Intel rushed dual processor to market

Well, it doesn't really matter how long it took them to make it... the final product is all that is really important. But, when you look at the way the cores are connected, and you look at the benchmarks, it's clear they didn't do the great job they could have on their dualcore parts. Intel did do a rush job, and it shows. Now, I'm not saying their dual-core parts suck or anything. All I'm saying is that they could have done a really great job, and instead rushed their dual-core parts to market to catch up with AMD, which resulted in some so-so dual-core chips.
 
LOL!!! It's not surprising, given how the product performs in comparison with X2.

But it's surprising that Intel came out and admitted this. But I think Intel did this whole thing on purpose.

They have a much bigger motive in mind. They now have something to counter the AMD antitrust lawsuit against them. "Look... AMD's a big player... they beat us in dual-core... they put so much pressure on us that we had rushed out an entire new line for processors just to keep up!!! How can this be a monopolistic field-play??... "

I don't think Intel would've admitted something embarassing like this (not to mention mess up their perceived status) unless they had something to gain from it. They're not that stupid.

-Jazz
 
jazzwall said:
LOL!!! It's not surprising, given how the product performs in comparison with X2.

But it's surprising that Intel came out and admitted this. But I think Intel did this whole thing on purpose.

They have a much bigger motive in mind. They now have something to counter the AMD antitrust lawsuit against them. "Look... AMD's a big player... they beat us in dual-core... they put so much pressure on us that we had rushed out an entire new line for processors just to keep up!!! How can this be a monopolistic field-play??... "

I don't think Intel would've admitted something embarassing like this (not to mention mess up their perceived status) unless they had something to gain from it. They're not that stupid.

-Jazz
Click to expand...

HAHA thats a very interesting point of view.
 
jazzwall said:
LOL!!! It's not surprising, given how the product performs in comparison with X2.

But it's surprising that Intel came out and admitted this.
Click to expand...
:D

Intel is fixing one of the rushed problems on the Xeon dual core version (Paxville). With dual independent buses, the FSB bottleneck is eased since each core gets its own bus to the north bridge. Too bad that's not coming to the desktop Pentium D. If Dell has one of the dual core Xeon servers with an x8 or x16 PCI-E slot on sale in the future I might buy one.

edit: intel's dual core plans are weird... Presler will be a die shrink of Smithfield, Conroe/Merom uses dual caches (?) and Yonah uses a unified L2 cache. :confused:
 
I'm not shocked by this at all. It seemed that Intel had rushed to Pentium D chips out the door. Intel will remedy their chips nagging heat issues with Cedar Mill and Presler.
 
Ya, I just got my hands on a Pentium D 830 too, but im sure with a nice overclock itll perform just fine.
 
I've now worked with an 820, 840 EE @ 4GHz, and currently have an 830 in house. I like them...and for my multitasking needs, I notice a difference over hyperthreading, and that's what counts...

It's not a bad solution for the price, even if it was rushed...

Now, if I personally had to purchase an 8xx or X2, I'd probably go the AMD route, but that's just me.
 
jazzwall said:
LOL!!! It's not surprising, given how the product performs in comparison with X2.

But it's surprising that Intel came out and admitted this. But I think Intel did this whole thing on purpose.

They have a much bigger motive in mind. They now have something to counter the AMD antitrust lawsuit against them. "Look... AMD's a big player... they beat us in dual-core... they put so much pressure on us that we had rushed out an entire new line for processors just to keep up!!! How can this be a monopolistic field-play??... "

I don't think Intel would've admitted something embarassing like this (not to mention mess up their perceived status) unless they had something to gain from it. They're not that stupid.

-Jazz
Click to expand...

you might actually have something here..although they are still guilty IMO
 
jazzwall said:
"Look... AMD's a big player... they beat us in dual-core... they put so much pressure on us that we had rushed out an entire new line for processors just to keep up!!! How can this be a monopolistic field-play??... "
Click to expand...
Or they might just be honest.

Think about it this way: what does Intel gain by lying about this? Nothing. Yes, nothing, because their customers and shareholders gain nothing because don't care about the architecture. They care about the product performance, the value of the product, the profits made by investing in or buying the product, etc.

Intel is accountable to shareholders, ODMs, OEMs, technology partners, etc. This demands honesty, or at worst, beneficial lies.

Besides, Intel has set out a roadmap for years now, shown the chip design for months, etc. There's plenty of evidence against Intel if they wanted to lie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top