight but an easily fixable thing.

/shrug.

That you have to argue via deception by omitting what I wrote indicates that you don't feel your position is sufficiently strong to argue honestly.  

Intel isn't a PC, tablet or phone maker anyway.  They don't compete with Apple or Google but with AMD, Qualcomm, Samsung, nVidia etc that make processors.  

" The only encroachment on Intel markets have been netbooks"
?

Sorry, but there are quite a few people out there who use their ARM based wearables, smart phone and tablets more than their desktops... Actually, a LOT more.   And, as the power or the ARM processor grows, products like the "laptop killer" iPad Pro grow, and grow, and grow....

Your arguments sound very much like the arguments I heard back in the 90's over how the little Intel PC's could never threaten a real computer...    Will ARM based processors take over the server market?   Right now the Intel servers look pretty safe.  But then, so did the internal combustion engine just a few years back.   Since Intel has simply been shrinking the 80xx processor for decades now, I think they should maybe start thinking in terms of actual innovation. 

GeorgeBMac said:

nht said:

GeorgeBMac said:

nht said:

GeorgeBMac said:

maestro64 said:

SpamSandwich said:

maestro64 said:

Typical for Intel, they waste more money jumping into things they will never be successful at. I lost count on how many businesses they shut down over the years. But the markets loves Intel's failures. Google it's possibly running a close second to all the Intel failures and Google has not been around as long.

Trust me, the market gives them no leeway. I've held Intel stock for quite a few years and it's been a dog the entire time I've held it.

That is because you bought in too late. Intel stock should have been hammered for all their mistakes. They only did well because of the whole wintel deal from the 80's. Today no one cares what processors is in their products and Intel does not like that. 

Conversely, without Intel we would not have had the computer revolution...   Even mainframes eventually converted to using them...

Intel may not be a high flyer.   Instead it chugs along like a locomotive year after year.   But, I do fear that they have been surviving the past 10 years or so on simply refining their old technology and have not developed anything new or successfully branched into newer areas...   Worrisome.

#19 in profitability and #47 overall Intel does just fine.  Likewise #7 in profitability and #28 overall Microsoft isn't far behind Alphabet at #5 in profitability and #27 overall.

What newer areas do you think it needed to branch out into?  They tried mobile but the pricing is too low for them to want to cannibalize their other offerings.  Which is why Atom was never priced sufficiently competitively vs ARM and why it died on mobile.

This article is a year old but it shows Intel vs Arm in terms of "refining" their old technology and why Apple might be very happy with them on the desktop:

"When is a worthy alternative to Intel's Xeon finally going to appear? That is the burning question in the server world. If PowerPoint presentations from various ARM-based SoCs designers released earlier this decade were to be believed, Intel would now be fighting desperately to keep a foothold in the low end server market. But the ARM SoCs so far have always disappointed: the Opteron A1100 was too late, the X-Gene 1 performed poorly, consumed too much power, and Broadcomm's Vulcan project is most likely dead. 

...

Meanwhile, Intel listened to their "hyperscaler customers" (Facebook, Google...) and delivered the Xeon D. We reviewed Intel's Broadwell SoC and we had to conclude that this was one of the best products that Intel made in years. It is set a new performance per watt standard and integrated a lot of I/O. The market agreed: Facebook's new web farms were built upon this new platform, ARM servers SoCs were only successful in the (low end) storage server world. To make matter worse, Intel expanded the Xeon D line with even higher performing 12 and 16 core models."

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10353/investigating-cavium-thunderx-48-arm-cores

"The 90W TDP Xeon E5-2640v4 consumes 67W more at peak than in idle. Even if you add 15W to that number, you get only 82W. Considering that the 67W is measured at the wall, it is clear that Intel has been quite conservative with the "Broadwell" parts. We get the same impression when we tried out the Xeon E5-2699 v4. This confirms our suspicion that with Broadwell EP, Intel prioritized performance per watt over throughput and single threaded performance. The Xeon D, as a result, is simply the performance per watt champion."

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10353/investigating-cavium-thunderx-48-arm-cores/19

Your arguments sound disturbingly similar to arguments used 30+ years ago in the PC vs Mainframe debates....

For evidence of the decline in Intel processors look no further than Apple:    You can buy an Apple laptop with an Intel processor.  Or, you can buy Apple's laptop killer, the iPad Pro with an ARM based processor for a fraction of the cost.

