Stefan Monnier <monn...@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote: > From a purely technical perspective, it's hard to understand how Intel > managed to pour so much energy into such an obviously bad idea. The > only explanations seem all to be linked to market strategies.
This history repeats for Intel on several fronts: Look at the Netburst Pentium 4 desaster, which as scrapped as soon as the Israel division showed their improved concept based on the P3, which ran laps around the P4 while at the same time using far less power and had a bigger yield. Or the discussion about ECC for desktop devices. Intel argues "not needed", which is, if you follow the Rowhammer issues, not true. AMD just does it and it works. Then there was FB-DIMM back in the 2008s. Nice idea, just, again, too expensive and disconnected from the market in the end. And all in all the rather slow improvments on the CPU fronts, the piecemeal 5% increases sold as "big achievements" every year, while at the same time all improvements turned out to be major security problems. I personally am really glad that AMD got their stuff together again and with their ZenX-Architectures showed Intel how it is done. What AMD now needs is a hit in the low, lower and ultra-low power segment. Grüße, S° -- Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.