Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de>
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer?
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2024 16:28:08 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <vcev2o$4i2t$1@dont-email.me>
References: <memo.20240913205156.19028s@jgd.cix.co.uk>
 <vcd3ds$3o6ae$2@dont-email.me> <vcdmjl$3bdne$1@dont-email.me>
 <vcdt0u$3vei1$2@dont-email.me> <TFCGO.45464$xO0f.19122@fx48.iad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2024 18:28:08 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="eea215829cf39898944a3389dd7b45fe";
	logging-data="149597"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18k32jepOD1QsDw7dwDicED8MUsRFCIU6Y="
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:iMoj37XLr336JsOJxDnbx7299mw=
Bytes: 2416

Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> schrieb:
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>>On Tue, 17 Sep 2024 21:57:24 -0700, Stephen Fuld wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/17/2024 4:30 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 13 Sep 2024 20:51 +0100 (BST), John Dallman wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Not many computer companies survive three failed architectures: has
>>>>> that record been beaten?
>>>> 
>>>> I think it’s fair to say that both Intel and Microsoft were companies
>>>> more renowned for marketing prowess than actual technical brilliance.
>>> 
>>> For some years, Intel was known for it prowess in FAB technology.  After
>>> all, they managed to make a "difficult" architecture out perform CPUs
>>> from better architectures.
>>
>>Sure. By spending 10× on it what RISC-based competitors were able to.
>>
>>> Some time ago, they seem to have lost that FAB leadership particularly
>>> to TSMC.
>>
>>And the reason? Those costs kept going up and up, while the profits from 
>>sales of x86 chips failed to keep pace.
>
> No.   Intel made several management mis-steps and was too late to the party.

Which management missteps did you mean, and for which particular party
were they late?

>Had
> nothing to do with "keeping pace".

Not sure what you mean... could you explin a bit more?