Write-of are not that interesting (it is incredibly overhyped by some section of the internet, for movies studios for example, underestimating how much it cost to release a movie how often they make less money than the release cost itself, thinking that they do it as a brilliant tax strategy).... specially Losses when you have no profits to save tax from like Intel will for a while.... It is nice to bank future tax benefits for when and if one day you ever have tax to pay but does not help that much reaching said profitability again.It would have to be a very large company... who hadn't already shipped the majority of their profit off shore. That would be a massive write off investment. It wouldn't just be a Warner Bros looking to write off a 200 million dollar movie budget by canning it... it would have to be a company looking for billions in losses.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
Gelsinger out as Intel CEO
- Thread starter Gigantopithecus
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2005
- Messages
- 18,292
Remember Intel's ex-CEO saying he'd 'bet the whole company' on 18A? A South Korean outlet says the yields are just 10%,
https://www.pcgamer.com/hardware/re...ust-10-percent-although-intel-says-otherwise/
The source they quote is somewhat famous for having a strong pro Korea anti everybody else bias, so I wouldn't take their word for it.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2005
- Messages
- 18,292
North or South?
DukenukemX
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2005
- Messages
- 11,630
Not sure what that chart is suppose to indicate, but ARM isn't a threat for many reasons. Firstly, because ARM dominates iOS, Android, and MacOS. The worst operation systems right now are iOS, Android, and MacOS, in that order, ascending order. There are lots of iOS devices, and lots more Android devices, but nobody likes either. MacOS sucks because Apple is slowly turning it into iOS while dropping 32-bit support and slowly dropping x86 support if they haven't already. Windows also sucks, but is still functional... so far. You're not using Windows 11 because you like it, but because your stuff still works on it. The reason Microsoft's ARM based devices aren't selling is because stuff isn't working, or working well enough for people to continue to use them. Whatever reasons ARM fanboys can come up with why to use ARM, the reality is that stuff doesn't always work and when it does it's running at half speed or worse. The same goes for MacOS, but much worse. I imagine that Apple's M1 based devices did sell well, because we do see a spike in MacOS users in statecoutner. Particularly during 2023 where MacOS represented about 20% desktop OS marketshare. But we know that in 2023 MacOS sales had a 34% decline year over year, and 17.5% so far in 2024. This even shows up now with Statcounter where MacOS is even bellow pre-pandemic representation. It's not hard to imagine that people who bought the M1 Mac devices have decided against buying another one. Those on Intel Macs are either holding out before deciding to buy a Windows device, or have already done so. As amazing as these devices are when running ARM software, they are terrible for anything Windows or MacOS x86 based. There's no bootcamp and Parallels ain't cutting it. I'm not surprised if people bought these devices and found out that they can't run their favorite games like Diablo 4, which whoopi goldberg complained about. ARM IS NOT a threat to PC. It would take a software miracle where everyone and their grandma decided to port all their applications natively to ARM, or AMD and Intel decided to stop improving their CPU's to the point where Qualcomm and Apple's M series is so far ahead in performance that x86 emulation is the same performance as AMD and Intel.
I think (and it is a bit obvious), that the decline of PC sales seem to start the moment the sales of smarthphone-tablet explode.,, and implying a link between the 2, those being usually driving by arm cpu.
The decline of pc sales starting around 2010 could be more about emerging market being saturated by them + life expectancy of PC getting longer and longer, but people using phones that would have had a pc otherwise (or more of them or refreshed them more often) do exist.
DukenukemX
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2005
- Messages
- 11,630
The decline is just because PC's don't need to upgrade as often. It's a stupid conclusion when everyone must have a phone. iPhone isn't even the most popular phone in the world, as that would be Android. Tablet sales peaked in 2014 and had a quick surge in 2020 to only drop yet again. Upgrading PC's is just not that beneficial. Got a nephew with a 6600K and GTX 970 and he plays modern games just fine. Other things like productivity applications are working just fine. As it is right now, PC sales are higher than tablets. Microsoft will be pushing Windows 10 users to buy new PCs or they can't upgrade.
