Intel's future looking bright

[rohit]

Like it or not "AMD Fans" Intel is back in the game the second
Intel was never out of the proc buisness. Inspite of their procs literally SUC*in, their procs actually sold... much more compared to the rivals BETTER procs at same to cheaper prices. It was annoying but intel had it, has it, and will always have it under control.
From what i understand , avg people today dont want quality.. they want the Name. The Brand. Thats whats driving intel.

From the launch of Conroe, their position in cpu biz will get stronger.
Like intel, AMD should concentrate in developing products for handheld devices. PDA's, Notebooks (sumthin better than turion), consoles. Intel's earning tonnes from these electronic devices and making their image/brand stronger.

[nutball]

AMD are ahead now because Intel got over-confident and AMD got lucky (OK, a slight simplification but not that far from the truth). The result of this hiccup is that AMD has gained mind-share, and is regarded as a serious competitor now in several market segments outside the ultra-budget / masochist segment (which it was with K6).

Does anybody seriously believe that AMD having gained the performance lead is going to keep it for time immemorial? Of course not. Intel will obviously be back. If Intel regain the performance lead, does anyone seriously believe that they'll keep it for time immemorial? I hope not.

Fundamentally competition is good for the consumer. Screw Intel and AMD, I want good processors at affordable prices, I don't care what colour they are. Has anybody noticed that AMDs prices have ... err... crept up in the past 18 months? £500 for an AMD processor *cough* sorry what? They have the market lead and know that they can charge a premium. A resurgent Intel will make my next AMD-based machine cheaper. It's all good!

(cheers)

[Riptide]

Intel will obviously be back.Funny thing is I've heard a lot of forum posters saying that they won't be back. They think the Intel engineers are idiots, especially the ones that worked on netburst.

[nutball]

Funny thing is I've heard a lot of forum posters saying that they won't be back. They think the Intel engineers are idiots, especially the ones that worked on netburst.

Well forums posters post on forums and Intel engineers design CPUs, so I guess that's a bad start :) IMO Intel's ****-up with P4 was akin to NVIDIAs ****-up with NV30 (and maybe ATI with R520), ie. unfortunate, but fundamentally non-fatal. If they want to talk about Intel doom then they should talk about Itanium, but that's not going to bring Intel down as a company.

There's an interesting article over on RWT about POWER6 speculating that it may well be leaning towards the netburst way of doing things (long pipelines, fast clocks) rather than the short + fat + slow of P-M, POWER5, Opteron, ... So it's not at all clear that the concept behind netburst is wrong, they just got unlucky with the 90nm transition.

[borntosoul]

netburst had a shakey start but then picked up momentum (P4 c 800) and blew AMD out of the water with clock speeds (which is what it was designed to do anyway). i think in the near future it will be mostly down to performance per watt and thats where the next big battle will be. efficiency.
'EDIT' before AMD fans start jumping up and down--- AMD X2/opteron rock.

[Knot3D]

2006 ; the year of the Mactel ?

In June they'll launch the Mac(tel) Mini with a then current Intel processor.

I think the Apple/Intel combo will be pretty succesfull but I wonder what it
will mean for Mac gaming and variety of videocards for Intel based Macs.

[coldpower27]

Yes I agree that the future is looking brighter for intel in 2006, with Conroe/Allendale on desktop, and Yonah and later Merom in laptops.

[nutball]

2006 ; the year of the Mactel ?

In June they'll launch the Mac(tel) Mini with a then current Intel processor.

I think the Apple/Intel combo will be pretty succesfull but I wonder what it
will mean for Mac gaming and variety of videocards for Intel based Macs.

I don't see why the choice of processor should have any real influence on the success, or rather lack of success of the Mac as a gaming platform. You can already get NVIDIA cards for Macs, but so what? Linux already runs on x86, and supports NVIDIA & ATI cards, but how relevant is Linux as a gaming platform?

It's not a hardware issues, it's a software issue. The Mac needs DirectX and all the other Windoze stuff in order to become a truly rival platform, and it's not in Intels gift to give DirectX to Mac. Until it gets that Mac gaming will, like Linux gaming, be a niche thing.

