It took Intel until 2010 to get an integrated memory controller, and on the client parts, it didn't get it fully until Sandy Bridge in 2011. 7 years after the dinky competitor AMD. Do you know why?
Intel is a finance company with engineers on the side #1
Because they used the latest process for CPUs, but N-1 for the MCH, and N-2 for the IO Hub. By moving to an IMC, it would have meant they couldn't utilize older fabs. So since the industry was nowhere near 2.5D interconnects, Intel should have opened up their fabs way back then. Do you understand this? Without this line of thinking they could have had an integrated memory controller maybe 2001, maybe 1999!
It took Intel many years before they took the Atom seriously. Do you know why?
Intel is a finance company with engineers on the side #2
Because they were scared of losing margins and wanted an artificial gap of 10x CPU performance between Atom and Core. They said it publicly. Then Apple in 2013 beat Silvermont to a pulp, and the rest is history. Silvermont had an anemic 4EU HD Graphics controller. Originally they wanted a 2EU version.
Intel had a chance of partaking in Apple's hardware ecosystem. Even their haphazard contra-revenue Atom approach would have worked better, since getting early in would have meant the ecosystem would be x86(thus Intel's favor). But they lost it. Do you know why?
Intel is a finance company with engineers on the side #3
Steve Jobs wanted to include Intel in the iPhone/iPad hardware. Paul Otellini in all his finance wisdom, said "No, I don't believe in your vision and I think your volumes are too low".
Some say it wasn't about using CPUs, but their fabs. So what? That would have been a boon too. It surely would have helped Gelsinger's rush-to-18A strategy too.
Why did Intel rush into increasing vector sizes with AVX, AVX2, and AVX512, leading to decreased clocks and thermal issues and software fragmentation? Every two years they doubled it. Do you know why?
Intel is a finance company with engineers on the side #4
Because at that time their main threat was Nvidia, or they thought. It would come to be eventually, but their line of reasoning was that boosting CPU general purpose FP performance would discourage transition to Nvidia. It's not entirely a stupid idea, until it is. They should have stayed at AVX2, and AVX512 should have been AVX3 - AVX512's instructions without the 512-bit width.
-Why would a company at the forefront of Moore's Law not bring a Celeron until they were forced to? Lower cost is natural.
-Why would a multi-national leading chip company not integrate many things as possible and wait for so long? Again it's natural.
-Why would a chip company with massive hand at every part of a PC ecosystem not look at every single ways to have a laptop with great, great battery life? Smaller, lower power, faster, that is at the HEART of Moore's Law.
Intel is a finance company with engineers on the side #1
Because they used the latest process for CPUs, but N-1 for the MCH, and N-2 for the IO Hub. By moving to an IMC, it would have meant they couldn't utilize older fabs. So since the industry was nowhere near 2.5D interconnects, Intel should have opened up their fabs way back then. Do you understand this? Without this line of thinking they could have had an integrated memory controller maybe 2001, maybe 1999!
It took Intel many years before they took the Atom seriously. Do you know why?
Intel is a finance company with engineers on the side #2
Because they were scared of losing margins and wanted an artificial gap of 10x CPU performance between Atom and Core. They said it publicly. Then Apple in 2013 beat Silvermont to a pulp, and the rest is history. Silvermont had an anemic 4EU HD Graphics controller. Originally they wanted a 2EU version.
Intel had a chance of partaking in Apple's hardware ecosystem. Even their haphazard contra-revenue Atom approach would have worked better, since getting early in would have meant the ecosystem would be x86(thus Intel's favor). But they lost it. Do you know why?
Intel is a finance company with engineers on the side #3
Steve Jobs wanted to include Intel in the iPhone/iPad hardware. Paul Otellini in all his finance wisdom, said "No, I don't believe in your vision and I think your volumes are too low".
Some say it wasn't about using CPUs, but their fabs. So what? That would have been a boon too. It surely would have helped Gelsinger's rush-to-18A strategy too.
Why did Intel rush into increasing vector sizes with AVX, AVX2, and AVX512, leading to decreased clocks and thermal issues and software fragmentation? Every two years they doubled it. Do you know why?
Intel is a finance company with engineers on the side #4
Because at that time their main threat was Nvidia, or they thought. It would come to be eventually, but their line of reasoning was that boosting CPU general purpose FP performance would discourage transition to Nvidia. It's not entirely a stupid idea, until it is. They should have stayed at AVX2, and AVX512 should have been AVX3 - AVX512's instructions without the 512-bit width.
-Why would a company at the forefront of Moore's Law not bring a Celeron until they were forced to? Lower cost is natural.
-Why would a multi-national leading chip company not integrate many things as possible and wait for so long? Again it's natural.
-Why would a chip company with massive hand at every part of a PC ecosystem not look at every single ways to have a laptop with great, great battery life? Smaller, lower power, faster, that is at the HEART of Moore's Law.
