PDA

View Full Version : Is Intel the Microsoft of Hardware?



icett
March 6th, 2009, 10:59 AM
Do you consider Intel to be the Microsoft of Hardware as it has no major competitor except AMD which is way behind it. It has an almost monopolistic hold over the processor manufacturing. Or do you think that AMD or some other new company would soon be able to compete with Intel? What do you think?:KS

cb951303
March 6th, 2009, 11:04 AM
Let me tell you what I know, If ever AMD goes down, intel will fire up the prices so high that everyone will have to use linux because no one will have the money to buy new hardware :D

Vince4Amy
March 6th, 2009, 11:34 AM
What is it with all these threads with is "Company" the Microsoft of "Whatever" it's becoming stupid. Microsoft is Microsoft and Intel is Intel.

khelben1979
March 6th, 2009, 12:22 PM
From reading the topic of this thread I think that these 2 links might be educational:

Wikipedia: Microsoft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft) and Intel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel).

BuffaloX
March 6th, 2009, 02:10 PM
There is no comparison at all.

Intel actually invented the CPU,
MS is founded on porting free software (BASIC), and allegedly stole CP/M code.

Intel is build on innovation, MS is build on "borrowing" technology already available.

These trends have been evident throughout the history of both companies.

cb951303
March 6th, 2009, 02:24 PM
There is no comparison at all.

Intel actually invented the CPU,
MS is founded on porting free software (BASIC), and allegedly stole CP/M code.

Intel is build on innovation, MS is build on "borrowing" technology already available.

These trends have been evident throughout the history of both companies.

OP meant monopoly-wise. and I think he's right on that.

HavocXphere
March 6th, 2009, 02:48 PM
Nah. Not a fair comparison.

Take the following examples:

Core 2 Duo = Win for technology & consumer.
Vista = Something else. Possibly brown and smelly.:-#

cmat
March 6th, 2009, 02:56 PM
Intel chips are space heaters. Sure they innovate but they don't leave much room for the competition.

mips
March 6th, 2009, 03:08 PM
Intel actually invented the CPU,


That depends solely on your definition of a CPU. Things prior to the microprocessor can be classified as CPUs.

BGFG
March 6th, 2009, 03:08 PM
Like them or not, their processors are fast powerful and innovative. Very expensive too. AMD barely manages to keep them reasonable. i really hope AMD stays afloat else..... well, the alternative is pricey.

Skripka
March 6th, 2009, 03:19 PM
Vista = Something else. Possibly brown :-#

Vista is Ubuntu? :?:

mips
March 6th, 2009, 03:29 PM
i really hope AMD stays afloat else..... well, the alternative is pricey.

A nice alternative would be the Cell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_CPU) microprocessor although I suspect it will be pricey :)

perlluver
March 6th, 2009, 03:31 PM
I thought AMD was the first with 64bit technology? If so, I think they beat Intel there.

mips
March 6th, 2009, 03:34 PM
I thought AMD was the first with 64bit technology? If so, I think they beat Intel there.

For x86 architecture they were but not for 64bit in general, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit

Simian Man
March 6th, 2009, 03:45 PM
I thought AMD was the first with 64bit technology? If so, I think they beat Intel there.

It's actually sad because Intel was finally trying to end the blasted x86 ISA and replace it with an actually well-designed ISA. Then AMD managed to create x86-64 that featured backward-compatibility and expanded the ISA to 64 bits. So now we are stuck with something even worse than the original x86 :(.

Hopefully when open-source eliminates general-purpose proprietary applications, this devotion to backwards compatibility will be trumped and a company can actually produce alternate ISA CPUs with a chance to make money.

BuffaloX
March 6th, 2009, 03:54 PM
That depends solely on your definition of a CPU. Things prior to the microprocessor can be classified as CPUs.

Yes you are absolutely right, that was incorrect, it's just I Didn't want to get too technical, Robert Noyce (Intel) invented the integrated circuit, and the single chip microprocessor.

Also he wasn't completely alone, since Jack Kilby (Texas Instruments) had the same idea slightly earlier, but Robert Noyce had a working model first.

Npl
March 6th, 2009, 05:58 PM
It's actually sad because Intel was finally trying to end the blasted x86 ISA and replace it with an actually well-designed ISA. Then AMD managed to create x86-64 that featured backward-compatibility and expanded the ISA to 64 bits. So now we are stuck with something even worse than the original x86 :(.Guess whos responsible for the blasted x86 architecture?
Its old for sure, but even back in the day it sucked compared to Motorolas 68k ISA, and the x87 FPU is an outstanding archivement in ackwardness. I wouldnt trust Intel to get a ISA right and there are tons of architectures that are better and more "sane" than the Itanium - it failed for good.

x86-64/SSE2 fixes some of the worst issues - its a lot better than the original x86. I would still love to see cleaner architectures take over, but thats a bit oprimistic

mips
March 7th, 2009, 02:15 AM
Guess whos responsible for the blasted x86 architecture?
Its old for sure, but even back in the day it sucked compared to Motorolas 68k ISA, and the x87 FPU is an outstanding archivement in ackwardness. I wouldnt trust Intel to get a ISA right and there are tons of architectures that are better and more "sane" than the Itanium - it failed for good.


The Motorola 680x0 processors were actually a breath of fresh air compaired to the Intel processors of the time. Assembly language was really a joy on them compared to Intel x86.

Thing is the dominant current processor is actually not the best out there. It's thse same old Betamax vs VHS debate. The best product does not always win.