[lightman]

The Mac needs DirectX and all the other Windoze stuff in order to become a truly rival platform,

Nope. It's not a question of DirectX. OpenGL is more than enough. The problem is market share. Simple.

Intel Macs could mean cheaper Macs, and that would mean larger market share, that would mean even larger one once people realuze how good OsX is, and that could mean interest by the software houses, which could mean more games for Macs, which would mean more Macs bought by gamers, which would mean more market share.... Do you see the trend ? ;)

[nutball]

Nope. It's not a question of DirectX. OpenGL is more than enough. The problem is market share. Simple.

I think that that's what I was saying, I just didn't make myself clear enough. (xmastong)

Intel Macs could mean cheaper Macs, and that would mean larger market share, that would mean even larger one once people realuze how good OsX is, and that could mean interest by the software houses, which could mean more games for Macs, which would mean more Macs bought by gamers, which would mean more market share.... Do you see the trend ? ;)

But low market share means software houses aren't interested. Why should developers develop for OpenGL when DirectX gets them 90% of the market anyway? Carmack develops for OGL because he's interested, if he was a more mercenary SOB he'd ignore it. For anybody else it's just a waste of time and money.

What you're saying, and what I'm saying is that it's a classic chicken-and-egg situation, I don't think we disagree on that. People aren't going to buy Macs for gaming *regardless of price* unless there are games to play. There won't be any games unless people buy lots of Macs *and* it's relatively cheap and easy for the developers to port their games to Mac. Linux is in a similar situation, and that runs on cheap hardware (granted it's more of a PITA than Mac, but it shows that cost of hardware isn't everything).

So ask yourself who is going to solve the problem? Game developers? Why should they, why should they care? Having the PC lose market share to Mac doesn't mean they'll sell more games, in fact supporting two platforms rather than one would make their lives harder and increase their costs. Microsoft? Why should they make it easy for games developers to develop for the competition? In fact with what they proposing to do with OpenGL under Vista it's like they're trying to make it harder to develop cross-platform. Intel? They might have some small interest, but if their CPUs are in both PCs and Macs, they don't really care what the split is between them.

The only company who cares is Apple; they have to make it easy and cheap for games developers to develop *and* support cross-platform games that will run on Windows and OSX. Nobody else cares (except maybe Microsoft and they're antagonistic). In practice that means either a DirectX-alike API (because like it or not it's the de facto standard for games right now), or paying devs ****-loads of cash to write for their platform.

I've heard this "OS <blah> is so great, once people see how good it is they'll flock in droves" so many times before. OSX, Linux, BeOS, TAOS, etc., ... it doesn't happen because 90% of people don't give a crap what operating system they're running, they just want a computer that works. Don't get me wrong, I love my Mac, I love my Linux, but I don't see them gaining critical mass any time soon. It's a shame, but the hardware alone isn't sufficient.

[Knot3D]

I agree with Lightman. I can imagine see Mac/Intel grow a considerable market share by mid 2007.

The Egg - Chicken debate ? How did pc gaming really got big ? ; pc becoming common household electronics then 3DFX came along and the game console industry suddenly had a serious competitor. The rest is history.

The variety of videocards for Mac is essential. Low, mid and high end range videocards for Mac has true potential to grow a big installed base of Mac users with a gaming competent Mac. In turn, that means it'll become attractive for devs to code for Mac.

Of course, Intel will learn a thing or two from Apple as well.

[lightman]

But low market share means software houses aren't interested. Why should developers develop for OpenGL when DirectX gets them 90% of the market anyway? Carmack develops for OGL because he's interested, if he was a more mercenary SOB he'd ignore it. For anybody else it's just a waste of time and money.


What you're saying, and what I'm saying is that it's a classic chicken-and-egg situation, I don't think we disagree on that. People aren't going to buy Macs for gaming *regardless of price* unless there are games to play. There won't be any games unless people buy lots of Macs *and* it's relatively cheap and easy for the developers to port their games to Mac. Linux is in a similar situation, and that runs on cheap hardware (granted it's more of a PITA than Mac, but it shows that cost of hardware isn't everything).