Your argument on profitability also sounds disturbingly similar to the PC vs Mainframe debates where the mainframes would cost millions and the Intel based processors kept undercutting them.  

But, more than profitability, Intel based processors are increasingly isolating themselves in their castles of larger, less mobile devices -- while the market moves ever forward towards smaller more mobile devices (tablets, phones, watches, IoT...).   That's not to say that more mobile ARM type processors will completely replace the Intel processors -- just as the Intel type processors have not completely displaced the mainframe.

In other words, I see history repeating itself....

Given that Intel is building 10nm ARM processors they aren't missing anything but lowered ASPs.  This is safer than lower cost Atoms for them because it lacks x86 compatibility.

This isn't anything like PC vs Mainframes...which by the way still generates quite a bit of money for IBM.  Not to mention your view of history is wrong anyway...PCs didn't kill mainframes.  Cheaper mainframes (mini computers e.g. DEC) killed mainframes.  Then even more cheaper mainframes (micro computers e.g. Sun) killed those.  Intel based servers have replace many of those.  Who made the heavy iron may have changed over the years but that's orthogonal to the dominant computing paradigm.

For a little while we moved away from centralized computing (aka servers/mainframes) dominated paradigm to distributed computing (PCs) paradigm and now moving back toward centralized (IoT).  Each IoT device may be "smart" but the computing and storage load is pushed back into the "cloud".  Hence the I part of IoT.

Intel has thus far successfully defended their server market from ARM which was in doubt a few years ago.

You can try to argue that ARM based chromebooks and tablets will significantly impact Intel's profitability if it has to shift to building lower priced ARM processors from building higher priced Core processors but I expect that at that point Intel ARM products, and not Qualcomm Snapdragon, will be the mobile CPU gold standard for everyone not Apple.

Intel is currently a 32 bit ARM architecture licensee and has a new foundry license agreement with ARM.  Moving up to a 64 bit ARM architectural licensee is not an insurmountable incremental upgrade for Intel.

"Intel has thus far successfully defended their .... market from ARM "

ROFL... Yep!  They're doing just about as good at it as IBM did defending the mainframe against the PC....

GeorgeBMac said:

nht said:

GeorgeBMac said:

maestro64 said:

SpamSandwich said:

maestro64 said:

Typical for Intel, they waste more money jumping into things they will never be successful at. I lost count on how many businesses they shut down over the years. But the markets loves Intel's failures. Google it's possibly running a close second to all the Intel failures and Google has not been around as long.

Trust me, the market gives them no leeway. I've held Intel stock for quite a few years and it's been a dog the entire time I've held it.

That is because you bought in too late. Intel stock should have been hammered for all their mistakes. They only did well because of the whole wintel deal from the 80's. Today no one cares what processors is in their products and Intel does not like that. 

Conversely, without Intel we would not have had the computer revolution...   Even mainframes eventually converted to using them...

Intel may not be a high flyer.   Instead it chugs along like a locomotive year after year.   But, I do fear that they have been surviving the past 10 years or so on simply refining their old technology and have not developed anything new or successfully branched into newer areas...   Worrisome.

#19 in profitability and #47 overall Intel does just fine.  Likewise #7 in profitability and #28 overall Microsoft isn't far behind Alphabet at #5 in profitability and #27 overall.

What newer areas do you think it needed to branch out into?  They tried mobile but the pricing is too low for them to want to cannibalize their other offerings.  Which is why Atom was never priced sufficiently competitively vs ARM and why it died on mobile.

This article is a year old but it shows Intel vs Arm in terms of "refining" their old technology and why Apple might be very happy with them on the desktop:

"When is a worthy alternative to Intel's Xeon finally going to appear? That is the burning question in the server world. If PowerPoint presentations from various ARM-based SoCs designers released earlier this decade were to be believed, Intel would now be fighting desperately to keep a foothold in the low end server market. But the ARM SoCs so far have always disappointed: the Opteron A1100 was too late, the X-Gene 1 performed poorly, consumed too much power, and Broadcomm's Vulcan project is most likely dead. 

...

Meanwhile, Intel listened to their "hyperscaler customers" (Facebook, Google...) and delivered the Xeon D. We reviewed Intel's Broadwell SoC and we had to conclude that this was one of the best products that Intel made in years. It is set a new performance per watt standard and integrated a lot of I/O. The market agreed: Facebook's new web farms were built upon this new platform, ARM servers SoCs were only successful in the (low end) storage server world. To make matter worse, Intel expanded the Xeon D line with even higher performing 12 and 16 core models."

