'Intel Inside' sent to the place where brands go to die Time to 'Leap Ahead'

The Register ^ | 30 Dec 2005

[familyop]

Hmmm..."leap ahead"...frogs...France. Yep, that'll work!

[tacticalogic]

Single core chips will be sold as Core Solo products, while dual-core chips will be sold as Core Duo.

What, no SX/DX?

[Abcdefg]

Still a few steps behind AMD.

[Arkinsaw]

I used to be able to tell what was what. 286...386...486. But now, Athlon, Pentium, Pentium M, Celeron, Opteron, blah, blah, blah I have no idea which chip is newer, older, faster, whatever without looking it up somewhere. That was a real dumb move on their part to switch from a linear progression.

Back then, everyone knew where they stood in relation to someone else's PC. The "Bill's computer is a 486 so it must be a 100 times better than ours honey, thats why I need a new one". Now, your average Joe has no idea if he needs to catch up or not.

[catbertz]

Yawn

[birbear]

That was a real dumb move on their part to switch from a linear progression.

I totally agree with your assement, and this is a problem that plagues companies world wide.

For years Apple had horrible naming conventions for it's Mac line. Power Mac, Power Book. 4100, 5100, 6100xl. Mac IIci. Mac IIfx.

Auto manufacturers have the same problem. Is an LX model better than a DX model? Is turbo better than super charged?

I want to be able to read an ad for something and know instantly if I need to upgrade to it.

As far as I know, I have a Pentium 4 running at 2Ghz. It's a 3 year old machine, so I know it's time to upgrade, but what is it that I'm upgrading to?

[tacticalogic]

It seems that way for the moment.

[PAR35]

I have a Pentium 4 running at 2Ghz. It's a 3 year old machine, so I know it's time to upgrade

Only if you want a new operating system. I've got a P166 that runs fine under Win98, and a P75 that is really fast with Win95. Unless you are editing video, what do you really need a faster processor for other than the latest from Microsoft?

[Mr. Blonde]

I highly doubt Jobs goes for putting that sticker on Apple computers. He might think he is making a big concession if he puts the sticker on the box the comptuer comes in.

[catpuppy]

Still a few steps behind AMD

Been hearing that for a couple of decades during which time AMD per share value has increased by about 300%. Meanwhile Intel per share value over the same period of time has increased by about 5,000%.

One would think that if AMD is as wonderful as its supporters claim, AMD would have been able to grow its earnings a bit better. Meanwhile it remains a noisy but insignificant threat to Intel's dominance of the market, AMD having netted about $91 million last year to Intel's $7.5 billion.

[July 4th]

AMD: "Leap Further"

[The Duke]

"Leap Ahead"

Advertising for CELL now?

[Rock N Jones]

Still a few steps behind AMD.

Apparently Steve Jobs doesn't think so.

[Uncle Fud]

Well with the exception of hardcore gamers no one else is "catching up" anymore, the need for increasing power to drive normal office and home office apps has pretty much plateaued.

Which is why all the hardware manufacturers are desperate for the next version of Windows to arrive, seeing as how it will probably suck up CPU cycles by a couple more orders of magnitude.

[AlaninSA]

Have you considered that Intel may simply be a better negotiating company? Inferior product, superior business skills...that is what enables them to remain at the top.

As for me, I'm an AMD loyalist.

[Reactionary]

"Meanwhile it remains a noisy but insignificant threat to Intel's dominance of the market, AMD having netted about $91 million last year to Intel's $7.5 billion."

Well, at least Intel has finally managed to topple AMD in the speed charts on Tom's. Of course, their dual core processor runs twice as fast, twice as hot, and takes a cooler the size of a refrigerator, but hey... they did it.

[catpuppy]

For years I watched the AMD chief boast of his product technology and how AMD was going to beat Intel. Sure enough, AMD seemed to frequently win speed tests although that did not translate into business success.

Nor did brief leadership in clock speed on certain applications seem to be accompanied by comparable leadership in reliability, a characteristic that to many folks is even more more important than a minor speed advantage. Occasionally, AMD boasted of having new deals with various PC makers. Those seemed to flicker for a while and then disappear. While AMD struggled, Intel continued to multiply its billions.

After two decades, an investor who put $1500 into 100 shares of AMD would have seen his account grow--if that is what gains approximating those available in a Money Market account can be called--to a whopping 200 shares worth $6,000. Had that AMD investor used his $1,500 to buy Intel instead, today he would own 36,000 shares of Intel worth about $900,000.

For whatever reason, one company continues to dominate, despite its "inferior product."

[Sensei Ern]

I was not a real fan od AMD, but Intel has had problems.

This year, I got my wife a new PC and we went with AMD, simply because for the same performance, we paid a lot less.

As long as I can play AMerica's Army, I don't care what chip is running it.

[Moonman62]

I wonder how many articles there were 20 years ago about Intel stock being overpriced, and how AMD was a bargain.