It's not only a matter of hardware cost. It's a matter of usability from the average consumer point of view. Here lies the huge difference between Linux and OsX. The former is a great os; if you use it for the right things, that is ;) (and I indeed use it almost exclusively at work, in scientific applications it simply is a no brainer). The latter is great as a desktop os. It's incredibly simpler than Linux to pick up, it has a bunch of features Linux doesn't currently have (like os-wide color corrected workflow, which for me is essential as a photographer, and which I simply can't have in Linux), and even aunt Margie can use in no more than 10 mins after switching from Windows...

Given that, the main blocking point for Macs right now is the price. They're simply overpriced. Intel based Macs could (and in fact there are more than simply rumors about it) be quite a lot cheaper, and that could be enough for Macs to finally break out and become a much bigger player, market share -wise.

So ask yourself who is going to solve the problem? Game developers? [...] supporting two platforms rather than one would make their lives harder and increase their costs.

Increase, maybe (except probably anyone using OGL right now, not many, but there are), double ? No way. I agree with you that there would be added costs in supporting both a DX-centric os (Vista), and a OGL-centric one (OSX). But given the right approach this would be an almost one-time added cost.

Once I, the developer, decide to support both platforms, being smart, I write an abstraction layer which can use both DX and OGL, and over that I develop my engine, and on top of that my games. Shaders ? Well, either I write two versions (one in GLSL and one in HLSL), or I write them in a cross-platform high level shading language (think CG).

Sure, it will cost more, but in the long run such an approach is probably gonna pay off, given that it would mean not being tied to a single OS supplier, and thus to its whimsicalness...

Microsoft? [...] what they proposing to do with OpenGL under Vista [...]

A small disgression. I personally think that MS move with OGL in Vista is gonna backfire. Not because of games, but because of the fact that there are quite a lot of professional 3D programs in particular, and graphics programs in general, which are OGL based. I don't know, I still think that it's an utterly stupid move by MS. I could be wrong, though.

I've heard this "OS <blah> is so great, once people see how good it is they'll flock in droves" so many times before. OSX, Linux, BeOS, TAOS, etc., ... it doesn't happen because 90% of people don't give a crap what operating system they're running, they just want a computer that works.

Exactly. Even now, lots and lots of people are realizing how much Windows can be frustrating, open to all sorts of problems, and are just waiting (knowingly or not) for a better alternative. Some see OSX as one of the alternatives (or maybe the only one), but as soon as they face the hardware costs, tehy back up and stay with Windows. But give them a just-a-little-pricey-than-the-average-Windows-solution alternative, and a lot of them would probably switch.

Price is the important point here.

Don't get me wrong, I love my Mac, I love my Linux, but I don't see them gaining critical mass any time soon. It's a shame, but the hardware alone isn't sufficient.

As a Mac owner you should see my point, and be able to follow my reasoning. Hardware alone isn't sufficient to justify the switch to Macs now, because of price, and price/performance. It sure (well, the price) is sufficient to [i]not[/it] switch to it, at least for most of the people.

The point is, as soon as said price goes down to some more reasonable levels, Macs are gonna gain a lot of market share, and, with some luck, it will reach that critical mass needed to justify the developers' added costs to support both platforms....

Intel-based Macs are moving in the right direction, imho. Unless Jobs doesn't decide to shot himself in the foot and price them at unjustifiably high points, that is. But if he doesn't act like a greedy sob, I see the probabilities of a boom in Macs' market share as being quite high. :)

[nutball]

The variety of videocards for Mac is essential. Low, mid and high end range videocards for Mac has true potential to grow a big installed base of Mac users with a gaming competent Mac. In turn, that means it'll become attractive for devs to code for Mac.

Well arguably OSX succeeds precisely because it targets a restricted range of hardware. Windows is a mess because (amongst other reasons) it has to be capable of supporting hardware from every man and their respective dogs. I do agree though, a range of graphics hardware is important, and both NV and ATI have shown that they're quite capable of supporting all their hardware in a single driver, so that shouldn't be a big problem.