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10353/investigating-cavium-thunderx-48-arm-cores

"The 90W TDP Xeon E5-2640v4 consumes 67W more at peak than in idle. Even if you add 15W to that number, you get only 82W. Considering that the 67W is measured at the wall, it is clear that Intel has been quite conservative with the "Broadwell" parts. We get the same impression when we tried out the Xeon E5-2699 v4. This confirms our suspicion that with Broadwell EP, Intel prioritized performance per watt over throughput and single threaded performance. The Xeon D, as a result, is simply the performance per watt champion."

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10353/investigating-cavium-thunderx-48-arm-cores/19

Your arguments sound disturbingly similar to arguments used 30+ years ago in the PC vs Mainframe debates....

For evidence of the decline in Intel processors look no further than Apple:    You can buy an Apple laptop with an Intel processor.  Or, you can buy Apple's laptop killer, the iPad Pro with an ARM based processor for a fraction of the cost.

Your argument on profitability also sounds disturbingly similar to the PC vs Mainframe debates where the mainframes would cost millions and the Intel based processors kept undercutting them.  

But, more than profitability, Intel based processors are increasingly isolating themselves in their castles of larger, less mobile devices -- while the market moves ever forward towards smaller more mobile devices (tablets, phones, watches, IoT...).   That's not to say that more mobile ARM type processors will completely replace the Intel processors -- just as the Intel type processors have not completely displaced the mainframe.

In other words, I see history repeating itself....

zone said:

nht said:

zone said:

gatorguy said:

zone said:

No probable cause, no warrant, no way!

This is how the system is set up and if they want in then they need to do it legally. It's that simple. 

Why do people give away their freedoms and rights for FAKE security? The Terrorist Threat in almost nonexistent and not worth your freedoms and our money. We spend billions for security to protect us from absolutely nothing when it comes to this statistically. It's all FAKE and agenda driven. Here a list of thing that REALLY kill American's so maybe we should ban these things. How many people die from T in the USA each year? Almost none. Only 30 people have died from terrorism since 2001. More Americans have died from squirrel and raccoon attacks than have died from terrorism since 9/11.

Let's do the math... 30 people since 9/11 is less than 2 people a year. If you include 9/11 it's 178 a year. Still way less...


- Slip and Falls "According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over one million Americans suffer a slip, trip, and fall injury and over 17, 000 people die in the U.S. annually because of these injuries."

- Bicycles "In 2015 in the United States, over 1,000 bicyclists died and there were almost 467,000 bicycle-related injuries."

- 300,000 Americans die of obesity every year.

- 40,000 Americans per year die of car accidents.

- 550,000 Americans per year die of cancer.

- Drowning 2000

- Poisoning 39,000

- Fires 2700

Chocking 2500

So sad!

No idea where you got your figures. it amounts to fake math. Nearly 50 were killed in the Pulse Nightclub attack alone. Your figure is so ridiculously far off-base it's not even worth considering in your argument.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/wrjp255a.html

But for giggles even if you were close (it is not) the relative sparseness of major events in the US as compared to Europe for instance is testament to the excellent work of our policing agencies (FBI/CIA/NSA/Local agencies) made possible by the tools they have available to them. You think it would improve things to deny them the tools? 

Typical uninformed paranoid government takeover advocate... talking about deaths in the USA. Not overseas? Yikes, you must be a Republican and work for Trump? So you in favor than for us to give up our right to protect us from almost a non-existent threat. You do realize that all is this is used to promote a agenda and that agenda is for you to have no right and freedom in the name of security. 

Last time I checked Orlando was in the US.  The problem with zealots, left or right, is that they tend to ignore facts and get all defensive when very obvious mistakes are pointed out.  Trump does this a lot but it's also an ultra liberal thing too.

It takes away from the point you had when you get all defensive when someone points out that the Pulse Nightclub attack resulted in 49 deaths...or 19 more than what you claimed happened since 2001.  A rational person would have said "Oh yeah, my bad.  The corrected figures are X." as opposed to engaging in a wierd ad-hom.

I guess pigs are flying since I'm defending Gatorguy.  This unnatural behavior is why this stuff should be in Political Outsider.

I don't need perfect facts. The point is valid. It doesn't matter how many attacks there have been or if my death numbers by other things are perfect. It still holds true...

I'll repeat it slowly for you.