Nickname: GreenMonster

Review: Intel needs to whittle down its management heavy trenches. Big bang for the bucks.

Date reviewed: May 4, 2006 11:26 PM

Nickname: Spidey

Review: Intel's core business has been microprocessors. The direction Intel has taken since Andy Grove left has been about diversification. The notion that the microprocessor market was reaching its peak saturation made Intel rethink its strategy and led to several forays into many, and for the most part, unsuccessful departure from their core business. It was a poor business decision to neglect their core business and leave themselves vulnerable to AMD. They were caught offguard when the original Athlon appeared and the resulting knee-jerk reaction called P4 architecture proved to be a deadend for Intel. Now with this massive restructuring, all the Intel investors are hoping for some leadership in their core business. They've poured billions on IA-64 and it has come into limited acceptance by the business community. Intel with its deep pockets can afford to make mistakes but that doesn't excuse Intel from pursuing a moneypit venture without reconsidering the financial consequences.

Date reviewed: May 3, 2006 8:50 PM

Nickname: CPUGuy

Review: Sorry to inform you, The Beez, but rumors of Itanium's death are a bit premature. HP has bet the future of its Business Critical Server Group on Itanium, and sales have been increasing steadily for several years. HP added Opteron to its line, but didn't drop Itanium!

Date reviewed: May 3, 2006 2:41 AM

Nickname: Dave

Review: Intel sped up the development of itd dual-core processor with disastrous results. The I/O bottleneck created by gumming two chips together was an obvious design flaw that I believe will continue to manifest as Intel moves forward. Though still a formidable competitor due to its vast resources, Intel is getting beaten at its own game, very similar to the Big Three U.S. automakers. Note the emerging parallel in power efficiency (AMD) and fuel efficiency (TMC, HMC, etc.)!

Date reviewed: May 1, 2006 4:15 PM

Nickname: Mr. Stupid

Review: Intel became like big elephant interested in procedures and processes, not in product development. You cannot run a company with 20th century vision -- or maybe no vision. If Intel is struggling to maintain its dominant position, what about conquering new businesses?

Date reviewed: May 1, 2006 4:04 PM

Nickname: The Beez

Review: A couple of things: First about Itanium: Gumbo, are you kidding me? Itanium is the biggest ever bust in the CPU marketplace. I think the biggest indication of this was when HP, the co-founder of Intanium and which invested over $100 million in the technology, dropped Itanium. Even HP cut its losses. Trying to move the entire industry to EPIC ISA? That is a huge joke. This just continues to show Intel's lack of customer-centric views, and its arrogant approach that it can move the industry to its "own" 64-bit architecture. The industry has spoken. It wants x86 compatible 64-bit. "Itanic" is a dead technology. Period.

Date reviewed: Apr 30, 2006 5:28 PM

Nickname: Gumbo

Review: Intel still has Itanium going and it will dominate 64 bit-- not Opteron. Opteron is a bridge between 32 and 64 bit progamming, which is not true 64 bit. Opteron is fine for now. Itanium is not an x86 chip and Opteron is x86. x86 is an old technology that will go away before too long.

Date reviewed: Apr 30, 2006 8:27 AM

Nickname: Gumbo

Review: AMD already hit its old high of 45 in 2000 and is on the decline to 32 now. Yes, AMD is stronger now but not enough to hold against Intel for long. AMD will resurge again in four to five years with another new clever design. It is Intel's time now and it will hit its old high of 75 in a year or more. Intel will make it look like AMD is dead for good, but AMD will never go away.

Date reviewed: Apr 30, 2006 8:22 AM

Nickname: erin

Review: I agree with Sharikou's comments on the various technical issues. But AMD's tech features always seemed so obvious and implementable by Intel (help me if I'm wrong). I mean, putting the memory controller on die and having a fast interconnect. The big question for me is: Why didn't Intel respond more quickly? Hubris? NIH? Now, if Intel gets its designs right, doesn't this and their manufacturing prowess bode well for continued dominance? With plenty of room on Intel's new silicon all kinds of things should be possible--and, perhaps not for AMD? For example, don't worry about interconnect speed when four or more cores are on the same chip. Finally, an economic issue: Did I hear during AMD's conference call that they are going to depreciate their new 300mm/65nm German fab over six years? Sounds long, especially if Intel cranks up the manufacturing advancement tempo. The issue might become one "business plan," which could relegate AMD to a minor player, which would be too bad

Date reviewed: Apr 29, 2006 3:14 PM

Nickname: Fairly Honest John

Review: How sad that comments by known AMD fanboys like Sharikou manage to get equal billing on a page run by BusinessWeek. Sharikou posts 24x7 on the AMD finance message board on Yahoo, he runs a pro-AMD blog, Sharikou just hates Intel.

Date reviewed: Apr 29, 2006 6:30 AM