How such variety would fit into the current Apple ethos of a limited number of hardware configurations I'm not so sure, but going from ~two options to ~six shouldn't be a big issue for Apple.

[nutball]

It's not only a matter of hardware cost. It's a matter of usability from the average consumer point of view. Here lies the huge difference between Linux and OsX.

Indeed.

Given that, the main blocking point for Macs right now is the price. They're simply overpriced. Intel based Macs could (and in fact there are more than simply rumors about it) be quite a lot cheaper, and that could be enough for Macs to finally break out and become a much bigger player, market share -wise.

That's the big "if" about the Apple switch to Intel IMO. Will they take the opportunity to drop the prices, or will they use the reduced cost to increase their profit margins? I do hope it's the former, because I'd love to see a credible competitor to Windows to keep MS honest (ha!), but I fear the large DOLLAR signs will be too much for Jobs et al. to resist. It's also a question of ambition... does Apple have the cojones to take on Microsoft in a serious way (bearing in mind that if MS feel threatened then they could very well choose to drag their feet on updating Office for OSX, which is a killer app as far as Mac is concerned IMO).

Increase, maybe (except probably anyone using OGL right now, not many, but there are), double ? No way. I agree with you that there would be added costs in supporting both a DX-centric os (Vista), and a OGL-centric one (OSX). But given the right approach this would be an almost one-time added cost.

IMO this is the area where Apple could contribute something significant. I still don't understand why a developer would choose to target a platform other than Windows at this point. I don't see that a strengthening in the position of Mac would grow the total market for games, ie. bring in new punters. It's a zero-sum game as I see it, more Macs = fewer PCs, same number of gamers overall.

Sure, it will cost more, but in the long run such an approach is probably gonna pay off, given that it would mean not being tied to a single OS supplier, and thus to its whimsicalness...

Are devs pissed off with MS? I don't know, the impression I get is that MS are quite responsive to the demands of the big name devs (except the OGL/Vista thing).

Price is the important point here.

As a Mac owner you should see my point, and be able to follow my reasoning. Hardware alone isn't sufficient to justify the switch to Macs now, because of price, and price/performance. It sure (well, the price) is sufficient to [i]not[/it] switch to it, at least for most of the people.

The point is, as soon as said price goes down to some more reasonable levels, Macs are gonna gain a lot of market share, and, with some luck, it will reach that critical mass needed to justify the developers' added costs to support both platforms....

But that's still chicken-and-egg. Regardless of how much a Mac costs, even if it's half the price of a PC, if it doesn't play games then it's just a useless hunk of metal as far as a gamer is concerned.

Will gamers buy Intel Macs on the promise that games *might* become available in the future? I don't think so. Apple can (and must IMO) break this log-jam somehow, and that somehow is probably large sums of cash. I mean look at it like the launch of PS3/XBox 360... if there weren't a credible slew of games available at launch, how many would buy them? Would anyone buy one on the promise that there'd be some games along in 18 months time? Not if they have any sense... Sony/MS know this and plough a lot of cash into supporting the devs to ensure that there's a critical mass of titles available for people to play at launch.

Consoles could be the wildcard in all of this of course... an XBox plus a Mac solves pretty much all the problems of a high-end gaming PC. Maybe that's the approach many people will choose to take if the Macs drop to a reasonable price (xmasmile)

[Knot3D]

This is a very good column on the Mactel topic imo ;

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html

[nutball]

This is a very good column on the Mactel topic imo ;

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html

And it says...


By the way, the new Apple OS for the Intel Architecture has a compatibility mode with Windows (I'm just guessing on this one).

...which is pretty much what I'm getting at here.

[grimreefer]

im pretty sure intel will best amd with conroe, its extremely well designed. have to wait till june, and hopefully its released.
one problem though, and this might pose a problem for ppl on this thread....SLI isnt in the future intel chipsets, and nvidia chipsets for intel cpu's suck....meaning ppl will have to go crossfire to use a fast cpu...hence ati might actually benefit from this.
i think amd cpu's are too slow for dual g71's anyway, too much of a bottleneck lol, u need a conroe for fast sh!t like that(crossfire x1900's in this case), unless im overestimating how fast these next gen cards are.