Intel Opens Development Center in India

AlphaAtlas

[H]ard|Gawd
Staff member
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
1,713
The Telangana government announced that Intel is opening a technology development center in Hyderabad, India. The new research center will host 1500 employees in its initial stages, with "potential to grow significantly." Raja Koduri, a former leader of AMD's graphics division who just recently joined Intel, commented on the new center, saying Intel's "Bangalore leadership is only one hop away," and that they "can help grow it to cover our Graphics and throughput computing hardware and software ambitions." Intel is reportedly working on discrete graphics cards of their own, and its possible that some of the chip's development could take place in India now.

ill be a major development centre...ideal as our Bangalore leadership is only one hop away and can help grow it to cover our Graphics and throughput computing hardware and software ambitions
 
I guess the US can cancel the H-1B visa program now. Corporations are building directly at the source for cheap labor.
 
Why do I see Raja Koduri having a hand in this? He's very India focused. Even his demos show this. And nothing personal, I think this is a fundamental weakness of his.

Edit: Never mind. I now see the direct connection in the article. Should have known.

Most of the Talent sits in USA and Taiwan. I would be surprised if that really translates to India well. Inidia has no experience with advanced 3D graphics architecture initiatives that I am aware of. Not even driver teams. But I could be wrong.
 
Why do I see Raja Koduri having a hand in this? He's very India focused. Even his demos show this. And nothing personal, I think this is a fundamental weakness of his.

Edit: Never mind. I now see the direct connection in the article. Should have known.

Most of the Talent sits in USA and Taiwan. I would be surprised if that really translates to India well. Inidia has no experience with advanced 3D graphics architecture initiatives that I am aware of. Not even driver teams. But I could be wrong.

They must have something for Intel to want to do R&D there.
 
Less than dirt-cheap labor? A gazillion Ph.D's - none of whom can actually do anything, mind you. I suspect most were printed on a Cannon Color Jet.

LOL well whatever helps you sleep at night.
 
Why do I see Raja Koduri having a hand in this? He's very India focused. Even his demos show this. And nothing personal, I think this is a fundamental weakness of his.

Edit: Never mind. I now see the direct connection in the article. Should have known.

Most of the Talent sits in USA and Taiwan. I would be surprised if that really translates to India well. Inidia has no experience with advanced 3D graphics architecture initiatives that I am aware of. Not even driver teams. But I could be wrong.

Well, they are trying to plant the seeds. I say give them a few years, see what happens. CPU wise, Intel has been relying on Israel for the last 12 years or so. How did that happen, exactly? I don't remember.
 
just poo it.jpg
 
So now we'll be getting scam phone calls: "We've detected a problem with your AMD processor, give us your credit card and we'll send you a replacement intel motherboard that doesn't have that problem"

"What Problem?"

"Well, it's an AMD processor, for one... and doesn't support our 2000W cooler."

:)
 
Well, they are trying to plant the seeds. I say give them a few years, see what happens. CPU wise, Intel has been relying on Israel for the last 12 years or so. How did that happen, exactly? I don't remember.

That's an easy question to answer. While marketing was running the engineering division in the US we got the "oh, so wonderful" Netburst architecture. At the same time the Intel team in Israel was given the task of designing the much less exciting mobile architecture. Since Netburst was beyond worthless as a mobile architecture the Israel team went back to the Pentium Pro and used that as the starting point for the new mobile architecture which evolved into the Core, Core 2 and beyond to where we are today.
 
That's an easy question to answer. While marketing was running the engineering division in the US we got the "oh, so wonderful" Netburst architecture. At the same time the Intel team in Israel was given the task of designing the much less exciting mobile architecture. Since Netburst was beyond worthless as a mobile architecture the Israel team went back to the Pentium Pro and used that as the starting point for the new mobile architecture which evolved into the Core, Core 2 and beyond to where we are today.
I heard they went to P-pro because of the crazy IPC (it was an IPC beast in Seti up there with the Alphas), then the P3 which was derived from that, then they made the (IIRC) pentium mobile, cd, c2d etc as you said and the rest is history.
What backdoors they put in for mossad in the meanwhile will always be a worry. Check out Taipot for a good idea of what those sneaky fuckers get up to, definitely not the greatest ally that's for sure.
 
I heard they went to P-pro because of the crazy IPC (it was an IPC beast in Seti up there with the Alphas), then the P3 which was derived from that, then they made the (IIRC) pentium mobile, cd, c2d etc as you said and the rest is history.
What backdoors they put in for mossad in the meanwhile will always be a worry. Check out Taipot for a good idea of what those sneaky fuckers get up to, definitely not the greatest ally that's for sure.