LukeTbk understood correctly, ARM is a threat is because smartphones (fueled by ARM processors) have disrupted PCs. Average people no longer buy/upgrade/replace a PC as often because they do not use it as often any more.
x86 is not suitable for the smartphone. Intel tried for several generations and it was a costly failure each time. They finally divested the x86 smartphone business to Spreadtrum/UniSoc which produced exactly one more x86 smartphone SoC generation (Airmont-based SC98xx) and then went back to being ARM-exclusive.
The PC as we know it is not dead yet, but smartphones have sent the PC market into terminal decline (ie. sales will only go down from here). Accelerating the decline is that PCs depend on economies of scale. What remains for PC use cases will be repurposed mobile and datacenter products.
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 13,443
It sounds terrible, but I am seeing this across the board due to both software and hardware cost-cutting and licensing contracts.
The pendulum is swinging back the other way for what we have been used to from the 1980s-2010s with standalone computers and local processing, and back to the 1960s-1970s (mainframes, timesharing, terminals, centralized processing) with thin/cloud clients, cloud/edge compute, cloud gaming, mobile devices, etc.
History repeats itself in this dark cyberpunk future.
This is an extremely strange way to look at it, because everyone must have a phone their impact on people buying pc habit is.... more pronounced has it apply to everyone or less ?
Obviously not everyone must have a phone, it is relatively rare that must, I know adult without them (still regular phone line, with someone asking who you want to talk to when they answer which is a timetravel experience) and I know many adults that would have had a computer, always had them before the 201x and now go by with a phone+tablet+smartTV+gaming consoles, very old computer not removed from the box since the last move.
My parents, had computer since the lates 80s, in the 2000s they had special version of Ubuntu we made for them with giants icon for the few things they used a computer for, now they are tablet-smarttv only.
Tablet like pc do not need to be updated (same for phone, but phone habit to be bought via a data contract push frequent update quite a bit), some reason pc do not need to be updated is because the phone often are, think hardware security, for some things with microsoft security you cannot use your windows computer, they require for you to use a recent enough phone, without them it would be requiring you to use a recent enough computer and you would need your enterprise fleet of computers to be recent.
And people will know young teens that do not have a computer, which would not exist without smarthphones... considering how cheap computer are now.
Or the market that were emerging between 2000 and now, like in Africa:
https://gs.statcounter.com/platform-market-share/desktop-mobile-tablet/africa
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1176693/web-traffic-by-device-in-africa/
About 3 phone for every laptop/desktop
Without smarthpone, computer would be quite more popular, limited resource, space, current and you must have a phone, you pick the phone between the 2 (and will exclude the tablet, always go for the phone instead, tablet are almost always in extra) and in place were business assume people have phone but not a computer, everything must people need to do can be made with a phone quite well. And in those market it is not just about people keeping their nice old 2010 computer, just having to put an ssd in it.
You are really certain that without smarthphone the number of computer in Africa and Asia would not be widely different today ?
Last edited:
DukenukemX
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2005
- Messages
- 11,630
Old people don't like smart phones. My uncle refuses to learn how to use one, so he uses an old flip phone.
Why does a tablet not need to be updated? If you keep an Android device long enough, you'll know the troubles of keeping an outdated Android device. I was given a TV with built in Android functionality and it's so old the Android function is now useless. Can't even find a custom rom to try and update it.
Said nephew wants me to upgrade his PC now. He's got a 6600K with a GTX 970. That's like a 10 year old PC that can still play modern games. He's trying to come up with the money because I'm not paying for it.
Because smart phones are a necessity while computers are not. Especially when you're poor.
Without money the people in Africa and Asia wouldn't buy a PC unless they needed it for business. I remember reading how the Sega Master System was very popular in Brazil because it was cheap, while a failure in North America. Don't look at iPhones and Samsung Galaxy phones, because there's a lot of cheap Android phones people can buy. This is also why gaming on smart phones are so popular. The software you find on x86, specifically on Windows dwarfs that on Android, iOS, and MacOS. As widely used as ARM is, you don't find as much software on it compared to x86. Even Android has native x86 ports of applications, albeit significantly smaller.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2001
- Messages
- 12,830
There has always been significant overlap between Desktop PC and Server CPUs. For the last 25+ years most Intel Desktop CPUs had a direct and/or very similar Xeon equivalent. And even before the mobile era it was common for low-end laptops to come with terrible Celeron/Duron/Atom/Turion CPUs.
