Originally posted by hulkaros
Originally posted by binaryDigit
Itanic - high end workstations/servers
P4 - desktops
Centrino - portables
How is this messed up?
Oh, you mean that you didn't know that Intel wanted badly their Itanium to be the next Px and THEN changed their tune simply because it was a problematic CPU when it was time for Hz (and to think that THEY went and still go crazy about Hz 
) ?
This is just plain wrong. Intel NEVER planned on Itanic on being a x86 clone. As a matter of fact, x86 compatability was grafted on after the fact (the original design originated from HP and they didn't care about x86 compatability). This is one of the reasons why x86 comp. was so slow, it was an afterthought. Go back and read up on the whole history of Itanic/IA64 for details.
And guess what is missing from your list? P3 and Celerons PLUS the Xeons... Oh, yes baby! Intel still sells those CPUs for:
Xeons - high end workstations/servers
Celerons - desktops
P3s, Celerons - portables
But then again Intel has its game together for you, aren't they? Of course they do! That's what they want us to believe! That's why they are truly are the Dark Side and not just a part of it!
Again, if they have manuf. willing to design pc's around these chips and they have fabs with capacity to make them then why wouldn't they continue to sell P3's/Celerons? The chips have way since payed for themselves and until they need the fabs for other things, it's like printing money. Xeon still exists because Intel can charge much higher prices for the minimal amount of performance boost they give you (that and their multi-cpu friendly). If Intel targets Itanic at those who don't care about x86 on the high end, they still need a chip for those who DO care on the high end.
AMD simply plays Intel's game or if you prefer plays with people perception about CPUs: Hey, we need BIG performance for Servers only... Or we need 64 bits for computers... Or Hz rules! But then again Hz isn't the most important thing when you built a computer... That's why we need Centrino
Why is this any different than any other product made? If Toyota is marketing their Supra, they will be spouting off about how "Performance rules" and they won't mention affordability and fuel economy. When they are marketing their Corolla you'll hear "Fuel economy rules, affordability rules". When they are marketing their Lexus line you'll hear "Comfort rules, build quality rules, luxury rules". Is Toyota schizo for pushing so many different cars and marketing them all with different focus'? Of course not. They have different products for different segments, each with their own focus. AND just like the auto industy, the number of different models for various segments shrinks and grows as the tastes of the consumers for these models changes.
Actually the interesting thing is that it is AMD et al that is forcing Intel to play this way, not the other way around. Itanic was designed to address the RISC threat (which never materialized). Celeron was designed to fend off the bottom feeders. Centrino and their mobile line to fend off the likes of Transmeta. And P4 to address the performance gap created by the Athlon.
AMD does keep Intel on the ropes simply because if it wasn't for AMD people should still run P3/1GHz at the most...
OK, then you're definition of "on the ropes" doesn't seem to match the most common one, at least around here. Usually when someone is "on the ropes", it implies that they are on the losing end getting beat up badly, close to getting knocked out/down. This HARDLY describes the AMD/Intel situation. But now I at least understand what you are trying to convey.
Plus, for the first time in decades, Intel seems to act weird and I repeat this: For the first time in their history Intel had so many CPUs for so many "users" which for me this isn't bad in itself but it is bad simply because they did it just because they made terrible mistakes when they were designing their P4 and Itanium1...
Again, look at your history. P4 is still the performance leader (not per mhz, but who cares if they can keep the clock rates going up). Laptops can't deal with such high clock rates (eats up way too much juice), so we have the Mobile line. Have you forgotten that one of the biggest selling points of Centrino is that it has 802.11 wireless BUILT IN. Seems like a good move on their part, as systems integrators will save money on their designs and are thus much more likely to go with the Centrino vs a rival (AMD) cpu for laptops.
And I've already talked about Itanic. Understand what it is before making comments about making mistakes. Some SPECInt (peak) #'s
2.2ghz P4 - 790
3.06ghz P4 - 1085
Athlon XP 2700+ - 878
Athlon XP 3000+- 960
1ghz Itanium2 - 810
1.3ghz POWER4 - 822
As you can see, the Itanic performs better than a P4 AND Athlon running at OVER TWICE the clockrate. Also, it outperforms a POWER4, which the 970 is supposed to be based on. Not to shabby and hardly "a mistake", at least not from an engineering standpoint.
And yes, IBM is a better bet for Apple which I, of course, would like Apple to chose but AMD is my second best solution not because AMD has just better CPUs than Intel but because they have access to nVidia's nForce architecture which if you ask me is a very good one!
You must be forgetting that the nForce was originally designed for the XBox which of course uses an Intel processor. That nVidia doesn't support Intel is a matter of Intel not caring to, not of any superiority that nVidia perceives AMD having over Intel.
So anyway. I think this topic has been beaten to death now. So I'll just get my parting shots in now.
- AMD designs "better" chips than Intel.
Purely subjective. AMD does certain things better, Intel does other things better. Intel has significantly more R&D money and their not afraid to use it.
- Intel is losing their grip because of the cpu proliferation that exists.
While Intel is being forced to deliver products based on _other_ manufacturers cpu offerings, the current state of cpu affairs represents the pc market as a whole, and NOT some strange state that Intel is in.
- Centrino shows that the mhz myth is really a myth.
Yes and no. Mhz obviously matter, you can't take that statement in a vacuum and make any conclusions one way or the other. Plus, ITS ALL MARKETING, GET OVER IT. Intel doesn't push the mhz myth (unless you claim that simply touting the benefits of your product is pushing a myth), it's their lower mhz competitors that do.
- Itanic is a poor design.
Well it's x86 compatibility isn't all that its cracked up to be, but then again, that wasn't supposed to be the point of the chip. Taken on it's own merits (i.e. running it's native instructions), it is actually an excellent processor that beats most other processors on the market on a per mhz basis.