The Pentium Pro and P3 designs were much more efficient. The IPC of the Netburst architecture was crap because it was designed to scale in frequency only. If the Netburst architecture had been able to keep scaling in clock speed it wouldn't have gotten spanked by AMD especially with the Athlon64s and X2s. It still would have been an inefficient architecture with regards to IPC due to the super long pipeline but the overall performance would have been better. However, Netburst basically ran out of steam around 3Ghz instead of the 5-10Ghz area marketing claimed it would get to eventually.

With the roots of the architecture being the much more efficient Pentium Pro Intel was able to take back the performance crown with Core2 with not only higher clock speeds but better IPC. Intel had no choice but to go with a more efficient design and higher IPC because at that point the Ghz war was basically over. Sure, they've managed to increase clockspeed since then but nothing like the breakneck pace we had previously seen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
The Pentium Pro and P3 designs were much more efficient. The IPC of the Netburst architecture was crap because it was designed to scale in frequency only. If the Netburst architecture had been able to keep scaling in clock speed it wouldn't have gotten spanked by AMD especially with the Athlon64s and X2s. It still would have been an inefficient architecture with regards to IPC due to the super long pipeline but the overall performance would have been better. However, Netburst basically ran out of steam around 3Ghz instead of the 5-10Ghz area marketing claimed it would get to eventually.

With the roots of the architecture being the much more efficient Pentium Pro Intel was able to take back the performance crown with Core2 with not only higher clock speeds but better IPC. Intel had no choice but to go with a more efficient design and higher IPC because at that point the Ghz war was basically over. Sure, they've managed to increase clockspeed since then but nothing like the breakneck pace we had previously seen.
Totally forgot about the netburst clock projections, remember reading about them in PC mags back in the day in amazement. Sure enough we hit 5GHz when the 2600k came out under heavy OC lol.. a long time later.

I remember when first version of HT was slower in many workloads too. How things have changed!
 
Totally forgot about the netburst clock projections, remember reading about them in PC mags back in the day in amazement. Sure enough we hit 5GHz when the 2600k came out under heavy OC lol.. a long time later.

I remember when first version of HT was slower in many workloads too. How things have changed!

Keep in mind that the Willamette P4s (the very first iteration) were horrible. Even the old P3 1Ghz was faster in quite a few things. It wasn't until the next iteration, Northwood, that things started changing (and that did include a new socket) and most of the reason for the better performance was the increased clock speed. The first gem was the Northwood 1.6Ghz which would usually clock to 2.4Ghz when overclocked. The overclock was the primary reason you would be able to finally outperform P3s and Athlons because the P4 had finally reached the point where clockspeed was trumping the awful IPC. Keep in mind that to gain the performance crown in all areas the P4 had to be clocked 600mhz to 1Ghz higher than the Athlon in many cases.

That inefficiency is the reason I never touched a P4. I simply would not give Intel money in support of that architecture. I wouldn't even look at another Intel CPU for my system until the Core2 was released and Intel finally regained the IPC crown. It didn't hurt that they tended to overclock really well for a lot of extra performance.
 
Keep in mind that the Willamette P4s (the very first iteration) were horrible. Even the old P3 1Ghz was faster in quite a few things. It wasn't until the next iteration, Northwood, that things started changing (and that did include a new socket) and most of the reason for the better performance was the increased clock speed. The first gem was the Northwood 1.6Ghz which would usually clock to 2.4Ghz when overclocked. The overclock was the primary reason you would be able to finally outperform P3s and Athlons because the P4 had finally reached the point where clockspeed was trumping the awful IPC. Keep in mind that to gain the performance crown in all areas the P4 had to be clocked 600mhz to 1Ghz higher than the Athlon in many cases.

That inefficiency is the reason I never touched a P4. I simply would not give Intel money in support of that architecture. I wouldn't even look at another Intel CPU for my system until the Core2 was released and Intel finally regained the IPC crown. It didn't hurt that they tended to overclock really well for a lot of extra performance.

And Prescott was even worse. Even longer pipline, lower IPC, and higher power consumption. IIRC it took a 3.2GHz Prescott to match a 3.0GHz Northwood, while putting out some crazy heat to get it done.
 
I heard they went to P-pro because of the crazy IPC (it was an IPC beast in Seti up there with the Alphas), then the P3 which was derived from that, then they made the (IIRC) pentium mobile, cd, c2d etc as you said and the rest is history.
What backdoors they put in for mossad in the meanwhile will always be a worry. Check out Taipot for a good idea of what those sneaky fuckers get up to, definitely not the greatest ally that's for sure.

It was because of the IPC. The netburst architecture could clock high but wasn't up to par while the Israeli team kept refining what eventually led to core. Also its funny when people berate Intel for setting up in India but what they probably don't know is the father of the Pentium was an Indian educated immigrant engineer.
 
Back
Top