Less often than before (after a while they do not run the latest OS version and some stuff require them you are right), but for similar reason than PC the update cycle became really slow as they are fast enough to do what people do with them. I think one of my parent is still running a 2013 Ipad air and the other on a 2018 for an example of what I mean, they also not in the 90s PC fast paced rhythm when your 3-4 years old computer did not had a cd drive in it and felt too old already.
Or they would be buying cheap chromebook/pc, the phone and the world would have never become one where they are a necessity to start with if they did not exist....
You get the strangeness of the argumentation going on, would not for phone existance there would be more PC being used today, december 2024.... That because phone are perceived as a necessity is not a counter argument to that claim.
Think about 95% of the software, 95% of the people use
DukenukemX
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2005
- Messages
- 11,630
iOS must be better at this than Android because once it gets too old then new apps refuse to want to run or update. Netflix has been a particular problem.
Never said more people would use a PC if not for the phones existence. I'm saying the phone is like a necessity that shouldn't be a counter claim towards PC sales. Would more people use public transportation if there was no car? I can't even go to the bank without my phone now as they text me a security code. Can't even sign into Google without them texting me a code. I would always prefer to browse the web on a PC any day of the week. Don't have the problem where certain websites insist I install their app, and in some cases the mobile version of a website is unusable. File management still sucks because apparently file explorers on Android are stuck in the stone age. If not that then they try to monetize simple functions while Google makes it hard to find the open source ad free apps on their Play Store. Mobile computing sucks.
Why you think Microsoft is pushing people now to upgrade to Windows 11? You need a relatively new PC to use Windows 11, or at least a version of Windows 11 that doesn't look to see if you're using TPM2.0. Microsoft has even gone so far as to ask Windows 10 users to buy a new PC. PC's last far too long for Microsoft's taste and want people to go out and buy one, because as far as I can tell, there's no reason for TPM2.0. My nephews 6600k isn't getting Windows 11... unless I go to the Pirate Bay and look for a version of Windows 11 Non-TPM. I would of course never do that.
Where even I upgrade my phone more often compared to my PC. If it isn't the manufacturer given up on updating the phone, then eventually it's the community. Luckily my Moto G7 Plus is getting LineageOS 22, so it gets to live another day. The moment this stops happening is when I'm in the market for another phone. Most people would have bought a new phone long ago, as the battery eventually degrades to the point where the device itself throttles performance.I am not how you got this impression from the statement: (after a while they do not run the latest OS version and some stuff require them you are right), they are on not the very first and second generation of ipad released anymore for that reason, but it is a long life cycle.
that what we say, that the start of the argument, I am saying your counter-argument for that claim is strange.
Obviously yes ? Do you doubt that is the case ?
Sure Android has the largest market share of mobile devices... all the hardware is still running ARM.
I think hindsight being what it is. Pat screwed up way back in 2006. Pat was at the height of his CTO gig... he convinced Intels then CEO that they could put Atom x86 chips in everything. That ARM was easy to replace. He was an over confident boob. (in hindsight) In the late 90s pre Pat as CTO in 2001... Intel had a fantastic strategy. Intel had i960. Pat in 2007 ended that risc micro play (which Intel held huge market share with. People forget that in the 80s and 90s Intel was selling risc super computers based on i860 Intel sold plenty of Intel Paragon risc servers) Itanaium really wasn't that big a misstep when you consider Intel had a long history of not JUST being a x86 company. Pat was the big x86 everything guy...
