“If we were to get dramatic, we would say: ‘Intel came, Intel saw and Intel conquered.’ The fact of the matter is, Intel did just that. It promised the holy grail of mobile computing by increasing performance without battery life trade off, and delivered on all promises. If you waited for the Core Duos to come out, you made a wise decision. Intel’s Core Duo is the best you can buy in mobility right now. It runs cooler, faster and more efficiently than anything anyone has to offer right now.”
Review: ASUS W5F Notebook, Featuring Intel Core Duo
About The Author
Follow me on Twitter @thomholwerda
2006-02-15 4:16 pmHands
Intel has made plenty of mistakes. Some of them are outlined in a recent article.
Intel has actually recalled chips on more than one occasion. They made a bad call about moving to Rambus memory. They made a bad call about Itanium. They’ve changed strategic directions many times. They’ve had to play catch-up to AMD more than once.
The technology industry is a tough market to be a part of because it changes so fast. It is very difficult to predict the future, and processor architecture takes a very long time to develop relative to industry demands. I think that most of Intel’s mistakes have come because rather than trying to predict they future, they tried to create it. Sometimes that approach works, sometimes it doesn’t.
One thing that Intel has done well with is their marketing. Regardless of Intel’s position people still bought “Intel Inside.” Intel invested in marketing, and people were willing to buy based on branding.
People still buy based on branding. AMD has preferred to develop their branding through tech enthusiasts and IT personnel. That is where AMD is doing their best, and it is the source of their growth. It will most likely continue to be the source of their growth unless AMD invests in growing their brand through other strategies.
2006-02-15 7:00 pmEmmEff
AMD is also about to roll out the next wave of their dual core mobile computing chips and performance wise, I think we all have a pretty idea of what the outcome is going to be.
There is far more to a mobile chip than performance… battery life is where AMD has never come close to Intel in the mobile chip market. I’d be happy at this point to have a regular Athlon XP mobile chip with the battery life of a Pentium M. That hasn’t happened.
Stuff another core in there, (presumably) boost clock speed, and there’s no chance AMD will ever be able to supply CPUs for a subnotebook or one in which battery life is more than 2 hours.
2006-02-16 7:23 pmcerbie
“I’d be happy at this point to have a regular Athlon XP mobile chip with the battery life of a Pentium M. That hasn’t happened.”
No, it hasn’t. That’s what the Turion is for; almost as good on a battery as the Pentium M.
“Stuff another core in there, (presumably) boost clock speed, and there’s no chance AMD will ever be able to supply CPUs for a subnotebook or one in which battery life is more than 2 hours.”
Why should they? Seriously, itty bitty notebooks are not a large market at all, and genrally use LV and ULV Pentium M CPUs now (a standard Core Duo wouldn’t get enough life in such small computers). Intel only manages because their Israel folks made a CPU designed for low power use from the start. Otherwise, those small notebooks would still have Transmeta CPUs or VIA C3s.
From the article:
“Even though we were looking at 20+ pipelines earlier, we are now looking at approximately 12 pipelines. Couple this with the 90nm fabrication process and we could see some pretty serious clock speeds coming out of this core.”
Isn’t the Core Duo on a 65nm process? Plus, reducing the number of pipeline stages generally reduces the clock speed (though going to a smaller/thinner process means increase in clock speeds). The article seems to be misleading here.
2006-02-15 4:06 pmnimble
Isn’t the Core Duo on a 65nm process?
Yes. And of course it should be “12 pipeline stages” and not “12 pipelines”.
Plus, reducing the number of pipeline stages generally reduces the clock speed
Yep, clock speed scales about linearly with pipeline length. Unless of course you hit the power wall, like Netburst did.
The article seems to be misleading here.
Then again, “pretty serious clock speeds” is meaningless drivel anyway.
This’ll explain why bundling a USB 2.0 camera on a laptop with Windows XP is a crappy idea, all because of the crap that is USB in the first place. Too bad that Firewire didn’t take off, it could have really made life easier for everyone and avoided stupid problems like this.
2006-02-15 9:07 pmaaron
It explains why Microsoft need to update the USB driver a little.
USB is a good port when…
The Mobo has good USB support,
The OS has good USB support,
and the device has good USB support.
Otherwise we may as well bring back the “high speed” parallel port as the problem has not been confirmed with it yet.
If you read and understood the article you would of read this…
Microsoft describes the USB 2.0 issue as follows:
“Windows XP SP2 installs a USB 2.0 driver that initializes any connected USB device. However, the USB 2.0 driver leaves the asynchronous scheduler component continuously running. This problem causes continuous instances of memory access that prevent the computer from entering the deeper Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) processor idle sleep states. These processor idle sleep states are also known as C states. For example, these include the C3 and C4 states. These sleep states are designed, in part, to save battery power. If an otherwise idle portable computer cannot enter or maintain the processor idle sleep states, the computer uses its battery power more quickly than you expect.”
It does not say USB bad, FW good.
2006-02-16 1:44 amkaiwai
Well, the ideal situation would be to have one connector that does it all; unfortunately with competiting ideologies and technology groups, it’ll never happy.
Maybe that is why no one is posting a comment.
Anyone have a mirror of this?
Well, I’d say that Intel better enjoy it, becausee in the past two years for every one step that Intel has made, AMD has made two and we all know that AMD is also about to roll out the next wave of their dual core mobile computing chips and performance wise, I think we all have a pretty idea of what the outcome is going to be.
What’s sad is that for the first time that I can remember, people are actually getting excited about Intel simply deliverying on their promisses. That’s not a good sign when your the dominant market leader (aka 1000 lb. Gorilla)