Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Gareth Halfacree, 16 Jul 2015.
Another blow to Moore's Law.
Maybe now Intel can invest some of their massive R&D budget into solving other problems and not just chasing ever shrinking node sizes, I'm not saying they have ignored historical problems or haven't been innovative, it's just sometimes being so focused on achieving a specific goal can lead to other things being knocked down the priority list.
If they cared enough for mobile they would of done something about it a long time before the big 2 players in mobile developed the chips themselves.
Most company's would still kill for Intels Revenue and Income figures for a quarter.
My guess is that Intel do not want to throw massive amounts of cash at 10nm to get the problems with yields resolved in a quick time. And are happy to continue at there current pace of development with little to no Competitors.
Well that's an unanswerable question if ever I saw one, I don't work for Intel and even if I did I'm not sure I would be privy to how they've prioritised their R&D budget.
I was merely suggesting that maybe by trying to stick to Moore's Law that they may have neglected some other projects, research, developments, or problems, by trying to solve the inevitable problem that came with every node shrink they have perhaps neglected other areas of CPU design.
If this were AMD we were talking about, or maybe a company like TSMC, then I think you'd be onto something. But intel has more money than they know what to do with. They actually are hiring more engineers and sponsor 3rd party projects.
But generally, I agree that Intel is hardly innovative and today they don't have to do anything to get customers. They haven't had a compelling product since Sandy Bridge and yet they're still making huge amounts of revenue.
Well you did suggest they have other problems. I was simply wondering what they were.
Maybe a bad choice of words, sorry.
Would focusing on over-looked performance improvements possibly ignored in the past because of the need to get the node shrink done instead, have been a better word to use?
I'm not concerned, always more they can improve: native usb 3.1 support, more cores, more lanes...
Since the i7 920 I have never upgraded for lack of CPU performance. It has always been the platform like lanes, sata3, native usb3, etc... I certainly couldn't care less about further power savings on the desktop...
For those wanting to see Intel really innovate, be careful what you wish for: last time Intel tried something really novel, we got NetBurst and the godawful Pentium 4...
Separate names with a comma.