Intel was well positioned prior to Pat as CTO. Sure Itanaium may have died anyway, x86-64 made more sense in the end. It wasn't that out of place considering Intel had a line of risc server chips prior. There was no major reason at that point to push those big iron clients to x86. Intel also had Blackberry Palm Compaq HP and a ton of other smaller mobile players as customers for xscale chips. That screw up is on Pat 100%. Sure he wasn't the CEO that sold xscale off to Marvell... he was just the CTO that told them no no we can make x86 small and efficent just like ARM. Pat had them cancel a xscale follow up (that they didn't transfer in the sale as they expected Marvell to not be able to come up with something to take on ATOM in time). I mean frankly that sale was a major Dick move... I'm glad history kicked them in the nuts for it. They sold the line off for 600m (a massive sum at the time) destroyed the plans for the latest unreleased gen rather then sell them. With a plan of sweeping in on the customers that were buying the product line they were selling... and switching them to x86.
I want x86 to continue and be a thing. IMO it has a place. However its never going to be as power efficent as ARM. It just won't You can design a highly efficent x86 sure. You can try and perfectly balance the knife edge of getting work done but not sucking too much juice. End of the day though euqally well designed ARM chips are going to draw less power. x86 shines in the push all the watts through it and get the most crunch. ARM does not really shine in top end performance. Of course we know their are ways around that... you simply sandwitch 30% more ARM cores into the same silicon size and you end up with = multi core performance. You can hate ARM... but it doesn't change the fact that a low power mobile ARM is a far better solution for mobile. Servers that have highly parralell operation... ya ARM is probably the best ISA for that as well. (even Intel believed that at one point)
Intel should be making ARM chips right now. The xscale division should never have been sold off. There is an alt earth, were Pat never worked at Intel. Where Intel strong arm processors are in every mobile device in the world, and Apple never bothered building their own. In that world Intel big iron is also probably still running some 64bit Intel RISC chip... probably named something other then I-tanic.
Last edited:
DukenukemX
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2005
- Messages
- 11,630
AMD, Intel, and Nvidia have never gained tracking in the Android market. Yes, I said Nvidia because how many devices come with Nvidia hardware that isn't made by Nvidia? The ARM SoC Android market is fierce and likely the reason nobody is interested in competing in it. You're looking at maybe a few manufacturers that are left to compete against the juggernaut Qualcomm.
Itanaium was a failure, just like PowerPC.
View: https://youtu.be/3oxrybkd7Mo?si=svDktOE_5fnNsffa
AMD made 64-bit x86. If I remember correctly, Intel thought it couldn't be done.
RISC vs CISC arguments are pointless in 2024. Was pointless when Intel made the Pentium Pro.
Intel didn't push them, as it was the other way around. It's the same old problem where nobody wants to update their software when they could just get better hardware. This has been the selling point for x86.
It has been for some time. It's been efficient since AMD's Zen4 chips and Intel's Meteor Lake chips. It may not be as efficient as Apple's new M4, but willing to bet that AMD and Intel will continue to chase after Apple for that one. It's not like Apple represents ARM, as Qualcomm's Snapdragon X Elite chips are... sorry were marginally power efficient. When the Snapdragon X chips were released they were up against Intel's Meteor Lake and AMD's Zen4 chips. Lunar Lake and Zen5 have completely flipped the script. ARM isn't even the most power efficient in the server space as AMD beats them in both performance and power efficiency. It's really just Apple.
Nobody thought that ARM could perform as well as x86, and here we are today. Keep in mind that what you're stating isn't even fact. AMD and Intel have caught up to ARM in power efficiency. Not Apple's ARM mind you, but ARM in general. Unless you really think that Qualcomm and Ampere are as power efficient as Apple, because they're not. They're not even close in performance with Apple, minus the many cores Ampere has.
Unless you count Apple's ARM. The problem right now is that everyone thinks Apple's ARM is the same ARM as everyone else. Even Qualcomm's Snapdragon X chips do not represent ARM in the wild, despite that their chips are not as good as Apple's.
Given enough time I see the two meeting in the middle. Apple is even using their M series chips in tablets, which was unheard of. You don't think the same could be done with Intel's Lunar Lake chips? What am I talking about, I'm sure there's 2-in-1 devices with Lunar Lake.
Except AMD's is currently the best.
Intel would die from obscurity. ARM SoC's are a tough market right now as it's dominated by a handful of companies.
Apple would have certainly. I expect Apple to make their own parts for everything in their machines over time.
Last edited: