|
|
|
|
|
by cestith
1551 days ago
|
|
Interesting processors? Yes, Intel released IA64 with Itanium which was interesting and a dud in the market. Then they came up with Xeon Phi, which was a dud in the market. Then they brought Larabee, which was a failure in the market. Part of Larabee's issues did stem from process limitations. Intel had every opportunity to hedge its bets by buying from TSMC, Samsung, or others just as everyone did, but kept sinking more money into their own foundries without getting what they paid for. Meanwhile AMD gave the market what customers clamored for: a 64-bit extension to the IA32 platform. Then AMD gave us massively performant APUs. Then AMD gave us multi-die packaging and left the IO die on a more sensible process for that function while using smaller processes where frequencies matter more. Then Apple with some help from ARM gave us a SOC for laptop and desktop use that's frankly kind of embarrassing AMD and Intel, not so much for the core design really as its integration with memory. Intel isn't just unlucky here. They've made a series of serious missteps going back a couple of decades now. |
|